Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100

User:Writerfrom 1984 and Belinda's nationality

Writerfrom 1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing various pages related to Belinda Peregrín's songs in order to assert that she's Spanish, or to change "Mexican" or "Spanish-Mexican" to "Spanish". This seems to be unsourced agenda-pushing and goes against the consensus on the main page for Belinda Peregrín. Erinius (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me like a content dispute and should be taken to WP:DRN Oz\^InterAct 13:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erinius. This is not a content dispute. This is a BLP violation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

To expand a bit, in the past there have been multiple sock puppets of Spanish users who only edit to promote a nationalism or just to over exalt it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like they're just discussing this in talk page of Belinda's article, all they did there was make a single edit request. Instead they're just changing things with no consensus in other articles. Erinius (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

All right. I have blocked the editor for 36 hours since they are still at it and it does no good. Let's see if that will get their attention. Oz\^InterAct 09:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats, COI and disruption by Konguhead

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

Konguhead returned to editing after five months

• Konguhead's very first edit after five months was to add the word "kshatriya" to the lead of Gounder with no sources.[1]
• Removed sourced content and added unsourced content with the edit summary "Citiations needed".[2]
• Then, goes to Kongu Vellalar to modify sourced content with no edit summary or sources.[3]
• Edit warring to add similar type of edits again in Gounder like adding unsourced content[4], adding WP:FAKE references for the word "Kshatriya"[5], removing sourced content with a false edit summary.[6] and finally added a random website as a source.[7]

I tried my best to explain about their WP:OR on their talk page and instead I get replied with more of their personal theories and replies like I think it's your personal vengeance. I can't help with your misunderstandings...[8], You're one here who can't understand the history and facts...[9]

Legal threats

Konguhead made legal threat after getting warned for legal threats.

COI

Konguhead in their second edit has declared a COI with Malai Gounder in their user page which is one of the communities of Gounder. They also seems to have a COI with "konguassociation.com" (an association of a community part of Gounder) as they had once blanked their talk page and replaced it with "Association of kongu".[10]. Used words like Our organization[11], That's why we requesting you to cooperate with us[12], we'll file legal complaint[13] - SUN EYE 1 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ping ToBeFree - SUN EYE 1 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't block the user solely for the legal threat; it's from last year and a red herring in discussing this user's disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(uninvolved ed) A quick read of User talk:Konguhead convinces me this user is determined to just ignore WP:CIRCULAR even though it (or the concept) was explicitly called to their attention more than once. A 1-day block would be a good wake up call, and establish a baseline for evaluating future WP:STONEWALLING. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• In their latest reply, Konguhead has attacked editors in his talk page and called them "dumbs".[14]- SUN EYE 1 06:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I notice that was after my comment above advocating a 1-day block, which I now increase to a week. I mean, if they're going to do NPAs while an ANI is underway, there's a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Schaffer paragraph

Account is removing content, claiming copyright infringement and threatening legal action. More eyes needed to discern credibility. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6038:F028:E9EA:27B0 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Accountnumber3, the account in question, has been indefinitely blocked by Widr for continued legal threats. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of that material was challenged as a copyright violation previously - see here. No original source for the material was pointed to, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Writerfrom 1984 and Belinda's nationality

Writerfrom 1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing various pages related to Belinda Peregrín's songs in order to assert that she's Spanish, or to change "Mexican" or "Spanish-Mexican" to "Spanish". This seems to be unsourced agenda-pushing and goes against the consensus on the main page for Belinda Peregrín. Erinius (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me like a content dispute and should be taken to WP:DRN Oz\^InterAct 13:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erinius. This is not a content dispute. This is a BLP violation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

To expand a bit, in the past there have been multiple sock puppets of Spanish users who only edit to promote a nationalism or just to over exalt it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like they're just discussing this in talk page of Belinda's article, all they did there was make a single edit request. Instead they're just changing things with no consensus in other articles. Erinius (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

All right. I have blocked the editor for 36 hours since they are still at it and it does no good. Let's see if that will get their attention. Oz\^InterAct 09:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats, COI and disruption by Konguhead

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

Konguhead returned to editing after five months

• Konguhead's very first edit after five months was to add the word "kshatriya" to the lead of Gounder with no sources.[15]
• Removed sourced content and added unsourced content with the edit summary "Citiations needed".[16]
• Then, goes to Kongu Vellalar to modify sourced content with no edit summary or sources.[17]
• Edit warring to add similar type of edits again in Gounder like adding unsourced content[18], adding WP:FAKE references for the word "Kshatriya"[19], removing sourced content with a false edit summary.[20] and finally added a random website as a source.[21]

I tried my best to explain about their WP:OR on their talk page and instead I get replied with more of their personal theories and replies like I think it's your personal vengeance. I can't help with your misunderstandings...[22], You're one here who can't understand the history and facts...[23]

Legal threats

Konguhead made legal threat after getting warned for legal threats.

COI

Konguhead in their second edit has declared a COI with Malai Gounder in their user page which is one of the communities of Gounder. They also seems to have a COI with "konguassociation.com" (an association of a community part of Gounder) as they had once blanked their talk page and replaced it with "Association of kongu".[24]. Used words like Our organization[25], That's why we requesting you to cooperate with us[26], we'll file legal complaint[27] - SUN EYE 1 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ping ToBeFree - SUN EYE 1 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't block the user solely for the legal threat; it's from last year and a red herring in discussing this user's disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

(uninvolved ed) A quick read of User talk:Konguhead convinces me this user is determined to just ignore WP:CIRCULAR even though it (or the concept) was explicitly called to their attention more than once. A 1-day block would be a good wake up call, and establish a baseline for evaluating future WP:STONEWALLING. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• In their latest reply, Konguhead has attacked editors in his talk page and called them "dumbs".[28]- SUN EYE 1 06:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I notice that was after my comment above advocating a 1-day block, which I now increase to a week. I mean, if they're going to do NPAs while an ANI is underway, there's a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dawn PScLim's continuing template disruption.

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.

---

Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099 § Disruptive template edits by Dawn PScLim

There was a discussion about Dawn PScLim's template space disruption a few days ago which was allowed to archive with no action. This editor does not appear to have listened to any of the comments in the previous discussion and the are continuing to disrupt template space with pointless and disruptive wording tweaks to cleanup and policy templates. Since they are unwilling or unable to address the issues themselves I feel that the proposed partial block from the template namespace is required.

A few examples of more disruption from after the prior ANI thread was started:

• Meaningless addition to a cleanup template [29]. What on earth is "and shows the intended information clearly" supposed to mean when applied to citations? The extra addition to the list is also ungrammatical.
• Changing the wording of a template to be plural for no explained reason [30].
• In the words of Spicy Unnecessary and ungrammatical addition to a template [31]
• Innapropriate addition of "unreliable sources" to a template about partisan sources [32]
• Incomprehensible addition a template's documentation page [33]

Their remaining edits mainly consist of bloating up the wording of templates with unnecessary and redundant words that add nothing of value to the message. Instead of "talk page discussion" Dawn PScLim insists we write "relevant talk page discussion". instead of "verifiable information" they insist we write "verifiable and relevant information" etc. [34] [35] [36].

A newbie with 300 total edits and a not very good grasp of either wikipedia policy or the English language should not be attempting to re-write major policy and cleanup templates. Their continuing contributions in this namespace are simply a timesink for everyone else. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is slow-motion disruption that is serious because of the ubiquity of the templates he is editing. Will someone do something? This is the second round at ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It's unusual to see a person with 300 edits changing the text of templates, but these aren't necessarily "ubiquitous". The first is Template:Page numbers improve, which is used in just 16 articles right now. Template:Contradicts others is used in just 9 articles. Template:Over-coverage appears in 108 articles. Template:Partisan sources is in 47 articles. Contrast that with, say, Template:Unreferenced, which appears in many tens of thousands of articles.

In general, I think we're pretty good at applying page protection to high-use templates. If someone is able to edit a template, it's probably not a template that will be seen by very many people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi protection is applied on pages with up to 2,500 transculusions, extended confirmed is used on pages with up to 5,000.

The fact that they can disrupt lots of pages at once by editing templates is a secondary issue, the big problem is that a huge proportion of their edits are wrong, either because they completely misunderstand and misrepresent policy or because they mangle the wording of the template into nonsense. Here: [37] they update the partisan sources template to say that they are unreliable, this is incorrect - a partisan source can be 100% reliable for certain types of information, like attributed opinion or a political parties stated policies. Here they update the self-references template to add the word "excessive" [38] - this is again wrong. The policy this template links to has no mention of anything related to "number of uses" because whether a self reference is appropriate or not depends on the context, not the number of times it is used. Here they mangle a template into nonsense with poor copyediting [39]. What is explain the said fiction more clearly supposed to mean? Why is it necessary to add the redundant explanation that a non-fictional perspective is also real world? The use of "point of view" is also potentially confusing here, given the common usage on wikipedia is related to neutrality, rather than the observation point of the writer. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Two more disruptive edits today. In this edit here [40] the first addition is ungrammatical (This article was considered for deletion, and is kept), and it is completely unnecessary, "it was kept" is obvious from the fact it still exists; the second addition is pointless bloat that doesn't improve the template wording. This addition [41] completely misrepresents WP:V, that do not verify the text cited has the policy back to front, citations should verify the text of the article, not the text of the citation. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

They’ve been warned and asked to participate here, and have deleted the warning/request from their user page, so it appears they are going to ignore our concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR block requested A bunch of us have to follow Dawn PScLim around and undo his template edits as he is mangling the verbiage and changing meanings inappropriately. E.g., Special:Diff/1090735243 Special:Diff/1090420852. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Their edits outside template space are equally troubling. Here they changed "conditions on area lakes" to the ungrammatical "conditions on area around lakes" which at best means something different. I reverted and explained that that's not what "area lakes" means. They then changed it again to "areas with lakes". I reverted and explained that that is still not a correct replacement for "area lakes". They then changed it a third time, to "conditions on the affected area", removing mention of lakes. This is perhaps partly a result of limited Engish proficiency.

As in template space, they frequently expand text in a way that changes its meaning, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Here they change a definition that the source defines as "not entirely due to surface-based obscuring phenomena" to "not mostly or entirely due...", without a reason. Here, where the source definition is "an accumulation of freezing water droplets on a vessel" and which our article accurately restated, they change to "rapid accumulation and icing of freezing water droplets". Here they change "wave heights" to "severe wave heights", the meaning of which is unclear, and change the statement that tall waves can threaten vessels to the claim that they threaten "vessels and vehicles". Then there's weird stuff like this, where they added an obviously incorrect unit conversion. I reverted and then added a Convert template to do the conversion. For some reason they reverted this and added a hardcoded conversion, which at least was arithmetically correct, but they gave no reason for preferring this to the Convert template. Very few of their edits seem to me to be obvious improvements. CodeTalker (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• uninvolved editorSUPPORT PBLOCK that allows user to discuss on any talk page, and otherwise prohibits edits to anything other than articles. The PBLOCK should remain active until user successfully demonstrates competence engaging in constructive WP:CONSENSUS, by making a request at the admins' noticeboard. This is based on the following chronology of behavior.

13:02, 29 March 2022 I am currently still learning more advanced english in school ...

__:__ 18 April 2022 Oldest userpage for this ed that we can see. In it, they state their intent to be a "template editor"

14:37, May 11, 2022 Ed now says they intend to be an "edit filter helper", too. (As of 12:46 3 June 2022, they had not made a request at the WP:EFN)

13:54, May 17, 2022 Deleting a disruption warning related to template editing, this ed promises "I'll stop"... (Each of the diffs in the reporting ed's opening comment occurred later)

14:02, May 17, 2022 Eight minutes later, they edit a template to inject a reason to argue (by inserting "usually") and tacked on a redundant phrase "before making changes" when the sentence already says "first".

23:18, 18 May 2022 (Full thread)] First ANI starts

03:17, May 26, 2022‎ (Same full thread as above) First ANI archived with no action

14:04, 27 May 2022 (full thread) Second ANI started

After promising to stop, they didn't stop.... as of this writing this user has made at least 29 later edits to the template space, with ZERO discussion in ANY namespace (see for yourself). I didn't review them all, but the six random ones I looked at were all appropriately reverted. Notice that when the first ANI fired up, this user really did stop, but for only three days. Seeing no admin action, they fired right back up and have been at it ever since. The problem is highlighted by review of [all UserTalk for this ed since May 1. There are only five diffs. Four are dismissive (but permitted) deletions of warnings about mucking up templates. And in the fifth? This user sent a warm welcome to an IP [42], whose only contrib was to simply blank an existing template sandbox.[43].

Since Dawn PScLim is only now learning "advanced English in school", shows zero responsiveness to discussion, and has demonstrated defiance even when ANI proceedings are underway, their access to all the pages of Wikipedia should be severely curtailed because they appear to be WP:NOTHERE and unable to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. A PBlock that allows them access to article main space and any discussion page anywhere will allow this user to show they want to build content, and are able to engage with others in constructive consensus-building. This isn't meant to be punative but to prevent their disruption from spreading. After all, they say on their user page they intend to take the show on to the world of edit filters. Let's not go there, just yet.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (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 likely violating COI rules

136.49.157.120 is the aforementioned IP. Edit history shows only one article is of their interest. Zealous editing behavior, which inserts their own POV and hides critical POVs. Normchou ^💬 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Schaffer paragraph

Account is removing content, claiming copyright infringement and threatening legal action. More eyes needed to discern credibility. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6038:F028:E9EA:27B0 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Accountnumber3, the account in question, has been indefinitely blocked by Widr for continued legal threats. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of that material was challenged as a copyright violation previously - see here. No original source for the material was pointed to, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced additions by MountainKurd

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

MountainKurd is adamant about adding unsourced info at Kurds in Azerbaijan and other articles. They have now been reverted by at least two other editors but readds the content and accuses us of edit-warring. When there's no source nor any info on Kurdish roots in the articles, how are we suppose to verify?[44] --Semsûrî (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: Is there a reason this couldn't be handled at WP:ANEW? —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It can also be solved at the WP:ANEW, but for this the current discussion should be closed I guess. The issue is that the editor is rather persistent and not really cooperative. They've had some issues with several experienced editors. Maybe they need a warning by someone else.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

They've already received many warnings from many different users on their user talk page, in less than a month of editing. Levivich 21:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Tuvalu footballers (violation of WP:BEFORE)

Moving a discussion from the village pump here. User:Sportsfan 1234 has nominated every Tuvaluan footballer except three (50+ in total, two of the remaining are also runners) for deletion in quick succession. Based on the speed of the nominations, it seems very clear WP:BEFORE was not done, and this is a bad faith attempt to remove good content on tenuous technical grounds (I'm speaking of Mau Penisula, Alopua Petoa, and Vaisua Liva especially). It also seems the same handful people are voting Delete on every AfD discussion in rapid succession, which cannot possibly be in good faith (and raises concerns of sockpuppetry). This is especially dangerous because we are setting a precedent of essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history just because they are small and underdeveloped and so don't have much internet presence. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a promotional site for Tuvalan sport. Based on the speed of your objections to the nominations, it seems very clear that you did not trouble with WP:BEFORE yourself. Indeed, considering that you have only made a single mainspace edit to Wikipedia, there certainly appears to be a good bit more upon which to question your good faith than the other way around. (And beyond that, good grief: to claim that removing a handful of sub-stubs without independent sourcing is "essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history" isn't productive; it's hysteria.) Ravenswing 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  A handful of sub-stubs? I just provided three articles with lots of good, well-sourced content. What you are saying is factually not even true. 172.58.160.64 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Cleary you do not have an understanding of WP:GNG. NONE of those three remotely come close to passing what's listed on WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I'm looking at the contribution lists for the anon IP addresses you're using, and seeing nothing. So if you are claiming to have added any content whatsoever, provide us with the diffs right here (and if they are under an actual registered account, perhaps you'll be so kind as to use that account in this discussion). Ravenswing 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of this page, you have to notify editors you start discussions about, which I have done for you. Anyway, the issue seems to stem from the IP's viewpoint that a proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc.[45], which has no backing in the actual text of WP:BEFORE (The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects; it doesn't really take much time to click those four links and see that there's more or less nothing) Also, "raising concerns of" two long-standing administrators being sockpuppets just for !voting the same way in a set of very similar AfDs is patently silly. eviolite (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who actually wants to write about the whole nation's sporting history is free to edit the Sport in Tuvalu article, which is very unlikely to be nominated for deletion. CMD (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving this over here: I do my research on a MASS basis first (if I know a lot of articles in a particular topic are leaning towards delete), then proceed with the nominations. With the BOTS doing most of the work, its no surprise 10 AFD's were done in 17 minutes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that mass nominations are not always good for the community. Sure, it might make your life easier to get the noms done in one go, but look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/Article alerts#AfD. Each AfD has a time frame on it, and you are are now asking the community to weigh in on 52 separate discussions in a seven-day window (not all 52 are in the same 7-day window, but the nominations came over the course of five days). If someone actually has access to some print sources, you have just buried them under a mountain with a time-limit to get out from under it... If someone looks at all that, they might throw their hands up in the air thinking it's hopeless. It's probably better practice to nominate as you find each article to better space them out. Also, an attempt at constructive criticism, a simple "Fails GNG" statement doesn't give very a lot of information to help others that might not want to duplicate your efforts. -2pou (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, that's the same excuse the inclusionists usually drag out upon seeing a mass nomination, and I'd be more sympathetic to it if their reaction to it wasn't invariably paired with an utter lack of any attempt to find adequate sourcing for ANY entries on it. (Or, come to that, if they had had any objection to the mass creation of such articles, often in very short timeframes and without critical examination as to whether each one could stand as an independent article.)

And it's much the same here. So rather than the mass "redirect" responses you put into the AfDs, one after another, would you be amenable to sourcing some of the articles properly? Some of them? Any of them? Ravenswing 21:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a nice long weekend! Other parts of this thread seem to have gone in an entirely different direction that I think I will steer clear of.
I'm happy to explain the process that I went through, though! For each of my !votes, I do my own BEFORE process to search out any additional finds just in case the nom or prior participants did not catch something. (In this particular subject matter, since I believe your inquiry is specific to it) I also searched out any potential availability from List of newspapers in Tuvalu, which was slightly fruitful in that I found an obscure archive of only seven issues, and a smattering of others randomly hosted on SquareSpace, that I can't decipher the actual host site from (all still from 2015 still from 2015, oddly enough). Unfortunately the coverage did not include much football news to choose from. Next, I searched the Fenui Facebook site for postings as well as this Tuvalu news site. This has led me to the same conclusion that you seem to have reached in several cases, that an independent article is not necessary. As AfD stats will show, "Redirect" and "Delete" votes/results are considered equivalent.
I tend not to stop there with a delete decision, though, as my next step is to see if there is any place that would end up pointing the average searcher to any tidbit of information. You'll notice that I did initially !vote to delete one article when I thought there was no suitable redirect target. I later learned of what I consider a suitable target, so I updated to a Redirect. It seems to me that several players already have existing entries on one of two pages, so the next step is to make sure the player's name is actually entered on one of those pages. If not, then I would !vote delte, if so, redirect. Although there is some copy/paste involved, there is never an automatic !vote without ensuring one of the targets is truly valid. I did not weigh in on all 52 mentioned discussions yet, as I hadn't gotten to several.
Regarding the mass creation of such articles... I actually do agree that such articles should not be created if not following guidelines. These seem to be older than then NPP and therefore grandfathered in or created when NFOOTY was more lax, so I don't find these nominations objectionable in and of themselves; cleanup is cleanup. What would I expect NPP to do when coming across these if created today? Probably redirect somewhere if there is a suitable target known to the patroller, as that's the easiest solution. Would I object to the mass creation of players as redirects? Absolutely not, since there is no notability requirement for one. Otherwise, (only because it is as a recent example and fresh in my mind) I wouldn't try to fix redirects from the name of a reality show contestants to the actual anchor of the show they had appeared on, I'd send to RfD.
Now, this is just my personal disposition. You appear to find redirects unhelpful, whereas I find them cheap, unharmful, and just maybe there's a chance to be useful. (Gahaha! Always great!) That's fine, no two people have to agree. You seemed offended by one of my comments, which was in no way my intent. I apologize for that. Maybe I should resume my quest to ensure that every plushie on the List of Sanrio characters has an incoming redirect! (My son: "Daddy... are you joking? ... I don't like your joking.") All the best to your own future editing endeavors! -2pou (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a reasonable approach AfDs and actually put effort into finding sources, would you care to reevaluate the Sepetaio discussion now that the single alleged source of SIGCOV (40 words...) has been shown to be an unattributed press release rather than independent coverage? If there's a fair redirect target that's also an option. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure can. -2pou (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know there are more AfD participants willing to do thorough analyses of sources rather than just blindly !voting. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be an issue here. The nominations appear to be appropriate, and they spread them out over a few days. If they had prodded the articles first, then I wouldn't even expect them to spread the nominations out - the issue in those circumstances would be editors removing the WP:PROD without demonstrating notability, rather than with a large number of nominations on the same day. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• If you want to accuse people of sock puppetry, sockpuppet investigations is the place to go. Note though that it isn't for unfounded fishing expeditions. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to raise my own concerns on this user. I am aware that a lot of the deletion nominations may be "fair" by Wikipedia standards, but I find the pattern of these nominations to be rather sinister. Having gone through their recent activity, a lot of the deletion nominations have been for athletes from smaller, "less-developed" nations, including a couple of women footballers (who meet GNG), who we struggle to get representation for on Wikipedia in the first place.

This, this and this edit are page blanking with no discussion beforehand. I don't know what Wikipedia says about this exactly, but I am certain this goes against standards somewhere.

Also, as a side note, there was a situation in 2007 whereby Tuvalu could have technically qualified for the FIFA World Cup. They even had a goalscorer in World Cup qualification, Viliamu Sekifu, whose page is currently nominated for deletion. Sekifu is probably the most notable Tuvaluan footballer for the goal scored, and undoubtedly received coverage at the time in local Tuvaluan news sources. I just find it very frustrating that, just because the information is not readily available, common sense isn't used. If they had qualified for the World Cup, there would have of course been notability garnered internationally - but would there have been any local Tuvaluan sources covering individuals? I highly doubt it. Some nations just do not have much, if any, online news. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. These articles were all nominated because they do not meet GNG. As for the three articles I redirected, they all fail WP:GNG and I redirected them to the article discussing their participation at the Olympics (all three were the only participants for their country. Wikipedia is also not a speculation device. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• If you think that there are sources for that footballer, divulge them. But c'mon. A key facet of notability guidelines is that they set forth criteria that subjects actually meet, not that they might have met. (Not that this was possible to happen, because whatever the local federation's take on things was, Tuvalu was not then and is not now a FIFA member, and as such, could not have taken part in actual World Cup matches.)

  I recognize that there is a longstanding fringe theory that if there is some putative excuse for a subject not to have received the significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources the GNG requires -- and so very many excuses have been proffered, over the years -- then the GNG, WP:V, WP:N and any other applicable criteria are waived in its favor. This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. To claim there is something "sinister" in seeking to correctly apply extant notability criteria is an unwarranted, unfounded and reprehensible personal attack. You would be far better off turning your energies to finding sources for these articles you are so invested in saving than in taking swings at those who feel that those criteria apply to all subjects across the board ... or, as we see below, descending into hyperbole-choked hysteria. Ravenswing 15:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  "This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline." This simply isn't true. As fellow user John Pack Lambert stated in this edit: "We have a long precedent of keeping articles on every member of a state legislature we can verrify [sic] existed.". The bar for politicians is so low that the only thing required is verification that they existed? Yet for people who have represented their nation in international sporting events, we need 50 independent biographies written, 100 newspaper articles from 20 separate countries and access to the personal diary they kept as a child? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and here's another from notorious delete voter John Pack Lambert, in which he states that "Those who hold cabinet level in a first level subdivision in a federal government (that is states in the US, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, India, and a few other countries) are default notable.". Default notable??? So we just throw GNG out the window when it comes to politicians, but not for international sporting representatives?

  This website has articles on obscure lakes from Lithuania, but people who represent their nation are clearly not notable, right? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  In addition to WP:GNG, there are specific additional ways a subject can be presumed notable. WP:NPOL addresses first-level subdivisions in federal governments as mentioned by John Pack Lambert. There are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. See WP:NSPORT. Do any of those criteria apply? If not, then WP:GNG must be applied. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was also under the impression that there are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. I know that the criteria for football has changed recently, but I cannot see anything specific on WP:NSPORT regarding association football. One of WP:SPORTBASIC's criteria is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.", which some (but not all) of the nominated articles do. Yet they are still being flagged for deletion as they are athletes from a nation seemingly deemed not worthy of articles. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Davidlofgren1996 which articles have SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  And there are no additional ways an athlete can be notable. This has been the case for a very long time now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  From the masses that SportsFan 1234 has nominated, I found Sumithra Kamaraj, Anju Tamang, Indrit Cullhaj and Leah Parry. There may be more, there probably are, they have nominated a lot of articles.

  And I believe presumed notability still applies to athletes who competed before the internet existed, as it applies to non-athletes in the same boat. Please correct me if I am wrong. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, what is the SIGCOV source in each of those articles? Kamaraj has a handful of sentences on her by an anonymous author in what seems to be a clear non-RS. Tamang received routine transaction news and coverage by SPS, non-independent (e.g. the KHELNOW article written by the AIFF), and other unreliable sources. Cullhaj has some interviews and routine transaction news. Leah Parry has coverage in some anonymous wikimirror-like content farm.

  When has NSPORT ever presumed notability for pre-internet athletes? At most it has suggested more temporal leeway be given for finding sources on very old subjects, which doesn't apply here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also note the solutions mentioned in WP:FAILN, such as Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages.. See, for example, Tuvalu_national_football_team. This is a way to retain information about the players without them having to meet individual notability requirements. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Davidlofgren1996 is certainly jacking the hysteria up to 11. No, we don't require 50 biographies or personal diaries. We require multiple (=2) independent, third-party reliable sources which provide significant coverage to the subjects involved, and which in the case of athletes doesn't involve casual mentions in routine match coverage. And you can't bring yourself to do even that much work for a single one of the AfDs you're complaining about. You are being routinely wrong about your assumptions, routinely wrong in these AfDs, and it's well past time that someone who's created as many articles as you have has a handle on the damn notability criteria that governs your work. What the hell, man? We shouldn't need "correct me if I'm wrong" answers. For all the football sub-stubs you're creating, you need to be right in the first place. Ravenswing 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Stop pinging me. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  (bemused look) Look, man, if you want to stick your thumbs in your ears and cry out "Lalalalala I'm Not Listening You Can't Make Me," well, indeed, neither I nor anyone else can make you. But since I've yet to ping you, the request is moot. (If what you're asking me instead is not to respond to your public statements in public discussion pages, I would treat THAT request with exactly as much consideration as it merits.) Ravenswing 14:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Using the wikilink [[User:Davidlofgren1996]] pings them. It's one of the ways to ping someone as outlined in Help:Notifications. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  You missed the second sentence of that paragraph, which says Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Articles that meet that requirement are probably not suitable for prod, but if additional sources can't be found then they should be deleted at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Just now, there was an AIV report on an account named LuK3 (other account), which is blocked by Tamzin (thank you) for impersonation. The blocked account has closed an AfD on a Tuvaluan footballer as "delete". Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, some new LTA. (I guess that's an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.) They've been doing this with a number of AfDs while impersonating admins. Both of their closes had already been reverted by the time I blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry that you were impersonated. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating a list of Tuvalu footballers would have been more efficient, the articles for each player, I can completely understand their nomination. I can't see much else to say here, than this conversation should probably be closed down. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach disrupting COVID-19 discussions

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.

---

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 states CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.

CutePeach is disrupting (and has been for a while) COVID-19 topics in a number of ways. Most notably, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects. I'd give you diffs if it were hard to find it, but as you see much of the discussion is CutePeach bludgeoning and sealioning. Also, note that CutePeach was specifically warned about this not only in the deletion thread but also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive343#Requesting_admin_close_of_COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects_AFD where CutePeach was reminded of the TBan.

Note also that CutePeach has written WP:MEDRSNOT, which seems to be an attempt to disrupt the guidance given in WP:MEDRS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated the essay for G5 as a violation (or at least, skirting way too close on the edge of it, see WP:SANCTIONGAMING no. 3) of the topic ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at CutePeach talk page as of 2022-5-27T17:57 I see a number of COVID-19 related edit warnings: edit warring and other issues. I propose extending the topic ban to stop this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And now Special:Contributions/Gimiv (already previously warned for personal attacks in this area) has taken the opportunity to engage in more WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page of the essay... colour me surprised. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice Since the CSD was hastily removed by Gimiv, I've now nominated the essay at MfD so we can get broader input on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

As the original AN/E submitter resulting in the TBAN, I do believe the pattern of behavior that resulted in sanctions is continuing outside the narrow TBAN, for both other COVID topics and editing on medical/political topics overall. I had hoped the result would an ability to collaborate effectively, but the diffs below suggest this isn't the case. Rather, I'd suggest it looks a lot less like learning to collaborate effectively, and lot more like WP:IDHT, with an inability to stay away from other highly contentious areas.

1. Less than a month after the TBAN which came with an explicit warning against continued disruption in any area, she moved to another contentious topic area under DS with the following DS alert
2. Voting in redirect discussion about the CCP Virus page, directly referencing its use in the lab origin theory. Self reverted after being reminded on talk page that WP:BMB, despite having been informed by admins originally, indicating a clear lack of care to abiding the TBAN.
3. Edit warring with five reverts on the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article, for which a 48h ban was given. The last edit was made after she responded to the report at AN/EW about her behavior (similar behavior to the AN/E resulting in the TBAN, where she continued editing in Talk space after asking for time to respond to AN, repeat diff explaining).
4. Created a page titled COVID-19 vaccine side effects, yet discussing exclusively severe side effects. Consistent arguing in the AfD discussion WP:SNOW, even after changing her vote from Keep. Despite agreement on path forward, a continuation to argue was exhibited. [46][47][48][49][50]
5. Created a supplement (moved to essay space by others) to further argue against MEDRS requirements, including the suggestion that editors who seek a strict compliance to MEDRS engage in TE. To wit: complaining about her opponents gish galloping, while she herself gish gallops.
6. Here's two diffs indicating she'd like to file at AN/E/ARBCOM about me (and MEDRS in general), provided here for convenience to whoever seeks a WP:BOOMERANG.
7. At least one admin has avoided enforcement over potential edging on the TBAN due to their past experience of hassle involved.

Existing sanctions haven't resolved the problematic editing by now, with continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that has appeared to result in admins being hesitant to increase sanctions despite the evidence of continued problem behavior. Behavior has not improved, it will continue if action isn't taken. User can not drop the WP:STICK, it's up to Admins to enforce. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: please can you put your post in the right chronological order and use numbering instead of bulleting so that I can respond to each one. For example, I would like to respond to your diff about me creating an essay in projectspace with the supplement label, as I didn't even realize it had to first pass consensus for that, and I posted it in WP:VPP as soon as I did. It would be easier for administrators and arbitrators to see your accusations and my rebuttals side by side. CutePeach (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

They're numbered now. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, a report without diffs. This is (yet another) attempt to discredit and delete CutePeach's WP:MEDRSNOT essay and lobby administrators to ban a longtime critic of WP:MEDRS abuse on Wikipedia. It sure didn't take long for RandomCanadian, CP's longtime adversary and avid MEDRS deletionist, to show up here to pile it on and "speedily delete" the essay, and now he's accusing me of engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS for contesting his deletion on the basis of MEDRS abuse. CP posted her MEDRS essay on VPP to get feedback [51], just like MarshallKe did about the abuse of WP:FRINGE last year [52], and its always these same editors showing up to pour acid on complaints about their own malfeasance. In the VPP discussion, Alexbrn is intransigently claiming that Havana syndrome is a "conspiracy theory" [53], deleting political allegations as if they are biomedical claims [54], and claiming the CIA-convened panel isn't a WP:MEDORG [55] when WaPo says it is made up of an independent panel of experts [56]. This is an abuse of MEDRS.

CP's TBAN was very narrowly focused on COVID-19 origins and she was given the chance to contribute in the wider COVID-19 topic area, which was pointed the last time the MEDRS crew tried stringing her up [57]. Rsjaffe doesn't seem to be part of that group, but he was dared into it by two editors who most certainly are [58] [59], and I wouldn't be surprised if this has to do with skeptic coordinated editing [60]. RoySmith's warning of CP [61], like EvergreenFir's January block, was a mistake [62]. I have been watching the Chinese government COVID-19 undercounting dispute since January, waiting for it to blow up into a full ArbCom case to expose the hypocrisy. Alexbrn is insisting there that only medical sources can be used for his POV [63], but doesn't seem to care that preprints are being used for the CCP's POV [64] [65]. This is a blatant abuse of MEDRS and WP:PREPRINT.

On the content dispute. CP created an article on COVID-19 vaccine side effects, and Bakkster Man accused her of WP:GAMING for allegedly using a MEDRS source as cover for a BMI claim. She provided him with a WHO source listing tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side-effect, but fails to reply. What WhatamIdoing is doing in the AfD is classic WP:SEALIONING, making ten different arguments about why the claim is UNDUE there. CP changed her !vote to delete the side-effects article and asked WAID how to move it to the vaccine article, providing several review articles to answer the WP:NOTEVERYTHING concerns, but WAID just comes back at her with irrelevant philosophical ideas. I don't believe these editors even knew these sources existed when they decided to pick on CP. They dared not file this frivolous report themselves. Gimiv (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't post a diff of the talk page edit cause it was a page creation. As for the rest, the above has such a strong stench of WP:BATTLEGROUND, including wide-ranging accusations of misbehaviour which are exactly WP:ASPERSIONS (including but not limited to blatant lack of good faith - I haven't interacted with CP in months [in fact I've stayed mostly away from COVID, being kept busy with other matters], and I wasn't even the one that reported this here; accusations that an AfD is sealioning, ...); I'm going to ignore it. If somebody else wants to propose sanctions on Gimiv, be my guest.

I'm just going to note that CP's edit outside of the narrow origins area don't seem that much more productive, unless one willfully ignores such evidence as the litany of additional edit warring notices on their talk page since, the block for edit warring back at the end of March (on a COVID-related topic); and now the creation of an essay which is very borderline WP:SANCTIONGAMING; as well as the creation of an obvious WP:POVFORK, which thankfully looks like it's headed for deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What's going on with the times here? Bakkster Man posts at 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC) with many diffs. Next, in line, (visually) a post by Gimiv 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC) complaining about a report with no diffs. Last, a post by RandomCanadian at 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC).

Why are times skipping around...23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC). I have no connection with any of these editors, but it's very confusing, shouldn't our "software" organize this chronologically? Seems to make editors look as if they haven't read, or are mis-replying to posts. Will duck back into my turtle shell, but color me confused. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

the times skip because the conversation is threaded. Gimiv is replying to the original post, not the indented thread above him that contains Bakkster's diffs. That's how it should be. By convention new replies to the same comment are indented one level further then the comment they're replying to and usually added chronologically, but discussions down that tree will remain together. It's perfectly reasonable to follow, and the mediawiki software should in no way refactor user comments to be chronological. It would destroy the ability to know who is replying to who. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tribe of TigerI think it's the new reply feature. Editors using it are going to have their post put under the person they are replying to, others will not. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It isn't chronological because, as Doug points out, posts go under those they are replying to (WP:TPG). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all for explaining, in a helpful, kind and AGF-polite manner. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian agreed. CP is rarely constructive anywhere and needs at least a Covid-wide TBAN. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hard to disagree with Doug Weller's comments at 14:05, 28 May 2022. I would agree to extend the CP TBAN towards all topics Covid (and perhaps all subjects MEDRS). It is not for me to parse the reasons why CP continues to edit (in my opinion) in a disruptive manner, but it is clear the envelope of the original TBAN has been pushed well past reasonableness. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• The first sentence of this report, quoting Guerillero's closing statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 § CutePeach, says all that needs to be said: If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area. Even CutePeach seems to acknowledge that they are coming into conflict with a large number of other users right now; I'm sure they wouldn't see that as disruptive on their part, but having the clue to recognize "It's not everyone else who's driving the wrong way" is critical in a sensitive topic area like COVID. If they're at the point of seeing the enforcers of WP:MEDRS as the villains, then it's in their best interests, those of other editors, and those of our readers that CutePeach not be editing on that topic. In not being fully TBANned from COVID initially, they were given a second chance to show that they can edit constructively in this area, and in their continuing battleground approach has shown a full ban to be in fact necessary. As authorized by WP:COVIDDS, CutePeach is indefinitely banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. I will notify them and log this sanction at WP:DSLOG momentarily. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for dealing with this. I hope that it will not be necessary to expand "the topic of COVID-19" to "the topic of medicine" in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  CutePeach got railroaded at AE by an experienced groups of white male editors including a sock puppet and it went straight to a topic ban instead of a warning, unlike some recent cases we’ve seen where warnings are given to experienced editors who should know better. In this comment where you are sanctioning you don’t even bother to link to any diffs. I wish you would examine the context and history here, as the tag team has showed up again to push the same POV. This is not the way things should be handled here. CutePeach identifies as a woman editor from a minority represented country on En wiki and is entitled to compassionate guidance instead of cold sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  CutePeach got railroaded at AE by an experienced groups of white male editors... CutePeach identifies as a woman editor from a minority represented country on En wiki and is entitled to compassionate guidance instead of cold sanctions.

  What the fuck does this have to do with anything? JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that a group of uninvolved AE admins was tricked by a group of editors is a bit conspiracy theorist, don't you think? I would hope our admins are a bit harder to manipulate than that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Seriously? What is with the recent trend in throwing around baseless racism and now sexism claims in ANI? Is there some expectation the community will back off just because magic words are invoked? As it's use earlier this is horribly bad faith and an attempt to chill the community by making editors fearful of specific good-faith actions lest they be accused and face an inquisition.Slywriter (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Such attempts at playing the race card (or the sexism card) are borderline insulting. If you're going to be blatantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS like that, you ought to back yourself up with solid evidence. That, or not profess such nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• The comment that "CP is rarely constructive anywhere" is correct. I had a review of their last dozens of edits and I only see back-to-back bickering which I also saw this month with regards to their edit warring to restore blatant WP:BLP violation at Vladimir Putin. They made an unconvincing argument on Talk:Vladimir Putin and they got a warning from Cullen238 to stop it.[66] Instead of getting over it, they brought the discussion to WP:BLPN clearly for finding someone who may agree with them,[67] and here they were initially told by an experienced editor that "It'll likely be better if we just topic ban you from all people covered by BLP", and the same editor also left a warning on their talk page.[68] All of these efforts failed to stop CutePeach from edit warring to restore BLP violation, as days later they were back to falsely claiming a "consensus on BLPN" to retain their BLP violation.[69] Similar CIR issues were also pointed elsewhere this month.[70] Now that we already know that these topic bans fail to create any positive impact on CutePeach, and instead they would simply move to disrupt another subject, then why do we have to allow them to disrupt Wiki any further? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: thanks for joining this pile-on and demonstrating the personal prejudice against me. As a reminder, there was a consensus on BLPN that the paedophilia claims should be added to Vladimir Putin#Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, and it is no more a BLP violation than my alleged MEDRS violations here. If we cover the allegation that Putin poisoned Litvinenko, then it only makes sense to say what Litvinenko accused him of four months priod, which multiple secondary sources say are linked. CutePeach (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No such consensus was reached at BLPN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just read through the whole thread at BLPN and I cannot see how that could be construed as a consensus in any way. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: there was at least a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and you yourself said in the TP that you were still thinking about the exact wording for inclusion [71], so I see you on the side of those who don't think it is a BLP violation, as Aman here claims. To say Putin allegedly killed someone but to leave out the reason why, per WP:BLP, is based on a misunderstanding of the policy. One can argue it may not be WP:DUE, but as discussed, there were many secondary sources putting Litvinenko's paedophilia allegation four months prior as one of the main reasons for Putin's hand in his poisoning. ActivelyDisinterested, please participate in the TP discussion, of which there were a few [72] [73]. CutePeach (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cite peach I don't see any consensus, not even a rough one, and I'm not interested in getting into the content discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That is utter BS. If there was any consensus to include the evidence-free 'pedeophilia' claims in the Putin biography, it would have been included. It wasn't, and at no point did I support including it - I argued the exact opposite, as anyone reading the discussions can clearly see. This seems to be part of a recurring pattern with CutePeach, who seem to have difficulty reading other peoples' comments regarding disputed content without either misrepresenting them or treating them as personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the diff CP probably meant to link and I will add this one where you argue against including the allegation per WP:WEIGHT but seem amenable to including something similar to CP's second try​​ [74]. Perhaps an RFC on the Vladimir Putin page is necessary to fulfil the "exact wording" promise you made. The pedophilia allegations were prominently reported as the alleged motivation behind the Putin linked Litvinenko's murder. Gimiv (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

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 why I think CutePeach should be site banned because this back-to-back bickering and disruptive editing will continue no matter how many topic bans have been imposed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. With this[75] promise to write a new essay on "scientific uncertainty" (what could this be an allusion to?) and attempt at an arbcom case, I think the Project should be spared the inevitable useless drama that will follow. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support site ban The post below was the WP:FINALSTRAW. It includes a number of baseless claims included that "almost all the editors" who participated here "were involved in some kind of dispute with me" and such "participation here can be considered WP:HOUNDING and is highly inappropriate". This claims are being made without evidence and it shows that CutePeach is not here to accept any input and is set to cause further disruption. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Sadly I don't see a way around this. CutePeach seems unable to listen to others, and that is critical for a collaborative environment. Instead they seem to double down and cast aspersions at other editors. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. As can be seen in the 'appeal' section below, CutePeach seems incapable of reacting to criticism without responding in a manner which makes things worse. As Black Kite says, 'a massive time sink'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm willing to cooperate in any investigation into the WP:MEAT allegation made against me below, anticipating it will result in stronger WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support mostly because of the below, which gets a rather low reading on the "has got a clue"-meter. Wikipedia is a project built on collaboration and being able to resolve arguments through constructive dialogue. CP has shown themself, multiple times, to not be able or willing to engage in such dialogue with the right kind of attitude. An editor who, despite all warnings, keeps insisting that they are right and everybody else is wrong, repeatedly makes bad faith attacks, and keeps engaging in tendentious time-sinking editing, clearly isn't compatible with this project. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support This editor is a tendentious axe-grinder who appears temperamentally unsuited to a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support based wholly on their "rebuttal" below. They're not defending their actions so much as they are trying to relitigate the same issues that got them topic-banned in the first place. You can only do so much when a person is unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support, the rebuttal below did not help things either. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen328. ––FormalDude talk 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support as they do not have the required competence (and no, I'm not talking about gender or race as alluded to in these threads) to edit in a sensitive area. Combative and the disruption will just move elsewhere at the edges of the topic ban. This should have been done when it was first breached. Star Mississippi 01:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is a global movement. We need diverse voices like CutePeach. Diversity is a strength, to be nurtured and encouraged instead of stamped out. There appear to be a bunch of white men who are seeking sanctions against a minority woman. This doesn’t sit well with me. There’s been no attempts at mentoring, so going straight to a site ban for a viewpoint we need more of is not an improvement for the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you know who is or isn't a 'white man' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The ones who identify as white men are the ones I consider to be white men. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about if people stop identifying themselves and just create and improve articles? EEng 05:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. How else will editors know they must put on their lady-gloves when interacting with me? JoelleJay (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why play the race card, if your intent wasn't to derail the discussion? We're not supporting banning her because she's a minority or a woman, we're supporting banning her because she refuses to take responsibility for her vehemence and blames everyone else for her own behaviour. We've gotten rid of white men for less aggressive IDHT. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ernie. This looks like a pile-on by everyone with a bone to pick with CP. Good thing Wikimedia's Trust and Safety team made a new appeals process for victims of harassment. An appeal to WP:ARBCOM might not be fruitful, but it may still be necessary to show Wikimedia that the community is unable to get its shit together.Gimiv (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your link to the T & S appeals process is a complete red herring, given that said process relates only to appeals made against decisions made as "Trust & Safety office actions". As for ArbCom, they don't normally get involved while active discussions at WP:AN/WP:ANI are taking place. Accordingly, I suggest you stick to actually discussing the matter at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You know that making comments like the above and the one at the MfD - MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in medical and political topics ([76]) - only lends more weight to the idea that you, like CP, are treating this as some form of BATTLEGROUND, and are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and instead try attacking editors who do. I'd suggest you tread very carefully. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Whilst I am wary of getting involved in the discussion I have been wondering if a topic ban from anything broadly related to medicine and medical research would be the best way forward as it would allow them to work on areas not under the purview of WP:MEDRS which they appear to have concerns about. Gusfriend (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend: See above. They are even more disruptive at Russian and Ukrainian topics. Even if they are topic banned from these subjects they will just disrupt a new topic. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing any disruption in Russia and Ukraine, only a dispute with you and your Wikifriends about the Litvinenko's pedophelia claims about Putin, which seems to be the only reason y'all came here with pitchforks. It's a bad look. Gimiv (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You're not any better than CP if you keep making disruptive comments like that. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you can't collaborate constructively with people, or if your proposed changes keep getting rejected, then the issue might be you, not the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• support clearly disruptive timesink who will not learn from a catalog of mistakes. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not yet necessary. The disruption/timesink is primarily limited to a specific topic area, and CP should be allowed the opportunity to demonstrate that she can edit constructively outside of that area after this ANI discussion/her TBAN, before she is banned from the whole site. A look at her Xtools page shows that List of Filipino singers is her most edited article, and she should be given the chance to demonstrate she is capable of improving articles like that before she is banned from the whole site. I agree with Ernie that it appears there has been a bit of a pile on from people who disagree with her views, but Wikipedia is a global project, and we should welcome and encourage editors with a diverse range of backgrounds and viewpoints (which, yes, does include people other than nerdy Western white men, who are the bulk of Wikipedia's editors). Endwise (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Endwise: A few comments on this analysis.

  First, I'd suggest that the number of edits should not be the only metric used. Of those 200 edits to List of Filipino singers, all but one are under 100 characters, with the exception being 661 characters to create the page with the first three names. Multiple small edits is a completely valid editing style (especially for a mobile user like CP), but it does mean we need to take that into context for determining the most substantially edited article. While adding 4,184 bytes to this list is good productive editing, the 7,458 bytes added to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory are significantly more substantial. Fewer edits on COVID-19 related topics, but those edits are frequently thousands of bytes long.

  Secondly, and relevant to the topic of the goal of the TBAN, CP's last edit on that list according to Xtools was made a month prior to her original TBAN. The goal was to create an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area, but this non-contentious article went unedited (most likely because the list was more or less completed prior to the TBAN). While I agree this list article shows that CP can make productive edits to non-contentious articles, this article doesn't demonstrate that she used the original TBAN time to actually do so. Perhaps an alternate example can be found, but my impression is that the majority of edits since the TBAN have been in some way contentious.

  And third, I'd suggest the majority of the editing found to be contentious by others happens outside of article space. In other namespaces, CP's most edited pages are Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK, Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information, and Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization. The 52,984 bytes from 93 talk page edits dwarfs the 3,107 bytes from 18 edits to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. While this isn't by itself an issue (I have a similar talk to article ratio on that article, as one would expect from a contentious topic from editor aiming to avoid an edit war), the primary concerns are of WP:TE outside of article space. So to be clear, diff counts aren't necessarily indicative of a problem, but the contentious editing mostly happens in Talk space, so a raw diff analysis of article space alone is perhaps besides the point. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per especially RandomCanadian and Cullen328. This user appears unsuited to a collaborative project of this kind. As others have noted, the disruption is not limited to just the Covid-19 topic area, and the WP:NOTTHEM attitude on display below is indeed troubling. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support They are drawn towards editing (creating) topics of controversy where they seem to enjoy the battleground disruption they cause. They are consistently a timesink on other editors having to explain how policy restricts and shapes what we can write. They abuse talk pages to discuss their political views rather than to discuss the article text. They frequently push fringe and conspiracy views, which brings them into conflict with our policy and guidelines on these areas. Rather than listen to what other are saying, they dig in and now start writing essays (Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not) and draft guideline (Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN). I don't think specific topic bans are working and they will continue to be drawn into areas where there is conflict and political conspiracy.

Btw, I find Mr Ernie and Gimiv's comments unacceptable. We are here to discuss CutePeach's participation on the project, not to accuse good faith editors of being racist and sexist. I am surprised that such personal attacks are permitted. -- Colin°^Talk 09:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I find your gaslighting unacceptable and I see you have been written up for incivility before [77]. There is no consensus that the COVID-19 lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory . The poor communication of scientific uncertainty on COVID-19 origins is a blight to the project. Gimiv (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it is a conspiracy theory - parts of it are (as evidenced in reliable sources which have been quoted ad nauseam and which I don't want to waste my time over again). If you think none of it is, then your problem is with reality, not with Wikipedia. Also, groundlessly accusing other editors is very much an unacceptable WP:PA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I and others have tried to work with this user to collaborate and incorporate their changes while also paying attention to policies and guidelines. It has failed, every time it has been tried. They incorporate a number of conspiracy theories into their chosen topic spaces, including the lab leak, the wuhan urns conspiracy (that millions more were dying in China than were being reported, based on how many unused funeral urns were shown in photos of a crematorium), the Hunter Biden's laptop was a hoax argument, supporting a number of unproven COVID vaccine side effects... the list goes on. This user is very adept at using sealion tactics to get these points across, and regularly engages in long and fraught discussions pushing POV points past their natural conclusion. If one point is exchanged, they switch to another tactic without skipping a beat, or truly admitting anyone else was ever right. It's exhausting. They are a drain on the project of time, effort, and poorly written policy drafts and redirects. They are not simply a misguided editor at this point. They are long past misguided, and very much in the category of "gleefully obstructionist." For these reasons, a site ban is unfortunately the only effective way to resolve this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is too much for right now. I think the topic ban on COVID-19 related topics put in by Tamzin was good enough based on the evidence we have now. It's astonishing to me to see such support for a site topic ban with no evidence of substantial disruption outside of the COVID-19 area. CutePeach is a relatively new editor here and some leniency should be given to them, maybe a firm warning on WP:CIVILITY. It's pretty normal to see new editors be a little more passionate and uncivil because they are still getting a feel for the discussion process and for WP guideline and policies. I've seen people get off with warnings here for a lot worse and persistent behavior. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  To explain what astonishes you: There is evidence (a re-ban that was discussed in the "Appeal" section below) of substantial disruption outside of an area the user had previously been banned from. This makes a site-ban a logical step, as banning the user from a specific area apparently just makes them find another disruption honeypot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is no evidence of substantial disruption in, or out the banned topic area. The mega RFC at Azov Battalion was just closed with CP's draft as the winning option, and that entire trainwreck could have been avoided had her WP:BOLD edit [78] not been reverted. CP's article Hunter Biden laptop controversy was deleted as a POVFORK of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, but brought back soon after [79], just like the COVID-19 lab leak theory, which some editors here claimed was a POVFORK of COVID-19 misinformation. CP's COVID-19 vaccine side effects was deleted last week as a POVFORK of COVID-19 vaccine, but it too will make a comeback as COVID-19 vaccine safety when COVID-19_vaccine#Adverse_events bursts its banks. CP is just on the cutting edge, and that might mean bumping up against ideologues, like most of the editors here voting to ban her. Gimiv (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  That is, very literally, the drop that spilled the glass. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Gimiv, are you really sure you want to characterise (what appears to be) intentional disruption in multiple topic areas under discretionary sanctions as being "on the cutting edge"? Because if so, I'd strongly reconsider your position. These topic areas are the ones where the "cutting edge" is least needed due to the built-in hyperpartisanship; they're powderkegs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Gimiv, see WP:CRYSTAL, and perhaps also WP:NOTNEWS, for an explanation of why being “cutting edge” might be a problem. Brunton (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is a runofthemill WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editor, who will only be a time sink here and never provide value. ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Please take note of the canvassing here, and the pinging of editors they feel are sympathetic to their cause. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  An editor who has been topic banned around alleged scientific uncertainties really should not be trying to write an advice page like Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. After quickly looking, it seems that main issue is CutePeach not respecting their TBAN. This is normally handled by blocks of increasing duration. Another issue might be wasting time of other contributors through forum shopping. If that's the case (I am not sure), then a ban from participating in any noticeboards could be in order. Quickly looking at other editing by CutePeach, I am not convinced it is so outrageous to deserve a site ban. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes, I would urge you to reconsider and look at the recent expansion of CP's WP:CPUSH activity. It is a wide variety of users from various corners of this site that are now concerned about this behavior. And therein lies the biggest issue. I would also urge you to consider their canvassing attempts described above, and "gaming" behavior to circumvent bans and restrictions. All of these are not productive in keeping a good encyclopedia running, as they drain editor time and resources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, I do not have a lot of time to look at this. This is just a comment, not a vote. I am not convinced mostly because I interacted with CutePeach on several occasins, and she/he looked to me as a well intended although a highly opinionated contributor, unlike some other really problematic (in my opinion) contributors who still edit around. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support due to their inability to collaborate, their focus on pushing conspiracy theories, and the timesink they have become for other editors. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MVBW and Gimiv. The evidence of CutePeach's "substantial disruption" is very weak, and primarily driven by the ongoing COVID-19 origins controversy. Many of the editors here, including ToBeFree, got caught up in the scandal and had to unblock and apologize to the editors they had wrongfully blocked (including me). There is still a lot of scientific doubt about COVID-19's origins, and we should encourage any efforts by Wikipedia editors to better convey this. Francesco espo (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Except that's not the issue here (fwiw; there is doubt (when exactly did it jump over into humans? from which animal reservoir exactly?), but not in the direction CP has been pushing). CP's BATTLEGROUND attitude, their disruptive essays, and their seemingly disruption-magnet attraction to controversial topics, show they're WP:NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry, been watching CP's poor behavior light up my watchlist for over a year. I feel the topic areas I edit in would be improved without CP's civil POV pushing, forum shopping, bludgeoning, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2022 (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.

Proposed sanctions against Gimiv

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.

---

Given their persistent accusations and incivility against other editors in this thread; their persistent lack of good faith, and given their otherwise WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here and elsewhere (ex. [80]); Gimiv is blocked for a period of 1 week as per the WP:CIVIL policy, which is not optional. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Gimiv has less than 100 edits and is frequently insulting other editors. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 23:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Do we really need to do this? Any admin should be able to see we're in WP:NOTHERE territory and take action. A single-purpose battleground account -- what's a week going to do? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of formally alerting Gimiv to the discretionary sanctions regimes he's defending CutePeach on and taking any further disruption/IDHT on this front to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If he continues to be disruptive after being formally alerted, he has nobody to blame but himself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Alerted, and oppose per Jéské. starship.paint (exalt) 06:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support I wasn't going to take part but happened upon the "gaslighting" accusation ironically linked to a civility complaint. This has gone to far. Fine, the DS alert should have been given, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Gimiv should be warned, not just of D/S matters but also on WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. However unless they continue, I don't believe action is required at this point. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is just a tag-team account for CutePeach, provides no content. ValarianB (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: If this proposal acts as a sufficient ‘shot across the bows’, perhaps the sanction itself won’t be necessary. I’ll see what happens before !voting. Brunton (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what Jéské Couriano, Starship.paint and ActivelyDisinterested are saying. WP:CIVIL is a basic conduct policy and a user does not require D/S alert to abide by it. Gimiv has been warned over incivility since October 2021 and had a DS alert (about BLP) in November 2021. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

They also had already been given a COVID DS warning back in May 2021 ([81]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Alerts are only good for a year. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be clear I would like to see Gimiv formally warned about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, in one last chance situation. Ignore the D/S part I misread a different comment. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The user has quite the harsh introduction to Wikipedia, having been previously blocked after false accusations of being a sock last year. And, once again, there's been weak behavioral evidence and no technical evidence of socking here—I'm almost certain that this isn't just a tag-team account for CutePeach as one editor said above. What the user could use is a formal warning and a mentor who can offer tough love with the goal of making them a productive editor, but the block comes off as being intended to punish rather than being narrowly tailored to prevent future disruption. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hence my favouring alerting to the same DS regimes that CutePeach is disrupting (COVID, AP2, EE). It'll give him a chance to demonstrate he can be less of a time sink and demonstrate good judgment about what hills are worth dying on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It appears Gimiv has already received most of the relevant D/S alerts, and the PAs and battleground behavior do not need prior alerts for sanctioning. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MHawk10. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 week block, support a COVID TBAN, a formal warning, and/or a swift future AE filing for any future disruption, without much kvetching. I feel situations like this are best handled by technical postings at AE, whereas ANI is very very forgiving. I think this user could use an overall warning, showing them this behavior is not tolerated. if they continue, I would recommend AE, as a TBAN is likely to be very productive of preventing disruption as opposed to punitive. They would still be able to contribute to less controversial areas of this site. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an administrator noticeboard to report incidents, so it was entirely appropriate for Gimiv to report Colin's uncivil remarks. CP never promoted any conspiracy theories, and claiming that she did is gaslighting, plain and simple. Administrators should look into Gimiv's report and take the appropriate action. Francesco espo (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2022 (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.

Appeal

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.

---

@Tamzin: please can you withdraw the TBAN here and give me a day or two to defend myself with rebuttals to the diffs submitted by Bakkster Man above? I was recently in contact with Barkeep49 of the arbitration committee about my COVID-19 origins TBAN that was placed on me at WP:AE, where a list of diffs similar to the one above was thrown up, and administrators passed judgement without even reading if they were as claimed, and hear what I had to say in my own defense. Barkeep49 admitted in the off wiki email that administrators do sometimes miss reading diffs at WP:ANI and WP:AE, but that WP:ARBCOM would read them much more carefully if/when put to them. Bakkster Man, who first brought the WP:AE case against me and who I have long suspected as a WP:MEAT puppet of a certain other editor active in the topic area based on evidence [82], was likely preempting the ARBCOM case I said I would request to reign in MEDRS abuse [83]. Alexbrn is now trying to get me site banned before I get to make the request.

Look at BM's diff #4. There they claim I was continuing to argue, when in fact I was clarifying that there are MEDRS in teh form of review articles about the hearing loss and tinnitus side effects, and that they were also listed by a MEDORG as a side effect of the JNJ vaccine. That was in response to WAID advising against adding tinnitus to the COVID-19 vaccine article without review articles as sources [84]. Besides for the hearing loss and tinnitus, which are related, the entire list of side effects in the COVID-19 vaccine side effects I created was imported from the Vaccine article. If this was continuation to argue as BM alleges, then can you say what is wrong with that and would you have cited that diff in your decision? While it was welcomed by some, to others it may look like your decision was rushed.

Almost all the editors here, including AndyTheGrump, Aman.kumar.goel, RandomCanadian, Novem Linguae and even administrator Doug Weller were involved in some kind of dispute with me in the not so recent past [85]. Their participation here can be considered WP:HOUNDING and is highly inappropriate. CutePeach (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• This shows a spectacularly tone deaf failure to understand the issues that have been discussed, instead switching round to WP:NOTTHEM. Frankly I think the topic ban was actully quite lenient, because you have been a massive time sink on this topic. I am unsurprised that a site ban has been suggested above. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Presumably CutePeach will argue that the tone-deafness is a side-effect of the vaccine. EEng 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• What Black Kite says. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• @CutePeach: This does not address the reasons for which I imposed the ban, namely that you are editing disruptively in an area you had already been sanctioned in, and if anything adds evidence to that assessment: Almost all the editors here, including AndyTheGrump, Aman.kumar.goel, RandomCanadian, Novem Linguae and even administrator Doug Weller were involved in some kind of dispute with me in the not so recent past. There's a reason I alluded to the old joke about the person who says everyone else is driving the wrong way.
  Now, regarding the pings I got at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not, I think it's acceptable for you to continue discussing that essay as long as your comments don't pertain to COVID-19, broadly construed. Note that "acceptable" does not mean "advisable". As I said on your talk page, I would strongly recommend taking this TBAN as an opportunity to move away from controversial topics.
  On a procedural note, AN/I doesn't have jurisdiction to overturn a DS sanction. Rather, WP:AE, WP:AN, and WP:ARCA do. As such, I will take this as having been an appeal to me individually, and will decline that appeal. I would suggest someone close this subsection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (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 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, factual error through word play by User: The paradox guy

@The paradox guy: has introduced factual errors using reliable source, foreign affairs, [86] after editing warring [87], [88] and warnings given about factual errors [89], over the language used (forcibly, illegaly), not mentioned in sources visavie change of administration. Both foreign affairs, Al Jazeera do give some background information about the disputed territory, and both say it was annexed/taken from Amhara by the TPLF. So the changes in the lead made by The paradox guy does not correspond with the sources provided, and his arguments on Talk:Western Zone, Tigray is pulled from context (administration take over by Amhara officials vs use of the forcibly/forced in the prism of alleged abuses against civilians).

In short he is misusing, inserting factual errors, pulling context from sources in order to push the view in the lead of article that the change/take over of administration by Amhara officials was forced and illegal even though the sources doesn't say that. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

according to OXFORD public international law annexation means "the forcible acquisition of territory by one State at the expense of another State." You are not intitled to your own facts. The fact is out there for all to see. The area was forcibly taken.

STOP removing sources. I have added a report from HRW to show the forceful removal of the administration and the inhibtatants. The paradox guy (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone also revert this guy, until he can provide reliable sources for the changes he wants to make, that doesn't involve pulling context from the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Guatemalan and Honduran Canadians…

I am writing in response to a proposed deletion of the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian pages here on Wikipedia. I have tried to remain civil but the editor of the proposed deletion Slywriter has been making these thinly veiled attacks on the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian communities, claiming that both of those communities don’t have and encyclopedic value in his own words. I have the snapshots to prove my case. He not only suggested removing the Guatemalan and Honduran Canadian pages but just about every page associated with the Latin American Canadian pages have been slated for deletion according to him and when I saw that post, I immediately blamed him for being prejudiced. It’s one thing to remove a page for lack of merit but to remove an entire group from a country sounds like bigotry to me. I can’t remain “collaborative” with people like that and I believe going to an administrator would solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiladelphiaWanderer34 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Without even addressing whether ANI is the proper venue for this, considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guatemalan Canadians is an open discussion, you say "I have tried to remain civil" but also "when I saw that post, I immediately blamed him for being prejudiced"... which is it? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Consider me notified. I do not dispute the edit summary, which is not directed at any group, it is directed at articles whose single source is the Canadian Statistics/Census, which as a result appear to fail WP:GNG in compliance with WP:NOTDATABASE and so brought to the community through WP:AfD, also known as literary genocide.Slywriter (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, an administrator can solve this problem ... by at the least delivering a stiff warning to the OP about his unwarranted personal attacks. For my part, I have very little use for an editor with a bare handful of mainspace edits loudly proclaiming the terms on which they presume to be "collaborative" with the rest of us, especially one so willing to haul out the racism card for edits which they dislike. Ravenswing 07:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Could OP's comment here about all this "getting sent to Ottawa" be considered a WP:NLT violation? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing, having just now looked at the user talk page ... Ravenswing 07:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

From the context, they seem to be talking about informing the relevant countries’ embassies, rather than the Canadian legal authorities. Brunton (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I read it as a rather unconvincing attempt at a WP:MEAT threat: I’m pretty sure the Latin American community will most definitely care and hopefully force Wikipedia to keep those pages open. DeCausa (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that anyone who was so concerned about hurting peoples feelings would write Puerto Rican Canadian, not Puerto rican canadian. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

An administrator can indeed solve PhiladelphiaWanderer34's problem. PhiladelphiaWanderer34, you are warned for unwarranted personal attacks and retaliatory behavior, and any further conduct along these lines will result in sanctions against you. You may not accuse other editors of racism for doing things you disagree with, and bringing a meritless claim of this kind to ANI is a remarkably bad idea. You've provided no diffs or other support for your accusations. Deletion discussions are a normal process of the encyclopedia, and your conclusion that Slywriter is motivated by racism is out of bounds. I see no indication of any such conduct on the part of Slywriter.. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Help needed to create Wikidata item for talk inline redirect

I'm developing a script that does many things, including posting comments and new threads (like this one). Guarapiranga requested an option to select/highlight text and have that text inserted as a quote. Sounded neat, so I'm busy with this, but we don't typically use {{Talk quote inline}}, we use its redirect {{tq}}. To obtain the name of the template (the script isn't meant to work on just enwiki), it needs to have a Wikidata item, so I created one for the redirect. But creating a sitelink on Wikidata for a redirect has unfortunately been made "intentionally difficult". Here's what needs to happen, not for the faint of heart or those with a flaky internet connection: first, ensure you're logged in on Wikidata and open d:Q112199474 in a new window or tab. Remove the redirect from Template:Tq (this would be immensely destructive if it weren't for the next steps), add Template:tq as a sitelink on d:Q112199474 and immediately revert/rollback yourself on Template:Tq to restore the redirect. Again, do not attempt with flaky internet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

_{Or an old flaky brain. Much respect & best of fortune with your endeavors, highly intelligent person! Faint heartedly, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)}

User:Tribe of Tiger, thank you for the kind words. :-) For my request, I realized that the contents of {{tq}} could be temporarily replaced with {{subst:Talk quote inline}} to add the Wikidata sitelink. That way, even if somehow you're unable to revert your edit to {{tq}} there won't be any noticeable disruption. Also, technically a template editor could fulfill this request. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cherrypicking absurd non-RS added because it fits POV

I have now reverted Dortana twice for using a cherrypicked reference at Êzîdxan[90]. This reference is by a Rakesh Anand, a self-proclaimed "trained Actor and screenplay writer from Hollywood" and has no expertise on Yazidis whatsoever, however Anand is added as a reference by Dortana as it fits their narrative. The editor moreover subtly removes the word "Kurdistan" from the introduction albeit being referenced in the subsequent Usman reference (oddest part is that Dortana was the one adding the Usman reference so I merely extracted more info from the reference). I am then asked to explain my reverts in the talkpage, which is just absurd as I have concisely expressed what my issue was in the edit summary. I genuinely don't know what I can express in the talkpage that won't be repetitive. Dortana has been disruptive for a while now and a sockpuppet investigation is also underway here, but until then, can someone please take action on this local issue? The whole article is a POV-fork of Kurdistan as the work Êzîdxan is merely a synonym of Kurdistan (as was also referenced before Dortana removed it for POV reasons) --Semsûrî (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dortana has a history of POVforking on Wikipedia including this[91][92] and Êzîdxan is just another one. A assuming good faith is a bit difficult at this point. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Srianu1's actions on Ayya Vaikundar

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:Srianu1 has repeatedly removing a WP:NEUTRAL version of the Ayya Vaikundar (founder of Ayyavazhi) article [93] based on neutral references and insists only on relying on Ayyavazhi scriptures. [94] [95] ("Removed fake information and reinstated it to original as per Akilathirattu ammani") ("Unsourced and fake contents were removed. To bring neutality contents added as per Akilathirattu ammani"). Wrt Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Vaikundar and User_talk:Redtigerxyz#Vaikundar, two "Cyber defamation complaints with ref Acknowledgement Number : 21602200009493, and 21605200023615 was already raised, based on which unsourced contents were removed". I perceive the defamation complaints as WP:LEGAL threats. The user is WP:POV pushing about the founder of the religious movement based on scriptures and not focusing on the historical individual behind the movement. Sai Baba of Shirdi is a similar article, which speaks about the historical persona and also notes the attributed miracles and his status as a revered goldly figure. Request Admin intervention on article and user conduct. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at Talk:Ayya Vaikundar, it is obvious that User:Srianu1 has a conflict of interest. I have placed a warning on his/her talk page; please let me know if there are any further incidents of edit warring. I'm prepared to block this user. Deb (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2022 (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 User:boundarylayer

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.

---

A lot going on, so highlighting the most clear diffs only. User:Boundarylayer has been editing disruptive on Michael Shellenberger, The Limits to Growth, and various articles about the costs of renewables. The most disruptive are the BLP violations, which should be sanctionable on their own:

• [96] described a small group of scientist "voluntary contraction" in quality of life, "degrowth", misanthropic Club of Rome advocate-environmentalists (bolding mine), a violation of WP:BLP. The edit summary also contains the phrase of these scholars being "closer to Hitler" than to mainstream environmentalist
• [97] accusing a similar identified group of child-grooming in an edit summary

Calls editors that revert their edits vandals (f.i. [98], [99], [100]) There is further discussion of gross misrepresentation of sources (a large set of diffs [101]), that others may want to expand on. Femke (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins please don't close too fast. W/in 72 hrs I will add a request for indeffing this user. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please close after all.... Admin Cullen (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) has indeffed BL [102] and BL's UTRS appeal was closed [103], so I will suspend work on my draft request for indef and ask someone to please close this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I'm after opening up a request for comment, in which both of the above editors are involved in. So just to give admins that background on why these admin proceedings clearly have begun. A conflict of interest, that they haven't been forthcoming with here.

Secondly those are quotes by the group, this is what they advocate "voluntary contraction", "degrowth" and to follow the "club of rome". Their advocacy quotes. With anyone anyway familar, with the club of rome, are aware that reliable sources state emphatically that it is a "misanthropic" and "malthusian" organization, amongst other things. Any mere look at the reliable secondary sources on Club of Rome will see. The word is there. A very much WP:COMMON supported description. Therefore not BLP. As much as saying people who advocate for PRC china policies are authoritarian. That wouldn't be controversial. Would it? For the exact same reason. On the matter of targetting children grooming similarly, with that also being in a reference to the club of rome. A look at the article again, Club of Rome has references to support that, targetting children, is one of their many activities. Social Scientists and an aerospace engineer have wrote this. Reliable sources.

With on that point, Beeson writing that the club of rome is an example of "Ecoauthoritarianism". So would you rather, I had said "closer to chairman Mao"?

So again, a common supported, by reliable references description. Not the least bit controversial, what is, by contrast controversial is promoting their views and censoring these reliable references on a WP:FRINGE group, from multiple articles including the blanking vandalism of articles Limits to Growth, which has just went through a massive case of vandalised, thorough removal, of WP:ITA relevant, notable material.

One of the above editors USER:NewsAndEventsGuy, that has similarly been engaged in WP:STALKING for a number of years, was who I recently cautioned was engaging in this Vandalism, as discussed on Talk:Limits to Growth, that was the first time doing that, cautioning, after years of their stalking, for they clearly are, making this project very uncomfortable and other editors finding too their disruptive activities in the archive of Talk:Nuclear power 3 years ago, yes that's how long this has been going on "our relationship" he calls it and what I think is going on, is they are not liking this tagging him recently as engaged in vandalism and knowing what was coming next, in an effort to silence me, before that gets brought here...and more. Such as the explosive contents, of the request for comment, I recently opened. On massed slavery. A topic that is similarly being blanked from the entire project by the above, commencers of these proceedings. WP:BOOMERANG.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So let me quote just one example of the kind of conspiracy theory nonsense you believe belongs in Wikipedia. You wrote this at Club of Rome, entirely uncited. I deleted it and you have just reinstated it so clearly you believe it not only to be true but also important: With the persistence in the genocidal lens remaining a feature, in Anglican pseudo-scholastic instruction and therefore later government right through to the 20th century, until being tempered somewhat, in some circles, by the discovery of solar photovoltaics, nuclear energy and advances in nitrogen fixation agriculture, that effectively turns air into protein, discoveries which all largely occurred outside the control and domain of the predominately Anglican empire. That pretty much speaks for itself. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but in what language is it speaking? Martian? EEng 02:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the Planet Earth name for that language is "LaRouchian". The comment is a weird hybrid of gibberish and nonsense. The editor's writing style is bizarre and tendentious. I have indefinitely blocked them for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In all fairness, Boundarylayer is correct in many of his points. His "genocidal Anglican" edit was not "uncited editorialising" as claimed, it was supported by the Zubrin source. And Zubrin's claims are not without foundation in reality. The influence of Anglican "priests" like Malthus & Townsend , did indeed lead to at least hundreds of thousands (arguably tens of millions) of unnecessary deaths. Even a patriotic, traditional, jubilant, "Im English till I die" chanting Anglican like myself has to admit that. The influence of tarts like Townsend & Malthus on the response to the great famine is probably of especial resonance to an Irish editor like Boundarylayer. And it's not unreasonable to see Malthus as an important antecedent to Club of Rome. Boundary is correct that among economists, the CoR theses was largely seen as fringe or at least a minority view, though this has begun to change this last few years. Not saying Cullen's block was unwarranted, you can be largely right and still be disruptive. But I'd suggest reducing to just a 6 month block would be more reasonable, and give Boundary time to reflect on a more AGF attitudes towards editors who don't share his views. (Just to clarify I agree with CoR myself - but I'm of the opinion it remains NPOV to include strong criticism against it, even if not quite as prominently as boundary wanted.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I came back to say that I was wrong to declare it uncited. Boundarylayer says that the source is Robert Zubrin and the citation is given at the end of the paragraph, which is a valid citation style. But that doesn't change the fact that it is incoherent word-soup, conveys no useful information whatever, and given in Wikispeak not as a quotation. That Bl considered it worthy of inclusion perhaps explains why it is so difficult to work towards consensus with them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Just a footnote since BL is presently indeffed....... this isn't a problem with BL's content, but about BL's militant inability to do BRD. Your comment presents a typical example. BL's first attempt to add "genocidal" and "Anglican" relied on a single source which contains neither the character string "genocid" nor "Anglic" so I reverted [[104]. BL restored it with a WP:NPA violation "undid WP:VANDALISM blanking"[105] and only then added the second source, the book by Zubrin [106] which BL says [107],[108] is the actual basis for his desired change. I haven't seen the book, but the quality of referencing isn't the problem. As you say, an ed can be right and still be disruptive.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this threat. I've only encountered the disruptive edits of this user yesterday and wrote about it here on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change (which the user then promptly called a "knitting club" (kind?) and "special interest group" (is every WikiProject a special interest group?)). Looking over that user's history, interactions and the debates on other articles' talk pages I see a clear pattern of waffle type language, pushing the same point(s) over and over and non-collaborative editing behaviour. This kind of user just wastes our time. The person received ample warnings about their behaviour so it's sad that they don't seem to be willing to take this on board. EMsmile (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and beyond whether or not BL is partly correct in discussions of Malthus, going back to Femke’s original diffs, comparing Richard Norgaard to Hitler and calling any and all Degrowth scholars “child groomers” is too far. I think that BL is most likely using similar language to Zubrin and Shellenberger wherein they charge that environmentalists are “enemies of humanity”. I won’t wade into why they’re both wrong and operating in bad faith here, but I will say that BL was going much too far with that language on BLP pages, many times after they were warned and told to stop. —Hobomok (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2022 (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 deletion

Sf123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly deleted Monique Samuels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without an adequate explanation. After I specified why their reasoning was flawed, they continued. After I directed them to AFD, they continued. I also made a point about other articles for which their rationale could be true, to which they responded with a subjective explanation (that is not supported by those articles' sources). KyleJoan^talk 07:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

They're redirecting it to another article, rather than deleting it. I've advised them to take it to AfD, and that they may be blocked if they continue trying to force through their redirect. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you, Girth Summit! KyleJoan^talk 16:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Note: You might want to add these two (diff and diff) to their list of disruptive edits. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with MagicAllium - possible BKFIP user

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.

---

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

Early today going through my Watchlist I found that user MagicAllium had removed cited information from the Navan page on the grounds of it being 'really lame trivia.' See [109] and [110]. Seeing this I reverted it and explained that 'Lameness' not a criteria used to determine information on the site.[111]

I later saw after this event on my watchpage there was further disruptive editing by MagicAllium reverting my own edit on Navan as well as removing sections from The String of Pearls and Varney the Vampire. Seeing that the reason for the Navan revert cited a Wiki policy I checked it and didn't see any of the four reasons listed as relevant to its removal.[112] As a result I reverted it again citing that lameness is not a reason to remove content. On the String of Pearls page the reason given for deleting a section of the page was it being 'extremely badly written.' [113] On the Varney page the reason offered was 'removed some trivia,' the trivia in question is related to pop culture with the two most recent examples being removed but not those preceding it.[114] (I would like to not that in addition to this they did improve the grammar on the Varney page, these edits were not reverted or changed by myself and the section edited was identical to the deleted one on the String of Pearls.) I will admit that MagicAllium also created a section on my talk page called 'Grammar' that I for the moment ignored, instead following wiki guidelines I added a level 1 disruptive editing notice to their page.

Later I saw that my reverts where reverted again and that my notice on their talk page had been deleted.[115] Seeing this I again reverted the pages and this time decided to give a level 3 warning instead of a level 2 as I felt that the deleting the level 1 warning as an act of trying to hide it. This was also deleted [116] and my edits reverted again, they also added a note to my talk page that read 'Have you understood what I wrote above?' Like last time I reverted the edits, except for Navan as that would have been in violation of the 3R's, and added a level 4 warning to their talk page. As well as this I added a response to their created section on my talk page and explained that they were free to edit grammar on the site as needed but deleting a section entirely because of that is considered disruptive, as is removing cited content based on 'lameness.' [117]

The level 4 warning was deleted[118] the String of Pearls page reverted again [119] and another user, DonQuixote, kindly @'d me on the Varney page about the issue where I explained the situation. We discussed the issue in the 'Trivia is trivia' section of its talk page and helped improve the section overall. MagicAllium continued our conversation on the issue where I pointed out that the discussion on the Varney page ended up concluding that some of the trivia they were deleting was the best of that section and that their fixing of grammar on that page is appropriate and was not reverted unlike deleting entire sections for grammar on The String of Pearls. I offered them to go and fix these issues but they did not do so and ignored my points, this conversation can be read on my talk page here. [120]

From my understanding of site rules the next step to resolve the issue is to turn here. It seems to me that MagicAllium is quite dedicated to helping improve the site but my own efforts to make clear that there deleting of content is not appropriate and is considered disruptive has failed. I am hoping that this thread may help resolve the issue. I will admit that I am unfamiliar with this format so if any of the links do not work please let me know and I will go fix it at my earliest opportunity. Thank you for your time reading this.

Dubarr18 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to update in order to say that as per guidelines MagicAllium was given a notice of this posting on their talk page. They have since deleted it.[121] Dubarr18 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think in the Navan case MagicAllium is correct. You linked to part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you look at the start of the section, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content it says:

"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive."

So just because it isn't listed as one of the four examples does not mean that it being a palindrome is useful to the reader. There is, in my opinion, too much trivia on Wikipedia. Others may disagree. But they are wrong. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any issues with the content of any of MagicAllium's, maybe the edit summaries could be better and they shouldn't edit war to maintain their edits. However the edit content is fine. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I too agree that the banal factoid that "Navan" is a palindrome is not worth mentioning in that article. I oppose adding almost all trivia to the encyclopedia because it is . . . trivial. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail @CambridgeBayWeather I am 99% sure that MagicAllium is the latest incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Focus on grammatical errors, edit warring and incivility, accusations of incompetence aimed at other editors, the same edit summaries as always (compare to, e.g. [122] or [123]), quoting policy at people 9 edits in, and how many genuine newbies are able to explain policy like this [124] 15 edits and 2 days after joining? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have had the thought that they are too experienced to be a new editor and are likely someone else we've seen before, however I have had nothing to compare to to make that judgement. I'll leave it to admins who are familiar with that editor. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed since we seem to be in agreement that they're probably not new let's see if a checkuser can shed any light on the situation. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope no-one will give any credence to this shit-stirring IP. To be accused of some kind of sock-puppetry by an obviously logged-out user is absurd. MagicAllium (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well after that comment I certainly give it more credence. And an IP isn't obviously a logged out user, we have plenty of legitimate and rule abiding long term editors who use IPs instead of accounts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 3 June 2022 (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.

More disruptive editing on The Open Championship from a SPA

User:Hamishcm has continued in the footsteps of the still-blocked anon 31.121.4.10, editing The Open Championship to remove references to the phrase "British Open" despite longstanding consensus. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be now discussing this on the article talk page though confusingly doing so in the middle of an unrelated requested move discussion. Let’s see how it plays out. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They've now returned to the disruptive editing, twice now in the last hour and a half. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile 31.121.4.10 is back, and its first action was to add language to U.S. Open (golf) that says that tournament is known as the North American Open – an incorrect claim that reeks of WP:POINT. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• As they continued edit-warring after a warning, I've pblocked them from the page from one week, and have also given a DS alert for The Troubles in light of their "United Kingdom and Northern Ireland" edits. If they don't drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality quickly, I see this becoming an indef siteblock instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Forty minutes after Hamishcm was blocked, 31.121.4.10 made another disruptive edit to The Open Championship. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out. While the two clearly share a POV, I'm not convinced they're the same person. The POV edits they've made have differed somewhat in form, and their tone in discussions is different. So I've hard-pblocked the IP from the page for another month, and warned them that any further POINTy edits will lead to a siteblock; feel free to ping me if that does transpire. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, this has been a consistent enough problem on this article for years that it wouldn't be too surprising for multiple people to be doing it. The timing is suspicious though. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Open Championship is a little over a month away now, so maybe that's it? IDK. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 07:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Race and intelligence and the fringe noticeboard

2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is a range used by a long term abuser on race and intelligence topics. Based on recent postings at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, they need an addition to their list of page blocks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive is relevant. MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article currently under discussion at FTN is dysgenics, not race and intelligence. The relation between race and intelligence is not mentioned anywhere in that article, nor is it mentioned in any of the sources that the 203.186.250.135 tried to add there recently. 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the same old garbage from the white supremacist science crew in a very slightly different wrapper. And, of course, an opportunity to take a whack at an old opponent. MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The relationship between genetics and educational attainment may not literally be "race" and "intelligence," but come on. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I in fact topic banned from all human intelligence topics, including those that don't relate to race? That's a much, much broader topic area than just the relation between race and intelligence. If that's the case, that hasn't been communicated to me before. 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You were topic banned from race and intelligence broadly construed [125]. It seems clear that a discussion which includes stuff like

Since the nineteenth century, a “race deterioration” has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the “test intelligence” has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013) is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the “phenotypic intelligence” has increased for environmental reasons, while the “genotypic quality” secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory.

would be covered by such a topic ban. If you can't partake in discussions concerning key parts of the article and sources, it's unlikely you can safely edit the article. If you weren't aware that a broadly construed topic ban would cover such things, that's on you. No one should need to tell you, as always it's your responsibility to learn what is covered and if you're unsure, to seek clarification 'before getting involved. There are areas of human intelligence you can safely edit but anything which comes close to race is clearly not one of them. BTW I saw in one of the previous discussions I suggested perhaps a site ban wasn't necessary since you didn't seem to have any other interests anyway. While the latter may be true perhaps my conclusion was faulty. If you're going to test the edges of the topic ban, the the normal solution is a site ban. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few people seem, for some reason, to have difficulty understanding "broadly construed". I'm not sure what the general solution to that is, but in this case how about broadening the topic ban to anything concerned with genetics or inheritance? That would seem to cover the intent of the 2020 ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair once said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I think it is unlikely there is a general solution. - MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Genetics, intelligence, and race would cover it well I think. I can provide diffs if needed. I know a lot of admins and editors are already familiar with the history of disruption in these areas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would phrase it as genetics, intelligence, or race to avoid any possible suggestion of confusion that it covers only the intersection of those things. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been like *checks watch* almost three years of this? Why haven't we blocked this entire range yet? Is there some body of good contribs we're trying to save? Levivich 13:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: I know you said at the Dec SPI that you'd keep an eye on this /40, and I'm wondering what you think six months later? I can see the non-related positive contribs on the range; have you happened to look into the possibility of narrowing the range to reduce collateral damage (I have not)? Levivich 15:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I just looked and I'm not very good at this range stuff, but obvi the /64 is safe tho it won't be terribly effective, and it looks like the /48 has unrelated good edits on it (and doesn't seem to be catching any bad ones beyond what's in the /64). Levivich 15:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

WHOIS says the range in question is the /44, not the /40, not that that changes the collateral damage all that much, and I don't see any good options to narrow it down while still being effective. If you all trust the person behind the keyboard to abide by a broader TBAN, by all means try that. Otherwise, if this is going to turn into a long-term case of nibbling around the edges of whatever TBAN is imposed, I say just block the range and live with the collateral. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this user has a documented history of bright-line TBAN violations, in addition to the more recent nibbling around the edges. See this and this past ANI discussions for details. I’d hate to see good faith IP editors blocked collaterally but I have no confidence at all that the LTA will suddenly begin respecting the terms of their ban. Generalrelative (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems we have general agreement. Levivich 15:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Rhiabethmas

Rhiabethmas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making unusual content forks of UK radio station pages, conducting other vandalism, and even slapped an insult on me. Has received two 4im warnings in the last 30 days but no block has followed. Took this to AIV and was told it belonged at ANI.

Examples of their work:

• Moved Dream 100 FM to Greatest Hits Radio Essex without explanation, in contravention of a 2020 RM/RfC on this and other similar stations, and made it an odd fork of Greatest Hits Radio East.
• Other UK content forks have been deleted. In one case, I got a message from an IP about a CSD I made (see below)
• Created redirects including Rebeib nutsuj (CSD R3)
• Vandalized Liam Butcher, reverted here
• Vandalized Capital Cymru including a page move to claim it had been moved to the Heart radio network, see this diff of cleanup

This may also be an SPI case, as I suspect by their edits Special:Contributions/147.148.185.186 and especially Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:4307:3400:A913:F9CD:D921:D995 who told me to "stop ruining my life" on Rhiabethmas's talk page when all I did was send one of their content forks to CSD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add to Sammi Brie's report above that yesterday I declined a speedy (A1 and A7) on a page Rhiabethmas created - Hexham Radio. I moved it to draft as it was not suitable for mainspace. I left a talk page message explaining what needed to change for it to return to mainspace. They have moved it back to mainspace with no changes except for removing the cleanup tags and changing some capitalization. Note their edit summary in that move diff - it seems to be the same whenever they move a page. They also don't seem to use talk pages. I wonder if a competence block is in order? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support this. Clearly, Rhia does not know quite what they are doing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Textbook WP:IDHT. casualdejekyll 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:CIR concerns Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware of this thread when I CSD'ed Hexham radio again. It was deleted this time. Other than that, I have had no interaction with this user but note that a relatively large percentage of their edit have been reverted. There definitely are concerns here. MB 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• A third 4im was just put on their page by User:HughPugh2. Can we please get a block? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have implemented a partial block to stop them from editing mainspace, and encourage them to come here and engage with this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Their failure to even venture toward this ANI discussion is not encouraging. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn They stopped editing but they haven't visited ANI yet after 48+ hours. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  If they resume editing without visiting ANI, let me know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by 213.172.93.89

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

Right off the get-go, this new IP has been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour.

It is especially ridiculous how a (pro-)Iranian user, teaches us democracy here

Attempted twice to remove around 2k information by high-quality academic sources. These were his reasons; Added the file of the Royal Geographical Society. Erased inaccurate and misleading information. - The false statement is erased. Historical documents should be more respected than some Wikipedia users's opinion. Instead he has attempted to add a primary source from 1864 and even included his own commentary along with it (can be seen in the bottom [126]). These type of IPs appear every now and then, and have never shown any sign that they are here here to build an encyclopedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to have calmed down a bit so I am loath to block right now. Also, NOTHERE is probably not the best term to use for an IP editor. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jackedano's unsourced additions

User:Jackedano has been on Wikipedia for 9 years and should be well-versed with Wikipedia's guidelines revolving around sourcing and verifiability. However, they have continued to make numerous unsourced additions past my four warnings and show no sign of remorse, stopping and improving their editing patterns. – DarkGlow • 15:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide Diffs of these unsourced additions to allow others to evaluate your claims.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are some: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all of which concern WP:BLPs. – DarkGlow • 23:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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.

---

• DudleyPuppyWasAPlainOldMutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DudleyPuppyLikes2ChewHisButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8080:eb00:7a7b:b85b:13f3:4b38:58d2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above are all appear to be the same person. I have not reported yet for sock investigation, but pending the outcome here, I think that's also prudent.

The user refuses to follow MoS standards and as evidenced by their constant reversion of every edit by any other user, they have no interest in working collaboratively. Their behavior indicates WP:NOTHERE and DudleyPuppyWasAPlainOldMutt is now engaged in an edit war on Hamster and Gretel.

I tried to explain to them how they were using the infobox parameters incorrectly, specifically, using the first_run parameter as a date (it's supposed to be a country) [127]. The response I got was "it doesn't matter". [128] (That date issue is moot at this point because in the ensuing hours, first_run was made obsolete in Template:Infobox television anyway)

Some of their edits are simply nonsense:

• [129]
• [130]

Others are now just obvious vandalism:

• [131]
• [132]

ButlerBlog (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2022 (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 removal of Talk page comments

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.

---

Can someone please remind Dmc213‎ that it's inappropriate to delete others' comments from Talk pages? They have repeatedly deleted my comments in Talk:Doctor of Education. I left them a friendly note on their User Talk page advising them that isn't acceptable but they deleted that message and have continued to delete my comments in the article's Talk page. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The user's comments disparaged me publicly and did not follow standards for appropriate dispute resolution. That is not an appropriate means of resolving conflicts. ThI have done the following in an attempt to resolve this conflict:

1. Contacted the user offline to inform him of my concerns.

2. Acquiesced to the user's comments concerning Dr. Cosby's inclusion in the Notable person's list. Dmc213 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are going to have to explain yourself a bit better, Dmc213, because I see nothing in what ElKevbo has written that warrants you deleting it. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been reposted, and instead, I have simply replied in a comment. Further, I commit to not deleting it. Is that an acceptable resolution? I do not want an extended conflict over this, and apologize to the user for deleting his comment on the article's talk page. Dmc213 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I appreciate the apology and I'm okay if someone wants to close this discussion at this point. ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2022 (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.

Possible bot assisted indiscriminate addition of a template by an IP

See [Special:Contributions/1.126.105.119]. @Largoplazo and Botterweg14: who have tried to stop them. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I just blocked them. Too indiscriminate with some pretty odd ones at times. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing their edits, finding what might be only an occasional glitch amid constructive edits, is likely be a nuisance. Their intent is clearly productive, carried out in connection with a discussion at Template talk:Infobox language#Add Language Endangerment Status, and, as far as I know, many or most of the edits are fine. But then you get something like this, where a caption reading "Big Bird" shows up under the map near the bottom of the infobox at Faliscan language. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo many of these placed the UNESCO template incorrectly as the language is not in the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Endangered Languages.[133] User:Demetrios1993 has done a sterling job of fixing them.[134] It looks like he didn't have time to finish however as I can see others that aren't in the Atlas. I think it would be safer to roll them all back rather than have articles that aren't in the Atlas shown as in it. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on this, and thank you for taking care of it! Botterweg14 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Indeed, i was planning to check all of the relevant contributions, but i had an appointment and couldn't finish. I just checked the rest of them. By the way, in the "Introduction" of the Atlas' third edition – that you shared above – the editor-in-chief Christopher Moseley elaborated that the degree of "extinct" used pertains to linguistic varieties from within the past couple of generations. Specifically, on page 11 we read:

The terminology of the degrees of endangerment has changed slightly since the first and second editions of this Atlas. Professor Wurm had established the practice of naming the five gradations as: vulnerable languages, where decreasing numbers of children are being taught the language; endangered languages, meaning that the youngest speakers are young adults; seriously endangered languages, where the youngest speakers have already passed middle age; critically endangered languages, which have only a few elderly speakers remaining; and extinct languages, marked in the previous editions with a black cross where they were last known to be spoken. Of course, the world is littered with extinct languages, and those included here are only those that have died recently, within the past couple of generations. In practice this means: since an awareness of their plight and imminent extinction was recorded. All trace of these languages has, in some cases, been wiped out for ever.

Thus, articles describing earlier linguistic varieties – which the IP edited – are unrelated. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993 you did a brilliant job, much appreciated. And thanks for the note about the introduction of the Atlas, very interesting. Now I hope the IP doesn't come back after the block and continue. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The introduction also says that that languages considered "safe" are not included in the Atlas (naturally enough). Languages are being given that designation based on absence from the Atlas. Kanguole 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The fallacious premise is that non-inclusion always means "safe", rather than "safe" or "we didn't evaluate this one" or "we never even heard of this one". Largoplazo (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats by a COI 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.

---

Theoriginallawoman (talk · contribs) is disrupting Slaughter & the Dogs, adding unsourced content as the 'band's representative' and threatening legal action. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23.— Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (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:DarkShineMan

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.

---

DarkShineMan (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced content to and about BLPs. They have been warned multiple times by multiple users for this, and I recently blocked them, but they have returned to make the exact same edits. Please can somebody review? GiantSnowman 12:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DarkShineMan. Any administrator is free to unblock if the editor agrees to provide references to reliable sources verifying their content changes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you! GiantSnowman 06:21, 6 June 2022 (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:Perneric sockpuppetry

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:Perneric is a sockpuppet of User:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Artist (previous investigations) as can be seen from creating Draft:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Director. Perneric also edits across multiple projects spanning Wikidata, Simple English, and Commons the same as previous confirmed socks. Please indef them. 0xDeadbeef 09:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

They have also uploaded the same image on Commons by previously blocked socks (See User:Wiki_Chumabu and User:Mazzulah Peel; blocked by @Magog the Ogre). 0xDeadbeef 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (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.

202.79.51.241 - rollback needed?

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.

---

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

Hi. This IP has added tons of unsourced height articles to BLPs of Nepalese people (footballers, cricketers, actors, etc). I've dropped them a note on their talkpage about WP:RS, etc, but I believe there is an issue with IP editors using their mobiles to edit WP in seeing such a notification. In the meantime, are these edits worth rolling back en-masse? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've massrollbacked, without prejudice against any of the content being restored with proper sourcing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and just noticed the timing on this, that they'd kept going after your warning. In light of that, I've added a warning of my own. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but if they return to this behavior, feel free to ping me. Aaaand never mind, they did that while I was writing this. Sigh. Blocked one week. Let me know if you spot them on another IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 6 June 2022 (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.

Orlando IP range vandalizing rapper bios

• 2603:9001:1206:9CED:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The Orlando, Florida, IP range Special:Contributions/2603:9001:1206:9CED:0:0:0:0/64 has been vandalizing rapper bios, for instance changing dates or nationality.[135][136] Can we put a temporary stop to the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours to prevent further disruption. Oz\^InterAct 16:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Violation of NPA and not here

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.

---

75.134.90.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This [[137]] in response to this [[138]] because of this [[139]]. Also [[140]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just keeps at it: [141]. Agreed, very clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Canterbury Tail. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  They may also need talk page access revoked if their latest (now reverted) additions are anything to go by. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2022 (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.

• @Darkknight2149: Please don't close sections when there's an outstanding request for admin intervention. In this case, fortunately, Canterbury Tail did action the TPA revocation request a few minutes after you closed, but there's no guarantee that that will happen. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by editor Gamer-Giri

Can a blocking-savvy admin please take a look at the contributions by Gamer-Giri in relation to previous edits by blocked editors Kana-gyud and Believing-two? It seems to me that these may all be the same editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty clear edit-summary tell there to clinch it. Blocked indef, sans TPA in light of past abuse. Will tag all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Iphone5Sgold

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.

---

Iphone5Sgold (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced content to and about BLPs. They have been warned multiple times by multiple users for this, and they have been blocked, but they still do it. Please can somebody review? GiantSnowman 06:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

thanks to @Drmies: for reviewing. GiantSnowman 18:12, 6 June 2022 (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

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.

---

Ogom Chijindu was redirected after an AFD. 187lawyer has removed the redirect to restore the article and made related legal threats in the edit summaries. MB 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious legal threat, and obviously an empty threat, so the perpetrator should simply be blocked and ignored. I am, however, a little perturbed by the existence of this redirect. Would we have redirected a man's name to his wife's article in similar circumstances? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, protected, blocked. However I agree with Phil, the redirect is pretty weird. I would have deleted the article rather than do that. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The argument, I suppose, is built on "girlfriend" status; we typically don't list "x is dating y" in the first place, but this is all prompted by her appearance on Basketball Wives. That probably explains the supposed lawyer too: fame and fortune are at stake. I was going to put it up at RfD but I can't guess what its fate would be, since there is ample sourcing (at least from last year) of her being his partner and being on that show. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely the obvious redirect is therefore Basketball Wives, not her boyfriend? Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I was thinking the same thing about the redirect target. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This redirect is even worse than I thought. I had believed that this was redirected to her husband's article, per one of the comments in the AfD discussion, but it seems that it is just someone she is dating, or maybe not any more. Unnotable people don't announce in reliable sources when they are no longer dating someone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests they are still a couple, but that's not the point, so I have boldly redirected the article to Basketball Wives. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2022 (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: The edits by this user have not yet been revdel'd. Another legal threat at Discospinster's talk page has been removed; it is the responsibility of Discospinster to revdel this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Admins at the IRC have determined that no RD3 is necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Millie Bobby Brown

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.

---

On the talk page I just read under the heading Removal of personal life article, I was wondering if an admin should review, I found the first paragraph written by Uricdivine effectively WP:FORUMish and frankly it grossed me out reading that, some of what people wrote that made me feel sick, don't know if it needs redacting out. The other thing on her personal life, from the article history, I am not sure, but it seems like a long-term edit-war has been happening there. Govvy (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I see a healthy debate there about balancing a young person's privacy with reliable-source coverage of her private life. Some of that does get into the rather uncomfortable subject of sexualization of minors, but I don't see anyone encouraging or making light of that, nor falsely accusing others of engaging in it, which is what we'd be concerned about as an administrative matter—unless I'm overlooking something. And it doesn't violate NOTFORUM to post an explanation of why one has made an edit, even if that explanation is partly based on external factors. (This is not an endorsement nor condemnation of the removal of the section.) As to the article's content, while there have been a fair number of reverts, I don't see outright edit-warring (personally I draw the line there at "Are people making reverts that they know will be reverted in turn?", and I don't see that here). If there's content that you think should be revdelled, please post the diffs to #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect or email any available admin (like me). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope it's a healthy debate, maybe I thought I read something in the text that wasn't there. I alway think its good to have a second set of eyes look over it. Govvy (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: No, you're completely wrong, I was never posting about a content dispute, I was posting because I felt the talk page talk was over the line and felt WP:VULGAR. Govvy (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (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.

Sanction censor

• i cant no more this is censorship

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1091834748&markasread=248797480&markasreadwiki=enwiki Baratiiman (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The link above is diff referring to an edit at Portal:Current events/2022 June 6 that reverted the addition of "US and Arab states issues new sanctions on Quds Force.Jerusalem Post". A quick look at page history suggests it was a single revert and there is nothing on talk. That would not warrant a report here, see WP:DR (after trying the portal talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not accuse reverts of your content as being "censorship" without evidence. Assuming good faith is not optional on Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I do not see anything in this report requiring administrator action. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor Mathsci deleting my comment

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.

---

Mathsci on the talkpage of "Race (human categorization)" claims there's a consensus race is a social construct. This is demonstrably false, and I pointed out that the only consensus about this was among a clique of Wikipedia editors. Somewhat ironically, Mathsci keeps deleting this comment.[142] Is that fair practice, to delete comments that disagree with you? I would notify him but his talk page is locked. Liquoricia Borgia (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that 100% of your edits so far are with the goal of causing trouble in a DS area, and given that your own comments strongly suggest that this is not your first account (2nd edit is to accuse another editor of COI), I have blocked your account indefinitely. If you can show improvements you'd like to make unrelated to race and intelligence, and no one comes along and finds a sockmaster to tie you back to in the meantime, I am open to downgrading to "just" a TBAN from that topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq already deleted these edits. My user talk page has been protected for many years by arbitrators because of prolonged Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev. The statements by this user are incorrect and as I have made no statements to that effect. It would be a waste of time for checkusers like TamsinTamzin to examine recent occurrences of sockpuppetry; thanks to TamsinTamzin for indefinitely blocking this disruptive user. Motions of WP:ARBR&I address precisely why my user talk page has been semi-protected by arbitrators or former arbitrators (e.g. user:Doug Weller). WP:DFTT have been used by arbitrators in this context. Mathsci (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (refactored)(re-refactored - OMG!)

Alas, I am not Tamsin Amelia Jones, Ph.D., who last edited in 2005, when I was 9. I did spell my first name that way for a time, but learned I was the only person in the United States who knew how to pronounce it, so switched the ess to a zee (zed for the ENGVARphobic). "Tamsin" lives on as the name of my partner's cat in Stardew Valley... well and also as the first name of Dr. Jones, who as far as I know is alive and well, and may someday log back in to a surprising number of pings intended for me. I'm also not a checkuser, although I'd hesitate to put an "alas" on that one; it seems like a lot of work. What I am is willing to call a spade a spade and a disruptive SPA a disruptive SPA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed now (I had been more careful with you previously). Many thanks again for the deletion and for Johnuniq's help. Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (refactored)

You are also doing it elsewhere as well, see below. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that one of the comments you removed was posted almost an hour before you removed it, [[143]] so in answer to that edit summery, my common sense fails to see (therefore) how an edit conflict could have occurred, it took you an hour to compose a post? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I was about to point out (on their talk page, when I saw the ANI notice) that they did it here as well [[144]] nor can an edit conflict be involved as at least one of the posts they removed was added almost an hour before their removal of it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

and here [[145]], is this a deliberate attempt to get banned, if so we should accommodate them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the amended motions of discretionary sanctions for WP:ARBR&I do not permit the restoration of edits by banned editors, in this case Mikemikev. It is very rare for a racist editor to attempt to edit my user talk page, because of its semi-protection. user:Liquoricia Borgia has stated that they tried to do so.

Administrators User:Johnuniq and User:Tamzin have already dealt with the disruption by this suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev. In this context, it might be an idea to read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev, which User:Doug Weller helped update. These did indeed involve edit conflicts (simultaneous edits to content on two volumes of the Cambridge History of Science during the ANI notification for Tamzin): that was clear from the carefully passage. Comments like is this a deliberate attempt to get banned, if so we should accommodate them are in bad taste. Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (ec, refactored)

Mikemikev did not post any of the comments you removed in my two links, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also (the date stamp on)one of the posts you removed here at ANI was 04:24, your edit was at 12:05, which is not simultaneous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I wish that edit conflicts were so simple, I’m not convinced that your conclusions are correct. Maybe, bit I’ve had weird Jim so things happen with edit conflicts. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Too fast for me to follow, Doug. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

jps/SA restored the content, resulting from an (edit conflict).[146] That was kind of him. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but how many times in an hour did this happen? At least that means they need to take more care, rather than remove comments added hours earlier. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

One edit during an edit-conflict, that's all. With his background in astronomomy and its history, jps had the intelligence to sort that out. While editing I was alerted by Tamzin about the disruptive SPA with the indefinite block. Normally I cannot edit simultaneously in two venues at the same time, because of speed issues related to stroke. Mathsci (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And your removal of edits by Amanuensis Balkanicus, LaundryPizza03, SerVasi, Johnuniq, and Cullen328 here at ANI? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not deliberate and a result of an (edit conflict), as mentioned. Fram noticed that. The OP has now been labelled as a suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev (mainly because of its very rare occurrence), as has been done previously by Doug Weller, maunus and me. In the past AGK has advised people to keep their heads below the parapet. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2022 (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:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS by Gigggdy

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

I have already warned this user twice on his talk page to refrain from these type of comments. To no avail however;

Please take your biased anti-aramean propaganda to the talk page.

"How pathetic of you to consider this "attacking". I hope you get out of whatever issue you're invovled in with Arameans and quit spreading false propagandas one day. If you're going to consider this "rude" as well, I hope you know how pathetic your accusations are."

"What you're doing is spreading a dangerous propaganda" / "People like you hinder the possibilities of the oppressed christian minorities in the middle east to ever survive what they're going through because you are belittling their voices by spreading this false propaganda. This isn't an accusation, you clearly do promote this propaganda by constantly pushing *YOUR* ideas into the spotlight." / "You are the only person in the article Arameans that is editing the article out of impulsiveness that come from your "personal feelings"."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove Talk Page access for blocked user Kim_Taehyung_boo

[here] Bentogoa (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry, but I don't think this requires revocation of TPA. It's the first kinda uncivil comment they've made. I think a notice or warning should be enough. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 17:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkish language

There is also a conversation above, but this was opened by another used in order to solve a situation in which I have accused him. Now I open this conversation, in order to solve the problem. To consume, there are violations at the page, where my edits are reverted each time without a serious excuse. Please, some administrator solve me this question: why at the Russian language the unrecognized state are put different, while at the Turkish language the northern occupied part of Cyprus (aka Northern Cyprus) is out normally like a state? Please, make the page following the Russian language page... Greek Rebel (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greek Rebel: That is a content issue, not something that requires administrator attention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I think that violations are administrator issues. Anyway, where can I ask for help? Greek Rebel (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greek Rebel: Looking at the history of Turkish language, it looks like your bold changes have been reverted by other editors, and there is no consensus to make your changes at the talk page. Are you sure you want administrative action taken? —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

OP warned for edit-warring and page protection requested at RfPP. This seems to be a medium(ish)-term edit-warring issue. Involved editors should stop edit-warring and gain consensus for their changes on the talk page of the affected article, per WP:BRD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked Greek Rebel from editing Turkish language for 2 weeks. If they resume the same disruptive editing behavior after the block expires, they should be blocked for a longer duration (or indefinitely, if appropriate). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Given Greek Rebel's intransigence on his talk page, and his insistence that he is right no matter how many editors disagree with him, we'll be right back here a fortnight from now. At that time, I'll be quite down with an indef for him. He's not nasty about it, but it's plain that he just can't wrap his head around the notion of consensus. Ravenswing 17:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IP 67.161.6.243 replacing sourced information with unsourced

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

This IP is making repeated changes to the taxonomy sections of articles on mammals (and, I believe, other animals), deleting sourced information and replacing it with contradictory, unsourced claims, and in some cases changing the article text so that it directly contradicts the source cited. Other changes are simply unsourced and, on examination, prove to be spurious. There is the odd legitimate edit in there, but the IP only communicates through edit summaries and continues despite warnings on their Talk page to at least provide sources for their claims so that they can be evaluated against the existing reliably sourced, statements.

Examples of problematic edits: [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153].

I note that a different IP (2601:647:4180:6010:0:0:0:0/64) was blocked for virtually identical edits on the same pages recently, so this could also be block evasion. Anaxial (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Does appear to have stopped with the problematic edits since I posted this. Might be worth looking into the possible block evasion, though, in case this returns? Or would that be better done at SPI? Anaxial (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Indian Cricket Rocks

• Indian Cricket Rocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this user his here to build an encyclopedia. Multiple reverts on this article, with edit summaries like this and this, this summary ("the whole article is clearly antisemitic") at Israeli war crimes, along with this claim from a "new" editor. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)

I self-reverted on each exemplified article. I did not and do not mean to be disruptive. I may have got wrong of stick on some things. No more summaries like that. Indian Cricket Rocks (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed ( Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention):

• Indian Cricket Rocks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hindustani.Hulk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Depressed Desi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MasterOfMetaverse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Indian Cricket Rocks is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi, based on their editing of the orphan article Israeli war crimes (created by Depressed Desi) shared interest in South Asian cricket, and clearly not-new behavior. Hindustani.Hulk likely is as well, for the same reason. If it's anything other than "unrelated" for these two, I'm prepared to block on behavioral evidence, but CU confirmation wouldn't hurt.

Furthermore, Depressed Desi's creation of the Israeli war crimes page was in violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § ARBPIA General Sanctions; however, Buidhe's subsequent addition to it makes deletion not a straightforward matter. Buidhe, do you have thoughts on that? If you don't object, I'd be inclined to redirect to Human rights in Israel § Military and security-related activity as a logged AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The Israeli war crimes article is clearly about a notable topic so I suggest just removing any edits that don't conform to the rules. Redirecting to Human rights article is not ideal because international human rights law is a separate body of law compared to international criminal law (which includes war crimes). I edited the page because I didn't realize there were any violations. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The issue is that "any edits that don't conform to the rules" is every substantive edit to the page except for the "See also" and "Further reading" and minor tweaks you added. I don't know what's historically been done when articles are created from the ground up in violation of the ARBPIA GS, but the way I see it, I could redirect it as an {{r with possibilities}}, ECP it, and note that any EC editor can restore it if they're willing to assume responsibility for the GS-violating edits under WP:PROXYING; delete it and do the same; or you can assume responsibility for it right now; or you or any other editor reading this can stubbify it if unwilling to assume responsibility thusly. I hope that's a reasonable set of options? I welcome correction if I'm misunderstanding how to apply the GS here, but I just don't want to create a situation where an editor can evade an ArbCom ECP restriction just by finding a title that hasn't been salted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be stubbed to the first sentence, which I wrote and is based on the sources I provided. That is better than a misleading redirect. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Stubbified, XCP'd, templated, logged at WP:DSLOG/2022. As noted in my edit summary, per WP:PROXYING any extendedconfirmed editor with an independent reason to do so may restore the content I removed, provided they are willing to assume responsibility for it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• This user tried to blank some content here. They did not appreciate my warning. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  And with this, I have issued an indef block. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

They clearly aren't a new editor as their first edit was to an AFD discussion and they referred to Wikipedia's standards for articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note:, answering the checkuser request, although I'm a bit short of availability to follow this through. Indian Cricket Rocks looks like both Evlekis and Boy 2022 to me (although that's a non-definitive response as I may have other ideas), and unrelated to the others, who could probably all fit within the same SPI. I would probably link Hindustani.Hulk and MasterOfMetaverse as confirmed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hindustani.Hulk  Blocked and tagged per zzuuzz' comment and behavioral evidence. Given that Evlekis is a no-tags SPI and all involved are already blocked, not going to make any decision at this time as to whether Indian Cricket Rocks is Evlekis, Boy 2022, both, or neither, although no objection to another admin/CU/SPI clerk exploring that further if they see good reason to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't usually edit these pages. Where is the evidence that user:Hindustani.Hulk has been anti-Semetic? In my very limited dealings with them, they had the easy but unhurried intelligence of someone who knew a thing or two (see here) a far cry from the usual pseudo-Hindutva types, with only bias, but no knowledge, with Pakistani and Iranian names to boot, who have come to populate South Asia related pages. Are you sure? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: Short answer: The only one who said HH was anti-Semitic was Indian Cricket Rules, who is now blocked. I don't see any evidence of that being an accurate criticism.

  Long answer: I'm not saying that HH was anti-Semitic. I suspected that they were the same person as Depressed Desi, who I also thought Indian Cricket Rules was a sock of. ICR, to be clear, took an opposite editorial stance from DD: They argued that Israeli war crimes, created by DD sock MasterOfMetaverse, was anti-Semitic. (I don't think it was. Arguably anti-Israel, but kind of hard to write an article on Israeli war crimes and have it not seem anti-Israel.) Now, given the obscurity of the page and the shared interest in cricket, I suspected that DD was playing both sides: creating an article that reflects negatively on Israel, then using a sock to cry anti-Semitism. It turned out to be simpler than that—that ICR was a sock of a different sockmaster.

  But that left us with the question of HH. The fact that they edited the Israel war crimes article at all is notable: Since it's an orphan, one would have to go looking for it to edit it. Then [154] shows overlap on a number of quite specific pages; then note that DD and MM both edited about Pakistan Super League, while HH edited about Women's Pakistan Super League. So that's article overlap across Pakistani politics, Pakistani sport, and Israeli war crimes, plus projectspace behavioral overlap at WP:ITN/C. Supported by a CU finding of "probably... confirmed", I felt confident in placing a sockblock. But I welcome review of the behavioral evidence by others, and can request in a more thorough CU review if needed, given that zzuuzz said they're busy right now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've had a second and closer look, and agree with what Tamzin just said. We can firmly put Indian Cricket Rules and anything they said to one side. I'm almost certain they're the person known as Evlekis, who is a troll. With the benefit of the extra analysis, I would now describe the other 3 accounts as confirmed to each other. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @Tamzin and Zzuuzz: for going the extra mile. What a pity that people with some ability (which is what I though HH had in my brief exchange with him) waste it in such self-destructive pursuits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: Sometimes I take a situation like this as an opportunity to say to a user, "I see that you have potential and if you can just wait the six months I can see myself supporting an unblock." A lot of potentially helpful users get caught up in early mistakes and then go down the vicious cycle of sockpuppetry. I'll confess that so far I've never had it work when I've tried this, but hope springs eternal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone here for their help with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Credit One Bank article. Corporate and/or PR firm influence

• Credit One Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I did some research today and found some strong direct/circumstantial evidence that the Credit One Bank article has corporate and/or public relations firm editing going on. Specifically, there has been scrubbing of the unflattering/negative information in the article and the addition of unsourced promotional/positive material.

Recently, I edited the article citing high authority sources like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and the Better Business Bureau so the article more reliably reflects reality.

In the past, I caught another company's employee editing Wikipedia to remove negative information using the IP address (A fellow Wikipedian awarded a "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" in relation to this matter). So I know Wikipedia has to guard against this type of thing.

Wikipedia admins, please do what you can to prevent the article from being scrubbed of legitimate negative information concerning this company.

Below is some research I compiled today that shows direct/circumstantial evidence of corporate and/or PR editing.

Editors who only did edits to Credit One Bank article at Wikipedia

• LongJumper23

• Brentydaman

• AreAreDubya

• JumpyJoker18

• Grapebomb

Editors with very few edits to Wikipedia who edited the Credit One Wikipedia article

• CreditOne

• Mobashshirrehan

• Ziffel

Unflattering information removed (unsourced)

• Unflattering information removed (unsourced)

I hope this information I compiled is helpful as far as maintaining the quality of the article. Knox490 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

All of this belongs on the talk page of the article, Knox. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Knox490 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• You may want to also raise this at WP:COIN if discussions on the talk page of the article seem to be going nowhere. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern over Mrbeastmodeallday

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.

---

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

Talk:United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previously, user Meters and I encountered Mrbeastmodeallday at the article Athlete and its respective talk page, and because of the latter user's bludgeoning, was promptly handed a one-week ban. I revisited his contributions today to find he has not improved at all, with 102 results for his username on the talk page from April 2022, and even a discussion regarding restoring the article due to several issues such as WP:OVERLINK (I mean, the third paragraph in the lead is almost a sea of blue), the fact that new discussions are brought up before previous disputes are resolved: "Anyway we can resolve the ten other ongoing disputes before more edits are made and more Rfcs are posted? It's at the point that a full revert needs to be done to deal with the 100 reverts, the ongoing talks and forced in edits. Our academic editors are busy with other things and don't have time to deal with a mass amount of changes." - Moxy, etc. Constant reversions by other users prove fruitless as Mrbeastmodeallday seems to have the page locked into an iron fisted version of what he likes, violating WP:STATUSQUO. Normally I leave other users be but this sort of voluminous disruptive editing on such high-traffic articles is quite dicey. I appreciate his efforts & dedication to the encyclopaedia but restraint must be shown, especially with clogging up talk pages & user talk pages such Randy Kryn's talk page. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 03:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Any help at the article would be great....having to deal with thousands of edits, multiple reverts and talk after talk. There is no doubt that there are positive contributions...... but waiting through all the edits is impossible. We have multiple maintenance concerns to deal with.Moxy- 04:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind, we're having a good discussion, just not one I'll reply to quickly. Mrbeastmodeallday has probably done some very good edits at the United States article or else he would have been stopped much earlier, so hopefully he'll stop now and give non-regular editors time to go over his accumulated edits there. No need for a mass revert, that time may have passed. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No way someone should be gaming the system in this manner.... bullying in the preferred version overwhelming the page and conversations. This would set a bad precedent.Moxy- 04:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course, I'm sure his intentions are in good faith, however, overloading discussion pages and pages with constant revisions is pure WP:BLUDGEONING and does not allow other editors to breathe nor get in their perspective/edits. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We have multiple editors involved in multiple reverts and ongoing talks....but very hard for all to deal with walls of text and full time anount of hours in editing.....most of us have limited time. Moxy- 04:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Naturally, Moxy, me included. Which is why I brought this to ANI so we can have some sort of streamlined resolution to this as local discussion is clearly going nowhere. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for bringing this to discussion, I’m more than willing to take a step back and temporarily disappear from the United States article in tandem with @Randy Kryn:'s suggestion of doing a before/after comparison from an older long-standing version. I strongly suggest the sports section, since that is by far the singular topic I have the most niche and comprehensive and fanatical knowledge about. If you look at some of my way old edit histories, you’ll see what I mean. All of the concerns will be brought to light through the sports section, because it manifests the most “extreme” and “controversial” versions of my editing style. It should bring to light the underpinnings of the main overarching ideas that other editors are complaining about from me as an editor.

If there’s any one section that I’ve “controlled” or “dominated” or “owned” (the spirit of other editors’ concerns about me as an editor) it’s the sports section.

I’m not on as much during the weekdays, but I’ll make it a point to not touch the article or its talk pages at all this week during the weekdays until Friday. Basically “blocking” myself from that article.

However I would ask that any conversations that are only about me as an editor and not within the context of my edits be redirected to my user talk page, and I would be glad to discuss those concerns there.

Also one other big request is to use this image for “my” version of the comparison instead of the long-standing montage:

President Woodrow Wilson throws the first pitch in 1916, an ongoing time-honored American baseball tradition since the early 20th century.

(caption included, just copy/paste the source)

Please compare with a long-standing version from before I came around to the US article within the past 3ish months, maybe the beginning of this year or late last year, or whatever was literally right before my first edit to the sports section in this recent editing wave, which probably began around March.

I’m really not trying to attract attention to myself with any of this. I hope the comparison can be entirely about the edits only, and not making assumptions about me as an editor. I would like for it to be a pure non-distracted focus on the content only.

Again, I’m not trying to attract any undue or non-neutral attention by asking to have a second talk page about the issue if there’s distractions. I just hope that the individual discussions can be pure and unbiased.

I realize that me and many other editors are in a tough deadlock right now and I’ve been trying to find common ground to build consensus, if I take a step back and allow neutral parties to join in, I think that the admins with their experience and expertise will be able to find, blend, and build the common ground between us main editors.

Thank you admins for being willing to work with me through the issue. It’s much appreciated. Good luck in the discussion!

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mrbeastmodeallday, you seem to deeply misunderstand the purpose and limitations of this noticeboard. You say, I would like for it to be a pure non-distracted focus on the content only. What you need to understand is that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Instead, we deal here with behavioral misconduct. You also wrote However I would ask that any conversations that are only about me as an editor and not within the context of my edits be redirected to my user talk page, and I would be glad to discuss those concerns there. This displays a misunderstanding of the fact that your behavior as an editor is under scrutiny at this noticeboard. You also wrote All of the concerns will be brought to light through the sports section, because it manifests the most “extreme” and “controversial” versions of my editing style. That comes off to me as an argument to pageblock you from editing this article at the very least, because your comment indicates an insistence to edit against the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Editors who push an extreme and controversial point of view are blocked routinely. So, please explain to me why I should not block you right now? Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• REVISION* In the spirit of full neutrality, it’s probably best for all involved for the comparison to be done as a brand new talk page thread from scratch with zero mention of my username, aside from possibly an introductory reminder/hatnote for all comments about my general editing style with the article to be a different talk page discussion at the United States article.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not how ANI works—this page discusses editor behavior. I have not yet examined the situation but the claim is that you are making too many edits (and, judging by the above, posting walls of text at talk). You must slow down at all pages. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You have literally just demonstrated what I am bringing you to attention for... No one has to understand your editing style, the editing guidelines/policies are quite clear in what you can and cannot do, and bludgeoning is an example of incivility, a violation of one of Wikipedia's five pillars. You also do not get to dictate whether this discussion is about you as an editor or the content of your edits. This isn't a content dispute, this is concern regarding your behaviour & conduct, specifically multiple violations of WP:BLUDGEONING, which you have been punished for in the past. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I am simply incredulous that in the time I took to type another comment Mrbeastmode has managed to jump the gun on me and post another comment... ludicrous. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I’m totally on board with a temporary block to help the admins more neutrally manage the dispute in question. I intend to basically “block myself” from the US article until Friday anyways. If blocking helps admins more easily judge the overall situation with neutral eyes regarding all aspects of this overarching dispute as it has entered into the admin space, then again, I’m 100% on board, I have zero problems with it. Another 4-7 days block is totally fine by me, because I already planned to withdraw from contentious WP editing for that timeframe anyways.

If blocking me helps the whole discussion of all aspects be seen neutral and fair and unbiased and clear from the admin eyes, I’m totally supportive.

And this is not in a sarcastic or condescending tone even though it might read like it. I actually want to help move the process along faster and more clearly for everyone.

From the neutral admin/ANI perspective, all of these issues can be combined into one conglomerated case if that makes it valid or legitimate from a technical/housekeeping standpoint. And another 4-7 day block is totally fine with me if that makes this whole thing valid and legitimate from a technical/housekeeping standpoint.

If there’s anything else you want to know that I can do to make it easier for the admins, please let me know.

Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain on commenting unless you are defending yourself and providing diffs/policies and guidelines that reinforce your position. Do not tell the admins what they should/shouldn't do, that is their job. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with most of your content reply, but that is fine. We can agree to disagree, and I don’t have the need or desire to bring disputes about the things I disagree with because I don’t need or care for the last word. I trust the admins to be able to see the bigger picture of what’s going on between us right now, since I don’t wish to make this personal or contentious with you.

And I am not telling the admins what to do. I am making suggestions and requests that may help them understand my side of the story and my intent better, so that I can be judged as fairly as possible. The sports section comparison of the United States is pretty much the mini-section where the spirit of all the disputes and complaints and concerns about me as an editor can be revealed and assessed, every last thing. Again you can go through my edit history, and you’ll see that I’ve always done tons of editing on US sports topics.

By reading between the lines, the admins can literally see everything about my edits and the way I edit and me as an editor by looking at that proposed comparison, in a nice convenient all-in-one package. I know for sure that admins are incredibly skilled reading between the lines, it’s an absolute essential requirement for being an admin.

I don’t intend to cause undue burden on them. I have complete respect for them and the WP process. Which is why I’m completely willing to accept another short WP-sanctioned block to make their job easier, because my ongoing editing is one less factor for them to consider in the whole discussion when that factor is gone from the equation. I am offering that out of courtesy and respect, but I will not be mad or hold any grudge or think any less of them if I receive the temporary block and my requests aren’t satisfied. I’m totally willing to serve the short block either way.

I wish you good luck in the ongoing discussion and I will be signing off now.

Take care Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: you seem confused about what this notice board’s about and what Admins do. When you say I’m totally on board with a temporary block to help the admins more neutrally manage the dispute in question you give the impression that you think admins “manage” content disputes. They don’t (at least not as admins). This thread is here because someone thinks your behaviour is unacceptable and that you should be sanctioned in some way. That’s really pretty much the only issue that will be looked at. The content dispute is separate and absent any behavioural problems isn’t really an “admin” issue. Unless you’re claiming that other editors’ behaviour should be sanctioned the only thing that’s going to be looked as is what should happen to you. You need to explain why you think you shouldn’t be sanctioned in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Aside from edits to the article itself, Mrbeast has also been removing whole sections from the talk page [155] [156] [157] [158]. In that last edit, he admits not knowing the rules for talk pages, which don't allow deletion of such sections. -- Vaulter 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm attempting to stay away from Mrbeastmodeallday and am only minimally involved in the recent activity at United States. I simply undid some of the talk page blanking mentioned by Vaulter.

Mrbeast just does not seem to be getting it. After 11 years on Wikipedia I would expect more of him. He has just come off of a block for "Personal attacks/harassment, tendentious editing, bludgeoning discussions". Continued bludgeoning? Check. Tenditious editing? Check. Personal attacks/harassment? Not so obvious unless editors are aware that his block relates at least in part to Mrbeast's rapid-fire series of 11 posts to my talk page[159] (removed by an admin), Mrbeast's rebuttal on my talk page [160], my banning Mrbeast from my talk page [161], and Mrbeast then posting three more times to my talk page (including the false statements that I had deleted his posts from my talk page, that I was refusing to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. and his insistence that further discussion had to take place on my talk page) [162]. He comes off of his block, and within a few days he's back on my talk page [163], he comes back to ping me to my own talk page [164], and then thanks me for deleting his posts from my talk page [165]. So, yes I'm feeling harassed by this user, again. WP:IDHT. WP:CIR or intentional behaviour... whatever it is, in my opinion this user is a problematic time sink. Meters (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think user Mrbeastmodeallday, just needs to take a step back and let all these recent edits settle over the article without pushing even more changes. I think user Mrbeastmodeallday's edit are in good faith, however as noted by other editors, they seem to be pushy and overly persistent. Great example of this is the sports thumb gallery, when the new images got reverted, the user then went ahead and decided to remove thumb gallery all together replacing it with the Woodrow Wilson image, missing the point that the new pictures were not necessarily better. --E-960 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've established that his edits are in good faith. However, it needs to be reiterated that quick fire editing encompassing large parts of the article do not give other editors the time to review those edits. I think a sanction of x amount edits per day, perhaps 5, would encourage him to either bundle his edits into one or simply limit the rate at which he edits. Support or oppose? X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Support in principle per nom @X750:. No opinion yet on 5 or any other number Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pause the vote due to a self-regulated (meaning I enforce it upon myself) version of this idea I had already thought of and crafted up long before finding the above comment by User:X750, which I will spell out the scope and details of in an upcoming main reply. Meanwhile, I ask that we wait until after my upcoming main reply is given and assessed. Since this discussion started, I have not been editing United States, its talk page, or any other pages central to this conversation, so time is not of essence, and I have not been engaging in any of the controversial activity that is key to this conversation. I am still in the process of drafting my upcoming main reply. Thanks everyone for your understanding. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break Mrbeastmodeallday

• Comment: Please note User talk:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox (uninvolved editor but linking here since somewhat relevant to the discussion). Spencer^T•C 22:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am really hoping this is not something that will appear on any discussion page. BUT there is a concern on that page.....are they saying they plan on making other accounts so they have to log in and out? Moxy- 01:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Spencer, Moxy There is no döppelganger declaration... I am under the impression that is required? Considering User:Mrbeastmodeallday/sandbox already exists....and the creation of that account is quite recent and despite his written declarations of no ill-intent the creation of a whole account (when he has already created a sandbox page prior) is highly suspicious. Last modification to User:Mrbeastmodeallday/Sandbox: 06:49, June 7. Last modification to User talk:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox: 09:09, June 7. WP:DG states that döppelganger accounts can be created with a username similar to your main account to prevent impersonation. It is unclear if that's Mrbeastmodeallday's intent, or what his intent is. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 01:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, popping my head in real quick for update and clarification:

I’m currently in the process of crafting my reply to the main discussion.

• As for the “break” with the side discussion, yes I saw the point about User:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox, thank you for bringing that up. I was gonna come around here and notify you guys anyways but someone beat me to it. But it is a profile I made for sandboxing purposes only, not for talking with other users, or for editing “communal” WP pages such as mainspace articles, talk, and WP policy. Mostly because it’s better and easier for me to focus on thoughtfully crafting up edits without having notifications pop up on my screen about reversions and talk replies. It’s hard for me to do edit-crafting and talk/reversion stuff at the same time, so this makes it easier for me to focus on one at a time, to help improve my quality of both aspects. I figure it’s better for me to build and correct and test my own edits using the sandbox account, and using this account for talking and the simple formality of dropping my newly constructed edits into the mainspace articles. It’s easier for me to sort things out in my mind when the different functions are in different accounts. I tried to make everything there as self-explanatory as posssible. I’m fully aware of the sockpuppet rules from a general standpoint, I’d like to add some type of doppelgänger tag, but the extended description of the ones I found doesn’t match the purpose since my purpose has nothing to do with vandalism or being vandalized. I’m just trying to have separate functions under separate profiles for my own mental organizational purposes. But I’d like full disclosure of the relationship and function of the two accounts to be as transparent as possible to all editors in WP. I’ve added clear titles, descriptions, and hatnotes to make it as clear and unambiguous as I can. My usage of User:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox falls under legitimate technical reasons for multiple accounts. Of the four bullet points, “maintenance” and/or “testing and training” are the ones in play. The sandbox account is one part of my overall plan to become a better WP editor from now, but I will get into that more in my upcoming main reply. I kindly ask that any ideological comments about the sandbox account be paused until I have put out my upcoming reply to the main discussion, because the full picture and context will be expressed there, but technical or housekeeping discussions regarding the sandbox account are fine in the meantime.

I’m still constructing my reply to the main discourse, but we’ll reconvene when I have that ready.

Thanks everyone Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't satisfy WP:DG per the fact you "couldn't find the sandbox" whereas you have a sandbox subpage on your main User account. Cullen328 requesting closure please, this is sapping my time and energy dearly. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Main reply from the user in question

Hi everyone, I have read and considered all the replies since I last was here.

As you all know by now, I was blocked not long ago.

I agree that my text volume in general is excessive and overwhelming for most editors in the discussions. (Unfortunately, for the purpose of this specific context, it’s impossible for me to explain my perspective succinctly, but I’m trying to be as reasonable as I can with brevity, while also providing clarity. For me, brevity and clarity is a difficult combination I haven’t mastered yet.) However, for now I have designated a sandbox-only profile User:Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox, which has a clear statement indicating that it won’t be used for mainspace or talk page activity of any kind. This helps with several key issues:

• Having time to draft my talk page replies so I can trim them down to only what is most necessary and important for the reply, instead of immediately firing off the first reply that comes to my mind when someone else is in a talk discussion with me, and focus more on responding to the overall big picture of the discussion instead of just that one reply from the fellow editor. I will only edit that profile from within that profile, and will not be using the sandbox-only profile for talk replies or mainspace edits.

• Being able to get my “ducks in a row” when putting in major edits. Admittedly, much of the United States article edit history is me cleaning up after my own “big idea” content revisions. It would be easier for all to see the merits of the big content ideas I’m adding to the article instead of being caught up in trying to figure out what’s what from a housekeeping standpoint, when they see 10-12 little cleanup edits immediately after every major big idea content revision. The added steps and work involved of having to log in and out of each account between going from “building/drafting mode” to “talk page reply mode” & “mainspace edit mode” in my mind is a self-reinforcing mechanism for me to be prepared and intentional about what I’m doing before I do it. Because it’s too tiring for me to log in and out of accounts back and forth 5x per minute just to fix a period or add a line indent. Again, this lets editors see both what I’m doing more clearly as an editor and what is happening to the page in the big picture more clearly. I think we can all agree that it’s a marked improvement if everyone sees 5 content revisions and 5 self-cleanups in the edit history in a day compared to 5 content revisions and 40 self-cleanups in a day.

• Having a place to work on constructive WP stuff while also having a chance to step back and cool off from intense discussions and look at it from the bigger picture, since I won’t be distracted by reversion/reply notifications that might compel me to react with immediate fire. I can take a look at the discussion when I’m ready to be more calm and see everything from the full context and look beyond just my own ideas and be able to factor in what other editors are thinking and proposing from their perspective.

• There are other useful functions as well and possibly other clearer ways to explain it, but I don’t wanna keep adding more, so I’ll keep an eye on this discussion from afar, and poke my head in to add a quick clarifying or explanatory comment if I feel it would help the discussion gain traction, especially if there seems to be a misinterpretation.

As for my role in WP from a community/social/interpersonal standpoint, I used the week of my previous block to reconsider my strategy regarding my social role among the greater community in talk pages and edit summaries.

Pre-block, I often used the talk pages as my own personal battleground, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia, and I was often looking to “take a side” and argue for my side when others disagreed.

Post-block, my approach in the talk pages and edit summaries changed as I came with a fresh new underlying philosophy in how I conduct myself in the community/social perspective. Instead of a “my way or the highway” approach that had me fighting war in the battleground everytime there’s a disagreement, I discovered and implemented new roles such as “consensus-seeker”, “concensus-discoverer”, “clarification-asker”, “progress/tradition blender” (finding ways to blend progressive improvement and long-standing concensus into one singular change).

I might still be a battleground guy every now and then, but if I’ve went from battlegrounding in 50%-70% of disputes/reversions against me pre-block, to battlegrounding 10% of disputes, then the trajectory has improved, and this “self-block” has allowed me a chance to step back and assess what might be behind that 10%. Ideally I’d like to be a battleground guy 0% of the time, but my own humanity will likely still have it happen every now and then. But if I’m a battleground guy only 1-2% of the time, it’s much easier to bring attention to those incidents and have individual discussions on those 1-2% of disputes, and see what may be underlying in the content or other editors of that specific situation. It’s easier for everyone to get a good read on the general pulse of the raw individual battleground situation if I’m only battlegrounding once a month compared to 30-100x a month.

Pre-block, I had issues with committing personal attacks. Post-block, those issues have disappeared.

As for bludgeoning and wall of text concerns, I’d like to clarify a key distinction between the two terms. Bludgeoning is on the basis of persistence arising from user behavior. Wall of texting is on the basis of length/quantity/volume that affects other editors from an technical accessibility standpoint. My recent talk additions to Randy Kryn's talk page is a perfect example of the distinction. With my sandbox account, next time I put something like that, I can use the sandbox account to draft up talk replies and maybe whittle it down from the original 100 lines to 25 lines instead, and then in that situation both the wall of text and bludgeoning concerns are gone, whereas the current talk discussion there still has a wall of text concern.

My bludgeoning in talk discussions has markedly decreased post-block; I have generally not been aiming to beat a dead horse, upon clear indication that something I propose runs afoul of established concensus and other editors’ concerns they explain. When other editors disagree or oppose me, I have been willing to move in tandem with their ideas and opinions (like a dance), and seek out common ground between me, the other editor(s) involved and the long-standing consensus, and use said common ground to implement new ideas in a blend that fully honors all three of these factors:

• my ideas
• the other editor’s ideas
• the long-standing consensus

You can see examples of this in my recent caption additions to the mass media and health images in United States:

• For mass media, my two major WP-based concerns were that nothing in the original body text or caption indicated why New York Times was a representation of US media over Wall Street Journal or Washington Post as they were all displayed on equal footing in the text with nothing indicating “supremacy”. And another editor maintained that it was a long-standing image which is why they believed it should stay. However, from a neutrality standpoint, nothing was stopping 100-500 edit autoconfirmed users from dropping by once or twice a month and being like “hey why is New York Times represented here? That’s not fair, it should be NBC” However, the long-standing insisting editor presented that it’s the most read newspaper in the US. I went to the NYT page to explore and see if that or any other “supremacy over all other American media” statistic could be found and sourced to give the image a strong foundation that will keep it longstanding and kill any potential neutrality disputes. Lo and behold I found the statistic about Pulitzer Prizes, which is the biggest national mass media award in the US, and how NYT has 130-something pulitzers and second place is around 60, and the other 3rd-5th was 20-40. So I’m like “hey this will give the image rock solid foundation to stand on so it won’t be wiped away monthly with NBC” while also addressing other editor’s concern about New York Times being long-standing image while also my original WP policy-based big idea of “hey is this really a a neutral point of view? It looks like it arbitrarily promotes New York Times over Washington Post and Wall Street Journal” and “hey is this undue weight? Does NYT really represent the national scene when others are commonly reading the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post?” So the Pulitzer Prize figure satisfied that for my own WP-policy backed concerns, and the other editor’s idea about NYT being the long-standing image and “image over montage”

• You will see the same thing with the health image. It had the Texas Medical Center in Houston, sometimes with an unsourced caption “one of the largest in the world”. I put a national life expectancy graph to equally represent health all around the US instead of just in Houston, and another editor insisted that it’s “image over graph”. But when it’s been “image over graph”, guess what? Once a month there’d be a “drive-by” autoconfirmed editor potentially thinking “Hey why is Houston represented? Why not Miami? That’s not fair. I’m putting Miami there because it’s the biggest hospital I’ve been inside of”, and that editor isn’t wrong because they could say “One of the largest in the world” unsourced and it’s ambiguous as to whether it’s true or not. And the Miami hospital will stay, because again, the merit of the edit not wrong. And a month later, a more experienced editor might think “wait a minute, this wasn’t here last month, let’s restore it to how it’s been for the past X years” and puts back the Houston image. Perhaps someone from New York will put in their New York hospital thinking “hey NYC is the biggest city so the biggest NYC hospital should be represented, it’s also one of the country’s largest” and again, they’re not wrong. And someone else will think “hey, Washington DC is the capital, so the biggest DC hospital will go here”, and again they’re not wrong in accordance with an unsourced “one of the largest hospitals in the country/world” claim. How many are included in the “one of the largest” cutoff? 2? 5? 10? 80? 500? Nobody knows or can agree on that. And there’s no national healthcare system or national healthcare headquarters
  • So then I’m like “ok how can I cement this Houston hospital image?” after noticing the monthly drive-by hospital image swap problem. And I find a reliable source claim that unequivocally indicates Houston hospital is the “largest hospital in the world”. Well now the other editors’ concerns about keeping the long-standing image are satisfied, my concerns about WP neutrality and undue weight are satisfied, and the drive-by autoconfirmed users’ “not fair for Houston to be here over Miami” spirit is now irrelevant and those grievances are put to rest in a way that fully honors and responds to their potential “Houston over Miami unfair” concerns.

You’ll see a similar change in my style in how I edited Ben Wallace, the new disambiguation, especially considering how its original move request was a major theme contributing to my block last month.

Instead of coming back fresh from the 7-day block, reloaded with more ammunition to fire for “team basketball” again to shoot down “team politician”, I instead notice the current situation as if I’m looking down on it from above, and I’m thinking “hey we’ve got an edit war problem here, four people are going back and forth about about how to set up the new page with ‘team page hits’ and ‘team chronology’, and they’re not backing down from each other or negotiating or willing to budge from their sides of the war.” I don’t join the battle based on those “teams” (nor do I join based on my original pre-block extremist “basketball is the only primary” team). But I also don’t make any new revolutionary edits that are meaningfully different from anything proposed by the disputing editors. I simply say in the edit summary “hey we’ve got a ‘primary group’ here (a small group version of a primary topic) when the DAB has a much larger list of entries, look at Richmond, George Bush,Battery, and Power for examples”. If you look at that current page and its recent edit history, you can see how the results in that community played out.

Instead of going “my way”, *reverted*, “no you’re wrong, my way”, *reverted* etc etc like I did pre-block, in this newer post-block period I have tried to consider all of the opposing and conflicting viewpoints in inspiring my next moves in the Wikipedia space in response.

I’m totally aware that the general tone of this may be too reflective and philosophical and “story-telling” for the purpose of many editors to work with this discussion based on the mainstream Wikipedia culture, and I’m almost certain that it’s very much against the grain of how these things go, but I’m trying to explain how my framework as an editor ties into Wikipedia guidelines as much as I am able to, because it certainly does, I have no doubt that it does, I’m just not always the best at communicating how they tie together, I’m not as well-versed in that language as the bulk of regular editors out here.

If there’s a general spirit out here of confusion or uncertainty among the body of editors about this reply, or if this discussion looks like a deadlock from the start, it’s totally understandable. In such a case, it might be useful to ask Randy Kryn if he could put in the first word to get the ball rolling on this, as he is a long-standing well-respected editor (200k+ edits) with a squeaky clean record who seems to have a knack for bridging the gaps between seemingly opposing people and places, and identify common ground from which we can all work from. He also may be able to help interpret across “my language” and the “admin language” if the underlying translation isn’t very clear to the body of editors here. He seems to naturally feel out the pulse of the entire big picture in any situation. Some of us might disagree with each other, but I think he can get us all to agree to disagree, and at least we’re all on the same page at that point, and we can work from that.

(Side note: I would be shocked if he has any enemies)

Thanks everyone, I will leave this piece here and keep tabs on the discussion from afar, and I’ll also keep an eye on my talk page, if anyone has clarifying questions about me as an editor, I’d be happy to answer there. Good luck with the ensuing discussion, and thank you all for your time and willingness to help me, it’s much appreciated. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. At the United States talk page, I had a post-block run-in with User:Metres, who has shared their side of that whole story in one of the comments, (events linked with numbers 118-120, the last three edit history links, starting with “He comes off of his block…”) I haven’t added mine or mentioned it at all, but if that situation rises to any significance in the ensuing discussion, I will share my side of the story, so a neutral analysis can be done. Our two sides of the story are very very different, so I’m just pointing that out here for the record. For now, I won’t add my side to avoid making this reply even longer, but I’ll share my side of the story upon request.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S.S.If that story comes up again anywhere in the discussion, I’d greatly appreciate if someone could please ping me before the community dives into that story, I’ll add my side of the story, and then I’ll step back and let the community begin an analysis of it with the perspective of seeing both sides of the story Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S.S.S. Per X750’s sandbox account concerns, (also tagging Cullen328 since they’re tagged in that comment) that account was created for the general concept of having a sandbox outside of this account to work in, not necessarily the literal WP sandbox per se. I was improvising with the infrastructure I’m familiar with and using the talk page as a de facto sandbox to draft this reply and get it out here ASAP out of respect for people’s time, so editors aren’t here waiting per your concern, instead of spending extra time trying to learn the technical nuts and bolts of how to install a new sandbox into that profile. I’ve had this account 11 years or so and I don’t even remember when or how I created the actual WP sandbox in this profile, but it was a long time ago. If anyone can remind me how to add a sandbox, (which would be greatly appreciated), I’ll note it and do it the next time I’m over there, and use that as the core of my sandboxing work.

(For added context, I have basically zero outside non-WP experience with computer programming, software programming, etc etc, I have no fancy computers. I do 100% of my edits on mobile, almost always source editing since that’s more intuitive to me than visual editing which is kinda clunky to me, and so I learn as I go. All the stuff like infobox and hatnote and references and taglines, I learned from scratch entirely in the “mobile + source” combination without having anyone teach me. There’s probably 30% of Wikipedia infrastructure I’m very familiar with and that’s what I work with in pretty much everything I do, and the other 70% of WP infrastructure is like rocket science to me. For example, most of the stuff the bots do, and even occasionally some of the maintenance/housekeeping edits I’ve seen others in this thread do, I have zero concept of what’s going on. I work within the infrastructure I know, but am willing to learn new things as I go as well. When I made the new sandbox account yesterday, I assumed the sandbox would already be there since I don’t actually remember how or when I installed it in this account. I say this to lay the groundwork about technical stuff involved in my profile that might look suspicious to others. Let’s try to keep the spirit of the discussion focused on the main topic at hand, I don’t think the side stuff is helpful in us all finding consensus together. Thanks for understanding) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure and transparency, I have just made one (1) edit at United States about 20 minutes ago, anyone in this thread is welcome to review and/or revert it, and I will not object to it or bring it up further in this discussion, whether it stays or whether it’s reverted. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mrbeastmodedaily, there is no reason within imagination that you need to type up a sixteen kilobyte reply, if you cannot express it succintly it may be an issue with your summarising skills. The worst I can imagine is "for personal reasons which if disclosed could compromise my identity", in which case you can email an administrator. Second of all, I'm just impressed you have not addressed a single concern, you have literally bludgeoned ANI, with 55 edits since this thread was posted two days ago. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 19:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also for crying out loud stop replying!!!!! Every time you add some redundant text like pretty much everything you've written will not speed up the process! It makes it hard for other users to see what is being discussed and where the consensus is being established! Also, the consensus being formed is not your call. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway we can get you to not delete or make things out of chronological order. Best to leave a rope out and have this in the order that was originally posted so make sense to all who are just joining the talk. Moxy- 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions

• Support ban per lack of any understanding of the problem as seen above. Timesink for our editors. Moxy- 11:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The above post by User:Mrbeastmodeallday is too long, didn't read, and I will comment in support of restrictions after further tedious review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, apologies to rope you back into this mess, but have you made a decision? Feel free to ignore as plenty of other editors have commented X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban I came across MrBeast at Saudi Arabia and its talk page and really couldn’t make any sense of what he was trying to say or do there. Just odd. Then this thread came up. I don’t know what to make of it. A lot of what they write, apart from WP:WALLOFTEXT just doesn’t make any sense. Is it WP:CIR, or WP:TENDENTIOUS. I don’t really know what it is. Just…odd. But what’s clear is it’s a waste of everyone's time with no apparent benefit for WP. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, on further reflection, he’s just plain old trolling. His ridiculous post under the sub-section “My position in 30 words or less (3 to be exact)” surely can’t leave room for anything else. DeCausa (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban Mrbeast appears to not fully understand WP:Bludgeoning and WP:Wall of text. Sure, most of their contributions appear helpful, but even I cannot read the sheer volume of text that they place almost everywhere, from their edit summaries to talk page sections. Since they were previously told to slow down on Talk:United States and yet continue this behavior, I believe a penalty is justified. The user needs to learn that all these posts are harmful to the Encyclopaedia. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Have put their new rfc today on hold Moxy- 22:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  When I mean I support a ban, I suggest a 1 month block. The other users may have a different idea of "ban" but this is my personal perception. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There's been some weird editing of this section, and as an outside observer I can no longer tell what sanctions are being !voted on. Singularity42 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Original non leading non directional version restored.....that is just a section title. You are free to recommend any sanctions you wish or non at all. Moxy- 00:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban - Good lord. And here I thought the Wikipedia editor that always wrote their responses in sonnets was aggravating enough.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support sanctions The 18,660 character-long essay presented above is clearly evidence that the user is failing to understand the problem. While I appreciate their offer to reduce their comments from 100 lines to 25 lines, they fail to acknowledge that maybe their responses didn't need to be 25 lines long in the first place. Also, does anyone know what ban is actually being proposed here? Because nobody seems to have brought that up, unless it's somewhere within that wall of text up there. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be in favor of a WP:CIR indef, given the impossibility for this editor to communicate in any sort of non-prolix fashion that would entail a normal back-and-forth conversation. WaltCip-(talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef Back at ANI for basically repeating the same behaviour that got them recently blocked at ANI. And now the responses in this thread... walls of blather, promising to refrain from editing Wikipedia for a week as if that actually addressed any of the issues, backtracking on his self imposed Wikibreak to add the incomprehensible "My position in 30 words or less", followed by plea to unblock an obvious troll. I don't care if this is incompetence by a user who simply does not get it, or trolling. This user is simply a time sink, and I don't see this improving. Meters (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Ban My head started hurting as I tried to comprehend what's going on. To get some clarity, I looked at the essay WP:DIS, and this statement helped: The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. Is this editor disruptive? Gosh, yes, to a huge degree. Is it in good faith? Doesn't matter. No need to figure out motivation or goals. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef block. (edit conflict) These walls of text and the demonstrated bullying through a gazillion overwhelming edits are simply ridiculous. I don't see any evidence that behavior is changing, given the walls of text here, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef, this is just egregious. The user's comments clearly demonstrate an inability to understand what's wrong of them, as well as pushing people's patience to the limit. I also suspect an immaturity altitude of the user, which is really concerning in of itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef per Meters and others; this looks like useless trolling nonsense. DoubleCross (‡) 00:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block for either competency concerns or as a troll, a distinction without a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support temporary ban While it seems that a lot of people are frustrated with this editor's behaviour (and rightfully so), it seems the editor might still be WP:HERE to contribute...albeit in their own rather long-winded fashion. I am inclined to assume some measure of good faith, and suggest a ban for a month or so rather than an indef. If an indef is implemented, I think that if the editor clearly explains what they did wrong (which they seem to have failed to understand up to this point) and explains what they will do in the future to change this (not just use fewer words, but real behavioural change), then the ban can be lifted. Basically an expedited/simpler appeal process. Toadspike (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban complete failure to get the point, perfectly illustrated by the small book presented above. I think Mrbeastmodeallday is editing in good faith, but regardless their current mode of contributing is a net negative to the project as it stands. Pinguinn 🐧 06:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban, Several months minimum, as a timesink and lacking competence to communicate. Net negative to the encyclopedia and the community, and apparently unable to learn to fit in. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support site ban largely due to failure to understand about their disruptive walls of texts. GenuineArt (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban. WP:CIR certainly applies, but I'm also concerned about the creation of the account MrbeastANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose sole purpose is to participate in this discussion. I was willing to think he was acting in good faith before, but now I'm starting to have doubts. -- Vaulter 13:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Indef until such time as they can succinctly convince an admin that they are able to be a productive and non-disruptive member of the community.Slywriter (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• I think we're about ready for an uninvolved admin to close this. @El C: are you interested?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, not right now, sorry. El_C 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  No problem. WaltCip-(talk) 15:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Note

I will block myself from Wikipedia for the next 7 days exactly (beginning from my signature time stamp), to let the dust settle and give all fellow editors and the admins some breathing room, to hopefully see the biggest picture possible about this whole discussion. You will not see any activity from me for the next 7 days, and anyone here can check my contribution history/log to hold me to that (including my sandbox account). Goodbye for now Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My position in 30 words or less (3 to be exact)

@Jim Bobs Doo Doo: I don’t need 30 words, three is enough, but thank you very much for the offer. Please keep the other 27 words to say something kind to someone and uplift them, whether within Wikipedia, or in the offline physical world.

Meanwhile, here’s the three words I’m keeping:

this vs this

Word #3 does this trick where it leads to other really cool numbers like:

• -48
• 13:52
• 162,963 (I call this one "bamboo" because it just keeps growing, so watch out!)

Those are some numbers beyond 30 that might explain my position better as well. And I’m not sure how to explain my position in -48 words but it might be fun to try. Anybody have advice?

I hope you enjoy playing that numbers game, everyone else is welcome to play too, I hope we can all win that game together and there are no losers.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Haven't we told you that your verbosity is getting you into this trouble in the first place? Please, you aren't helping your cause by replying to the discussion more. I suggest upholding your statement above and stepping away from the Encyclopaedia. Doing so could help others realize that you can understand the problem. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity: Yes, I agree the community has told me that; opinion length and merit are inversely proportional, and I acknowledge that I am guilty of mansplaining (gender-neutrally) with long text.

Shortly after my last edit while using Mrbeastmodeallday, I randomly scrambled my password and logged out to restrain myself from firing back at ANI comments. Thus, I do not have inside control of Mrbeastmodeallday; this account is an interim solution for ANI communication.

P.S. — Within this ANI, Meters has presented roughly 10-50 negative things about me, and 0 positive; while all other non-neutral major players with direct real-time "between-my-ANIs Mrbeast-related" interaction and/or awareness have at least 1 positive — X750 + Moxy, E-960, and other US talk regulars; etc.

P.S.S. — I propose that Mrbeastmodeallday, Mrbeastmodealldaysandbox, and this account all be locked. Support? Or Oppose? MrbeastANI (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional proposal

In addition to the above main proposal, I also propose that I receive a new account with the following two editing privileges only:

• Maximum of one (1) edit per day at the US talk page (and zero (0) at the US live article and all other mainspace articles)
• User sandbox access

Support? Or oppose? (Users may also discuss username ideas) MrbeastANI (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Side chatter

P.S. (As a courtesy, can we please consider appealing to the powers that be to unblock Jim Bobs Doo Doo? as the "trolling" edit summary shows a very clear example of assuming bad faith, and the reversion was completely unnecessary. I don’t consider that trolling at all, that comment was the catalyst of this entire comment of mine, and I nominate it as the most valuable comment in this whole discussion; I genuinely appreciate the assistance and feedback given. To me, that doesn’t merit an indefinite block. Without that “trolling” comment, none of this would’ve came to my mind.) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't block them for that comment. I blocked them for very blatantly being a troll. If that comment did prove helpful for you, good; I can't imagine that that was their intention, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tazmin:Tazmin@Tamzin:Tamzin Well if you and I can together agree that the “explain in 30 words or less” was not a very blatant troll comment, and had even the tiniest sliver of merit, perhaps we can be compassionate enough to consider unblocking the user even for just one day, inviting them to see this discussion, and seeing where things go. Cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, MBMAD, I'm not going to unblock a trollsock just because they said something you found useful. Look through the 13 edits they made. Basically every one was calculated to disrupt, and all show that this is clearly not a new user. They are welcome to appeal their block through the normal channels... Although I'm guessing, when next we see them, it will more likely be under some different (probably also scatological) username. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh and since you asked via edit summary: The reason you're failing to ping me is that you're tagging Tazmin, whereas my name is Tamzin. Rhymes with "yams win". See Thomasina. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s because I’ve seen so many “Jazmin”s but not any “Jamzin”s haha. I’ve never done strike-through on a typo before but this has a funny story behind it Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one who noticed that it took Mrbeastmodeallday 149 words (not including the postscript) to tell us what the three words are? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I did first! 😂😭 Not sure if that’s a good or bad thing. Good that I was aware enough to notice it, maybe a little bad that it still took some time, but at least it’s much shorter than some of my earlier responses.

Btw, thanks for keeping your non-main response out here in the non-main “tangent” section. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2022 (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.

2a00:ee2:4b04:e100:fd16:73db:cdc8:39be

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.

---

• 2a00:ee2:4b04:e100:fd16:73db:cdc8:39be (talk · contribs · 2a00:ee2:4b04:e100:fd16:73db:cdc8:39be WHOIS)

Persistent disruptive editing by the IP at Upanayana (diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3). Already warned them at their talk page (diff 1 and diff 2) but they don't seem to care. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 19:44, 9 June 2022 (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.

109.171.133.231 NOTHERE

109.171.133.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Probably static Saudi IP has been changing "Islam" to "Shia Islam" [166] [167] [168], sometimes with arbitrarily changing other information and blanking content [169] [170] [171], or just blanking content [172] [173]; changing the percentage of the Iraqi Shia population [174]; repeatedly removing a whole bunch of entries from List of Sunni dynasties [175]; trying to edit war these changes in at several pages [176] [177] [178].

No response at talk, went beyond 4th warning [179] vs [180] [181] [182] [183]. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Cooffman2

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 propose Cooffman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be indef blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I think the disruption is evident, but more complex than AIV. Evidence: this edit. Creating Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue and the rest of edits are also all negative.--Mvqr (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Cooffman2 just tried to remove this section twice: [184] and [185]. Singularity42 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

See also [186]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed, blatant troll. Nothing to see here other than to watch out for other trolling accounts. Canterbury Tail talk 13:02, 8 June 2022 (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.

Paulmcdonald and admin 101

Some issues with admin User:Paulmcdonald.

It all started rather minor, when they removed a G11 (advertising) speedy deletion tag from Urban Fêtes because "Removing speedy tag/contested on talk page". Declining a G11 speedy because the article creator contests it seemed to me to be shirking the admin duties completely ("duties" as in, if you decide to act on a speedy, then the admin should judge whether the tag is correct, not the article creator). Some discussion on their user talk page wasn't fruitful.

Today things got worse. A new article was created, Water (Water Saigon Kick album). I tagged it for A10 as a duplicate of Water (Saigon Kick album). Paulmcdonald declined the speedy because they wanted someone to merge and then delete it. They then merged it anyway, but didn't to anything with the original article. So I redirected Water (Water Saigon Kick album) to Water (Saigon Kick album), as there was nothing left to do (perhaps a histmerge, but keeping the article active served no purpose). Which is when the problematic admin actions really started.

Pailmcdonald first used rollback to revert me[187], which is an abuse of the rollback tool. And then they nominated the page they merged for A10 speedy deletion[188], which is obviously no longer valid as there is now merged material that needs attribution and thus should not be deleted like this.

Can some people please check whether this is typical behaviour of Paulmcdonald, and make it clear that these actions are not acceptable? Fram (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm glad you brought it up. I did what I thought was best with my mop and bucket. In my eyes, the Urban Fêtes article did not unquestionably meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Other avenues of deletion exist: PROD, AFD, etc. For Water (Water Saigon Kick album), I noticed that there was some content in one article that was not in the other so I proposed a merge. Rather than discuss the merge as I asked (and I think it would have gone quick), you chose to quickly blank and redirect. I suppose I could have gotten the old data from the history but I reverted to get the content to copy to the destination article, then put a speedy back on which you seemed to originally agree with. During this time, I think that editing was done quickly and some confusion likely dropped in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Which doesn't address your use of rollback (not allowed like this) or your request for speedy deletion (which was acceptable before a merge was done, but not after, which is the difference between my tag and yours). I would in general expect admins to know these things, as they are pretty basic rules (not some obscure policy): and I would certainly expect admins to familiarize themselves with them in the unlikely event that they truly didn't know this and get dragged to ANI over it, instead of just repeating their wrong beliefs or simply ignoring the issues. Fram (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I think I see now--it looks like I clicked rollback instead of revert. I apologize for my mistake.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
      • And the speedy deletion? Any insight in what you did wrong (or an explanation of why you didn't)? It's nice that you apologise for the rollback, but I still don't get any indication that you understand where you went wrong or what you would do otherwise in the future. Fram (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've long noticed these problems since Paulmcdonalds return, especially as it pertains to deletions (or non-deletions) in that they decline almost any CSD tag if anyone contests it on the talk page. I have some more issues, which I'll compile and add later. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I'd welcome discussion on my User talk:Paulmcdonald for any comments and suggestions you might have.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Given this thread is already open, I'd rather discuss it with the community. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Another recent example of this admin not knowing some of the very basics (or at the very least giving nonsensical explanations for their speedy denial): declining to delete a user page "to preserve talk page history". Fram (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with you on that one. Upon further reflection, I could have made a better choice there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And what would that better choice have been? Fram (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • That's easy, that should have been speedied as originally requested.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that a few relatively minor mistakes (which isn't to say they aren't mistakes) followed by a call for other people to do the legwork of collecting diffs (Can some people please check whether this is typical behaviour) does not an ideal ANI thread make. Maybe there's something there, but to quote another Paul, "it's underproofed". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't just the mistakes, but the trouble they seem to have in realising they were wrong, and what they did wrong (plus the frequency and the rather basic nature of them). And the request for others to check as well is because I can't see any deleted bits, which makes it harder to check many of their actions (e.g. I can't even see whether there are articles where they removed the speedy but which were deleted anyway). It took them three tries and more than an hour to see that they had indeed used rollback, they still haven't replied to the merge-and-delete issue (they don't seem to know the difference between asking for deletion of a new article, and asking for deletion of a merged article (which they just merged, so it's not some "gotcha" they weren't aware of). And I did do further research myself as well, hence my "another recent example", which they admit but without any indication of whether they know what was actually wrong with their action. Fram (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am just a standard user and not up to speed on the admin side of things but I would like to note that Paul McDonald added a message about proposed merge on the Water target page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_(Saigon_Kick_album)&oldid=1091225987 didn't leave a message that the merge had been completed leading someone to comment on it after it had been completed. It would also be good if they could add the (optional) {{merged from}} and {{merged to}} templates to the talk pages. Gusfriend (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Feels much more like it should have been a short civil talk on Paul's talk page, not an ANI report. These are minor oversights at best, not damaging errors. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Talking tried and failed. And no, these are damaging errors: trying to speedy delete pages which shouln't be speedy deleted for attribution reasons (reasons created by paulmcdonald just before adding the speedy tag) is causing damage; rejecting correct speedy deletions because on non-policy reasons (or because of a total alck of knowledge of the policies) also damages enwiki. And an admin who has these type of issues this often is a serious liability. The non-committal or vague answers here are no reassurance, and don't give the impression that further talking would have been any better. But I guess we'll have to wait and see if similar issues continue to happen or not then. Fram (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, have you seen User talk:Paulmcdonald#Urban Fêtes. Apparently they are unable to respond meaningfully to posts which aren't formulated as a question. And sadly, their answers to questions aren't much better. Having a conversation with them turned out to be a fruitless exercise, and when I then noticed just days later that they made one error after another, I came here. Fram (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I read it and more or less agree with Paul in his responses: you made no request and asked no question, you just, as he said, scolded him. You didn't "have a conversation" with him, not really, more like you yelled at him and then came here. If that is what you think a normal conversation looks like then, well, this is why a lot of times when you raise these issues no one really cares because even though you're right that these were mistakes, your way of handling them and raising them is frankly worse than the mistake itself. If this sounds familiar to you it's because I'm like the millionth person to say this to you and it's what framgate was all about and why you're not an admin anymore. C'mon and let's fix this part and start approaching people nicer with our complaints. And I say this as like probably the #2 top complainer about admin actions on this website, behind you. Levivich 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Framgate was about an editor who didn't like her dreadful articles being scrutinized and enlisting WMF insider help from the very top to get me silenced, and the WMF thinking that taking out an editor with enough opponents would be an uncontroversial first power move. And then a number of disgruntled people making trumped-up accusations without much (or usually anything) in the way of evidence to support their claims, but who just felt this a good chance to get revenge for, again, having their problems exposed in the past. See e.g. the notorious deleted Signpost attack piece, and the people behind it. But it at least partially succeeded, in that people can still use it as evidence for something or other. Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        Framgate was about an editor who didn't like her dreadful articles being scrutinized and enlisting WMF insider help from the very top to get me silenced, and the WMF thinking that taking out an editor with enough opponents would be an uncontroversial first power move.

        The above is just one long personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

      This was similar to my interpretation. The discussion comes off as awfully rude for what the situation was, and kind of moves into badgering territory from there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      To each their own I guess. When an admin decision is criticised, and no useful reply is forthcoming ("thank you" is very civil I guess, but totally useless in that discussion), then trying to get an answer is "badgering". I suppose letting situations go further out of hand until we "suddenly" have another example of an incompetent admin needing a desysop is better than trying to nip things in the bud. Oh well, I fear we'll be back here again relatively soon, but we'll see. Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      I think the thing you have to ask yourself when entering into a conversation with another user is this: is this going to be about me, or is it going to be about them? That choice informs the tone and language you use. Here, you've decided to ensure that we've all heard your criticism of Paulmcdonald, and it's on our heads if we don't see the problem as you do. This confrontational approach distracts from what should be main issue, and is in no way helpful toward resolving what may or may not be an issue with Paulmcdonald's exercise of the tools. Mackensen (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If we can try to reframe this back around something constructive, and maybe not around wikipolitics of three years ago, I think there's a discussion to be had about declining speedy deletions, particularly A7. About a month ago Paulmcdonald declined an A7 that I had seen as quite straightforward and was about to action.

The content of that article, Qmamu, at time of tagging (all substantive content © Apletters; whitespace condensed for space)

{{short description|Indian search engine}} {{db-web|help=off}} '''Qmamu''' is an Indian [[search engine]] and web portal created by [https://qmamu.com/ Qmamu Technologies Private Limited]. It uses a technology created by Qmamu. <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.apnnews.com/qmamu-is-becoming-the-most-liked-search-engine-by-users-surpassing-the-other-search-engines-with-a-big-ratio/ | title=Qmamu is becoming the most liked search engine by users surpassing the other search engines with a big ratio!}} </ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/companyLLPMasterData.do | title=Company/LLP Master Data of Qmamu from the postal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), India}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.thehansindia.com/technology/tech-news/qmamu-the-winning-example-of-vocal-for-local-initiative-668931| title=Qmamu- the winning example of Vocal for Local initiative}}</ref> [[File:Logo_of_Qmamu_-_Indian_search_engine.jpeg|thumb|right|Logo of the Qmamu search engine]] == References == <references /> == External links == *[https://www.apnnews.com/qmamu-is-becoming-the-most-liked-search-engine-by-users-surpassing-the-other-search-engines-with-a-big-ratio/ APN News Page] *[https://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/companyLLPMasterData.do Ministry of Corporate Affairs (India) portal] *[https://www.thehansindia.com/technology/tech-news/qmamu-the-winning-example-of-vocal-for-local-initiative-668931 The Hans India News page] *[https://qmamu.com/ Qumamu web search page] [[Category:Internet search engines]] [[Category:Internet in Slovenia]] [[Category:Indian websites]] [[Category:Indian brands]] {{searchengine-website-stub}}

• There is no CCS in the text, and the two referenced news articles are just reskins of the same press release, likewise not presenting a credible claim of significance. Paul declined with the summary Removed speedy per rationale on talk page. Apletters' rationale on the talk page had been this stub is created for the limited purpose of linking the name of Qmamu search engine while listing it under localized search engines. That rationale makes no sense. Lists of large sets of things are supposed to reflect what's notable; we don't create articles on non-notable topics in order to add things to those lists. If that were how we did it, it wouldn't make sense for WP:CSD#A7 to exist at all, since any item covered by it can surely be added to one list or another. I note that subsequently Paul added his own CSD challenge, before self-reverting and un-tagging the page instead: there is an assertion of notability and sources are provided. I don't see a website saying that it is popular, or paying someone else to say that it is popular, as a claim of significance. When the article was brought to AfD, Paul cited the two reskinned press releases as sufficient not just for a CCS but for a GNG pass. Paul and Apletters were the only users to !vote keep, and the article was deleted.
  Now, there's reasonable differences of interpretation of A7, and even when an interpretation is unreasonable, everyone's allowed to be wrong sometimes. But I do think there's room here for a discussion of whether Paulmcdonald's understanding of A7 is in line with the community's. (For what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd have actioned the G11 of Urban Fêtes either. It's puff-piece-y, but not blatantly promotional. That said, when the reason for contesting deletion doesn't address the charge of promotionality, I don't think untagging as "contested on talk page" makes sense.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Qmamu is what started my concern about Paulmcdonald's judgement in general, both as an admin and an editor and their subsequent denial of facts here. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• A Question Do I have to make the exact same decisiosns as other editors all the time, or is there leeway for disagreement when it comes to interpreting application of Speedys? My understanding is that speedy deletions should only be processed if they "unquestionably" meet hte speedy criteria. If there's as question, there are other avenues for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a false dichotomy: "exact same decisions as other editors all the time" v. "disagreement when it comes to interpreting application of speedys" aren't the only two options. Speaking for myself only, I expect admins to implement consensus. If their interpretation of policy differs from the consensus interpretation, they are to implement the consensus interpretation and not their personal interpretation. I'm not sure, for the examples cited here, whether your interpretation differs from the consensus interpretation because I haven't looked into it carefully enough, although I am sure the consensus interpretation is that press releases to do not count towards notability. Levivich 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can reasonably expect that the creator of an article will usually object to speedy deletion. The only exceptions I've seen are editors who make a lot of articles on the edge of notability, some of whom take the (commendable!) attitude that if no one is willing to stick up for their articles, perhaps speedy deletion is merited—although that happens more often with PROD than CSD, since experienced editors know how to write a CCS, even for a non-notable subject. So no, I don't think that the creator objecting to a speedy measurably counts against speedying, unless the objection is something like, "Wait, please hold on, I'm still working on this and will fix the problem" for a CSD where that's viable, in which case the article can be left to simmer briefly.

  Do different admins interpret the CSD differently? Sure. Just like Supreme Court justices differ in approaches on statutory construction, so do Wikipedia admins. Personally I'm a textualist for the most part. Some reasonable admins feel G11 covers moderately promotional low-quality articles, while I don't, because that's not in the text. Some reasonable admins feel that if an article has been around long enough, A7 doesn't apply, while I don't, because that's not in the text. I think those kinds of difference in philosophy are part of a healthy system; they keep CSD-taggers on their toes because one doesn't know which admin one will get. But there's a point at which an interpretation becomes unreasonable, and I think "contested on talk" as reason to untag is unreasonable, as is calling press releases or paid coverage a credible claim of significance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  In a recent case, I wasn't convinced that a source in the article was just a press release. Others were more convinced. But to me it didn't meet the "unquestionable" standard. I'm unsure if that is the matter you are referencing. But if I did get it wrong (and that's possible) it should get fixed in AFD or some other discussion. Just like if any other admin gets something wrong, we can collaborate and work together to fix it. We can get to the right answer and right result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sure but it would be nice to do so without wasting already stretched-thin editor's time when common sense can be applied and perhaps after long absences, familiarize yourself with current community norms, policies and guidelines before utilizing tools and administrative decisions. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Paul, what was the credible claim of significance or importance? Levivich 22:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm unsure of the specific case, but as I recall there were some sources that to me looked like newspaper articles that others said were just press releases. Since others were not convinced, that seemed to me to call for more input.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Putting the extra burden on the already poorly-attended and overloaded AfD process isn't the solution. If your interpretation of the CSD criteria is idiosyncratic and differs from its current practice (both by editors and other admins), then perhaps you could leave the review of the CSD category to others? Kicking the can down the road benefits absolutely no one; not our editors, readers or the encyclopedia. Just my opinion, and I hope it doesn't come off as unappreciative of your time and effort, because it is appreciated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Blackshod

Blackshod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making a lot of unsourced and unexplained edits to London Guards, some of which remove content, e.g. [189]

They rarely use edit summaries, and do not respond to messages on their talk page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I left them a final warning with a link to WP:Communication is required, which should sum it up for them. At this point, we can say we've done everything we can and can block without any addition warnings should it continue. Non-communicative editors are very difficult, and often it takes a week long block to get their attention and get them to pay attention to their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing at greek WP for an article at en.WP

@Greek Rebel: had a discussion at Talk:Turkish language. Discussion begun 29ht of May, this year. At 4th of June, he asked for "Some help" at el.WP.[190] (title in Greek "λιγη βοηθεια" translates to "some help". He asked for assistance, because two users prevent him from fixing a POV issue. In a following post, in the same section, he says [191] "Διότι οι οπαδοί του Ταξίμ κάνουν καλά την προπαγάνδα τους εκεί που προφανώς οι άλλοι δεν δίνουν δεκάρα. Αν όμως πάμε 5-6 και πούμε το αυτονόητο, θα αναγκαστούν να ασχοληθούν" which translates roughtly "Taksim's supporters [ref to Taksim (politics) ] they are doing propaganda, because most users do not care. But if 5-6 of us, go there [at en.WP article] and say what is profound, they will have to take notice". Cinadon36 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Greek Rebel certainly merits a trout slap, but so far any canvassing hasn't had any effect on the Taksim (politics) article -- the most recent edit on the article that wasn't merely cosmetic was nearly six years ago, and the article hasn't had any edits in nearly a year. [192] As far as the Turkish language article goes, I'm happy to be an extra set of eyes, but I already see that RandomCanadian is on it ... Ravenswing 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note also that Greek Rebel opened a thread at ANI seeking changes to the content of Turkish language. I had been approaching this user as if they just weren't familiar with Wikipedia processes. Going to another Wiki to canvass, and with the nature of that message, makes me wonder if this user isn't actually trying to push their own POV into articles. —C.Fred (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• This is now the third thread related to this user's conduct, I didn't want to comment here earlier as like C.Fred, I thought that the user was just unfamiliar with our processes so I was helping them file an RfC correctly. This sort of behaviour, however, changes things. I think commenters might be missing out on the cultural context here, but on the Greek Wikipedia thread Greek Rebel is essentially engaging in ethnically laden personal attacks against Beshogur and me. Their accusations about being "taksim supporters" and "two-state solution proponents" essentially equate to randomly calling a British person that you disagree with a Nigel Farage supporter, but only worse because of the ethnic acrimony involved (Ravenswing: the reference to taksim is not a call for edits on that article, it merely serves as a personal attack). This is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, I certainly don't want to be engaging with an editor who feels free to cast ethnically laden aspersions on me, and seeing this user's overall editing profile, I really don't think they're here to build an encyclopaedia. I think this merits more than just a trout slap. --GGT (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  You've got a definite point. I've just been taking a spin through GR's modest contribution history [193], and it's clogged with Greek nationalist edits, edit warring on other articles, and frequent edit summaries accusing other editors of vandalism and propaganda [194][195][196][197][198][199]. With only 63 mainspace edits, whatever genuine contributions this editor brings to the table sure seems outweighed by the disruption he causes. Ravenswing 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  A cursory scan of the user's contributions shows no such ethnically-based personal attacks on en.wiki from 29 May to the time of this post. —C.Fred (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're right - whilst the user has personally attacked users on en.wiki (accusations of nationalism, for instance), the only clear ethnically-based attack has been on el.wiki. That discussion, however, is a direct extension of the user's editing here and it does reveal their fundamental battleground attitude - I don't believe such conduct can be ignored just because they've surreptitiously avoided being so explicit on this language edition. GGT (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Had there been such an attack on en.wiki, I would have left them a very clearly and sternly worded warning about how such behaviour is unacceptable anywhere on en.wiki and especially in conflict areas such as Northern Cyprus–related articles. I am not sure I want to do that preemptively, though another user or admin may certainly caution them or give them guidance about the importance of civility and WP:AGF. —C.Fred (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I believe there should be some sanction if Greek Rebel failed to respond to the report. GenuineArt (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's more a matter of what their next actions are. If they edit civilly and in observance of consensus and other guidelines, then there's no problem. If this current pattern of behaviour continues...I'd say topic ban, but given that the vast majority of their edits are to topics related to Greece and Cyprus, it might as well be a siteblock. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

True for most situations but now Greek Rebel should really address their behavior. Yes, an indef block and subsequent unblock with the understanding that they won't repeat this NOTHERE behavior will be fine. GenuineArt (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

To all the users that take part at this conversation: I do not understand, why it's not "legal" to ask for help in another page of the Wikipedia foundation. Did I broke some rules? If I did that, I am really sorry. But I cannot leave the accuses against me of "vandalism", "nationalism" etc... Why I am a vadal? Did my edits are against the rules of WP. No they are not. I didn't had consensus but my edits were completely right according official papers and sources. And I would suggest you again to see the Russian language page. This is exactly what I suggest at the Turkish language page. How could "Turkish language been spoken at Turkey, Cyprus and Northern Cyprus"? Northern Cyprus is a part of Cyprus according the UN isn't it? What do we care of if it's a de facto state, we are talking about an occupied territory belonging another RECOGNIZED state. Abkhazia, Donesk etc are also de facto states, but at the Russian language page are mentioned only at the infobox as "partially recognized states". So why am I vandal? And why am I a nationalist? I do not allow to accuse me of nationalism, only because I defend the International Law! Greek Rebel (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked Greek Rebel from editing Turkish language for 2 weeks. If they resume the same disruptive editing behavior after the block expires, they should be blocked for a longer duration (or indefinitely, if appropriate). If there is consensus to apply a sitewide block or a longer duration block, please feel free to override my block. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scottywong: I have made an unblock request, where I actually response to you... Some things are not as it seems to be. I think that you should see more carefully the situation and understand what I am saying. Because I still think that all this is unfair. Greek Rebel (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No one has (yet) accused you of vandalism, Greek Rebel. Kindly reread my previous post: it is that you routinely accuse other editors of vandalism. Ravenswing 13:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Oh ok I am sorry... But you didn't respond me about the others... Greek Rebel (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well ... you've asked me some of the same questions here, on your talk page, on MY talk page, on the Turkish language talk page, and there are only so many venues on which I care to respond when I'm pretty certain you aren't likely to listen to anything we're saying. But to copy what I just posted to the same questions on your talk page, "And come now ... don't bullshit us. You are a Greek edit warring over what nomenclature is being used in terms of Northern Cyprus, and your edits are heavily devoted to topics involving Greek political and ethnic action groups. Of course you're engaging in nationalist editing." For the most part, we are none of us fools here. It would serve you quite well not to believe us to be one. Ravenswing 14:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: For those interested, on June 6 2022, Greek Rebel verbally attacked Cinadon36 on El.wiki , for posting on the Administrators noticeboard about his canvassing attempt. Here is the edit that was done in the greek equivalent of the AN, stating that you accused me for coming to the Greek Wiki to ask for help, instead of helping me defend articles about YOUR HOMELAND (sic) from neo-ottoman vandalisms? Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an indef is in order. Decidedly WP:NOTHERE. Ravenswing 01:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Chronic behavioral problem from Ii-167xxx (talk · contribs)

This user primarily edits filmography sections, mostly of African-American entertainers, and adding mundane details, almost always unsourced (and almost always just copying character names from IMDb), adding non-notable films to semi-notable actors, e.g. tripling Clifton Powell's filmography with scores of VOD titles. I'd say historically their edits are only about 50% "good" but the less-than-good are not problematic, and they have only modest warnings on their user talk (and a lot of uncontested undones/reverteds in their contributions).
However, in the past few days, they've decided that "Film" was not the appropriate subheading under "Filmography" and changed it to "Film/Movie" which is absurd, redundant, and tasteless. The problem is, they've done this on hundreds of articles. I saw it on two already on my watchlist, before I realized its extent.
I asked them to self-revert all these changes at User_talk:Ii-167xxx#"Film/Movie" as BLP heading and after a day I saw they edited further but did not respond to my message and today I'm doing this ANI because they're still at it after my followup, to wit: 1, 2, and 3 after my second Talk page notice.
I'm going the ANI route because, this user is not only displaying signs of WP:ICANTHEARYOU but also be a WP:CIR issue, but also because this problematic editing has been observed by others, but not yet been seen as systemic as they've been only ad hoc undone, almost automatically by many editors whom I'm pinging to bring broader awareness and because I don't want to have to undo hundreds of these edits myself and as "evidence" that they're prima facie bad edits:

• User:General Ization undid in 7 minutes on Michael Ealy
• User:GorgeCustersSabre undid at at Tom Sizemore
• User:NOLA1982 undid at Khandi Alexander
• User:Tbhotch undid at Noel Gugliemi
• User:Bkatcher undid at Troy Byer
• User:Rhain undid at Benjamin Byron Davis
• User:SuperMarioMan undid at Isaiah Washington
• User:NathanielTheBold undid at Mike Colter

I don't know if there's a mass rollback that can be done, or what the best solution, but this user never responds on talks, they probably don't even notice the pings given 1) they're reverted a ton, and 2) they don't usually edit-war to re-revert suggesting they ignore the reversion notification. JesseRafe (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: There are currently 498 articles with the "Film/Movie" heading, and a random sampling of them suggests that all of the headings are the product of this editor. Unfortunately, not all of their edits are limited to this change, and I don't have time to review them all and determine which, if any, include constructive changes and which include none, else I'd use rollback all to undo them. This will require more investigation, and someone with more time to do it. General Ization ^Talk 03:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help in restoring the article talk page

Greetings,

One ScriptKKiddie while making page moves seems that inadvertently moved/ redirected article talk page Talk:2022 Indian Politician Nupur Sharma Muhammad remarks controversy to article page. Idk how to undo that requesting help.

It's bit strange / weird, I see my talk page edit listed in article page history.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I restored the talk page content but a page mover or an admin is needed to move it back to Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy and clean up the redirects. CMD (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, should be now fixed. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

User:SJW198964

Another sock of User:Shifu 8964. I think we may need to indefinitely protect the Father of the Nation page since he keeps coming back to delete Ho Chi Minh whenever the protection expires. The dog2 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 User blocked. Just because it's been four days I'm personally reluctant to re-semi quite yet, but won't object if someone else wants to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I dropped a rangeblock. It's Nipponese Dog Whatever. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

He's back as User:Obama8964. We might have no choice but to permanently semi-protect given how persistent he is. The dog2 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Gravedancing and outright harassment

Today I was stunned to see SerVasi WP:GRAVEDANCING on a topic-banned editor's talk page and calling them a "dog". [200] SerVasi has been warned numerous times to refrain from such behaviour and has been blocked for it on multiple occasions. If this isn't a personal attack and disruptive behaviour I really don't know what is. How is this anywhere near acceptable? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Amanuensis Balkanicus: This incident, in itself, is worthy of an ANI, but what were the alleged previous edits similar to this one?

Sadko was topic-banned from the WP:ARBEE topic area in 2021, and this action is logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Almost every interaction SerVasi has with other users is confrontational and contains insults. This has been going on for years, but this incident is particularly jarring. Some of SerVasi's past comments are even worse, but weren't reported at the time. I don't have time to go over all of SerVasi's personal attacks but here are a few examples.

"I would tell you to swim away but then i remembered the great serbian coastline. [...] Still waiting for a valid counter argument. Provide it or tractor away." [201] An obvious reference to Operation Storm, in which hundreds of thousands of Serb refugees fled Croatia, many using tractors. On another occasion: "Sorry, didnt know you were jewish." [202] "Are you or Goran Bregovic jewish by any chance? Because im at a loss to explain your recent edit." [203] FYI, the dispute had nothing to do with Jewish people. Bizarre non sequitur. Also, implying an administrator is using drugs. [204]

I have also been called a dog in the past by SerVasi, specifically a hound. [205] Also an "off-brand Sadko". [206] There is more, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick note before the actual respone. Editor Amanuensis Balkanicus (AB in further text) has some kind of personal vendetta against a blocked editor (i believe its Crovata or something like that). For some reason AB believes that's me. I became a target of slander, wikihounding (in reference to AB complaining about being called a hound) and doubious petty reports like this.

-

My note at Sadko's talk page didn't just come about randomly. I actually made my first edit on the serbian wiki. Yay me!? It was on the Ivan Gundulic article. According to wiki it lasted a whole 6 minutes before Sadko reverted it. He was topic banned on the english wiki so he continued his disruptive work on others. AB's bias is quit obvious in the fact that he is focusing on the "dog" when my statement was "the same old dog" which is quite a bit different and topical. AB and Sadko often teamed up so no wonder he is protecting his pal. My jokes that AB conveniently cherry picked are a response to their vandalism (which Sadko was banned for) and AB's annoying wikihounding of me. For example the jewish joke explanation is still up on my talk page in response to the editor OyMosby. I would like to know why was that even mentioned lol. I guess mentioning the jews makes me a nazi (this is also a joke AB (and this too)).

P.S. AB likes to whitewash pages that revolve around genocide of albanians in serbia so i don't think im the suspicious one.

Cheers and happy editing

SerVasi (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@SerVasi: So to be clear, your defense to the charges of gravedancing and harassment is "Yes, but he had it coming?" -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. He came to me first, not the other way around. This was just the continuation of the interaction. He is still disruptive and i am allowed to comment on that when he messes with my work. You could call me out on the fact that i didn't do this on the serbian wiki but as i said im new and still getting used to it so i figured it would be easier to do it on the english wiki as i don't even have the cyrillic keyboard with me at the moment.

SerVasi (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You could call me out on the fact that i didn't do this on the serbian wiki

Yes, that's the point. You should not be dragging disputes from other language Wikipedia projects here, especially if the editor is already blocked on this project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Sorry, didnt know you were jewish edit summary is from December 2020. If it had been more recent I would have indefinitely blocked SerVasi. There appears to be plenty of reason to perform that indefinite block but let's see how SerVasi responds after this. @SerVasi: Wikipedia requires collaboration and is not a place to conduct battles or poke opponents. If there is any repetition of the kinds of edits/comments reported here, you will be blocked. That includes poking Sadko. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the "Jewish" stuff is beyond the pale and would be definitely be blockable if fresh. SerVasi should consider themself on notice and formally warned. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I note an accusation above re AB, yet no diffs are provided. SerVasi, if there is any merit in your accusation, start a new thread and provide evidence. Re Cullen328's comment above. That was a final warning. Any further attacks on any editor referencing ther ethnicity or religion and you will be indeffed. I'd be minded to propose a CBAN too. Is that perfectly clear? Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Tarunanand30

Tarunanand30 has disclosed at Special:Diff/1091433803 that the account is a WP:ROLE account. From what I understand on the instructions from WP:UAA, this is the place to bring such issues. Additionally, there are strong signs of COI with the appearance of pay. The user has not responded to messages on their talk page from myself and Slywriter concerning COI, role accounts, and paid editing. They have not made the mandatory paid disclosures. Their only edits are on Tarun Anand (well, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarun Anand (2nd nomination)) and Universal Business School. Between the WP:ROLE issues and the appearance of being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, it looks like a block may be called for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Lim Zhi Hang

User:Lim Zhi Hang has resumed adding unsourced claims to BLPs, after threat of a block for this in 2019. They've now also added a legal threat and a personal attack to their disruptive edits.

The first problematic edits that I noticed were unsourced claims of new cabinet posts in articles about Malaysian politicians:

• [207]: reverts removal of significant unsourced claim in BLP Sun Xueling, without comment
• [208]: reverts removal of same unsourced claim in Rahayu Mahzam, edit summary "STOP REVERTING THE CORRECT EDITS"
• [209]: reverts removal of same unsourced claim in Chee Hong Tat, edit summary "Stop reverting"
• [210]: reverts removal of same unsourced claim in Koh Poh Koon, edit summary "Once again, dont revert"
• [211]: reverts removal of same unsourced claim in Sun Xueling, edit summary "STOP REVERTING THE CORRECT EDITS"

At this point I try to engage them at their user talk page, explaining about the need to verify the claims of new cabinet posts for all of these politicians. They respond with threats of "further actions" over "vandalism", and when I ask where the verifying source is, they reply that it's in the linked article Fifth Lee Hsien Loong Cabinet [212], and that "...the sources do not need to be repeated again and again. If you want to, you are definitely welcomed to do so. Besides, the sources are not too important in the roles I have added. These are all in the news." They then add a verifying reference to that linked article [213], edit summary "Added one more source to prevent further reverts on relevant pages".

Here I would normally just add the reference myself (as I did that same morning in related article Tan Kiat How, for another editor who appears to have been acting in good faith, [214]) but the cavalier dismissals of BLP policy in LZH's replies are troubling. So I don't revert the unsourced claims, but again try to engage, explaining that the verifying reference needs to be in the article where the claim is made, but there's no reply. The next day, I remind LZH that the claims in the articles still remain unsourced. After more accusations and more threats of "further actions" against me [215], they actually go and add the reference to the articles needing the citation. End of problem, I'm hoping.

Next day (8 June), LZH adds a mix of sourced and unsourced claims to BLP Zuraida Kamaruddin, [216]. A large paragraph of events claimed to have happened this week are sourced by a reference from 26 May that of course doesn't verify any of the detailed claims made. Rather than remove the unsourced claims (for which I couldn't find a source in English), I move the 26 May reference back to the sentence it supports, and tag the paragraph unsourced, [217]. Ten minutes later, LZH adds more sourced and unsourced content, and moves the 26 May reference back to the end of the unsourced paragraph on claims of June events, [218]. I move what's now obviously a fake reference added in bad faith back to 26 May events, and restore the unsourced tag to the June paragraph [219].

Today (9 June) my patience is at an end, and I removed the unsourced contentious (and possibly libellous) claims for June from Zuraida Kamaruddin. LZH immediately reverted, with a threat to sue me if I revert it again. [220] Evidently that's what was meant by "further actions" earlier. The legal threat is then followed up by a personal attack in a subsequent repost of the unsourced claims, [221]. Storchy (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this full and clear report, Storchy. I've blocked Lim Zhi Hang indefinitely for legal threats, persistent disruptive editing, unreasonableness, and personal attacks. The legal threat must be unequivocally withdrawn if the user is to have any chance at all of being unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 07:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC).

Thanks for your quick response on this. Now begins the long slog of cleaning up that article... but we'll get there. Storchy (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

user:UNCcabby123

UNCcabby123 has been adding unsourced and biased information and vandalizing the page of Trinidadian politician Kamla Persad-Bissessar. For example he changed her post-nominals from SC MP to SCaMP to spell scamp. He also refers to her in the article as a “Soucouyant”, a local blood-sucking hag. Arimaboss (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I left them a message on their talk page.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre behavior?

User:STATZET violated Wikipedia:Verifiability by adding back passages without citations, even though "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Look at their edit: [222].

The user created a meta user page, then a English Wikipedia user page, and then many rapid undos. Then they link a random user to my talk page. What is going on? 124.19.58.222 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Please look at this IP's 124.19.58.222 (talk) contributions they continuesly removed content from pages. Check it. STATZET (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • STATZET does not understand that claims on Wikipedia need citations. Advertising can be removed too. It is acceptable to remove certain kinds of content from pages. (I do not claim credit for old contributions from my IP). 124.19.58.222 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Liz Also the IP 124.19.58.222 (talk) was blocked last time for disruptive edits. STATZET (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: that the IP is a dynamic address and the claimed block applies to a previous user for vandalism. The IP is indeed removing uncited material and STATZET is persistently restoring it without providing any supporting references. 86.131.235.171 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes but sometime removing contents are not done. but the IP can cite sources without removing contents and proof the verifiability that could be a better. STATZET (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The material removed by the IP and restored by STATZET in the diff provided above was unsourced promotional fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• STATZET, the IP is right and you are wrong. Please do not introduce or retain WP:BLP material not supported by inline citations. BLPs are high risk pages; everyone needs to be able to see the source the pieces of content are sourced to immediately. This helps correcting errors as fast as possible.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Lurking shadow Ohk sorry, Thanks for let me know as a new editor I did mistake and next time I'll keep in mind before changing. STATZET (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

User:58.71.166.78

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.

---

58.71.166.78 (talk · contribs)

Vandalism-only account. Pattern of one date vandalism edit, then another good edit, presumably to obscure the previous edit in the watchlist of other users.--Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be stale as they have not edited for eight hours. Report to WP:AIV if they resume. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2022 (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.

Hounding by User:Reywas92

After a disagreement at Kelly Loeffler,[223], it appears Reywas92 became so aggravated at Marquardtika's opposition that they went to some articles that Marquardtika had recently edited (and that Reywas92 had never edited before), and reverted their edits.[[224][225][226] There is also this, where Reywas92 had indeed edited the article before, but that one also looks purely vengeful to me. Marquardtika asked me on my page what they could do, with links showing the situation more in detail, if you care to look.[227] After reading the diffs, it seems clear to me that Reywas92 has been purposefully harassing Marquardtika by following them around to "repeatedly confront or inhibit their work ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress", as WP:HOUNDING puts it. I would have sanctioned Reywas92 for this if I'd been uninvolved; but actually the whole Kelly Loeffler kerfuffle arose from an edit I made,[228] and I have also taken part in the discussion of it,[229][230] so I don't think I'd better take any admin action. I ask my colleagues to take a look. I think it's egregious, but then I'm not seeing it from the outside. Bishonen | tålk 17:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

I would like to apologize to Marquardtika and express regret for these edits. I did not intend to cause any distress with these changes but to improve the articles in response to their comments. In [231] I provided a further substantive source to show the relevance of the content to address their concern that "we need more than just roll call votes" [232]. In [233] I added better sources to address their concern that "HuffPost is a marginal political RS" [234]. In [235] I added new sources to address their concern that "Daily Beast and Vice are both ? sources" [236]. I will respect any other edits about these changes and will refrain from interacting with Marquardtika on other pages. Reywas92^Talk 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Reywas92, thank you for the apology. I accept it. I want to note that you are defending the substance of the edits you made, but that's not the question at hand. The issue is that you followed me to those pages. That's a violation of WP:HOUND. After we were engaged in a dispute on one page, you became angry and childishly decided to attempt to enact some sort of revenge by undoing my recent edits to other pages. This was a poor and inappropriate reaction. I take you at your word that you won't continue this behavior with me (or other editors) and I don't think that any sort of sanction is needed, as it would be punitive at this point. Marquardtika (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Azaadbaaz removing nationality of the subjects

This user is being disruptive, replacing/removing the nationality Indian or the country of origin India of the subject of the articles with ethnicity, contravening WP:NATIONALITY policy [237], [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244]. The user has also used an IP to do the job [245] [246] [247], hence requesting page protection of Diljit Dosanjh, Sonam Bajwa Rupi Kaur. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours in order to provide them the time to review MOS:ETHNICITY. If the disruption continues post-block, or continues via IP, then we can revisit protections/block extensions etc.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Very odd behavior at a RFB

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.

---

Menei Tekel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) commenting on a RFB after only a few edits elsewhere (and one here shows familiarity with Wikipedia). Very odd. Not sure what to do. Can I do a sockpuppet investigation even though I don't know who the sockmaster would be? Therapyisgood (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Telling a user you think is a sock to "log into your real account" is kinda pointless, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the sockpuppeteer whose RFA was edited by Menei Tekel?Lurking shadow (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I submitted a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shalom Yechiel. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (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 edits by Trillfendi removing french nationality of the head part

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Trillfendi and others removes the fact that Timothée Chalamet is Franco-American, when he is. It's vendalism. The discussion is about the topic [248]. Thank you. Trillfendi and others on the english page removes the fact that Timothée Chalamet is Franco-American, when he is. On all the pages of all the countries it is marked as being Franco-American, because factually it is, but they are almost racist by refusing to let it appear on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatrant (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which are not dealt with here. You need to post this – carefully explaining what the problem is and how you would like to see it resolved – at Talk:Timothée Chalamet. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Bleedforkochi legal threats, potential sock, and RGW

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

Editor frequents topics related to Kochi, India, and the Christian groups in that region. I opened a sockpuppet investigation regarding connection between indeffed Sanantonionkochi and Bleedforkochi at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanantoniokochi. Bleedforkochi made a legal threat (referencing an Indian legal code) alongside the deletion of material (reverted). Other edits feature claims of discrimination in sourced material on articles like Latin Catholics of Malabar and claims of "incorrect editing". Editor is obviously WP:NOTHERE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian disruption by IP (possibly a sock)

2A02:A458:447B:1:CDE0:6D17:3460:C95D/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP keeps removing sourced that has anything to do with Iran, I have good reason to suspect it's an IP of recently indeffed user User:WatanWatan2020, who also showed signs of anti-Iranian behaviour and spoke very similar to him.

I have already filed an SPI against him [249]. However, that may take some time, and he is still at it with his non-constructive edits (as well as comments).

Some examples:

Stop inserting that Iranian nationalist content, stop claiming that heritage like that.

Stop inserting this Iranian nationalist stuff.

6 November 2021 - Removed sourced mention of "Persianized"

26 May 2022 - Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Arabic"

5 June 2022 - Replaced sourced mention of "Turco-Persian" with "Turkish"

6 June 2022 - Removed sourced mention of "Iranian"

6 June 2022 - Removed sourced mention of "Persian"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not know about the other entries, or whether the IP is a sockpuppet, but I would like to point out that the work on Rum is correct. Rum is a Greek term from self-identification as Romoi "Romi", from "Roman" (in Greek), not a word from Persian origin, and this is well attested in the scholarly literature. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you think is correct, doesn't give you the right to remove sourced information [250]. This is no more disruptive than that of the IPs edits. If you think the information is WP:UNDUE, then you should take it to the talk page to show proof. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

They are still using IP socks to disrupt the project as of today.[251] They are also still persistently trying to shove ethnic labels on Wikipedia editors in order to make others kow-tow to their WP:NOTHERE pattern of editing ("...has been inserted this past year or so by overly enthusiastic Iranian contributors").[252] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP is still at it [253] [254]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP has now violated WP:3RR [255] [256] [257] [258]. Not to mention this nasty comment; You are an Iranian nationalist who is concerned with inserting a Persian claim all over the space. Everything under the sun becomes Persian. I've seen it all. It's not healthy, HistoryofIran. One (Iranian) historian does not set aside the multitude of sources that make no reference to a Persian link. It's one of those subjects. Iranians will make a big deal of it, trying to lay claim on anything they can. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirate of Arabistan

I am deeply concerned with the fact that the deletion process of the page I created might not be done properly. While I totally agree that the page is not written well and I recognize that it can be nominated for deletion per Wikipedia guidelines, there are several strange aspects I’ve noticed that have led me to ask for revision of this particular decision.

Here are a list of my concerns:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Arabistan
• The page has been discussed for years and most if not all of the critics are Persian-speakers. There is a need for editors who are familiar with Arab history who can provide Arabic sources.
• All the critics haven't even tried to improve the page or bring new sources first — they simply opposed the page from the beginning.
• One editor brought all the critics to the voting process from the Talk page and it looks like a coordinated action — I’m not even sure it doesn’t violate WP policy on neutral voting. Here is the fragment from the Talk Page:
• »@Pahlevun:, @LouisAragon:, @Benyamin:, @Qahramani44: I have nominated it for deletion. Since you guys have been following and taking part in this topic, I would appreciate your input. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• The same editor who nominated the article for deletion is excessively active in the voting process and has a one-sided agenda.
• Since, there is a political dispute about the name and significance of the same region among people from Iran and people from Arab countries, and the fact that the critics speak Persian but not Arabic, I assume that it would be fair to revise if this deletion process meets Wikipedia standards of neutral and due voting process. Also, I’d ask for help from the administrators to identify Arabic speaking editors or those who can share their second opinion without prejudice.VivereInPace (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:OUCH. Basically VivereInPace has been heavily violating guidelines such as WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH etc (proof of all this can be found in the very deletion nomination he mentioned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirate of Arabistan), and now that the article he created through these efforts has been nominated for deletion because of that, he has for some reason taken this to ANI, indicating that numerous established editors have some sort of prejudice due to apparently being Persian, and not Arab. Talk about WP:ASPERSIONS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I clearly stated the reasons above, HistoryofIran - it looks like you might have violated rules of neutrality and due process of voting and I made a legitimate request to verify whether your activity is not in the realm of "conflict of interest" based on the fact that you actively defend Iranian interests.

As to the page I created - it already exists in three other languages - Arabic, Punjabi and Urdu but this group of editors completely ignored that fact and only focused on the sources in Persian in order to bring their agenda and push the topic out of the English domain. This is an unreasonable attempt to remove the page instead of using the experience of other languages on Wikipedia to improve it. Therefore, I'm asking for investigation of this so called "voting".VivereInPace (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed state a few things - all based on your own personal feelings and assumptions. Just like your WP:OR article, you haven't shown a single type of proof for these allegations either. The fact that you indicate that this some sort of 'Persian conspiracy' out of nothing but thin air, should really say more about yourself than me. Anyways, this is pure WP:ASPERSIONS and the diffs speak for themselves, I invite everyone to read them to see the conduct of this user. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note @VivereInPace, but enwiki has it own policies and standards. So an article existing in another language wiki doesn't automatically mean it should have an article here, or that enwiki should copy the content in the other wikis. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user Vehbikerem2010

Vehbikerem2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User Vehbikerem2010 behaves in a disruptive and rude manner. User added non-sensical and unsourced information to both Lancia Musa and Fiat Idea articles.
Musa: Special:Diff/1091824891, Special:Diff/1091835647, Special:Diff/1091836809, Special:Diff/1091836901, Special:Diff/1091838686 (I have refrained from edit warring at this point, but wanted to discuss the matter further on user's talk page and added tags to discuss it)
Idea: Special:Diff/1091836625, Special:Diff/1091838092
Boring car facts: Lancia Musa was based on Fiat Idea, but had changed bodywork and tweaked interior and sold under a different make. The infobox field 'related' is just for such information. Noone ever uses field 'also called' for such information as those two cars are related but are not the same nor are just 'badge engineered'.
When those edits were reverted by me, user proceeded to continue to add the same information over and over again. This was only based on user's opinion that I quote: "Why Fiat Idea And Lancia Musa Are Basicly The Same" Special:Diff/1091840316
I have added 'Dubious' tags to those statements, which without any discussion were just removed by the user. Special:Diff/1091846458 and Special:Diff/1091846505
When I wrote on user's talk page, user rudely warned me, and I quote: "DONT EVER RUIN MY SESSION AGAIN!". Special:Diff/1091837736
I suspect the user does not grasp what cooperation is on Wikipedia and presents battleground mentality. YBSOne (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User continues to edit in a disruptive manner and edit war even afrer being told repeatedly which Infobox automobile template fields are for 'AKA' and which for 'related'. It was clearly explained to the user on his talk page Special:Diff/1092134698. User was blocked for 24h for edit warring and did not learn from that block Special:Diff/1091921685. User was warned for the third time not to do such edits Special:Diff/1092121663, to which he replied: "Ok Im Sorry", but an hour later did the same pattern of edits and still does them Special:Diff/1092151694, Special:Diff/1092160747, Special:Diff/1092182267.
Apart from adding a bunch of additional angle pictures this user does not add value to Wikipedia. I regretably ask for a permanent block. YBSOne (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now user decided to violate copyright by copy/pasting the entire website content and dumping it into the article. Special:Diff/1092312928, Special:Diff/1092314967. YBSOne (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

User also uploaded multiple images copied without permission from Fiat website, another and another. YBSOne (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the copyright violations, unconstructive edits, and the unhinged outburst in response to a level-1 warning, this is likely a CIR issue. In any case, the fact that Vehbikerem2010 refuses to respond to concerns about their editing warrants an indefinite block until they can demonstrate that they can understand and heed those concerns, and edit cooperatively. --Sable232 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m wondering, in cases like these where it’s apparent the person doesn’t understand Wikipedia policies, whether we could do something like an indefinite block with return dependent upon successfully completing some training such as this: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/wikipedia-essentials . Seems like training could salvage some of the people who start up in Wikipedia like bulls in a china shop. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Not here of user:Silver Bentley

I doubt a lot that this user Silver Bentley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not here to build Wikipedia at all. All of their edits are posting their personal content, using here as a blog, and I don't know if I should alert them, warn them, or request for a block.--PAVLOV (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

We've leapt very very quickly from "new editor using userspace to post non-encyclopaedic material" to "NOTHERE", without any attempt to explain to them where they have taken a wrong turn. I doubt that they are looking for a collaborative encyclopaedia to work on, but nevertheless I've dropped them a welcome template and some advice on what we're doing here. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 19:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And by "very very quickly," I see that the OP took precisely five minutes between CSD warning templates and an ANI complaint. WP:BITE's still in force, right? Ravenswing 19:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

After CSD warn, the user still post something like story under the CSD warn in their talkpage, which made me request here. PAVLOV (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think any administrative action is needed right now. The editor in question was instructed on what Wikipedia is for and what it isn't for. If they continue with their edits, we can consider a block, but not at this time. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User: Tvx1

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.

---

Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
[259]

User:Tvx1 has been using a confrontational style with loaded language in his replies to me. I would point out the passages but i suggest to read the whole section, it's not long, because there are few comments uninvolved.

• Here a first example of loaded language [260], following that with personal attacks about my understanding of "basic" English language [261] , attacking my behaviour over a page move [262], writing confrontational and rude reply shouting sentence in capslock [263]. To those i replied in a neutral and politely way [264], saying what was the offense and to cease to write those again[265].

I was told by an admin [266] to put up a RM to solve the content problem, which was stalled by the time, and Tvx1 gamed the system [267] ( i say so because i didn't went shopping for favourable opinions elsewhere, which was his accuse, after starting the RM i posted right away on the project talk page and in bold characters that discussion was moved there [268]. No two discussions, then, just moving the same there to have more discussion and exiting the stall as admin adviced me) by forcing a downgrade from the RM of the talk page of the tournament [269] back to the stalled discussion onto the project talk page, (never ever seen such downgrade happening before), with the help of another admin [270] (at this point i was confused about which rule rules and which doesn't because everyone is barging in and reversing what the prev admin said).

• After that comment with loaded language and false accusations over me [271] forcing a indirect defense by the advising admin above [272], i went on the talk page of the user Tvx1 and gave him a personal attack warning [273], trying to take the tension off the project talk page, and to remind him that criticism over topic is allowed, personal attack onto contributors are not by wikipedia policy, only to have that deleted with an egregious edit summary in which he called me names ("Stop being a..." ) [274]. So it was clear to me there was a failure of communication on his part, he refused to listen and to try to stop being rude and personal attacking me. He was on a crusade, so to say, against me. In fact he went straight at me, chasing my previous edits. See the next paragraph.

[275]

• While i was looking around for advices on how to exit the stall abovementioned, i was alerted that user Tvx1 went straight from the above troubled discussion into WIKIHOUNDING me (he made not other edit inbetween, see his contribs page [276] at 11:10 and 11:50 of 6 June ), reversing a merge i did, on the basis they were two different tournaments when in fact there were double references on both articles and it was confirmed by history of past finals of the tournament's official website [277] ( see 2011-2014 years) confirming that this tournament [278] is part of this one [279]. I told Tvx1 about it in my revert edit summary [280] but he ignored it and reverted it again with an egregious edit summary [281] showing he knows better, as if he "owns" the article, and proceeding to deleting those years altogether from the page.
  

After this hounding i cannot simply disengage anymore, because he has showed an escalating behaviour on top of his over-the-top confrontational style, making a 2 times reverse which is harming wikipedia, thus evolving from a problematic user into a disruptive one. And since i have tried everything, disengagement, public advice to stop personal attacking other users, resolving the dispute on his talk page, i have only this ANI left as my last resort choice. --Opencross (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This editor has been indef blocked once before in 2019 for, it seems to me, the same type of behaviour. They were unblocked a week later after some dispute resolution. Due to it being 3 years ago, I want to hear from @Tvx1 first. Please chime in, otherwise it's very easy to assume you have learned nothing from the last time, even though the context was different. Oz\^InterAct 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Inter, that is a very unfair characterization of me. It feels to me like you only took a quick glance at my block log and made assumptions based on there being an indefblock and didn't actually look into the whole case to see what actually triggered my block. It was not only a different context, but also a completely different "type of behavior". It was the result of a dispute regarding non-free content, which is a very sensitive subject considering the potential legal consequences for the project. I was wrong, apologized for it, accepted the restrictions that were placed on me and have respected them ever since. In fact I have hardly made any edits on that subjects. The fact that I have not been come even close to being blocked in the three years since is a clear sign that I have learned. I'm really disappointed to learn that three years of good faith edits seem to mean nothing.

As for the issue at hand here, it is actually Opencross, not me, who started to make this rather trivial issue personal by starting to falsely accuse me of bad faith on 5 June claiming I had taken an IDONTLIKEIT stance. They have continue to accuse of different kinds of bad faith ever since (e.g. ownership tendencies, WIKIHOUNDING), while portraying themselves as a simple victim. On top of that they went on to execute their requested move, even though the discussion on the subject had not received consensus and they had not even received any support. When they initiated a formal RM, I merely closed the section on the talk page of the article on technical grounds with the sole intent to let the RM take place at the place the discussion was already taking place so that already expressed opinions by multiple editors could be taken into account, per WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:MULTIPLE. Why this is characterized as "downgrading", I don't understand. The discussion can take place properly over at the WikiProject. I don't understand they claimed it "stalled" either. In the meantime, with some help from others, I managed to fix the tags so that the process is no properly working. As for my edits earlier today, I was simply watching the grass court tennis tournaments of this week as they are getting underway (Stuttgart and Rosmalen) and decided to check Wikipedia's coverage of the grass court season, when I noticed that two of the articles on the different Nottingham tournaments had been merged without any form of prior discussion. Thus I decided to revert, while I couldn't care less who had actually merged them. Though I admit it was unfortunate that the reverted edits were from Opencross, I can assure I didn't matter at all to me that they had made those edits. As with the other issue, I have no problem to take part in a proper discussion on the subject. I'm not on any personal crusade here whatsoever. I honestly cannot see how this editor expects others to react gratefully to continuous false accusations of bad faith. If anything, they are the ones causing harm here. I also find it somewhat strange that a user who joined Wikipedia just over a month ago is so well acquainted with behavioral policies like WP:HOUND.Tvx1 18:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I read all the diffs provided and found them concerning. Then I checked the block log finding the incident three years ago. On this noticeboard we learn very quickly to look for patterns in user behaviour. Now for the incident at hand - Like I said, I read all the diffs provided and to me it's not at all clear to me that you are the innocent party here. Why the aggressiveness towards the other editor? Why not try to resolve this amicably? On the other hand, OpenCross seem to think you are "after him" which you say is not the case. What we have here seems to be a classic failure to communicate. @Opencross would you be willing to resolve the dispute over on content dispute if that calms things down? Oz\^InterAct 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I will admit I haven't looked into all of the details but I was a part of the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Change "Rosmalen" into "'s-Hertogenbosch" in the ATP Tournament Rosmalen Grass Court Championships' title. User:Opencross proposed a page move based on his interpretation of Wiki policy, User:Tvx1 opposed the move based on his differing interpretation of Wiki policy, and then Opencross went ahead and moved the page anyways. That then started the back and forth between the two. I suggest both just take a step back and try to resume communications. User:Opencross should take a break on moving pages and contribute to the discussion and User:Tvx1 can be more polite in his messages. No need to escalate things or waste people's time. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm perfectly capable and willing to take in part in a civil manner. I just don't appreciate the multiple false accusations of bad faith that were directed at me.Tvx1 18:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Inter, as I pointed out before, there is no pattern. The incident from three years ago was something completely different. It's clear now that just checked the block log, but not the actual incident. Moreover I have kept my nose clean in the three years since, so why is that ignored? As for this issue, I didn't and I won't claim I'm simply innocent here. I probably reacted a bid badly to the false accusations, so pardon if I don't take kindly to such kind of things. Why I'm merely trying to point is that Opencross is not simply innocent victim they portray themselves to be. I'm more than willing to take part in dispute resolution if that is what it takes, though I'm convinced that just letting the RM run its course should suffice. What I'm not willing to take part in, is being subject to a continuous barrage of accusations of bad faith.Tvx1 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nor is probably anyone else here. And nowhere did I say the incident three years ago has anything to do with the current issue and as it has played out, it doesn't matter either. If Opencross can avoid moving pages without consensus and you being open to a milder approach, I think we can lay this incident to rest. @Opencross what do you say? Oz\^InterAct 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I looked to see if there were any patterns. That's the only relevance. Oz\^InterAct 19:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, i was reading your comment. Before answering your question i need to respond to the one from Tvx1 about my knowledge of wiki policies and templates, at a level unexpected from a new user. He is right, i didn't know about them, i had to do a crush course because he made me do it, which is what i was unexpecting coming into wikipedia. Maybe some advices here and there (and i have gathered a good number of them), some confrontation? Sure. But it has been 3-4 days i 've been perusing every page of wikipedia to find the right policy and even this very place to post about this trouble. He made me do all that by not listening to my thoroughly attempt to resolve the dispute, as i explained above.

So, Oz, do you think this can be solved as a content dispute? I was asking myself that very question before posting this ANI, i was considering if posting another message to Tvx1 over the topic would have solved the problem, and while doing that and looking around for admin to give me advices i was alerted bythe hounding Tvx1 was doing.

My understanding is that this user is wearing criticism up his sleeves, he utterly refused any compromise, on top of that he tried to reverse the table while persisting in insulting and attacking me personally multiple times. I am 100% sure he still doesn't understand that ijustdontlikeit policy is not personal attack. He thinks it is, he just says so. So, your proposal would do nothing about wikipedia, if he doesn't show he understands the personal attack, the game the system and own policies and would not resort to them in the future. What would matter if he resolves the dispute with me and go ahead and continue to make the same errors with others? If you will just give him a condoning card, a free pass what do you expect he will do?

After 2 "technical" admins went his way on the first article about the RM move he exchanged pleasantries with them ( see his last reply there) and went straight to hound my edit. Right away. That is he felt encouraged to persist into his bad behaviour, not only that, he escalated it into hounding. This is very troubling, given that he also made reverse damaging wikipedia, just for the seek of retribution for my warning on personal attack on his talk page.

Sure, we can solve this content dispute, he then will move on on another crusade toward someone else. Do you think this is presumptuous? That this is a content dispute escalated only against me? Well, let's take a different point of view. Tvx1 said he is on a good behaviour in the last three years. I took it as ".. because no other else has been posting an ANI on me meanwhile". Well, the fact anybody didn't post it doesn't mean he's on a good behaviour either.

I would just point out this case not involving me, on the 2022 Wimbledon page Tvx1 drafted a couple of days ago. I saw that page firsthand, he posted about it asking for advice on the project talk page, and i advised him and wished him good editing [282]( so to say i was not prejudiced against him or other editors), but that page needed a good and deep cleanup, even on a grammatical level, i saw that, but seeing already his confrontational behaviour and answers to me, following my disengagement attitude i stayed away from that.

Let's see what happened there: an IP user made a obvious edit cancelling a repetition [283] and Tvx1 reverted it. Not only that, but he was constantly checking the article edits and answering almost every other editor.

The IP user has not posted since then.

So, are we sure Tvx1 is on a good behaviour or has he been swiping away who knows how many editors who got their edits reverted (thus damaging wikipedia) and don't want the trouble of perusing every wikipages and start an ANI? We are not. No one is going to check all his previous edits, also he is replying here with an IP, a little bit strange he didn't log in. Maybe he doesn't want this on his record, i don't know, i don't want to check this too, on top of what i have already red before writing this ANI. I found it strange, nonetheless, but maybe it's nothing to worry about, just a glitch.

The trouble here, Oz, are two: first he has this bad "own" attitude on every article he got invested, and second he doesn't take criticism well, and i mean the neutral and over the topic, i can't imagine what will happen if anyone would attack him personally.

What i know is just what i reported, what i have seen firsthand in the last couple of days, and how he walled my attempts to solve his bad behaviour toward me, he didn't listened at all. So, i am not interested in solving the content dispute. What does it make for other users he would clash against in the future?

As you can see from his answer above, he still thinks he is on the right side, didn't do any attack to me, didn't own, etc.. he is on refusal mode.

If you want to condone his behaviour for this time, that call is on you. I am not interested in making the page move anymore (sure maybe i rushed it when i made that page move on my part. This justify Tvx1 aggressive and multiples comments on that? No).

I was expecting a "sorry". He didn't even said that. Why? Because he thinks he didn't make any mistake.

This speaks volume to me, i don't know about you. You're condoning him this time, he will go out of this emboldened and with a free card and will do what he did today after two "technical admins" went his way, when he successfully gamed the system to downgrade the RM, which is damaging wikipedia in a rampage of reverts. You will make him even more troublesome. I just showed you so in the diffs above, if history is of any evidence to you. You'd better not to be in the shoes of whoever editor will cross him next time. I wish you to take a good decision on this. Cheers. Opencross (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Thing is, we hold people to their word here, regardless if they started an incident or reported it. Since they have said they are willing to milden their comments towards others, we want to assume good faith and hold them to their word. If they do not, it's on record and action taken against them will be based on broken promises. I want to reiterate that we advocate to assume good faith everywhere on Wikipedia, which of course also includes ANI. At least in my view I do not block anybody if there is a chance of resolution first. This is why I have used the language I've used in this incident so far.

What we have here is failure to communicate between two editors who have run into each other with opposite views of both content and approach. Words were exchanged, they were taken the wrong way by both, as both seem to accuse the other of the same thing. My proposal is that you either 1, avoid each other in the future or 2, have a discussion on one of your talk pages about how to better understand each other. Oz\^InterAct 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm the editor who originally advised Opencross to start an RM on the talk page. I was mistaken, and instead should have advised them to add the RM template to the existing discussion, but this was quickly rectified with the help of Tvx1 and another editor. (Though I'm not an admin, as the opening post suggests ) DanCherek (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To me this seems like a non-issue now and with some better communication in future, we can move on. Oz\^InterAct 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed about your false equivalence between the criticism on the topic i did, and the multiple personal attacks i received. This is contrary to this [284] wiki template which states those are opposite and not similar, to wikipedia civility page [285] and to the 4th pillar of wikipedia.

You seems to me you have also overlooked on the previous indef block of the user in discussion, over the nuances that it was a different sub-set of mistake, forgetting what was high and front of you all this time, that this is in fact his second major infraction. This rationale of yours is not only bad, it's even worse, since you're going to give him not just a one-time free pass without even the duly "say sorry to whom you attacked personally", which he didn't either on his part (again no remorse whatsoever for his past behaviour), but you are emitting him a multiple-free pass, for any sub-set of infraction you consider independent (so, say, he can vandalize one-time, make wrong edit over a protected template one-time, breaking the 3R one -time and so on). This is enforcing a bad general behaviour also into anybody who is reading this ANI (see? No rules applied for first-time offense category). You make me feel like i was wasting my time collecting 20+ diffs and gathering all the background needed, and doing a "crash course" over how to deal with this problematic user, when you could have saved me time and energies with a disclaimer on top of this page: "no first-time offenders ANI, post them only about second timers".

And what about second-timers?

You hold more prominently his words about future behaviour than his past written words and actions on the basis this is a first-time infraction of its kind. So, while you're wading into this nuance, his owning attitude and his gamethesystem way of acting and his disrecpecting of this ANI showed up, as i easily warned you about two days ago.

He first engaged directly with me on a subject where he could have replied to any other user participating [286], not considering this ANI is still ongoing (well, maybe after your proposal he took it as it practically ended) and evading at all to consider your proposal, in fact he didn't reach out to me to smooth things out (and why would he do that? What motivation did you give him?) and for sure he didn't avoid me.

And then there was this: he came back to the second main article i cited in my first comment above where he caused so much disruption and harm to the article, and made some edits, leaving only one edit summary, THIS [287] which in any other circumstances i would not even consider, but on that article, after the disruption he caused right there, and with this ANI ongoing, he went back and replicated almost the very exact words he used when he was disruptive, causing not only me but who knows how many other users who are reading the revision history [288] to check them all to see if he was at it back again ( he was not). You see the kind of gaming the system you were condoning after not giving him even a slap on the wrist? This edit is clearly not enough to say he contravened his promises here, but it's by-the-book definition of being disruptive [289] and i quote "Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors, who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity." , causing other users to check his edits, thus wasting time. He could have left some neutral summary, like "fix name" or "fix", or nothing at all like in the others following edit he made there, instead he went on toying around, gaming the system, disrupting..

Now i know you won't hold him accountable for his past actions and words, but those came after making promises here, after your good faith assumptions about him (Still standing?).

I think i will leave you time to consider this new facts (i hardly think you'll change your view, though) and i'll wait a bit for any other admin to take a good look at this ANI. If no substantial change will happen, you'll have me answer your final proposal above. Opencross (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? Now, I’m not even allowed to fix an incorrect link and state I did so?? What exactly is disruptive about that? Or am I not allowed to edit the articles of the Nottingham tennis articles anymore at all?? My edit wasn’t even a revert of one of yours, let alone that the edit summary was directed at you. As for the diff of me replying to you in the RM, did you even notice that I was actually partially agreeing with you? That was actually me trying to show my good intentions, yet it is used for another unfounded bad faith accusation. And why do you accuse me of not showing remorse for my past behaviour? I literally wrote in my first post in this thread that I was wrong in the events that led to that block and that I apologized, accepted, and respected the restrictions that were placed on me. I’m really at a loss here at what I can do to show that I’m not at all the disruptive editor you hold me for.Tvx1 20:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Reading all this text and obviously huge emotional involvement, you seem more interested in getting your way than resolving something. I also see you have tried to involve other admins, so is there something else going on here? Looking at the diffs you have provided I cannot quite understand why you 1) react so strongly to this editor's actions, who by the way have already stated they are willing to milden their approach to you in future, and 2) go adminshopping on ANI of all pages. Why all the effort to get rid of Trvx1? Oz\^InterAct 12:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Recapitulation

Well, Opencross, you asked on my talkpage for another admin opinion. I think that's a bit disrespectful to Inter (Oz), who is a perfectly competent admin, and I also think it's a questionable decision to ADMINSHOP when a) this is already before as many admin eyes as possible and b) you've already been accused of forum-shopping in this section. Furthermore, on my talk you asked me to check for a possible case of sockpuppetry, despite presenting no evidence thereof on my talk nor here (as far as I can tell, admittedly skimming some of the above). Please be aware that accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence are considered personal attacks.

So I'd like to give you a chance to set things straight here. Please present 3 to 5 diffs of Tvx1 breaking Wikipedia policies and guidelines, saying which policies or guidelines were broken in each, with no more than one sentence of analysis per diff. (Example: This comment violates WP:NPA because they called me <bad word>.) Also, please either present evidence of sockpuppetry (here or at WP:SPI) or rescind that accusation. Again, just evidence. No more commentary, please.

Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Evidence of breaking rules:

1. In this comment he said "you’re making up rules yourself" violating WP:UNCIVIL WP:NOBITING.
2. In this one he said "If you refuse to understand basic English language, that’s not my problem", violating WP:NPA
3. in this comment he said me moving a page was " the lowest of behavior here"
   violating again WP:UNCIVIL. You can see my polite answer following that, and advising him to stop personal attacks.
   

On that, he and apparently Oz and you keep bringing up WP:FORUMSHOP i did by making the RM. I was advised to do so by a "technical admin" (he says above he's not actually an admin) in this comment "you should start a Requested Move discussion on the talk page by following the steps at WP:RSPM". He confirmed that twice:here and above in this ANI. I did that and wrote in bold characters about it here, on the project's talk page we were discussing. So forumshop accuse is false. Also its was posted by Tvx1 too, see here.

Continuing evidences:

1. in here he shouted in capslock at me (on purpose, see the syntax used), violating WP:UNCIVIL
2. in this comment he accused me of WP:FORUMSHOP, and even after admin suggested me to put up the RM, violating WP:NPA
3. i gave him a personal attack warning using wiki-templates here on his talk page, he deleted it with this egregious edit summary [290] saying "stop being an hypocrite", violating WP:NPA WP:UNCIVIL.
4. After that in retribution he went straight from this comment, adding WP:MULTI accuse to me, to [291] reverting a major merge of mine. This violated WP:WIKIHOUNDING
5. i reverted that "WP:VANDALISM??" here, explaining the merge was well sourced, he reverted it again here, with this edit summary "The article was simply wrong. All these leftover mistakes are about to be changed. The challenge was a different tournament. Your edits wrong". Re. Violating WP:HOUNDING, WP:DISRUPT, and i think also violating WP:OWN.

Post- ANI evidence (happening after this ANI started)

1. In this comment he says in edit summary "Wrong tournament. The Challenge came later" imitating his previous disruptive edit summaries, thus forcing me and any other user to check if it was at it again, thus violating WP:DISRUPT.
2. In this comment it was reverted my edit here. The IP user's talk page shows he made only that edit. He is from the same area of Tvx1 and this behaviour is consistent with his previous WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So i asked an admin, you, to check for a suspected case of sockpuppetry. (I'm sorry i forgot to upload the links, i thought i had done that in this ANI).

This is it.

A final note for Tamzin. I asked another admin if there were ANI reviews to forward my deep dissatisfaction with this ANI results so far. He told me there wasn't, but to wait in case any other admin would take a look. And i waited for Oz and for any other admin. Then I asked you, Tamzin, since you were the first coming up in this page. And i phrased my question as "Would you mind to take a look at it?". I was not shopping around, i was politely asking. You can still refuse if you are not comfortable with this. I have already said above to Oz that if no other admin would take a look he'll have me answer his proposal. I don't want anyone to feel obliged to do anything. I just don't like this soft accusation of shopping around coming up. It's not my fault if i am a recently new user and i have to rush through conductpages and wiki rules and templates to see what to do, and yes, ask also admins for advice, and trust them on their words. You should have put up a detailed procedure page, and let new users go through it step by step instead of forcing them to wade around, wasting quite a lot of time searching and looking for answers on how to proceed. I would have preferred not to do this, but the persistent behaviour of the other user left me no other choice than use this ANI as last resort. Opencross (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Opencross, please understand that when you post on a noticeboard like this, you are asking others to volunteer their time to help you. If someone asks you to present something concisely, it is rude to continue to post at length. I asked you to recap this in 3-5 diffs with at most one sentence of analysis each. You've given me 700 words. I'm not going to read the part that exceeded what I asked for. So, assessing the first five diffs, plus the evidence of socking: #s1-3 are not personal attacks, and barely incivil. "Continuing evidence" #1 is I guess suboptimal but far from meriting admin attention; Tvx1, please try not to shout at people (that's just a general remark, not an administrative warning, since I haven't considered the totality of the circumstances here). "Continuing evidence" #2 seems to have been resolved above and is, regardless, not worthy of admin attention. If there's evidence of misconduct after those 5 diffs, maybe someone else will review it, but I was clear in what I asked for.

As to the socking evidence, two people from Belgium reverting you is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Tvx1, if that does happen to have been you, please be careful not to edit while logged out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tamzin.

I am a short of two months registered user who happens to be the target of bad behaviour (to my and wiki standard). I had to go through pages and pages of wiki policies to understand what to do. That took me a long time. You are here longer than me and you know better than me about these proceedings. If you were busy you could have refuted to take a look at this, as i said to you.

I could not, though, since i was personally involved. So, be respectful also of the time i've spent on this ANI.

You wanted me to write, again, all the diffs, and i did that, by following your model "link +quote +wiki policy infringed". That was the enumeration part alone of the comment above (i didn't understand if you went through all of them, i presume you did. Regarding the suspected sockpuppetry i got you didn't check it. I am disappointed you didn't.).

If you wanted it shorter, that was my original comment at the start of this ANI.

Out of the diffs' enumeration, i've written two paragraphs to defend myself from the wp:forumshop accusation coming up, and also from the soft adminshop you mentioned. I would have preferred to be dispensed from both. My understanding is that ANI is more time-consuming discussion than 3RR edit war, this is about conduct; that about content. Wiki has two different places for those, so they too recognize the difference. In fact it needs time to read the diffs and to check them all. Otherwise what's the purpose of it??

Anyhow, thanks for your clarification about how and when wiki rules are applied. I could make good use of that. Opencross (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above the new heading. I chose to delay further response for two days as I wanted to observe what happened if Opencross got some time to calm down a bit. That obviously did not seem to happen. I have explained to both of them what I think is the issue here and how they should try and find a way to communicate with each other, but Opencross is acting in a way that makes me think he seems more interested in getting his way than resolve the situation diplomatically. That's fine and we can turn to hard action instead, however that turns out. If I am wrong, do not hesitate to comment to that effect. Oz\^InterAct 12:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Oz, you are wrong.

You are blatantly ignoring my three diff'd attempts to resolve Tvx1 bad behaviour diplomatically before starting this ANI. I have to resort to this, again, when he subsequently started wikihounding me.

I think you're skipping the very core of an ANI (to check the diffs), over promise of future behaviour, but we talked already about that, and you can see how that went down (no good at all) reading above.Opencross (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Opencross: You've now been told by two admins that no actionable civility violation occurred. You don't have to agree with that answer, but you have to accept that it's the answer you've been given. I would suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I did know that since Oz's lenient proposal already.

I can see how poorly you two performed on this ANI for different reasons.

You may or may not be good admins (that's bigger than a single ani), but you both should recuse yourselves from oversighting conductuser in here, because for different reasons (overlooking any diffs in lieu of future promises; only limited counting words comment accepted) are clearly not the right admins to take a look into conductusers.

I think Oz was or could be a good mediator on arbcom, and you could be a good admin over 3RR war edit (checking just "no more than 3-5 diffs" as you said to me above). So, i have no hard feeling on that, but you two are out of place in these pages. I think you both know that.

Ah, and that horse you were mentioning is standing on 4 legs, not on his tail. I don't wish you both to have this ANI haunting you in the future (maybe over an RfC), but if that will happen don't say you didn't see that coming. You two have a nice day. Opencross (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2022 (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:Cordyceps-Zombie - non-existent name changes to article titles

Cordyceps-Zombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yesterday, the user moved NTR district to Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao district, an abbreviation that is incorrect. The district name doesn't have an abbrevation, even tho it's named after N. T. Rama Rao. The user further goes to change the article to suit the name change [292]. In the beginning I thought there's a name change to the [newly formed] district and tried to search the news, and asked on the talk page to see if the news cycle hasn't caught up yet. Only later I found out that that is false and there's no such name change. This morning, the user went to Kadapa district and did similar changes [293] - and no - the district's [official] name YSR district isn't an abbreviated form even tho it's named after Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy. I've reverted the page move and changes in all of the articles. The user has immediately reverted me [294] [295]. I've posted a disruptive editing notice with a message asking to self-revert with a threat of ANI [296]. The user did not heed to it , thus forcing me to do a second revert [297] [298]. The user persisted and reverted me back restoring non-existent names and demanding that I discuss the issues. Clearly, the names are non-existent. I couldn't comment how the user decided to create these imaginary names. WP isn't a soapbox forum to discuss whether we should create them — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion and edit-warring by sockpuppet IP 82.33.24.203

82.33.24.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) This ip was identified as a sock of PlainAndSimpleTailor at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlainAndSimpleTailor/Archive#21 April 2021. At the time of the SPI they were evading their block to edit one specific article, and they were IP-hopping, so the page itself was shrewdly semi-protected rather than play "whack-a-mole". Since then, the user has continued to block evade using this IP, sometimes returning to make the same edits but more recently other articles within the same general subject area (British legal articles; Brexit; legal regulatory bodies). The habits remain the same, including adding fringe opinions to legal articles and personal attacks. They are now edit warring over a legal article; can patrolling admin please enforce the block onto this IP.

Recent edit warring: 1 2 3 4 5

Cambial — foliar❧ 13:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Could an admin block this identified sockpuppet. This is uncontroversial: the editor was indef blocked for personal attacks; they are evading their block using this IP; using it to edit war and make personal attacks. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J Coudrey (2nd nomination)

I would appreciate some admins keeping an eye on this AFD. The first AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J Coudrey had lots of vote stacking from WP:SPA accounts, and the article creator was reported for potential sock puppetry/meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2/Archive. The article was recently re-created after being deleted for failing WP:SIGCOV, using many (but not all) of the same sources. I copy pasted the source analysis from the first AFD into this second AFD (because many of the sources are same), which has now created drama at that AFD with personal attacks being thrown at me. I'm finding the whole thing very distressing and would appreciate some support, if only just to keep things civil. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deleted and salted. El_C 02:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to move a local file description page?

At File:Sri Saddyojato.jpg it seems that a new editor has mistakenly used the file's description page to draft a new article. Is it possible to move this into draft space? The file itself is uploaded to commons. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried moving this bio page (whose subject's notability is in question and is quite WP:PROMO'y) to a draft, but the software does not allow for this. So I deleted it. The image still exists on Commons, but the text is gone. Who knows how that works (some particle physicist, probably). El_C 03:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dranonymous2000 is 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.

---

• Dranonymous2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dranonymous2000 has come to Wikipedia to expound upon his novel, and as yet unpublished, theories. His talk page screeds speak of a frustrated academic who has been unable to get any academic journal to accept his research for publication, and who has even undertaken lawsuits in his belief that his ideas are being censored. He has edited Hardy-Weinberg principle (see [299]) to add his own unpublished extensions to this theory (as well as to engage in public personal attacks against this editor (see [300]), and has expounded upon his plight at Talk:Hardy-Weinberg principle#Memes and cultural evolution, among other places. A complete review of his contributions will indicate that he is here to right great wrongs, but not to build an encyclopedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail has permanently blocked Dranonymous2000, so incident managed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I blocked them indefinitely. Honestly from looking at some of the nonsense I'm unsure if it's pure self promotion or outright hoax/trolling (see "Randall K. Meyer invented the concept and term on on a Holiday Inn bed, on his first week seeking political asylum in Canada" which sounds like utter nonsense to me.) Either way is completely incompatible with the project. I know it hasn't gone through the standard warning cycle, but I have zero illusions that that would be in anyway productive so I'm just saving everyone a great deal of time and headaches and cutting it off right now. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Reading some of this user's writings (esp. his draft autobiography, now deleted), I strongly suspect there may be mental health issues involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's not play armchair psychiatrist with other editors. No matter the reasons they're entirely incompatible with Wikipedia at this time. And incidentally their story was wildly inconsistent between pages, apparently they claimed political asylum in Canada from the US (um unlikley but I guess possible in some circumstances but not this one). Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Let's just call it case closed. Thanks. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 10 June 2022 (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.

Canterbury Tail, can you maybe proofread your block message? Is of it everything is a complete hoax — "or if everything?" And is Wikipedia is not a place to publish your notable theories — "novel theories?" Thanks. El_C 15:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, fair. I'll make some updates. Thanks for spotting those. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean that the theories should be in a novel (maybe sci-fi) rather than an encyclopedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a novella idea! El_C 03:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected paid editing by User:Rodriguezmc3 at Kris_Duggan

User:Rodriguezmc3 is the primary author of Kris_Duggan, who has made several attempts to include puffery in the article and remove sexual assault and battery charges that were settled out of court. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Is your only evidence for paid editing a handful of weak changes made by that user, that were promptly reverted, after which there was no flame wars, no revert wars, etc? This seems like a normal content dispute. And, in fact, a resolved normal content dispute from a year ago. This page is for, and I quote, "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Do you have other evidence to present? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

FB MSBS Grot

I'd like to report disruptive editing on the FB MSBS Grot article. Recently, the page was locked for 30 day [301] by Deepfriedokra, as user Rzęsor (here:[302][303][304]) kept re-adding questionable material despite it previously being discussed a length on the talk page, with the the content rejected for not meeting encyclopedic standards. Now, with the protection template removed, Rzęsor (here:[305]), along with an IP user 91.237.86.201 (here:[306][307][308][309][310]) again started to re-insert the material and edit warring just short of 3RR, despite being asked to familiarize themselves with the talk page discussion. --E-960 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The article should be in its original version and protected against deleting a large amount of text, which is vandalism. Rzęsor (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

User E-960 started the editing war by deleting large amounts of text which is vandalism and a violation of Wikipedia rules. He earlier undone another user's edits three times. Which means that he was the first to violate the rule he are writing about. Its not personal review, all defects are confirmed by military magazines Milmag, Defence24, FB Radom and Territorial Defence Forces. And It is in Polish Wikipedia article about MSBS Grot too.91.237.86.201 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.237.86.201 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the original version does not include the content you and IP user are trying to insert. Also, I'm not sure if this is the case here, but potentially there might be a sock-puppet at work as the two editors in question are re-inserting the exact same text that caused the original article lock, perhaps as a next step there should be an investigation. --E-960 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Oryginal version include this content, but you remove this earlier. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, pls familiarize yourself with the talk page, and the arguments why the text was reverted in the past, at this point pls WP:DROPTHESTICK. --E-960 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• At this time Rzęsor (here:[311]) has re-added the exact same disputed material, despite being asked not to carry on tag-team edit war along side IP user 91.237.86.201. --E-960 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have restored the original version. Rzęsor (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion from the talk page is that there are important information confirmed in many sources. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the "original" verions, in fact other editors have also reverted you in the past such as Loafiewa. --E-960 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Which means you delete large amounts of text along with the Loafiewa. 91.237.86.201 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that in the past IP user 91.237.86.201 was accompanied by other editors who stepped in to re-add the same questionble content: In January 2021 it was 91.237.86.201 and Dvaderv2, in February 2021 it was Military Galaxy Brain and 91.237.86.201. Now, its 91.237.86.201 and Rzęsor. I'm hesitant to say this is a potential sock-puppet incident, as I simply do not have the experience in dealing with such issues and I could just be wrong, however I find it rather unusual that when the exact same questionable content was being added a similar tag-team approach occurred as now. --E-960 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to mostly be a content issue about the reliability of a particular reference, maybe WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss this. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, I would say this is an disruptive editing issue, when and editor(s) have disregarded past talk page discussions, have not gained consensus, but keep persistently re-adding the exact same questionable material, it is not simply a content issue (I'm not brining this matter as such, but as disruptive editing case). Also, I'm concerned about the particular patter of tag-team editing, which may be a sign that we are dealing with a sock-puppet, however I'm not sure of this, perhaps others who have more experience, and can make a better determination then me. --E-960 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you deleting large amounts of text added by five other users? 91.237.86.201 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you writing everything twice? You wrote this exact statement a few lines below at 07:59 (two minutes before here), and you are doing the same thing on the article's talk page as well. Pls stop, this is getting tiresome. --E-960 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

I see I have been mentioned... I and other editors have consistently explained to E-960 why his opposition to having the information included is (assuming that he is acting purely in good faith) dubious at best. Other firearm articles have had information on reliability defects, their extent, and their eventual resolution included where such defects have been reliably reported. Other firearms have had information on failed adoption bids included where reliable information exists about such-and-such a weapon not being adopted by such-and-such an organisation - and this information actually pre-dated the Onet article, (what I believe to be the first 'failed bid' edit, dated 24 September 2017; failed Estonian Defence Forces bid, dated 6 August 2018; revision as of 16 January 2021, which is the most immediate revision prior to any inclusion of the reported reliability problems; comparison of 16 and 25 January 2021 revisions, showing that the only additions r.e. failed bids was a reference to Policja adoption of the HK417, clarification of which LMT MARS variants had been adopted by the Estonians, and the addition of a failed Portuguese bid) yet E-960 removed it anyway, thus indicating that whatever intentions he has are more far-reaching than merely omitting any information stemming from an admittedly contentious article. I have repeatedly asked E-960 to go over to WP:RSN if he feels that strongly about Onet not being a credible source (even as other outlets carried the story and even as PiS-affiliated media and FB Radom both had to, by necessity, refer to the claims in order to rubbish them, meaning that the original Onet article is not critical to whether the information can be included) and I have yet to see anything indicating he has actually done so. If anyone has failed to gain consensus... well, I won't say who, but it's probably not the disparate group (if it can actually be called a group) of editors who are constantly trying to overrule one individual editor who won't let a word of negativity be uttered about the Grot on English Wikipedia even as Polish Wikipedia (which I would imagine to be best suited to discussing the ins-and-outs of Polish media coverage r.e. a Polish-designed and Polish-manufactured rifle) ultimately settled on including the information. I would also like to make it clear that I have not made any attempt to edit the article in order to restore the information nor have I made any other edits to the article at any stage; I have only contributed to the article talk page and the various unsuccessful attempts therein to convince E-960 that, in all probability, he is in the wrong.

- Dvaderv2 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Again, pls note that the issue discussed here is NOT content dispute (pls do not bring content discussions here to draw away from behavioral concerns), but the disruptive behavior exhibited by IP and the tag-team fellows Rzęsor, Military Galaxy Brain and Dvaderv2. Not sure if a suck-puppet is involved here, but all these editor are re-adding the exact same text first posted by IP. Also, pls note that I've went ahead and collapsed the wall of text about article content as this discussion is about disruptive behavior and should remain focused on this. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why are you deleting large amounts of text added by five other users? 91.237.86.201 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As noted before, again please review the article's talk page discussion and WP:DROPTHESTICK — this is why your behavior is disruptive, as you keep edit warring, trying to re-insert the questionable content. --E-960 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• As someone who is newish to the topic (I made a comment on the article talk page after first seeing this thread) I would like to say that, irrespective of anything else, there does seem to be a difference of opinion about what should be included on the page and suggest that a WP:RFC to get a community consensus about what is on the page would be one option worth considering. Either a RfC suggesting that particular sections be removed or a RfC that a particular section is kept / inserted. I would also note that, whilst there has been some back and forth on the talk page, I am not sure that there is a consensus that the content is questionable. Either way a RfC would be a great way of determining consensus and short-circuiting the issue.Gusfriend (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: IP user 91.237.86.201 has continued the edit war from yesterday and re-inserted the disputed text here: [312]. I went ahead and filed a 3RR violation on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. This is a clear case of disruptive editing, re-adding the questionable text despite not gaining consensus and when there is an ANI discussion in progress. --E-960 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've alerted MILHIST that there is a dispute with the article in the hope that the issue can be resolved. Administrative action including a PBLOCK or stronger remains an option. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats and edit warring

User:PleaForFairness recently posted a legal threat on their talk page, and their only mainspace edits are baseless POV edit warring. Their attempts at “discussion” are inflammatory borderline word salads. Seems like blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked PleaForFairness for making a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Users

Users User:12-years-old girl from Marseille, France and User:ഓഘരലഗജസാോദജകേ്ജോദേവ appear to be socks, making unconstructive edits and drafts, apparently posting personal information. Nythar (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That first account has no contribs button! El_C 04:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: The former username does not exist; make sure it is spelled correctly. The latter is already blocked at time of this writing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Click on the first one and then go to the talk page, thank you. Nythar (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That talk page has now been deleted per WP:CSD#U2, being that the user does not exist. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Join Instagram at Under 13, by the way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Korean nationalist engaged in WP:NPA

User:Zessede engaged in WP:NPA with users User:Qiushufang and User:Esiymbro.

Consistent and habitual accusations based on race, ethnicity, and supposed political affiliations. See edit summaries, [313], [314], [315], [316], Talk:Goryeo#Chinese_editors_sabotaging_page, Talk:Balhae#Sources.

Zessede consistently deflects by accusing and insulting others of political and ethnic affiliations including being part of the CCP, state sponsored historiographical projects, being wumao, being Chinese, and coordinating together because they are Chinese buddies.

Probably also WP:NOTHERE based on this edit summary:

• Bent on a mission? When in fact Chinese users like Qiushiubang and Esiymbro sabotage Korea-related contents, for instance, other wiki pages of Korean kingdoms, ranting in demand of 'no primary sources' and 'no Korean and only English sources'. When in fact foreign scholarly works done on the Later Three Kingdoms or other eras of Korean History are minor and near to none. Simple fact is, Han Chinese folks have less to do with Balhae than Korean people who are actually tied via blood, culture etc [317]. At no point did I insist that Korean sources not be used. Zessede was originally the one who removed an English source [318].

Insult and accusation of being Wumaos:

• Wonderful coordination between two Chinese buddies keen on disproving Balhae's role in the Unification of the Later Three Kingdoms and the Founding of a unified Goryeo. Keep up the good work, Wumaos. [319]

Insult and accusation of being Chinese ultranationalist as well as deflection:

• Hurts much? You can't even refute a single statement I make and outright brand me an ultranationalist when in reality you're the one sabotaging Korea-related contents. If you aren't an Chinese ultranationalist, then answer my two question. Do you think Tibet and Uighur are genuinely Chinese? And what do you think about the Tiananmmen Massacre? Thank you. [320] Qiushufang (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• For my part, I strongly believe that Tibet and Xinjiang should have the right of self-determination, that the Tienanmen Massacre decidedly happened, that the PRC's rewriting of history is highly objectionable, and in all the other proper talking points. So stipulated. But it does not therefore follow that Chinese editors are by definition incapable of following Wikipedia guidelines and policies or editing in a neutral fashion, debarred from editing Korean-related articles, or set beyond the protections of WP:NPA that every editor enjoys. If Zessede has charges to make and evidence to support them (beyond "I don't like their edits"), let's hear it. If not, they can stifle. Ravenswing 03:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Qiushufang and Esiymbro on Korea-related contents undoing lengthy edits backed with verified Korean sources both academic and primary without provision of detailed explanation as to why. Korean sources are main and foremost when it comes to Korean History. This idea is aligned with mainstream academia as well. Both users are inconsistent with their demeanor on Wiki Policies regarding the preference of secondary sources and non-English based evidence. They are active on only on pages of Korean Kingdoms that have become politically sensitive since China's state-led Northeast Project such as Goguryeo,Balhae,Buyeo,Goryeo and use wiki regulations as an excuse and tool for their own ends. The Northeast Project is one of the CCP's state-led historiographical policy based on revisionism for political interests concerning Communist China. The idea is basically about laying claim on Northern Korean kingdoms that have held territories within modern-China despite accumulated academic work and historical accounts that proves otherwise. The point is to solidify China's grip on Manchuria and strenghen the rationale of their motives on North Korea. The same is concurrent with Tibet, Uighur, Inner Mongolia, and Vietnam. Qiushufang and Esiymbro have been causing disorientation through the spread of misguided information that are highly debatable in mainstream academia and are likely aligned in idea, if not direct affiliation, to the CCP and Wumaos that are present in almost every corner of the internet. Not to mention that calling one a 'nationalist' and one's editing a 'nationalist' source was first fired from the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Show us some diffs, then, supporting your charges. (With that, both Qiushufang and Esiymbro have been editing on the English Wikipedia a lot longer than you have, and there is no policy nor guideline canonizing Korean sources as somehow more valid than those from any other nation ... rather an odd stance to take from someone who resents the implication that he's a nationalist.) Ravenswing 03:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This comment by Zessede illustrates some of the problems working with him. My suggestions to him to stop personal attacks and reduce reliance on primary sources were not heeded. His responses were similar to his comment here: [321], [322]. Not once did I mention Uyghurs, Tibetans, ethnic minorities, or the CCP. Afterwards he continued to edit war at Goryeo and has been reported for edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

《If you think that "primarily working on Chinese sources based on works of China-based scholars" is a reason for deletion, then do not add any Korean source on controversial topics. The article's reference list is already heavily biased towards Korean sources. Either way, we don't need any more unverifiable Korean ultranationalist claims as in your edits, especially considering that some of the claims are clearly not mentioned in the sources. Esiymbro (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)》 > Tell me, since when did the original Korean narrative on Korean history become 'ultranationalistic' while the Chinese state-led ones became 'objective' and 'non-biased'? Branding someone an 'Ultranationalist' was the first move you forwarded on me and not the way around. The Korean narrative on 'controversial' topics as you put it, in Korean history, like Buyeo-Goguryeo-Balhae-Goryeo, have always been consistent (=Korean History; while Balhae stands as a multi-ethnic Koreanic Kingdom led by Korean elites) and no one argues with that. I remember you and Esiymbro's editing and undoing of my revisions on the Buyeo page before when I cited Korean sources. Of course, they were all undone by you and Esiymbro. Pulling off the same 'vassal' or 'under jurisdiction' statements when those texts that have not been attested thoroughly by western scholars reflect something different than historical accounts. Your understanding of the difference between a tributary and vassal is thin. And your sources for them were primary sources from classical Chinese records. So I guess the usage of primary sources is only allowed for Chinese users it seems? You see, unlike Chinese or Japanese history, Korean History is relatively minor and new to the western world and it is rarely covered. Researches and works and accounts that laid the foundation for Korean History Studies, like anywhere else with their own national history, are built upon native academic sources. Not to mentioned the aforementioned Korean kingdoms weren't even conceived as Chinese or Tungusic but Korean by Chinese folks themselves (until the state-led Northeast Project spearheaded by the CCP that is). Your peoples' claim and theft of Korean history, cuisine, culture, entertainment, copyrights, and sovereignty are off the charts and beyond imaginable in scale and space. I remember the Hanbok page going under revisionism caused by Chinese users when it came to its 'origins' of which you people claim are Chinese (which isn't). Your president Xinnie the Pooh even make false statements on diplomatic grounds about Korea being part of China. A clear lack of understanding of their own traditional code of diplomacy that was standard in ancient, medieval Asia, shared by most of the Sinitic states. My edits on Goryeo highlights the legacy of the Unification of the Later Three Kingdoms of Korea which cannot be explained without Balhae. In fact, the role and amount of Balhae refugees that came to Goryeo are significant. They, along with the Goguryeo people who founded Goryeo, are considered focal highlights that marks the importance of the unification that took place back then by Korean academia, in the sense that Goryeo was the first Korean kingdom to actually forge a singular identity shared amongst Koreanic people of different backgrounds. Which of course includes Balhae. And yet, you undid every edit I made to make underline that point. You and Esiymbro don't even consider Korean Academic researches to be verified because they're 'Korean' when in fact the history and foundation is deeper than your own on Korean history. And you and your 'buddy' Esiymbro post primary Chinese sources + narratives, or leave them be on the Buyeo page? You guys might fool some innocent Western people who are generous enough to allow you do what you do but know this: your government are culture-less barbarians with their own hands destroyed every historical, ideological connections between the people and their past, now seeking to do the same with other countries. One of them being Korea on an especial sense after Korean culture became recognized worldwide only recently. Your government and people who blindlessly follow state-fed crap is what happens when the intellectuals get killed off and red guards loyal to their dear leader fill in the void. Like 1966. The qualities of creativity that comes from studying your own classics and humanities are gone. You burnt them all down. Hence the theft of copyrights owned by Korean companies and an Ultranationalist narrative that believes everything that was in China was Chinese + China must be Great Again.

Now tell me, why not add some useful English-based, non-primary sources as citations for the Later Baekje page I was worked on a while ago? Since the Korean sources are unverified, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Another lengthy deflection and I'm not going into the obvious lies in Zessede's post here (such as "Branding someone an 'Ultranationalist' was the first move you forwarded on me and not the way around." when the editor have been making personal attacks on ethnicity/nationality since months ago [323]).

But let us be clear: Zessede's content cannot represent the actual "Korean narrative" at all, only their own imagination. Zessede's edits have a consistent pattern of adding false citations to otherwise unsourced content. This, along with consistent attempts to remove Korean and western sources cited by others, is at the root of every edit war involving them, not the "Korea vs China" controversy as Zessede claims. I've listed some examples of this behavior over several months at the DRN thread and there are very clear examples of deliberate false citing in several articles.

In both cases it was impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion with the editor. They immediately resorted to personal attacks when challenged, much like what they are still doing right now. Esiymbro (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To keep it short this is another deflection. The immediate incident began on Balhae on 6 June over a source in English that was neither in Chinese or affiliated with the Chinese government. This was the trigger. There was a three day gap between this and their previous edit. Everything since has been Zessede weaseling out of what that source says, which is that there were possibly less refugees from Balhae to Goryeo than originally believed. See their reasoning for why it is invalid: [324]. Part one of the argument is that it does not use enough Korean sources and that the author does not specialize in Korean history. Part two is an ad hominem attack on users regarding their stance on Tibetans and Uyghurs. Now Zessede is accusing Esiymbro and I of using primary Chinese sources (I have not) or Chinese government sources (I have not), when the original dispute was Zessede removing a source that was neither. Qiushufang (talk)

• Ooof. To be honest, I'm somewhat indifferent to whether Qiushufang and Esiymbro are engaging in "anti-Korean" edits or not. Zessede's response here, choked with personal attacks and insults, combined with the pervasive hostility of his edits and edit summaries [325][326][327][328][329][330][331][332], make it clear that he's here to push an agenda. With a paltry 88 mainspace edits, it isn't as if he's got a body of work remotely offsetting his battleground behavior, and as such, I propose an indef site ban until such time as he can convince the community he can collaborate with others, even they are from nations he hates. Ravenswing 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The primary sources for the Buyeo section that says Buyeo was under 'jurisdiction' of the Xuantu Commandery, go and change it now then with the same reasonings you used on me. And don't get me started with the texts regarding Queen Uihye since previous citations were outdated sources that have been rebutted. And you Chinese folks didn't answer my question yet. You call me an Ultranationalist but then again what are your opinions on the Tienanmen and Tibet/Uighur Issues? Do you condone it? Yeah, I figured not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zessede (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Zessede you must sign your comments with 4 tides ~~~~ 223.226.219.15 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zessede, putting aside than an editor above did, in fact, do just that...that's all irrelevant. Their positions on Tibet et al are irrelevant to if they are capable of editing Korean articles accurately or not. Indeed, it wouldn't even of itself make it improper for them to edit any Chinese article or not. If you believe they are soapboxing or making ongoing biased edits then bring them here. Instead you are indeed violating the personal attack prohibitions, and likely several other areas as well - certainly your edit summaries are hostile and unwarranted. Additionally, your comment addresses none of the points raised by non-involved editors above. I would concur with Ravenswing's position. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

A case request has been filed at DRN concerning the Balhae article and Zessede. I have closed the DRN request while this conduct dispute is being resolved here. I have not researched the dispute further and am not offering an opinion at this time, which I may or may not do later. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Before this was taken here, there was also a 3RR violation report at WP:AN3. Esiymbro (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban. Zessede has never been here to do anything but push a minority point of view. From the creation of their account, their purpose on Wikipedia has been to assert arguments from Korean nationalist historiography in controversies and to remove the opposing consensus from peer-reviewed books and journal articles published in "the West", China, Japan, Russia, et cetera. They subtly remove late-20th and 21st-century sources from publishers like De Gruyter and Cambridge University Press while asking for "mainstream academic sources that are not outdated back to the 'colonial era'" [333]. At the same time they label most editors who contest them as "Chinese buddies" [334]. MGetudiant (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact, Zessede does not have any edits on Wikipedia that are not about aligning topics in Korean history to their particular point of view. MGetudiant (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas

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.

---

DeCausa is threatening to block me, even though he is not even an administrator as far as I know if I do not self-revert matter on European Coloniztion of the Americas that makes the article better. I am asking for arbitration or mediation. I do not want to get silenced because of one person who disagrees with me on one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

[non-admin comment]DeCausa has not threatened you, they placed a standard warning on your talk page for edit warring. Then, shortly afterwards, they removed it again, as another user had already placed the same warning. I suggest reading the warning that others have given you, and learning Wikipedia policies. It will make editing here much easier for you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn’t noticed that Doug Weller had already given the OP the 3RR notice a couple of minutes before me so I took mine off. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. These two guys are bullying me because they are afraid of new and different ideas. I wrote new material that is not edit warring. Cbinetti (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert three times only twice. Weller and DeCausa revert three times together and then accuse me of reverting three times when I did it twice. The third time was a new formulation not reverting. Cbinetti (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I sign my complaint? These guys are bullying me. I have warned them in writing that they are bullying a disabled Italian Catholic academic, but they might not care. How I supposed to edit the European Colonization of the Americas if these two guys revert everything I do? DeCausa threatened me. He is lying. He sent me a warning threatening me very seriously. DeCausa is an ideologue/ activist editor trying to stop true collaboration, aided and abetted by Doug Weller. Cbinetti (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You may want to slow your roll and chill with the direct personal attacks against other editors. If two editors are reverting your changes, you should discuss it on the talk page, and explain your position and provide your sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I see after reviewing their talk page that this has been an issue for several months. The pblock Bish put in place was a good call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Cbinetti, you should be discussing the changes that you think should be made to the article with sources supporting your changes on the talk page for that article. As far as I can see, all you've done on the talk page is demand to be told how to flag the article for bias and then arguing that others editors are against you. Stick to discussing the article, cite the sources that support your argument, and get consensus for the changes before making them to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made a grand total of 2 edits to the article and 3 posts to the article talk page: I must be a poor quality “activist”. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've page-blocked Cbinetti indefinitely from European colonization of the Americas for persistent disruptive editing and POV-pushing going back to December 2021. They can still edit the talkpage, even though bad-faith-assuming nonsense like this post made me a bit dubious about that. Bishonen | tålk 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC).

  I want to appeal this. I am a political scientist PHd and expert. i should not page-blocked. I am a male by the way. I am pushing back against POV-pushing. There is bad faith by DeCausa and Doug Weller. This is not disruptive editing. I am asking for the block to be removed. Cbinetti (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to be unblocked, request at your talk page, not here. Thanks, 162.219.198.189 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2022 (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:Damianbolek

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.

---

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

Damianbolek initially came as an IP user (89.64.63.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), which I had noticed by their first edit on their account, and since then they have been edit-warring with different users across multiple pages since May. They only broke WP:3RR once on June 2, and they have been primarily vandalizing Confederation Liberty and Independence, and have added unsourced content on multiple pages. By their latest edit, I can tell that their account has been primarily used for COI editing, since they had stated that they are a member of Confederation Liberty and Independence party. I'd also want to request further protection for that page since it has also been the target of several IP vandals. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

But you're the one waging an editing war, so skip such lies. It is you who revert edits to the version that has no sources and destroy the page "Confederation Liberty and Independence". I am asking the administrators to protect this page from vandal Vacanto. Damianbolek (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You've removed sources and added none in these two edits (1, 2). Vacant0 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Damianbolek: Do not accuse others of vandalism without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Doing so is considered a personal attack, which is not allowed here. You've already been blocked on Polish Wikipedia for this kind of behaviour, so you should not repeat this mistake here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drm310 Don't accuse me of accusing others of vandalism without clear evidence. Doing so is considered a personal attack, which is not allowed here. On Polish wikipedia I was blocked, because Polish wikipedia is poisoned by leftist liars who regularly slander righteous parties and use their power to fight people who refute their lies. For 3 years now, people have been reporting problems with toxic leftist moderators, so stop using that argument. I was blocked even though I didn't break the rules. This is the case with many people in Poland. Damianbolek (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You literally called Vacant0 a vandal in your last post above, " I am asking the administrators to protect this page from vandal Vacanto", no clearer evidence is required. Canterbury Tail talk 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefnitely blocked Damianbolek for disruption and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2022 (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 at Peru national football team

At the Peru national football team article, User:CarloPE22 keeps disrupting the article by deleting sourced information and adding biased content (see [335], [336], [337], [338], [339]). The user refuses to discuss changes, following the WP:BRD process, instead demanding that I communicate in Spanish and imposing lesser-known nicknames of the Peruvian team in the infobox. Moreover, the user deletes Alejandro Villanueva from the introduction and imposes calling Hector Chumpitaz "captain," which is likely indicating the user is a Universitario de Deportes fan with an ax to grind against cross-town rivals Alianza Lima. I took the article to FA status and know the Peruvian national team's history and significant details. If an administrator could please take a look at the situation, it would be kindly appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted their changes and left an edit summary in (probably badly translated) Spanish. I have left the same warning at their talk page, and watchlisted the page. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Struggling to see why the partial block of this range shouldn't be made a full block

User:Jake Wartenberg made a partial block inviting additions, but I see the same sort of disruptive editing and also casual vandalism at most contributions for 2409:4042:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doug Weller talk 10:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Ownership being asserted over articles concerning "Yoruba topics"

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:Otelemuyen has posted to my talk page User talk:Doug Weller#Yoruba topics saying the following: Hi, my name is Otelemuyen, the author and general overseer of all Yoruba-tagged topics as it relates to the Yoruba Members Page here on Wikipedia. Feel free to check out all our pages, our authors, contributors and monitors. Without sounding out of pocket, it’s probably best you go and check the history of the said article. Firstly, as an authority in this field, it was me who authored the said article. It was a fellow publisher who alerted me to the changes made to the article. Apart from the fact that the changes that corrected were minor, wrong, absurd and completely and utterly out of place, neither of those edits went through due process. Due process being a discussion on this the talk page, tagging me and or other contributors to the article ( all these contributors are listed on the “Yoruba Group members page). Secondly, could you kindly provide the justification for the inclusion of those edits. Let’s talk about those absurd inclusions into an article that is being monitored and updated by active Yoruba Group Members, one of whom is texting you right now. Furthermore, anyone attempting to edit any of the articles under our jurisdiction ought to be aware that they need to put their thoughts in the talk page first and then we can discuss. The absence of such process can only be considered vandalism. Otelemuyen (talk) 9:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) Otelemuyen (talk) 9:53 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" and in response to a comment by User:Tryptofish who pointed out WP:OWN "Im not here to argue with you or anyone else regarding anything over inconsequential banter, again, the discussion here is regarding the edits made on one of the pages i’m responsible for its publication in the first instance."

Also see User talk:Tryptofish#Color me gobsmacked.

This seems to be about an editor removing CN tags and my removing the unsourced material.[340] Doug Weller talk 07:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller and Tryptofish are purposely misconstruing the point I was alluding here.

Never claimed to own any topic.

User:Doug Weller started an edit war regarding a WikiProject Yoruba article , and perhaps no one got the part where it says, “as it relates to Yoruba Members Group tagged topics”

“As it relates to WikiProjectYoruba tagged topics via the “Yoruba Group Members page”

“Im not here to argue with you or anyone else regarding anything over inconsequential banter, again, the discussion here is regarding the edits made on one of the pages i’m responsible for its publication in the first instance.

Assuming you want to discuss the content then, the talk page of the said topic is meant to be put to good use” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otelemuyen (talk • contribs) 08:20, June 10, 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)For someone reverting others with the "discuss on the talk page" rationale, it is a bit weird that their last contribution to an article talk page was in 2013! I'm not familiar with the subject matter but the most recent edits appear to be simply reverts of other editors' contributions and/or removal of references rescued by the bot. The grammar/typo fixes are anything but grammar or typo fixes. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller began an editing war over a WikiProjectYoruba related topic.

And the point I was alluding was that the proper channel was to use the talk page to discuss those things. Instead, he began to pick hairs and misconstrue what was being said. Otelemuyen (talk 09:33,10 June 2022 (UTC)

There you go again with your ownership issues. In none of your reverts have you articulated any reason for anything. All you do is ask others to go to the talk page while you yourself perform dubious edits with inappropriate edit summaries such as "fixed typo" or "grammar fixes" etc. You need to understand the policies of the encyclopaedia first. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And I’d love evidence I was edit warring. I don’t think this user knows what that means. WP:CIR? Doug Weller talk 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Their edit summaries are misleading. This one[341] says "false positive" and deletes sourced text by someone who seems an expert. That's followed by the deletion of a cn tag with the edit summary "typo".[342] The next edit also removes a cn tag and says "typo".[343] Then we have a "grammar" edit, changing "European to "Orthodox".[344] Another "typo" edit[345] removed "Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief and the Theistic Problem of Evil" (PDF). African Studies Quarterly'" from the citation leaving only a dead url.

Not misleading, simply wrong, [346] "‘sub Sahara is derogatory, there’s no need to add such a prefix anyhow'". "Sub-Sahara" is an important qualifier.

They've also told User:Midnightblueowl that they've been reverted and should use the talk page. No attempt to explain the reversion.

They created WP:WikiProject Yoruba in 2011 but haven't been active there much since, in fact it's pretty inactive. The "Yoruba members page" mentioned above is just a list of 10 members, most of whom haven't edited for a while and includes one account that has never existed. I don't see "As it relates to WikiProjectYoruba tagged topics via the “Yoruba Group Members page” anywhere, but that's irrelevant.

I'm not sure why the OP is claiming to be the author of the 401 related articles, and we certainly can't have "overseers" of any articles, in particular the idea of articles on a religion being controlled by that religion is unacceptable. I don't know who alerted them but it wasn't on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WikiProjects have no jurisdiction or authority to control any article including those that may be of interest to the project. Likewise, no editor, whether they are the content creator or not, may unilaterally decide what is permissible for inclusion in any article and purposely limit other editors from editing simply because they don't like the edit being done. The very first thing a new editor learns when joining Wikipedia is to BE BOLD. We hope they learn additional things like proper etiquette, among many other nuances of editing here, along the way. The danger here, as I see it, is a complete lack of understanding in regards to WP:OWN and WP:BOLD and how that may have a chilling affect on the encyclopedia's libre mission. No editor has to discuss their edits to any article, exceptions being those under special sanction/protection, on the article talk page prior to making said edits. As we advance in our experience here we may conclude at certain times that the best course of action is to seek consensus prior to making edits but it is not a general requirement. Everything that followed that in the discussion above has only served to push the issues further down the path of what is unacceptable here (The incorrect use of reverting and subsequent false edit summaries). Wikipedia allows us to watchlist certain articles but that does not give us special authority to be an overseer displaying ownership of those articles. We must still follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think, at the very least, this editor needs to be reminded that they are part of a larger community and one that believes anyone may edit any article on any topic at anytime provided they follow policy in doing so. --ARoseWolf 14:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• These recent edits from said editor on Yoruba art are completely unacceptable. As is his insulting, oblivious language here: User_talk:Otelemuyen#Yoruba art, and here: Talk:Yoruba art#Bigots will be challenged. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As alluded to above, I saw the initial comment on Doug's talkpage, and I posted this: [347]. I'm pretty sure that's a polite and WP:AGF explanation of how to understand the right and wrong ways to go about this on Wikipedia. It's clear from what's above what the response has been. I briefly wondered whether, given the over-the-top nature of what Otelemuyen keeps saying, we might be getting an elaborate, albeit futile, attempt at trolling. But I don't think that's really the case. So, the first question becomes whether this is a case of misunderstanding WP:OWN and being willing to take advice and do better going forward. I'm normally quite willing to give that a chance, but there's a limit to how many chances are reasonable. At this point, there have been numerous explanations given to Otelemuyen, but these have been met repeatedly with defiance. Explaining is clearly never going to work here. We are dealing not only with massive WP:OWN that is starting to interfere with good-faith content edits by other editors, but WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, and WP:NOTHERE.
  • At a minimum, our options begin with a page-block or community topic ban from Yoruba topics broadly construed, although that would, in effect, cover all of Otelemuyen's editing interests. At a maximum, the possibly best option would be an indefinite block or a community site-ban. Honestly, that's where we are at. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Regardless, Otelemuyen has violated 3RR here. Given their personal attacks on other editors at Talk:Yoruba art#Bigots will be challenged and User_talk:Otelemuyen#Yoruba art, I have blocked them for a week. If they continue to cause issues around this subject after that block, then escalating sanctions may be required. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree with that, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2022 (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.

Update, block extended to one month and talk page access removed. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

88.64.187.33

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.

---

88.64.187.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptively editing for nearly a month. It began with edit warring on RMS Queen Mary and AvtoVAZ; current activity is repeatedly re-adding content to List of Ford factories that has been revdel'd multiple times as a copyright violation, in addition to ignoring WP:SUBCAT on Rolls-Royce Ghost despite requests to stop. Talk page warnings are promptly deleted and un-heeded. The disruption is just sporadic enough that it's deemed stale at AIV by the time I get to it. The copyright violation alone should be enough for a block of reasonable length given that this is clearly a dynamic IP. --Sable232 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

no, Sable232 did edit war and disruptive editions. My edits were precise and correct as reality is. RMS Queen Mary indeed had the portside harbour boats removed and scrapped, I have the video and many saw in Facebook groups. AvtoVAZ is also from me more correct as reference the Russian Kolesa.ru website demonstrating the history with Renault. Ford Factory is another more complete and accurate from me edit, Fordlandia was an assembly tyre plant from Ford in Pará, as well as Ford Camacari Research continue operating as Ford, only the production was abandoned. So, Ia am since long all richt but Texas and othe USAguys destroy Wikipedia. But as wiki was never Fair, believe it is just the weak part, me which suffers sansanctions, USA wrong people never 88.64.187.33 (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, your edits lack proper sourcing. Just because you "have the video and many saw in Facebook groups" doesn't constitute the required reliable source. As for the Ford plants, the content you've been adding is copyrighted, and so CANNOT be used in Wikipedia. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I had encountered this user via an ill-formed AIV report. I agree that this user has ignored several warnings and requests to provide reliable sources at Jumbo Kingdom.

The copyvio at List of Ford factories was with regards to the title given for one of the references, [348]; the title of the news article is "Rui diz que negociação para atrair nova montadora de veículos para Camaçari está avançada" (Rui says negotiations to attract new car maker to Camaçari have advanced), but the IP used about a kilobyte of text from the news article as the title. I did not use this source when re-adding these factories to the new status quo version, since it provides insufficient information to verify the details about the Ford factory in Camaçari, Bahia, Brazil. I had to update the RD1 tag on this page. I can provide one diff per, except for the List of Ford factories edits:

• May 17, RMS Queen Mary: Justified an unsourced, lead-undue addition on an unidentified Facebook video.
• May 17, AvtoVAZ: I can't describe what was going on here. Something about having been acquired by the government of Russia, and possibly a nod to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
• June 10, Rolls-Royce Ghost: Added Category:Rolls-Royce vehicles even though it was already in Category:Rolls-Royce Motor Cars vehicles; accused Sable232 (talk · contribs) of disruptive, trolling and destruction things
• June 10, Template:Rolls-Royce: Removed the name of a group because Luxury is Vague and Subjective.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ok, guys you win, leave wikipedia in english wrong... it is ok, we all know in Brasil that a TAV never had and never will, this is fact, so leave the verb tenses wrong. About Ford, leave incomplete as well, what matters is just USA anyway for Ford. Henry Ford decided about a Plantation in middle Amazon in initial years, but no one cares today. The tires with natural rubber went to ipiranga São Paulo plant, but forget, wiki is mess and leave so. The Governor of Bahia ever says that because is Elections, but even if one day Ford sells the Production site, the R&D continued as Ford. It sucks you guys, but I am totally right. Personal experiences do not count in wiki, so lets leave it unreliable. Period.. I am out ! 88.64.187.33 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal experiences ARE unreliable, which is why they do not count; without reliable sourcing, we have no way of knowing whether "I saw the video" is a lie or not. If you cannot understand that, Wikipedia is a poor fit for you. Ravenswing 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

personal experience are very reliable, because were felt on skin. They do count a lot, if you think i am a lier, maybe then u then a hitler. if you can not understand that, you are ignorant 88.64.187.33 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

but agree wikipedia is poor and a caos in many places, indeed one of worst encyclopedia because poor knowlege guys like u, 88.64.187.33 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. If I argued that "it's quite usual for Brazilians to eat babies for breakfast" and inserted that into the Wikipedia article on Brazil, then justified it on the basis of "everyone knows that" / "I saw it with my own eyes when I was on holiday in Recife" / "it was in a Facebook video" etc I would rightly find my time here extremely short, since anyone can invent a "personal experience." That's why we have WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, precisely to avoid the sort of chaos of people arguing over their own "personal experiences." If you can't get that then I'm afraid your time here will be short. Valenciano (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

those Verify and Reliable Sources are really not reliable, many pretending to be reporters do a blog, an online site and voilà and it is already news for you wiki

The problem continues, Wiki Articles of Ford Factories, Rolls Royce, Queen Mary Ship, HK ex Restaurant, Trem de Alta Velocidade Brasileiro are Article now because you 5, totally not Reliable, but I know the Truth--- It is a pity because someone goes ready and is handicapped from all Ford instances and still think one day in Brasil, por causa do Luis Inacio da Silva no terceiro mandato de presidente espera alguma coisa a mais de trem, que em outras circunstâncias nunca virßa porque mais de 8 anos se passaram e o momento é outro... boa sorte 88.64.187.33 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that Godwin's Law has been invoked above, the continued removal of a copyvio template, and the gibberish responses, an extended block is in order - this user is a clearly a net negative to the project. --Sable232 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

wow, you are also very gibberish with bad english and very negative, the block is ok, if you are arrogant in thinking only in infantile way, but is just to change 1 million times the ip that this unvaluable attack is solved, if necessary. the edits of Sable232 are very inconsistent, but as said in wiki only a small group of USA club is valuable as editors. A way that shows how schools in USA are so low level, we see them here in wiki 88.64.187.33 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At this point the WP:NPA violation should lead to a block. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 11 June 2022 (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 evasion

Unfortunately but not entirely unsurprisingly, they've returned with a new IP: 92.76.156.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Sable232 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 72h given I don't know how dynamic the ISP's assignment patterns are. If disruption resumes after the block expires, ping me and I'll happily extend. firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Martiné Lopez Media

Martiné Lopez Media (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spam, spam, and spam. Username and edits suggest that they are merely a spammer. Also clumsily moved a couple of pages and now I can't revert their stupid moves. They seem to be in the process of hijacking an article. Reporting here as will need someone with higher permissions to revert their moves. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Details: Abandoning their Draft:Tinu Thomas Kannur, Martiné hijacked Tinu Verma by moving it to Tinu Thomas Kannur. They blanked the redirect left at Tinu Verma, then restored the content, but the article history for Tinu Verma is now attached to Tinu Thomas Kannur which they also blanked.

The article history and talk page at Tinu Thomas Kannur need to be restored to Tinu Verma. Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reported the username at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention, as a promotional user name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh joy - cleaning up now. firefly ( t · c ) 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems NRP beat me to it :) firefly ( t · c ) 16:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm used to cleaning up article hijacking. It's quick and easy for me. We could partially block the editor from mainspace, which might be enough to stop them from being disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've given them an indef block for the user name and the promotional edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Kelly (martial artist)

I'd like to bring the edits of KungFuKelly to your attention. Based on their username and extremely narrow focus of editing, the only reasonable assumption to make is that this person is Anthony Kelly (martial artist). While it is done so very infrequently, this 11 year old account has only been used to edit his own article, often violating guidelines while doing so. The only exception to editing his own article was a violation of WP:PROMO by adding his personal website as an external link to a different article [349]. In November 2018, I left a friendly message on this user's talk page explaining what was wrong with some of his edits and why I had reverted them, and offered my help if he had any questions; he has never taken me up on this offer. In 2020, I modified some of this user's problematic edits to his own article, clearly explaining my reason for doing so.

Yesterday, the account made two problematic edits, modifying the title of an existing source to make it look like it verified something it did not, and removing information that is not favourable to the subject: [350]. As I was assuming good faith, in my reversion I clearly explained what was wrong with these edits, and why I had reverted them. Despite this, KungFuKelly has simply reverted my reversion without explanation. I feel like I've been very patient with this user, in spite of the fact they are clearly a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, but they've just crossed a line by insisting on reinstating problematic edits after it was explained to them why this was wrong. Suggest admins take appropriate action as the account will not listen to or interact with me. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Falsifying sources is a bad sign. KungFuKelly hasn't declared a COI, but perhaps they should be limited to using the article's talk page to request edits. edited to add: They may not have seen the talk page messages, their contribution history shows they're editing on a mobile device. Schazjmd (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked KungFuKelly from editing Anthony Kelly (martial artist). The editor is welcome to make well referenced edit requests at Talk: Anthony Kelly (martial artist). Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

block circumventing brag

I don't know if this is the right place for this but I don't know a better 1. I also have no idea if something can (or should) be done. I came across somebody bragging about getting around being blocked off-wiki. Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaVandalism/comments/vb1qrt/i_used_to_use_my_old_ip_address_for_a_mix_of_good/ Dutchy45 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth doing anything about it at this time, though regulars might find it quite a funny read whether it's true or not (I have my doubts). If they have to phone AT&T to get a new router every time they're blocked, well, let's have more like that pls. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Another possible CLC sock

73.22.122.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)); This IP has been reverting vandalism for the past month, similar to CLCStudent, and the IP address traces back to Mundelein, a suburb of Chicago where CLC claims to live. Additionally, another sock of CLC (2601:246:CF80:3990:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) was blocked, who was also from Mundelein. It seems pretty suspicious, based on the editing pattern of CLC. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

CLC? That's a name I don't recognize. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The user I am referring to is CLCStudent, a former anti-vandal who was blocked last year for disruptively editing logged out, and has since been using sock puppet accounts to edit Wikipedia. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Blablubbs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, sorry – I meant to close the thread but got pulled away. I'll also note 2601:240:CD00:0:0:0:0:0/44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for the record. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat to myself

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 just received a legal threat from BertieTheBrain on my talk page here, just because apparently I am not part of Anglo-Saxon culture and therefore I should not edit en.wiki ? Anyway, I don't know exactly what is the procedure in this case, but I also notified the other user. Yakme (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, at least he's not subtle. I will note that for someone prattling on about "Anglo-Saxon culture," his use of language is a bit different. Perhaps he's more used to Old English? Dumuzid (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef, for the legal threat, and the underlying OTT belligerent attitude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2022 (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.

Bullying and abuse by User:Buggwart65

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:Buggwart65 has engaged in two instances of abusive language directed at me in their edit summary when reverting my edits. Here [351] and here [352]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I threatened with consequences, but now I'm taking a deeper look and am wondering if they and Fatboy912ga (talk · contribs) are socks. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) caught on as well and popped an indef. --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Buggwart65 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Looks like a sockpuppet account set up for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2022 (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.

Software projects crosswiki LTA

Username/IP range

• Mdggdj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.48.184.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 90.174.0.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Articles (incomplete list)

• Clip (compiler)
• GameMonkey Script
• CorVision
• Limnor
• Script.NET
• Cω
• FlagShip
• OpenThinClient
• Windows Driver Kit
• NetChoice
• QuickWin
• XAMLPad
• Windows Driver Kit
• Microsoft Speech API
• Windows Script Host
• Truevision3D
• Microsoft Script Debugger
• ASP.NET Web Matrix
• Open Inventor
• Managed Extensibility Framework
• And much more...

This crosswiki LTA (under multiple IP addresses in this and other ranges), usually proposes for deletion or removes large ammount contents on software-related articles, claiming them are unsourced. This happened since August 2020, originally in the Spanish Wikipedia, where the user and IP range have been already blocked and editions reverted (at the Spanish Wikipedia and here). I request to undo every recent edition on software-related articles from the IP range, semiprotect every software-related article edited by the user behind those ranges, and the range be blocked if possible. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Shit, I didn't know this existed, and started an independent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software#Multiple_PRODs_by_an_IP_reverted. Either way, I have fixed the header for this section, and can provide an example of the user blanking large amounts of unsourced content: [353]. Truevision3D was redirected in response to a deprod; the user has also tagged ILAsm since this report was filed. All of the PROD rationales by this user read, "Not notable. There are no independent sources." –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: What should I do with the PROD tags at QuickWin and XAMLPad? Did you leave them up because they seem to be genuinely non-notable? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The initiator of this thread provided to me the following link to a relevant report at eswiki: es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Nombres inapropiados y vandalismo persistente/2021/11#Nombre de usuario no válido 30. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Would be possible to move them to the Draft: or my sandbox instead of deleting? Due the years of abuse (altrough good editions between), I cant't assume good faith for this user (Mdggdj). Amitie 10g (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did ultimately open two AfD nominations for those two pages, QuickWin and XAMLPad; I could determine that at least XAMLPad is likely non-notable. It is still possible that some of the remaining articles are also non-notable, but that will require more AfD discussions to decide. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't oppose the deletion of those articles per se, but being "handled" by an LTA, and also, subjects of my interest. I'll try to improve those articles in the next days. Thanks for raising this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks to you both. Those IP-hopping PRODs and deletion of content after deprodding looked suspicious to me, but I had no idea how to handle it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 15:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't normally visit ANI but I looked into why an article had been de-PROD'd and it pointed to this discussion. I have noticed, for years, this IP editor, mostly geolocated to Madrid, Spain, who would tag a software or internet company article for a PROD and then hop to a different IP account. They are responsible for many proposed deletions and I just assumed that it was one of our regular editors who preferred to log out to make a PROD tag for some reason. Most of the articles, if I can remember rightly, were for products that could be considered out-of-date. I don't remember seeing many of these articles ever de-PROD'd so I thought they were legitimate PRODs since none of the editors who do PROD patrol ever removed the PROD tags.

At this point, I wouldn't know how to compile a list of PRODs they were responsible for, you could issue a query for articles deleted with PROD in the edit summary but then you'd have to work through hundreds of articles that had been PROD'd to find those that were relevant. Does WikiProject Software maintain a list of articles that have been assessed? I do know that they have been active for the several years that I've been looking over the daily PROD list. I'm not familiar with the Mdggdj editor, just the one edit IP accounts and I wasn't aware they were doing major content removal. I was frustrated that they kept hopping to a different IP account because I did want to initiate a discussion about their activity PRODding articles so I wish they had stuck with one account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, I want to remove fake content from Wikipedia. In doing so, we need to stick to Wikipedia rules and remove non-notable and unreferenced content. I have a bad wireless Internet connection and it seems like my IP address change. Do any of you want to keep non-notable and unreferenced content? I am also worried of users like User:Amitie 10g, he reverts PRODs, templates and unreferenced content without providing any explanation. Should we review his edits? Should we notify that behavior? I also want to thank User:LaundryPizza03 and User:Liz for objetively assessing the situation and rethinking that User:Amitie_10g maybe the vandal in this situation. 85.48.185.84 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Many sysops (here and the Spanish Wikipedia) don't thing so. Two of the IP addresses used by this user are currently blocked at the Spanish Wikipedia (and previously blocked many times, that would mean a ban). Due the facts and disruptive editions since 2020 (and the user being able to edit from two different IP ranges, 85.48.184.0/22 and 90.174.0.0/22), is hard to assume good faith, but calling me (a long term contributor) a vandal confirms this user is WP:NOTHERE "behind good intentions", therefore, I'll consider any maintenance template adding or content removal as disruption. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, please don't assume that because they were not DEPRODded they were good PRODs; Staffing at WP:PRODPATROL is thin and variable.

I have removed some of these PRODs over the last couple weeks and some I have let stand. They're usually on marginally notable software subjects so not the consistently uncontroversial cases where we would like to see PROD used. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

New Editor with a lot of previous knowledge?

New IP Editor putting up Speedy Deletion Tag. Any recently very active. Possible sock or vandal. 192.91.253.6 BlackAmerican (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is about the article Robin Chapman (Judo), please see its history for context. 192.91.253.6 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: So, IP192 tagged your article Robin Chapman (Judo) for G11 speedy deletion, and your response was to remove the tag against policy and, when they pointed out that that was against policy, to come here and accuse them of being a "possible sock or vandal", with no evidence other than that they know how to CSD a page? There's no such thing as a "new IP editor". When someone's editing on an IP, we have no way of knowing if they're brand new or have been editing for 20 years under different IPs. I've declined the G11 as I don't think the standard was met, but I'm seriously unimpressed with your handling of this. I'm also unimpressed with the quality of that article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend anyone. I simply believed this could be a sock. I have seen what appeared to be a new editor who put up an AFD and had no major history and was banned. I thought it was something similiar. BlackAmerican (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I wish people wouldn't assume that new editors have to be ignorant. My first edits were to WP:AFD discussions, and I made sure I had read and understood relevant policy before making them, just as I would expect others to do. It seems that RTFM isn't a thing any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Hanan Wadi publishing by copy & paste

A new editor Hanan Wadi is publishing articles that don't meet notability/sourcing requirements, so they are being sent back to drafts. More to the point, they seem to be developing the content in the draft space, but then publishing by copy & paste into a new article. This has happened a few times already, and there are many more drafts sitting in the draft space, so looks like this could go on for a while. I've tried communicating the issues on their talk page, but so far to no avail. These may be entirely in good faith, but this is creating extra work for others, so would be great if we could get the message through somehow (maybe a short block just to catch their attention?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be part of an editathon, given the #KMUOS edit summary here. Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, every one of their edits has that hashtag. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing@Slywriter see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 21#Project #KMUOS for the background on who's running this. This is the second time this project has caused issues. Most of the articles are unattributed machine translations of pages from other wikis, e.g. Forgetfulness.com is an unattributed translation of ar:نسيان.com_(رواية) 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinging Timtrent who started that discussion, in case he has anything new to add here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Aslo, if it's useful, you can use this tool [354] to find all the edits related to the editathon. Most of them have the same issue, being copyvio machine translations of pages from other projects. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing They did not respond to me previously. It is a well intentioned misunderstanding of how to edit Wikipedia, with deficient articles, usually. The tutor is letting their students down badly and repeatedly, assuming the same pattern is being followed. I have not checked this iteration. I am sorry for the students. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

They did respond to my messages, although their English seems to be lacking. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

FMSky, personal attacks, WP:HOUNDING

FMSky (talk · contribs) appears to have problems with refraining from insulting other editors, as well as letting things go. I reverted them on Björn Borg for removing a link without explanation, which they then proceeded to revert themselves, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for removal. I disagreed that it is an overlink and asked them to gain consensus for the removal on the talk page, at which point they stopped. Since it was not the first time I had seen this editor remove the link, I went to their talk page to ask for clarification on their reasoning, as I had previously seen them link New York City which is used as an actual example for an overlink on the MOS itself. The discussion was quite fruitless, and immediately after archived by FMSky. Towards the end of it however, FMSky all of a sudden showed up on Alexander Gustafsson, an article I have been somewhat active on which seemed too much of a coincidence so I let them know that I don't appreciate WP:HOUNDING and said I hope that is not what they were planning to do. They said they weren't planning to do anything, and that they wanted to be left alone, so I believed and respected that and ended the discussion hoping that would be it. This is where the behaviour becomes absurd, they go against what they said, going to another article I often edit Erling Haaland claiming to make an edit making the text closer to the source, which it did not, specifically reverting text I had recently reverted back to myself. I reverted and explained that the sources are in the body of the article and told them what section of it, too, which they refused to accept and so decided to tag it as uncited, make a useless edit to talk through edit summary (which they restored in their next edit, and edit war refusing to listen to the fact that the text is based on sources in the body.

Upon seeing FMSky had followed me to Haaland's article, I went back to their talk page expressing again that I do not appreciate the petty behaviour, which they reverted with a charming personal attack calling me a ″freak″, this is right after I had reminded them of the WP:NPA policy after they called another editor a ″clown″ after they had asked FMSky to stop following them around, which at this point would not be hard to believe, but that is between them. This can be seen in their archive. Not only is this blatant disregard for policy, but it's downright unpleasant and by far the most bizarre interaction I've had with an editor. There is not only a complete lack of respect, but a lack of temperament. It escalating to this behaviour over something as simple as a discussion over links is indicative of a person who clearly has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and difficulty to move on. I refuse to be harassed and strongly believe FMSky needs some sort of sanctions as they are not only treating fellow editors like garbage but disrupting articles out of spite. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont follow you around at all, in fact i would love to be left alone by you as already stated. I edited the Haaland page because i edit football players all the time --FMSky (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen you before on either article, and your edit on Haaland was specifically a partial revert of one of my recent edits there. Looking at your recent edit history, I don't see much football at all either, not until tonight after our encounter. TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

i edit them all the time, literally my first edits on Wiki Commons were cropped pics of football players: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&dir=prev&offset=20210515145351%7CKAS-Barschel%2C_Uwe-Bild-7734-1_%28cropped%29.jpg&user=FMSky&ilshowall=1 --FMSky (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eden_Hazard&action=history, and i admit i specifically have an issue with "considered the greatest /best" whatever being inserted in almost every decent football players article FMSky (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you really expect me to believe that this is all some magical coincidence? Even if that's true, like I said looking at recent history you suddenly started editing football articles during our little discussion, and I find it hard to believe you would happen to stumble upon Haaland and specifically alter text I had recently edited, just by some random chance. Not to mention, Gustafsson is not even football related. I'd respect you more if you just admitted that you have a problem with following other editors, because I don't believe you and I don't think many other people will either. TylerBurden (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"like I said looking at recent history you suddenly started editing football articles during our little discussion" did you even read what i said? FMSky (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you having edited football articles before has nothing to do with the fact that you specifically went to this article because of me. Have you ever made an edit on Erling Haaland before that one? TylerBurden (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No i didnt specifically went there because of you ffs. How would i even know you visited this article before??? Doesnt even make sense. And yeah i have edited this article before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erling_Haaland&diff=1030279054&oldid=1029188846 ---FMSky (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I edit tons of articles currently (mostly cleanup stuff), i'm bound to cross paths with some users --FMSky (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't act naivé, you were smart enough to dig out edits I had made in November to try and prove a point, you are smart enough to press on someones edit history. Anyway I have laid it out, clogging this anymore is pointless, I will let the people who read it decide what should be done as it is pointless to debate with someone who seemingly believes in their own lies. Shitty start to friday eh? Hopefully, upwards from here. Ciao. TylerBurden (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

do you seriously believe I looked through your edit history, then chose a completely random article that you have once edited in the past, and then made an edit in a manner that would be annoying to you? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you are not that important to me. But yes this is indeed pointless, people are going to believe what they want to believe FMSky (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, because that is what you did. One article would be one thing, but you suddenly showed up on two articles I had made recent edits on. If you really want nothing to do with me, and believe me the feeling is mutual, then follow your own words and "try to avoid me" instead of doing the opposite. TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't. I want nothing more currently, then to not engage with you. --FMSky (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The Haaland page wasn't even a recent edit of yours. I would literally have to scroll back a bunch of pages in your edit history and then find this one edit in a clutter of other edits (seriously try it yourself, try to find this specific edit in your own edit history rn, you probably wont find it) FMSky (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Implying that is the only way to find articles I edit on, Haaland is one of my most edited articles and there are tools I am sure you are aware of you can easily find for that. Your excuse for Haaland is that you apparently "edit football articles all the time", so what is it for Alexander Gustafsson? TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As for the specific edit, it is in the recent edit history of the article. TylerBurden (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"tools"?🤣 sorry but this is ridiculous. i have nothing more to say. --FMSky (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yea, Xtools? Like I said, the edit you altered was recently made, it is not far back in the history at all. Literally on the first page. TylerBurden (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is, what it does, or where to access it.--FMSky (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you stop avoiding my question and answer why you suddenly decided to show up on Alexander Gustafsson? TylerBurden (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You last edited Alexander Gustafsson nine days ago, and have made 300 edits since then; their edit to that page does not have anything to do with any text you edited, and is in keeping with their general editing habits. The reason no one else is jumping in to agree with you is that your accusation is very dubious and also a clear violation of WP:AGF. -- JBL (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Was not going to write anything more here, but since the editor who is siding with FMSky on their talk page has now chosen to enter this discussion, I will reply to their input. The reason their edit on Alexander Gustafsson is suspect is that it happened during our discussion, it was related to what the discussion was about (Swedish people), and they had never edited the article before. FMSky dug through my edits all the way back to November, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that they would find an obviously Swedish article to make a pointy edit on, which is what that seemed to me. Even ignoring that, the Haaland situation is obvious, and happened directly after they supposedly decided to conclude it all. Even ignoring the hounding, the personal attacks and general hostility is all well and good then? That's really all I have to say to you. I assume good faith, but I am also not an idiot. TylerBurden (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You are suffering from a persecution fantasy when you should be reading and abiding by WP:AGF. They apologized for the personal attack 10 hours ago, at which time you presented as accepting it; to still be yammering about it is gauche. You should chill out, withdraw this silly complaint, and act with more grace the next time you are reverted. JBL (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

there's also another post on my talk page regarding this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FMSky#Notice, if someone wants to read it --FMSky (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

So you say you want to be left alone, conclude the discussion (which was great) and then proceed to follow the editor you claim to want nothing to do with to an article manually reverting their recent edit. You're right, this is ridiculous, it's ridiculous that you think you are fooling anyone (well, apparently you did fool that editor). TylerBurden (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add that FMSky did apologize for the personal attack directed at me shortly before this report was posted, me not noticing it, otherwise I would have included it. It's appreciated but shouldn't happen in the first place, and I think there are still many issues with behavour here. TylerBurden (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ok so what are we talking about? you think i stalk you? i literally try to avoid you. as for me calling you "freak", that was after you accused me of stalking and left tons of messages on my talk page--FMSky (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Tons of messages? So calling you out for following me, that's all it took for you to call me a freak. TylerBurden (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

[355] compares the edits between users. Dream Focus 11:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that they both have edited The Bureau: XCOM Declassified is enough for me. Site bans for both! (I jest, of course. Happy Friday.) Dumuzid (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's so obscure, reverting pesky vandals as a complete noob in November was a fun time. Can't say much for the game itself, I loved Enemy Unknown so was interested in it at the time of release but never got around to it. Thanks for lightening the mood, have a safe and happy friday. TylerBurden (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

TylerBurden and FMSky - can I please humbly and respectfully propose that you take self imposed breaks from this section for a few hours? I fear the current trajectory is for some sort of "pox on both their houses" measures. That said, your call, obviously. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been off the Wiki for 10 hours, enjoying my friday, I come back to the thread and no one has as much as condemned FMSky's personal attacks, in fact, the only thing that has happened is that an editor sided with them on their talk page. Of course that's disappointing, but like I said, it has been laid out and I think the hounding (albeit minor, but still absurd after all these claims of wanting nothing to do with me) is obvious. I am happy to not clog this discussion up anymore. TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The problem is when both sides in an ANI start going back-and-forth like the above, it makes the thread longer, and will take longer for an admin to respond (certainly that was the case back when I was an admin). As per Dumuzid, both parties need to take a step back now. You have both laid out your positions. It is time now for an available admin to review. It may not happen right away (certainly not necessarily within 12 hours). That's just how things work sometimes in ANI. Singularity42 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I was alerted about this on my talk page and I did accuse User:FMSky of following my edit recently on Take a Step Back, to which they gave the reasonable response that they follow the Template:XXXTentacion, and that's how they realized I made the page and made format-related edits. I apologized for that specific accusation because they gave a reasonable explanation, though I did not appreciate them calling me a "clown". However, I have no doubt that FMSky has stalked my edit history in the past, and admitted to looking over all my edits on the XXXTentacion page here. You'll also see on that link pages I mentioned where they have without a doubt sought pages I have edited and targeted my work which only they object to generally. I am a frequent editor on the XXXTentacion page and on that link they said they look over all my edits there because they are "unhelpful", but only them (and one other editor who I won't mention to not drag them into this) find my edits particularly objectionable there. FMSky has definitely toned down stalking my edits but I have no doubt they have many times in the past. I hold no animosity towards them but that's my side. Regards, TheXuitts (talk) 3:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

mate, i look over your edits on the XXXTentacion page just like i look over every one else's, because that page has been on my watchlist for at least half a year. FMSky (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but FMSky has numerous music articles on his watchlist, I have bumped into him on numerous occasions across various articles in music. Just because someone hasn't edited an article recently doesn't mean that they've got an eye on it... and plus you say stalked my edit history, and admitted to looking over all my edits on the XXXTentacion page, well which one is it? You've mentioned a singular page, I look over all the edits made to Tirzepatide because I created it. Doesn't mean I hound people. Rather non sequitur really... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 08:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I found this ANI thread after seeing mention of it on TheXuitts' talk page. The problem with all this is it's very hard to "prove" hounding, and nobody ever admits to doing it because they know it is against our behavioural guidelines. I've read all manner of excuses as to how editors who've hounded me have just so happened to "stumble" across an article I edited minutes after I last edited it, and even after several admins asking them to stop, this kept happening for months because we edited in the same topic area and they felt justified in doing so. It does get extremely annoying and makes you feel unwelcome to edit. I do admit that I find TylerBurden's point of FMSky manually reverting their edit on Erling Haaland (after their edit on the article the previous day) and then editing after them two minutes later the next day (and directly after a talk page message, if I understand it correctly?) pretty convincing "hounding" (or clear evidence of clicking on somebody's contributions to edit an article after them), but also, editors click through to others' contributions and edit topics after them like this all the time. A one-off should not be much of an issue—it being a pattern/reoccurrng thing is an issue. That being said, I do find it puzzling if this occurred after FMSky said they want nothing to do with TylerBurden. Speaking generally, if you genuinely want nothing to do with an editor, don't click on their contributions to find more issues you can take with their edits elsewhere. Pretty simple, really. If you have an issue with their pattern of edits, leave a talk page message for them (multiple if it reoccurs), then inform an admin if it's a genuine guideline- or policy-disregarding issue, or a relevant WikiProject/the article talk page if it's a content dispute.

So long as it's not a recurring thing where the editor is indirectly or directly reverting your edits across a period of time (days, weeks, months) after you've ceased contact or last directly talked with them, it's debatably not hounding. At this stage I feel all that can be done is to ask both editors to steer clear of the other, including if their edit pops up on a watchlisted article. Unless it's a contentious edit or a pattern of contentious edits, in which case, as said, there are avenues to deal with this. If one genuinely wants nothing to do with the other, it shouldn't be an issue, right? Ss112 17:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Need help with move error

Without any discussion I can find, Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States and its talk page were moved to 1874–75 state visit by Kalākaua to the United States by Peter Ormond July 2, 2021. I just tried to move it back and I seemed to have made it worse. As far as I can tell, this is now at Wikipedia:Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States. Can someone please move this back to its original title before Ormond's move. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. It happens, a couple times I managed to move my RfA nominations and forgot to change the prefix so I ended up with some really garbled page titles. Let me know if there's something else that needs to be straightened out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Garashov Farhad and Disruption of AFD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garashov Farhad
• Garashov Farhad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had nothing to do with this article or its deletion discussion until, for some reason, I and other editors were pinged, and have been asked to unsalt it. It isn't salted. It isn't deleted at this time, because the AFD is still being discussed. Having been pinged, my observation is that the AFD is being disrupted by comments by IP editors, so I will request that the AFD be semi-protected. The article was recently created by a now-blocked sockpuppet, which is more reason why the AFD should be protected against possible block evasion. Checkusers and SPI clerks can deal with the sockpuppetry, but the IP editors are disrupting the AFD and pinging editors who had no involvement until being pinged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ditto confusion. I was pinged to Please cancel the consensus, I think it was wrong to discuss this kind. Let the discussion be repeated, the title should ask whether the person is encyclopedic or not. However, all I did was relist to give the discussion more time since non-English sources need more digging and can't find any indication I was involved in a prior discussion related to this subject. Star Mississippi 16:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Some clarity. It apparently also existed at Special:Undelete/Farhad_Garashov (thanks @Cryptic for the heads up). Neither you nor I appeared to have any engagement there either. Star Mississippi 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and likely COI at Eric Feigl-Ding

• Sahiljain22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (edit: user renamed to Sj221234 during course of this ANI discussion)
• Sj221234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.104.106.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sahiljain and the IP are the same person, though both have been acting disruptively. I also have a strong case that Sahiljain22 has a WP:COI with Eric Feigl-Ding, and hence should not be permitted to edit this article.

IP disruptive editing: Here and especially here the IP used false edit summaries while removing well-sourced criticism of Feigl-Ding's claims during the pandemic, as well as removing POV tags with links to the talk page where Joelmiller, GlobeGores, and myself, laid out the problems with the article and high-quality sources that supply the criticism that has been purged. The IP made an edit with the same issues here.

IP is Sahiljain22 violating WP:LOUTSOCK: Here and here the IP edits the material about the study about the drug Vioxx, then a mere 40 minutes later Sahiljain22 edits the same material with the same POV. Here and here, among other things, Sahiljain22 adds the inaccurate claim that Alexis Madrigal "recanted" his criticism, the same exact word and claim sneakily added by the IP here.

Sahiljain22 has a COI and is disruptively POV editing: Sahiljain22 was warned on his talk page by Bueller 007 about COI, but he denies it. However, his behavior shows otherwise - he is an WP:SPA almost solely focused on promotional editing about Eric Feigl-Ding. Browsing his contributions makes that clear. Here, he uses an alternative weekly from Vancouver to tout Feigl-Ding's credible pandemic risk information that Canadian health officials were not telling the public, and as knowing better than the health officials in what rules need to be in place. Over and over again, he expunges sources that are critical of Feigl-Ding, and with edit summaries that do not mention he removed anything - note that the first one says "necsi" in regards to the New England Complex Systems Institute but fails to mention he deleted material, covering it up much like the IP did. Here he touts Feigl-Ding as a leading TV and media commentator upon the COVID19 pandemic and goes on and on about Feigl-Ding has published many academic papers and is a 'Highly Cited Researcher' in Web of Science...

Even though Feigl-Ding is almost exclusively known for his COVID commentary, having been quite obscure before 2020, Sahiljain22 was lobbying at an AfD in 2018 to keep an article on him, alongside some other SPAs. Most of his non-Feigl-Ding-related edits are about the Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM), or the Center for Biomedical Imaging, part of BUSM's teaching hospital - and Feigl-Ding attended BUSM.

A look at all the unaddressed complaints at Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding and at the contributions of the IP and the account show that the disruption and whitewashing needs to end. I think that Eric Feigl-Ding should be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent further logged-out socking, and Sahiljain22 should be blocked from Eric Feigl-Ding. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the Eric Feigl-Ding article would benefit from indefinite semi-protection. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've put temporary protection on the article to interrupt the edit war. Deb (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, though to be clear this is only a very temporary stopgap, as history shows this user comes back every few weeks or months to whitewash the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Very very likely COI, I agree. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks- Sahil here, not EFD. Have I watched EFD's page over the years? sure, but out of personal interest, not any COI. I'm a busy physician and I don't sit in front of Wikipedia regularly. I don't know him-- he was just once a famous dropout at BU, which i found fascinating. I have made edits in the past to add more context to things. And like most of you, I post article links, insert only facts, and context. Each of my edits yesterday on EFD's page were focused on adding links to articles and adding context. For example, I actually clarified that EFD was not involved in the drug Vioxx's withdrawal, but rather its implications on when Merck should have known the risks -- and added context on the aftermath after the withdrawal of those who suffered harm from the drug. I know all this because I'm a primary care physician who knows these major medical events well. Also, sharp eyed people would have noticed that I have sometimes agreed with some of the critical edits on EFD's page, and I have disagreed too. I have engaged regularly on the EFD'S TALK page for many years -- I have not been some silent ghost editor -- I have strived to be a good Wikipedia member and engager whenever I have time. Sahiljain22 (talk)

Also, I don't engage in congratulatory and editing coordination like Crosswinds has with GlobeGores, or GlobeGores has had with others like Bueller or Joel. Joel Miller is also a former Harvard dept of epidemiology researcher, who has a much closer potential COI. I don't. Sahiljain22 (talk)

I've never coordinated with anyone on edits or engaged in "self-congratulation". I'll take this statement by you to be an admission that you keep adding things against the consensus of other editors. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

okay, think I then misspoke, and I take that back. I just saw some cross-talk on various TALK pages in the past, but maybe misremembered you. apologies to you B on that part. Sahiljain22 (talk) Sahiljain22 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Secondly, why was the Georgia Straight article that focuses on EFD (its in the article's title) get deleted? that article is important context. Georgia Straight is a well known long running Vancouver based Canadian newspaper. I know the article because my medical practice is based in British Columbia, and hence I encountered it. And its an article written a few months ago that I casually found while googling yesterday--its not like I rushed to Wikipedia the moment it was published in April 2022 to get it on EFD's page. I don't have time for that. Also I'm willing to provide identification that I'm a Canadian physician. And unlike most of you, I use my actual name because I have guts like that. I'm not some ghost editor. The Georgia Straight article written by its editor clearly shows the influence of EFD's public health comms on uptake of health information in contrast to local and provincial health leaders. It shows direct impact and thus should be added/kept in EFD's page--its an objective article, and it deserved to be cited and quoted from. Sahiljain22 (talk)

Finally, I want to reiterate the importance of historical context during the pandemic. Wikipedia is one draft of history--and the historical topsy turvy turns of the COVID pandemic has been incredibly up and down like a rollercoaster, and its very polarizing on many topics. Yes, many called EFD an alarmist in early pandemic even before it was declared a pandemic, while many others think of him as a whistleblower who just tried to warn and inform the public. We should include ALL the reliable articles that discuss all the facets of the complex arc of the pandemic, in which EFD has been often involved in. I've interestingly noticed that mentions of EFD's role at the Federation of American Scientists have often been muzzled or cut down. There are hundreds of more articles that cite EFD or quote EFD's warnings, but Wikipedia doesn't have space to incorporate them all, but it should try the best it can for full context. Also, nobody has ever mentioned that EFD is on a WHO COVID expert committee--why is that? I don't have time to follow everything EFD is involved in, but I find in fascinating nobody has put his WHO role on EFD's page given WHO's influence. And I don't have time to follow everything or insert all possible edits about EFD, and I'd like to remind that neither does anyone else have 'full context' to follow EFD 24/7 either--that's what Wikipedia is for and why we are all here--to edit and be fair and balanced as much as possible. Sahiljain22 (talk)

All in all, I feel that if we include articles on EFD regarding the pandemic, it should not be casually inserted in the INTRODUCTION -- but rather it should have full historical context discussion in the DEBATE SECTION of his work. Thus, rather than inserting into the intro cherry picked phrased like 'he was criticized'-- without mentioning time and when such criticisms were first made or other context. Context is king in this world, especially regarding the history of the COVID pandemic, whether how people felt / science said at one time or another about mask wearing, airborne, reinfection, etc. Thus, I commit to all of you to fairly edit and do fair vetting of all articles and commentary on EFD's role in the pandemic. I hope you all try to see that full picture of EFD's role too without outright dismissing articles that either applaud him or criticize him. COVID is a very polarizing issue, and we live in very polarizing times. I'm here to make sure we get a good draft of history with you all. Thank you. Sahiljain22 (talk)

Wanted to add: The pandemic requires fuller context, and especially medical and public health context, and historical timing context of when something is perceived as 'misinformation'. There were a lot of people who said covid is 'just the flu' or 'you dont need to mask' or 'its not airborne' or 'covid is mild / not mild' or 'reinfections dont happen' or 'herd immunity will/wont work'. what was once labeled 'misinformation' in one period of time is actually the reality in another period of the pandemic. hope you can understand why context matters when editing a page of an epidemiologist like EFD. Sahiljain22 (talk)

Also for example, people cite the Health Journalism criticism article by Tara Haelle. But Tara Haelle once wrote an article in March 2020 that "No, You DO NOT Need Face Masks For Coronavirus—They Might Increase Your Infection Risk" -- which she doesn't adhere to anymore. But she once accused EFD of misinformation. The context of time is important in the pandemic -- and that's my point above. Sahiljain22 (talk)

You want to talk topsy-turvy turns of the pandemic? Then why do you keep expunging the EFD article of well-sourced criticism of his ongoing approach to the pandemic, as seen most readily in Undark Magazine [356] and Science (journal) [357]? Numerous experts criticize his ongoing approach. This is from well after the pandemic was underway. And that Georgia Straight article is an example of this - portraying him as better than the actual public health authorities.

And as for his supposed WHO expert committee role, I am unable to find any WP:Reliable sources independent of himself supporting this claim.

I have made edits in the past to add more context to things. And like most of you, I post article links, insert only facts, and context. Each of my edits yesterday on EFD's page were focused on adding links to articles and adding context. - as I showed above, this is not true at all. You consistently expunge high-quality critical sources and add promotional text. Your editing pattern goes way beyond "personal interest" in someone you have no COI with. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not 'expunge' the undark article. it was mentioned elsewhere in the debate section. that article has been linked his page for a long time if i recall. I think in the Science article, not sure what happened - but Carl (the interviewee) also expressed regret about his early criticisms on EFD too if you read carefully-- that was never quoted, only the negative parts. isn't it that interesting that only negative comments get highlighted by folks usually? just saying - let's all check our biases. Sahiljain22 (talk)

A quick check of the WHO website found EFD's name listed on the COVID mortality technical advisory group. I used a few simple keywords in Google, and it's there. just search his name on the first WHO page result. I think its fair to say a WHO website is a reliable source. Sahiljain22 (talk)

https://www.google.com/search?q=eric+feigl+ding+who+mortality+committee+covid

https://www.who.int/data/technical-advisory-group/covid-19--mortality-assessment/membership

If i was intrinsincally promotional, I would have pushed the positive quotes from the Science article (i clearly didn't), and I would have pushed the WHO covid committee role (which I hadn't). let's please be fair. Sahiljain22 (talk)

also I kinda agreed with your Madrigal edits. i agree it wasn't a full recant, but Madrigal clearly express regret about how the article portrayed EFD. Can't we come to common ground? and can't you see I didn't try to revert/remove your edit on that? don't just try to see what you want to see. Sahiljain22 (talk) Sahiljain22 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You removed Undark as the IP, there are other RS which you removed, and there are no positive quotes from the Science article (unless you took one phrase out of context of the surrounding criticism).

The claim about the WHO group is more dishonesty. You claimed he was "on" the expert committee, but he is not listed as a member, but only at the bottom as part of a list of "observers". And at the bottom of that it explains that one can apply to be an observer to the TAG. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi - so, its clear EFD is on the technical working group. he's listed there clear as day on the 'membership' URL webpage, even if he's an observer and not a full standing member. And above, i said above he's on a 'WHO COVID expert committee', which he is. bottomline, he's on the WHO COVID working group. there is no vagueness about that. Sahiljain22 (talk)

https://www.who.int/data/technical-advisory-group/covid-19--mortality-assessment/membership

We can debate the Science piece all day long, but its clear Bergstrom and EFD are not enemies, just have mostly stylistic differences. And they seemed to have made peace too. and Bergstrom says this "I would have done better to be a bit drier, a bit more dispassionate.” but its okay if readers have different interpretations, thats why we have multiple editors who weigh in for balance. Sahiljain22 (talk)

https://www.science.org/content/article/studying-fighting-misinformation-top-scientific-priority-biologist-argues Sahiljain22 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The URL is to the same page that lists the members, but EFD is not among them but an observer to the group. The Science article is very clear about alarmism and misinformation. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, EFD is listed on that website--we can debate another time whether non-voting observers in the group, listed on the 'membership' website of a group, are part of the group. Neither of us know the degree of engagement. and the Science article is 99% not about EFD, but about Carl, who has expressed some regret. Carl has also directly shared info by EFD too and even acknowledges/hat tipped EFD for bringing him important information.[358] Again, let's avoid extreme interpretations please. Going forward, we can acknowledge both sides / different interpretations in editing while being professional. Thank you for listening. Sahiljain22 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a tweet, and about the Trump campaign, not COVID. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I actually kinda agree that EFD's page should perhaps be semi-protected -- editable by only registered editors. Anonymous edits can be chaotic. Though anonymous edits to the page have been both anti-EFD and pro-EFD too, just pointing that out. But semi-protected isn't a bad idea if admins feel it is necessary now or down the road. Sahiljain22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Counterpoint on semi-protected: that said, are there pros for allowing anonymous sources to edit, even if some are disruptive? i think so during the pandemic. Wikipedia English has an English world bias. but the pandemic spans the globe, and EFD's microphone during the pandemic spans beyond borders too. There could be many valid insights that come from other countries that English-speaking editors may miss. Just a thought. Sahiljain22 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How convenient. There is a history of very suspicious IP edits being used to win edit wars: [359][360], [361][362] Crossroads ^-talk- 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well its also convenient, there is also a history of very suspicious IP edits used to win edit wars against EFD too: [363], [364], or to insert clearly biased/narrow info that EFD is merely a nutritionist [365]. See my point always was that there were pro-EFD and anti-EFD anonymous edits. I overall supported the semi-protected proposal (which we kinda semi agree on), and i just merely offered a side counterpoint that i see both sides. I didn't take a hard position on the counterpoint, but you somehow had to use snarky language, which reveals your implicit inherent inner bias. When I try to be balanced, you only somehow see the negative and don't constructively comment in a professional manner. Let's be kinder and fairer. Sahiljain22 (talk)

Those IPs have many other edits in other topics, and only one of those has to do with an edit war, while the IPs I listed were used solely for that purpose. In an article discussion I am balanced, but this is a behavioral report, so it's obviously going to be critical. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Update

Sj221234 and his sock Dthut have been blocked indefinitely after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sj221234, but the history of WP:LOUTSOCK at Eric Feigl-Ding, as laid out in my opening comment and my recent 03:57, 13 June 2022 comment, remains. So, I still think semi-protection is the way to go. With the disruptor blocked, and any IP socking easily addressable, it may be a good time to lift the full-protection. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets of Jinnifer

Lots of activity from LTA Jinnifer tonight, the usual talk page harassment coupled with edit warring about how popular Spider-man is and decade sections for horror films. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer/Archive for some history. The IP ranges involved are unfortunately quite busy, but blocks on 2600:387:15:630:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:387:C:7135:0:0:0:0/61 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) should cover it for the moment, if anyone is so inclined. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd appreciate a bit of action. My revert finger is getting tired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the 64. Thanks my garden friend for flagging. I'm about to go offline so any admin can feel free to modify as needed. Star Mississippi 02:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Whacked another /64 which was being actively used. firefly ( t · c ) 10:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And back again as 2600:387:15:637:0:0:0:8 This is AT&T mobile, the /64 isn't going to be wide enough. I again encourage a block on the /61 MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has placed anon block on the /32. Thanks, all. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This indicates just how troubled this editor is. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A block of OsscarKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would stop their current disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

OsscarKnight is blocked, has now moved on to GuntherVold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

GuntherVoid blocked before I saw this report, but definitely connected. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And now on to SpiCapHul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Now EdLorJudWarr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, no tags. Star Mississippi 01:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Now TBTSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, no tags. Lather, rinse, repeat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Busy sock today. NationalEditor2500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) currently active. Block appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Another one blocked, no tags. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Now Ydheosyrje5wis53j3e6sue6e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Now Ksyystwjwye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Another new contestant, DiamondBlocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Big rangeblock needed

2607:fb91::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): This range was blocked for three months back in early March by Justlettersandnumbers due to excessive unconstructive editing. Has since resumed spouting garbage soon after the block expired. All unblock requests in the intervening period were clearly written by the same person, and none suggested anything besides an intent to continue vandalising if unblocked. At least one subnet has been blocked, but these smaller blocks don't seem to stop the overall flow of trash from this range. They are fairly subtle, adding little bits of out of place information, some incorrect information, and just a wide variety of disruptive editing. Then there's the shitposting on talkpages and the old favourite, blanking. I'm not going to notify all 79 octillion or so IP's (If anyone else wants to crash the servers then that's up to them). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I doubt very much whether every edit from this range is the same person, as it's the T-Mobile range for a good chunk of the USA (the geolocation for the first 3 I looked at was Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida). Also, there are decent edits in there as well. Mobile ranges are a pain - they're very big, and people jump IPs all the time. I'd be wary of blocking such a wide range for a significant time. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw this earlier, but held off from re-imposing the same block as before so as to get some input from others; I remember being unsure as to the advisability of blocking such a wide range. Black Kite, can you suggest a narrower range or series of ranges that would work here? With a few exceptions, the edits are pretty disruptive.Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tricky. Actually, this /32 appears to be half of T-Mobile's currently used IP range (the total range is 2607:fb90::/28 but only 2607:fb90::/31 appears to be active) - and a quick look shows that the other half (2607:fb90::/32) is actually checkuser globally blocked for three years, which means we're already blocking half the T-mobile phone users on IPv6 in the USA anyway... Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, we could try just blocking 2607:fb91::/34, which would get the talkpage shitposter at a minimum, and probably more than half of the other disruption. Anything narrower probably won't be effective. On closer inspection, it looks like there are at least three separate people who are using this range abusively. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I was referring to "the same person", that was limited to the unblock requests. The same person clearly wrote all those, despite the fact that more than one person is editing through this range. To me this implies that the only people who care about editing through this range are not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the distribution of unblock requests is a good indicator of who cares about editing through this range. As large mobile ranges go, this one is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as some I've blocked. When I checked last night, we were at 124/214 reverted since the previous block extended, but the 90 remaining edits do include significant positive edits. I don't know why this T-Mobile range is, relatively speaking, not nearly as bad as the other one (which happens to be my own mobile range), but it seems to be just on the margin, cost-benefit-wise. If we do reblock this, I think we should at least leave account creation on (the template {{rangeblock|create=yes}} can be used in the block summary for such cases); if there's a lot of abusive account creation, a CU can always disable that later. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose allowing account creation, that seems a good idea. Mako001

Re-blocked for a year with account creation allowed, per suggestion from Tamzin (thank you for that!). Please feel free to modify at will (or if I messed it up!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Apparently, this clearly shows how some people regard edits from mobile IP ranges like "crimes." Quite interesting. --2607:FB91:388:22B3:210C:4989:8DF8:7AB2 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks and profanity by Tigerikkada

Tigerikkada (talk) This user is using abusive words on my talk page that too not in English (in Telugu). He is allegedly making meaningless statements against me on my talk page. Out of his statements, I only concern about the edits realted to K.G.F: Chapter 2 because there is a discussion going on related to film's box office collections. But other statements are meaningless. For example, he stated that I have made edits on RRR, but in reality I have not made any edits on that article. I have said the same as a reply them. I even asked him to vist the corresponding article's talk page, even then he is abusively replying on my talk page. The abusive messages are not in English as I mentioned earlier........Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have left the missing ANI notice at Tigerikkada's talk page. The issue was a mere content dispute which should have amicably settled at the article talk page. However, Tigerikkada took to Jayanthkumar123's talk page, leaving this note which ended with "This won't be good for you" (translated from Telugu).

DaxServer has already left a standard warning about WP:No personal attacks which Tigerikkada must take cognizance of. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The user has went to extreme level of personal attacking by uing abusive words.....Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite this ANI thread, Tigerikkada has resorted to personal attacks on Jayanthkumar123, abusing him with an equivalent of B word ([366]). Kindly requesting an admin intervention. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would ask for a revdel under WP:RD2 for the edits linked above if that's fine with Jayanthkumar123. I've for now replaced them with {{RPA}} — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with your decision...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 4:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing

Around 2 weeks ago I noticed List of Scientologists and other Scientology-related articles had been redirected (some without reasoning like L. Ron Hubbard House) and links were removed from the Scientology template, including a FA which was not redirected (?). I reverted these because there was no discussion and it seems these should be AFD instead of redirected. List of Scientologists is highly sourced, was created almost 20 years ago, and is obviously a popular page since it has almost 3.2 million views within the past 7 years alone. Most of my edits were reverted and the L. Ron Hubbard House article was slapped with unwarranted templates such as notability and sourcing. That page was a DYK in 2009 and is sourced, so I removed them. When I asked Cambial Yellowing about the redirects, the response was an accusation of me being a Scientology propagandist. (I'm interested in providing readers info, the basic purpose of this site) I responded but there was no further discussion until a little while ago. The user does not wish to engage any further, so I'm here asking is it appropriate for a user to restore redirects or should they nominate it for deletion. I asked for help on what I should do at WT:RFD and was told the burden is on the person redirecting the article. APK whisper in my ear 08:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@APK: Please refrain my misrepresenting my actions to make them appear improper. It’s completely inappropriate. The response to your message on my talk, as anyone viewing it can see, concerned the reasons for removal. It’s quite telling that you offered no response whatsoever to those reasons. I asked you to confirm you were not advocating for the group; given that literally hundreds of editors have done so in the past and continue to do so, that’s a perfectly reasonable request.

Before coming here, you’ve failed to respond to all requests for your reasoning as to why you believe these articles, most tagged for fourteen years, should not be redirected to the subject article of which they form a constituent, given that removing the primary content would render them source-less and barely even stubs. You've also failed to respond on article talk.

Your apparent refusal to discuss the issues raised and misrepresentation of another editor’s actions suggest a BOOMERANG is the appropriate response here.

p.s. yes, I removed a link to A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant in the template; once it was pointed out that it was an FA, I’ve left it. APK, you need to learn the difference between behaviour issues (the purpose of this page) and people disagreeing (the purpose of article talk - where you’ve failed to respond before coming here).Cambial — foliar❧ 09:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You didn't start a discussion at Talk:List of Scientologists until a little while ago or explain why you redirected a sourced article like L. Ron Hubbard House then added templates without reasoning when I reverted. Accusing someone of advocating for a group without evidence can be interpreted as a personal attack, and for what it's worth, I'm not religious...at all. I'll wait for others' opinions on the redirects. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 09:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

But I did start that discussion, on the article which you are complaining about, before you came to this page. Yet you came here to falsely claim my actions are worthy of sanction, rather than responding on talk. I specifically asked you to confirm whether you were advocating for the group; I have no interest in whether you are religious or not, which is a different question. Thus far you have not denied it, but on my talk page you have, apropos of nothing, started talking about the fascism article – which I have never edited. I suggest using article talk, and perhaps responding to the issues raised, something you have still entirely failed to even attempt to do. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I was writing the original post here while you were starting that discussion. It takes time to write a post while I'm at work, so when I clicked publish here your post there showed up. You're trying to make others think I'm some type of operative or paid propagandist when I am neither, so stop it immediately. APK whisper in my ear 10:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

While this discussion is ongoing, Cambial Yellowing thought re-adding a notability template to L. Ron Hubbard House mentioned above was helpful. APK whisper in my ear 10:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing of the sort; it's you who opened a discussion here. I asked you to confirm that when you restored promotional material of the Church of Scientology used for WIKIVOICE, you were not doing so in order to advocate for the organisation. You are still yet to offer any actual reasoning for restoring promo content. I've never suggested you were an "operative" or paid propagandist: stop making obviously false accusations immediately. The irony of your doing so in the same breath as trying to accuse me of doing the same is not lost on me.

I note that you even misrepresent the advice you received at Talk:RFD, which was to discuss with the user (me). I've already opened discussion for you at article talk; you've not responded.

You could spend your time more usefully, from the point of view of your expressed aims, in giving a single reason why we should retain promotional material as wikicontent, or why you think tabloid/chumbox-style lists of celebrities (dubious source) are something deserving of an encyclopaedia article. There's an appropriate section for such content at Scientology and celebrities.

Yes, I've restored a relevant tag at L Ron Hubbard house, given that multiple sources are either primary sources (specifically, late-19th/early-20th century archives) or, like this one, do not mention the article subject at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that "List of Scientologists" is a perfectly reasonable article, as it is quite similar in scope and notability to "List of Latter Day Saints" and "List of Jains" and many other such articles. As long as all the entries are intrinsically notable, there is nothing wrong with them.

And perhaps more importantly, @Cambial Yellowing, it would have been prudent to create move/redirect discussions as soon as these met resistance. It is never a good idea to do things unilaterally when it is so clear that others disagree, and there exist consensus-based alternatives. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: The criteria for list articles is WP:LISTN. We need reliable sources to discuss the list as a list. Tabloid sources are not RS. But this discussion is not for here. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Regardless of what the criteria are --and you are right I had forgotten about LISTN-- the proper action would have been to create an RM discussion so that others may weigh in, and so that the redirect would have stood the test of time and not been a unilateral action that can be unilaterally reversed. Disputes on this site get worse because of users trading and round robinning unilateral actions instead of reverting to the status quo, and creating a discussion which sets a precedent. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There was no reason not to boldy implement this, having looked for RS discussing *the group*, finding chumbucket listicles and these two lists – the opposite of the article subject. One could maybe make an argument for an article "Former Scientologists", but I don't think the tiny number of articles would justify that either. The reversion ES were: "no consensus for this and WP:NLIST does not say all list articles cannot exist" – NLIST indeed does not say this, but that wasn't why I referred to it, so I restored my edit with a proper full explanation; the other was "nominate it for deletion if you think the page should not exist" – I don't think it should be deleted; it should be redirected to Scientology and celebrities, where RS have established that topic as a notable subject, far beyond a titillating list of everyone who ever took a course. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Remember to follow WP:BRD. I appreciated the discussion you started on the talk page, but immediately continuing to edit back and forth redirecting and restoring, with @APK (who is also at fault here), right up until the hard and fast 3RR, was absolutely not the proper course of action. Either of you could have started a redirect/merge discussion instead of letting things escalate to this point. That would have been proper dispute resolution imo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an optional method of seeking consensus. Neither I nor APK were anywhere close to 3RR; we haven't even passed "1RR" (check the history). Cambial — foliar❧ 12:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, if WP:BRD (or WP:ONUS), though generally recommended, were non-optional, they'd basically just be Consensus required. El_C 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing simply waiting longer than 24 hours to revert again does not absolve you from edit-warring policies... I would say with the number of reverts over the course of a short period of days, it is close. But I am no admin and it is not up to me. I am simply giving you (and @APK) unsolicited advice on how approaching discussion would be better than continuing to revert to maintain your (or anyone's) "preferred version" of the page. It certainly would be more productive. Thank you for your comments on the talk page indicating you will start a redirect/merge discussion shortly. It is much appreciated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

[Responding as pinged] @Shibbolethink: Given the latter reverts were nearly two weeks later, I would say that it does, and that it isn't close, either in regular font or italics. I am aware you are not an admin. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I looked into this a bit last night when APK inquired at WT:RFD what to do when an article is BLAR'd. It's simple. @Cambial Yellowing: If you BLAR an article, and it is reverted in good faith, the next step is discuss on talk, file a merge request, or file an AfD. Redirect-warring is extremely disruptive. Please don't do it again. Furthermore, redirecting a clearly notable article like L. Ron Hubbard House (an NRHP building in a historic district), using only the edit summary "to", and then tagging that for notability issues when challenged does not seem like good judgment here as to when it's appropriate to boldly BLAR an article. I also do not think the remark Can we just confirm that you're not looking to advocate for the organization or the cult members was remotely acceptable in response to a challenge to your bold actions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: A point of fact - L Ron Hubbard House, despite APK’s continuing efforts to portray it as such (including linking to a nomination form lodged by a Scientology organisation) is not an NRHP building. This is easily checked - register is viewable here, the house is not on it. Neither is it mentioned on the accepted nominations or descriptions noted as part of the Dupont District. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have never once said it was listed on the NRHP. I wrote it's a contributing property, which it is. Nomination forms such as the one I used as a reference are used for literally all NRHP articles. If you think the article shouldn't exist, then nominate it for deletion. APK whisper in my ear 20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request at Kyriakos Mitsotakis

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.

---

No privacy concern, just unpleasant material.

See contribs by 176.220.3.74 (talk · contribs) and 78.168.26.166 (talk · contribs)

The edits themselves are garden variety vandalism, but the summaries are unusually nasty. Squeakachu (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This looks like a threat of harm. I've e-mailed Emergency, as it says at WP:EMERGENCY. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The threats have been revdelled, although their credibility is negligible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (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.

Ban 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.

---

73.158.47.129 proclaims to be HazelBasil who proclaims to be Ashley Gjøvik, subject of an AfD I nominated under WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, who was banned by ArbCom for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki.

Comments are also inappropriate on the AfD.

Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the user was indefinitely blocked by ArbCom, not banned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: While the OP seems to be confusing blocks and bans, WP:BLOCKEVASION notes that IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked. I had opened up a thread at WP:AE about this prior to this getting brought to ANI by the new user, since it involves a violation of an ArbCom-imposed remedy. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

And yet ... Sebastien1118 your account seems to be a Single-purpose account, created solely to get the Ashley Gjøvik article deleted. And you seem to be able to word that AFD in a Wikipedia style, including linking WP pages to prove your argument. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a long-time IP user who wished to start participating in AfD, which requires an account. You can see I've done just that, begun participating in AfD. I also have started adding the events (and the subject) to the article I feel they belong on. Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, this is either block evasion or impersonation. Either way, IP blocked 1 week for now; can be reblocked for longer if it proves static. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Two updates: 1) Per Mhawk10, indeed evasion, not impersonation. 2) Filer indeffed per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:15, 14 June 2022 (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.

Indef block proposal: SquareInARoundHole

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.

---

Instead of accepting where SquareInARoundHole is wrong, he is now claiming that he is being framed and the SPI results are false.[367]

But the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole shows that this was the height of deception and clear-cut harassment against the user he is banned from interacting.[368]

I don't think that the community would trust SquareInARoundHole for evading that ban for months by using multiple socks.

SquareInARoundHole is alleged to have COI with Ashley Gjovik as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184 which remains 'unresolved' as rightly mentioned by SVTCobra.[369]

While the history of SquareInARoundHole (likely a sock himself) with Ashley Gjøvik has been already explained, he is also alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett where he made his 3rd edit [370] and didn't take long to make a large edit to Ifeoma Ozoma,[371] where he is also alleged of having COI.

Not only the sock account Sebastien1118 but before that he used Bobrossghost for months for socking at Ashley Gjøvik. We can say that Gjøvik was herself not wrong by accusing SquareInARoundHole of harassment.[372]

This whole chapter looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. This was not the end of harassment by SquareInARoundHole because he also filed at least three bogus reports against me to get me sanctioned[373][374][375] by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks and violating BLP when none of that happened. He never seemed to realize where he is wrong.

Overall, I really don't see a reason why there shouldn't be an indef block on SquareInARoundHole. He can appeal the ban per WP:SO but not before addressing any of the issues that have been raised so far. TolWol56 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added SquareInARoundHole's name to the section title just so it's more apparent at a glance who's being discussed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, @TolWol56, please notify SIARH of this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@TolWol56: Ahem. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Notified. Was just waiting for vanishing issue to resolve first. TolWol56 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@TolWol56: To clarify, what you are asking for is a WP:CBAN? If that is the case:

• Support: They abused WP:AGF, harassed other editors, and even after a trip to ArbCom, still couldn't pull their head in. Indef CBAN. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Mako001: Since the discussion here, the terms like "community site ban", "community ban", "indef block by community" are all treated as synonyms and have the same effect. GenuineArt (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. SIARH has serious issues like bludgeoning, CIR, however, but his unwillingness to stop harassing a female user was the final straw and is unforgivable. Using socks for continuing the harassment and then denying the evident sock puppetry and harassment confirms that he is not able to understand what he is doing. GenuineArt (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support'. This is awful harassment of a woman, no place for that here. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• They are already indef'd. Levivich 19:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Currently blocked for 2 months. Check again. TolWol56 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich, look at the block log, it's a long message but only two months. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're both right; thanks for quickly setting me straight. I foolishly assumed it was an indef block. Levivich 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Harassment, COI, socking... an indef is needed or we're going to be back here when the current block expires. Levivich 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Question. Is this a proposal for a WP:CBAN or just to show support for extending an ordinary indef block on top of the current CU/IBAN block? I'm a bit confused by the intent of TolWol56 here, since the proposal uses both "block" and "ban", and WP:SO can apply to both blocks and bans. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Also, this comment from NinjaRobotPirate indicates  Confirmed sockpuppetry, while the comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SquareInARoundHole SPI is a  Likely. Is this to say that a second CU has reviewed the case and thinks that the technical evidence shows that they are basically identical? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Your first question regarding CBAN/indef block was asked and was replied above. See GenuineArt's message at 10:34 right above.

I think NinjaRobotPirate found something more conclusive that's why they indicated socking to be "confirmed". TolWol56 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was looking to make sure that was your intent. I'm going to wait from a response from NinjaRobotPirate before making a more substantial comment here with respect to sanction. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (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.

Unban proposal: HazelBasil

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:HazelBasil has been the subject of horrendous harassment here by SquareInARoundHole. Whatever tweets HazelBasil sent in defense of herself are excusable, and HazelBasil's ban due to SquareInARoundHole's say so can not stand. HazelBasil should be unbanned immediately. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Support. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that is this is an ArbCom block, and will need to be reviewed by ArbCom to be lifted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We are the community, we can decide over ArbCom, they have to follow the community vote. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the community has already decided that only Arbcom can lift Arbcom blocks. That decision is memorialized at WP:BLOCK, among other places. Levivich 19:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Levivich, if you say Wikipedia:Blocking policy is an impediment, then I tack on an adjoinder to the proposal: Wikipedia:Blocking policy is modified by an overriding provision: the community by a vote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may overturn an ArbCom block. Problem solved. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not that easy. We have global consensus about how global consensus is changed; if you want to change a policy like WP:BLOCK, you need to follow WP:PGCHANGE (which, to save you some reading, will tell you to follow WP:PROPOSAL procedure). Specifically it'll take a widely advertised RFC, and before that, an WP:RFCBEFORE would need to be done. This is a dead end at ANI; you can't change policy in an ANI thread. Levivich 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, so this ANI thread will function as RFCBEFORE, and then we'll do a PROPOSAL procedure proposing the addition of "Notwithstanding the above, User:HazelBasil is unblocked and unbanned from date of passed proposal" to the bottom of Wikipedia:Blocking policy as a 12th section on the page titled "community amendments". --StellarNerd (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You should read the pages I linked to; that's not the procedure they set out. ANI is not for any kind of RFCBEFORE; it is, as the top of page states, for chronic and urgent behavioral problems; it's not to discuss policy changes. Unfortunately, this thread will need to be addressed under existing policy. If you want to change the policy, you need to go to another page (I suggest WT:BLOCK is the place to start). (PS, just so I don't lead you down the prim rose path: there is zero chance that the community will implement this change; the entire purpose of Arbcom is to make decisions that are not reviewable by the community. With all due respect, you probably need more experience on Wikipedia before even so much as proposing what would, in effect, be the end of Arbcom.) Levivich 19:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree because HazelBasil being blocked while being harassed is an urgent behavioral problem, she is unable to defend herself from defamation on Wikipedia. For now, it is my opinion that the opinions of more users at ANI should be heard out, and if others agree that HazelBasil should be unblocked, then the best marshals among the supporters could start this cumbersome procedure you suggest. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I sincerely hope that HazelBasil is unblocked but I also realize that it is possible only if HazelBasil appeals to Arbcom through email and cites these recent developments. TolWol56 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2022 (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.

7&6=thirteen’s behavior *still* hasn’t improved

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 generally only participate at NCORP-related AfD's. In the past I have had some unproductive interactions with a small number of members of WP:ARS including 7&6=thirteen. Generally their participation amounted to a guaranteed !vote to Keep an article with simplified !votes such as "Meets GNG" followed by an avoidance of any policy/guideline based discussions, snarky comments and generally disrupting the AfD process. The participation of 7&6=thirteen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter appears to be the same conduct that was the subject of a lengthy discussion last November Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved. Although no actions were taken at that time, it is noticable that 7&6=thirteen's participation at AfDs fell away in the immediate aftermath. It appears though, after the voluntary sabbatical, 7&6=thirteen is back to the same conduct that landed the original report and which it might be seen as a little harsh or early to draw the communities' attention to one single AfD, I feel it is best to nip any potential issues in the bud earlier rather than later. Bearing in mind that 7&6=thirteen had received a final warning on 3 November, I again propose a topic bad on deletion related activities for 7&6=thirteen. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

In the discussion in question, there is a lot of not-entirely-friendly substantive back-and-forth, involving many different editors -- and then there are 7&6's contributions, which consist primarily of non-substantive attacks (in some instances directly, in others via sarcasm etc.) on those with a different opinion. Not a good look. Maybe Fram & Robert McClenon should add this to the list at ArbCom. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• What is this ridiculous attack against the ARS? After a request by the article's creator was posted for help, some showed up and turned the article from 1,419 bytes when it was nominated for deletion to 24,339 bytes now. 7&6=thirteen was one of those who did some improvements. [376] Can you post specific examples of what you believe he said that he shouldn't, in the proper context? And I explained in that AFD at [377] there is clear evidence there is no canvassing, that just ridiculous based on the evidence presented. Dream Focus 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My comments addressed the merits of the article, potential sourcing and sources. User: HighKing inserted his perenial and untrue canvassing accusation; and sought to WP:BLUDGEON contrary positions. He has been openly hostile to me for a very long time. User:MrsSnoozyTurtle did her usual attacks and accusations; she hangs out at WP:ARS to troll and disrupt it. I answered the questions they posed. I do not have any interest in the subject of this dispute, but I think it should be fairly heard and closed appropriately. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I went to and read the deletion discussion after seeing this discussion and I note that HighKing wrote Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different and Rewriting an article when it is at AfD and after multiple !votes have been case is not the correct way to go about things. You're essentially trying to do a run-around on the !votes that have already been expressed. You should instead have requested the page gets moved to Drafts while you worked on a new article or a significantly new version. which seems to be at odds with what is written at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Gusfriend (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Having read the exchange, this honestly reads like a retaliatory report. 7&6=thirteen gave an actual rationale for voting Keep and was promptly badgered by HighKing. HighKing's claim that it's misconduct to improve an article in response to an AfD (Quote:"Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different - that should have been an outcome of the AfD discussion where consensus was achieved that the article *could* be improved through further editing.") is also bizarre and goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia. I think WP:SATISFY is relevant here. Darkknight2149 05:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I dunno. I'm neither a friend of 7&6=thirteen nor of the ARS gang generally, but normally I'd have written off his smarmy and snarky behavior at that AfD with a trout slap and a warning to shape up. But when I see wording from the ANI discussion in November such as "However, editors raised concerns about the behavior of 7&6=13 unrelated to the alleged fabrication such as civility concerns and the quality of sourcing offered in general at AFD discussions ... While there is no consensus for a formal sanction, this discussion should serve as a sufficient, final warning." At what point are we actually going to take the words "final warning" to mean "And if you step out of line again you're going to be sanctioned, hard"? Ravenswing 07:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd agree this is a meritless complaint. Seems some of the delete voters got vexed as 13 declined to engage in in depth discussion on how much particular sources counted to the WP:GNG pass. There's never any need for a participant to do that, especially with such an obvious case of WP:HEY. Even more so as the sourcing analyses was laid out with admirable rigour and clarity by editors Paul McDonald and Cielquiparle. I note that while HighKing didn't agree with Cielquiparle, he did at least thank the editor for their time. I'd suggest the ideal resolution here is for HighKing to re-read the discussion, then apologise to 13 for this needless ANI, and thank 13 also for patiently taking the time to explain applicable policy points that some of the delete voters seemed to be missing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Unlike User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, I never made any accusations. Every factual statement was true.

I am acutely aware of the warnings, pained by them. Even though the prior warning was premised on a false assumption, since I never made up sources. Why would I? After 14+ years and more than 140,000 edits, I know how to find sources and reference them. There is nothing to be gained or won by doing that. To be sure, there may have been a mistake by me, for which I apologize. But typos happen inevitably if you do enough edits.

And User: High King was already on a search and destroy mission.

Neverthelesss, I thought y'all meant it; I take finality very seriously. My training and business is built on that. Your prior decisions are what they are. I don't take our process lightly, and stayed within bounds. My participation at AFDs has been severely limited. I don't vote much.

The filer here has an agenda, and this is meritless.

Please dismiss this and WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• There will be no boomerang here. That AfD does not reflect well on a number of editors, including yourself - you commented ten times and at least half of them contained some measure of snarkiness (and you've made one in this ANI as well). You should know by now that even when you're right, you still need to conduct yourself properly. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  (nods) Nor am I comforted with the people pleading boomerang all being associated with the ARS claque. It'd be good to hear from more neutral editors. Ravenswing 14:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I welcome the scrutiny by disinterested editors.

N.b. Ravenswing continues with his disparaging cant — "the ARS claque" — so we know where his predisposition lies. Guilt by association and Poisoning the well might apply.

Repetition of mere allegations and alleged Prior bad acts, or warnings, does nothing to prove that the current attack has any factual basis.

Over 81,000 bytes on an AFD suggests how broken and divisive that system is. That, and indeed this exercise, was a misallocation of limited editor resources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

By way of background, after joining on January 3, 2021, I stopped participating in ARS after I reviewed the April 2021 Attack on the HMS Invicible AfD and the statement by the closer. I've kept the little flotation device icons on my userpage in a Selected Work section, mostly to help keep track of articles I've found sources for so I can continue working to expand them, because I have continued to independently review AfD.

On March 3, 2021, 7&6=thirteen had been "warned to avoid personal attacks or other aggressive conduct towards fellow editors, or they may face sanctions." As noted above, on November 3, 2021, there was another warning, which also included, If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue using existing tools.

In this discussion, 7&6=thirteen cites Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts [378], apparently to suggest past warnings do not prove a factual basis for the current complaint, while FRE 404(b) states, "(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." This is not a court that seeks to punish, and instead is a forum that addresses urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems with a goal of preventing harm to the encyclopedia, and it does consider prior warnings relevant when assessing new complaints. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Ravenswing: I have no association with ARS and (from the looks of their talk page) neither does Gusfriend. My analysis was also based solely on reading the exchange linked above. Are you a member of this elite curated group of "more neutral editors"? Between "I'm neither a friend of 7&6=thirteen nor of the ARS gang" and this, you're one of the only ones here who sounds like they have an agenda. Darkknight2149 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing I first learnt of ARS when reading this thread and have no association with them. I only commented because I was concerned by the comments about article improvement that I mentioned. Gusfriend (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. HK is a very difficult editor to encounter in AfD who takes the most extreme readings of NCORP in their mission to purge WP of articles of corporations (ignoring the litany of non-corp trivia on WP). HK has even advocated for the deletion of largeer listed corporations. I would amend the title of this AfD to include HK's behavior as well. 78.19.228.144 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• I can't believe that anyone can write, "Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD...", and not be blocked as being obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I can't get past Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different - that should have been an outcome of the AfD discussion where consensus was achieved that the article *could* be improved through further editing. That is not, and has never been, how deletion works, and you probably shouldn't be involved in AfD if you think that's the case. An article getting rewritten during a deletion discussion to more policy-compliant is an anticipated and indeed welcome outcome. If that means that the deletion discussion gets thrown out because the article materially changed then so be it. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not only is article improvement an appropriate response to an AfD on it, it's a welcome response, and I think a significant problem people have with the ARS is that they have a reputation for not doing this, but rather argue about their "keep" !vote excessively. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  7&6 improved the article during this AfD. And does so in most cases. Often dramatically. He has a strong reputation of improving articles, anyone who doesn't think so is not paying attention. ARS is interested in keeping articles and improving them is the best way. However arguing with editors like HighKing is often required as you can see they made numerous outrageous statements that without defense would have tipped the balance towards delete. -- GreenC 16:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Can we just all agree that much of this was a tremendous waste of time, and that some unfortunate things were said, so we can all move on? This was my first time witnessing this type of behavior (OK I'm still new-ish) and I hope to never see it again. I learned a lot from both HighKing and 7&6=thirteen regardless, perhaps each got a little overexcited, they've each gotten burned in their own way already, and will hopefully learn not to provoke or overreact unnecessarily. Let's just close this off and move on. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Seeing as everybody is focused on my comment, I agree it was wrong and clumsy, definitely didn't express what I intended it to express, didn't have any material effect on the AfD in any case, and it is unfortunate that it is distracting from the issue I raised. What I was trying to say is that, at the AfD, we were discussing sources and debating over whether they met NCORP or not. I don't have a problem with articles being changed and/or expanded during AfD, happens all the time and anybody that has come across me at AfD knows this. The article had already been expanded two or three times throughout the AfD, nobody had a problem with it. What I was trying to express is that a rewrite of the article took place *without* that rewrite being done to address the reasons for deletion being discussed at AfD. If the AfD had been closed at that point, the consensus was that sources did not meet NCORP and the article would likely be deleted. So if the rewrite wasn't addressing those issues, what was the point of the rewrite? The effect of the rewrite was to put a new article in front of the participants and invalidated all of the prior participation and !voting. Anyway, that's what I wsa thinking at the time. But I'm not trying to dig in on what I wrote - even I can see and admit that on a reread, what I meant to say is different (and wrong) from what it actually says. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

My remarks at this AFD were measured and related to whether the article should be kept or deleted. They responded accurately and properly to HighKing's bizarre position. His words speak for themselves.

I am not disputing the prior warnings, even though they were wrong in my opinion. I am not asking for a rehearing.

But I did nothing untoward here.

I am here to defend my conduct at this AFD. Nor did I initiate any complaint against User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. But since we are here, you should address their conduct

I was tag-teamed by User:HighKing and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, and I responded only with facts. They made accusations which were irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted. They both have a long term history of hostility toward me personally, and WP:ARS. This is not the first time. It is long term and endemic. If you require details, they can be supplied; but if you are a regular here and or WP:ARS you have seen them. And it was in full display at this AFD. Both of them ought to be warned to desist from the attacks, and they both deserve to be warned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, I agree with User:Darkknight2149 and User:FeydHuxtable, that this complaint is reactionary and without merit. We can't keep bringing editors to WP:ANI just because an WP:AFD discussion didn't go our way. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• A statement like HighKing's should not go unrecognized. A 60 day topic ban from deletion discussions, (i.e., go find something else to do on Wikipedia for 2 months) would be a measured, appropriate, and encyclopedic response. I'd favor an immediate termination if this user earns a WP:DTQ award. The idea isn't to be punitive, but to encourage users passionate for one side of processes to demonstrate their competence in the other. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that such a sanction would actually be preventative. "You can't improve an article in response to an AfD, you have to let the AfD play out first!" is a telling statement that tithers the lines of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE respectively. When someone shows their motives this explicitly, I'm inclined to believe them. Darkknight2149 21:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes why don't we TBAN everyone who makes blatantly incorrect statements about policies or guidelines or consensus... JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, there's a difference between misunderstanding policy and conducting yourself in a way that's not here. Anyone who only wants to "win" deletions and openly advocates against article improvement has no business in deletion discussions. Darkknight2149 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't suppose you've read their post two inches higher on your screen? JBL (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont agree HighKing needs a sanction. He'd retracted his heterodox statement on article improvement back on 12 June., as well as above. His commitment to quality is admirable even if it may have led him to be a little over passionate in a few of his posts. IMO, the fact he's drew such a strong statement from former Arb JClemens should be warning enough not to start any more needless ANIs against quality editors like 13. This thread is ripe for closure IMO, there seems a risk of it generating more heat than light. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I was originally thinking that there be some sort of sanction for HighKing, I am taking the apology at face value (i.e. WP:AGF) and do not think it is needed at this time. I would note that it might be a good idea for them to get into the habit of saying WP:NCORP or WP:GNG rather than just referring to NCORP as both can be used for a company or organisation. Gusfriend (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:SNG states: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. In the WP:ORGCRIT guideline, it is noted: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. While WP:ORG generally follows WP:GNG, it seems important to emphasize the policy basis for the heightened standard for sources identified at WP:N for organizations and companies. Beccaynr (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand the WP:Notability page begins by saying A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. which seems to imply that an article may satisfy either. If a corporation needs to meet NCORP and GNG cannot be used then a RfC should be started to have that explicitly stated. Gusfriend (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

From my view, an RfC may not be necessary because that intro states and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. WP:NCORP is designed to help exclude WP:PROMO, which is part of the WP:NOT policy. WP:NCORP helps us protect Wikipedia by providing guidelines that generally follow WP:GNG while also excluding WP:PROMO. I recently raised both WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO at AfD, in a discussion related to an article about a newly-formed NFT organization. From my view, discussing whether sources satisfy the WP:NCORP guideline, as HighKing did in that discussion, was a reasonable attempt to focus on whether the topic is excluded per WP:PROMO, using the detailed guideline developed for that purpose. Assertions that the protective features of WP:NCORP are optional, e.g. sources do not need to be carefully reviewed for depth and independence, might result in the inclusion of topics that should otherwise be excluded under the WP:NOT policy, and seems contrary to the WP:N guideline as it relates to organizations and companies. Beccaynr (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's true. It is also the case that NCORP doesn't introduce any new criteria over and above GNG but provides explanations and examples for guidance. For example, GNG already has "Independent of the subject" including "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" NCORP (WP:ORGIND) then goes on to provide a fuller explanation of "Independent" and provides guidance in the specific context of companies/organizations to identify material produced by the company or people affiliated with the company. SNGs were introduced for specific topic areas and in most cases the SNG dilutes or removes some of the GNG criteria for establishing notability but in some other topic areas like NCORP the criteria are fully fleshed out. I could be mistaken but I do not believe there's anything that NCORP specifically excludes that is contrary to GNG. So on that basis, sure, GNG could be used at AfD but we'd just find each AfD clogged up with debates on interpretation whereas NCORP contains the consensus/summary of many prior discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@HighKing and @Beccaynr, I agree with you 100%, and I'm curious what you think about this discussion and what the consensus is on GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'll note that 7&6 posted this about the discussion here: [379], which is arguably not a neutral notification. In context, I don't think it's a big deal, but I just felt editors here should be aware of it, and I agree with some others above that this is something where there was suboptimal conduct all around. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  He posted that on 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC). Some members of the ARS already found their way here and posted. Since the ARS was brought up in this discussion it should be mentioned there. Need to say something other than "and the beat goes on" and link here though. Dream Focus 23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I posted it. It was neutral.

And let the stars shine into the chamber. The light of day is a good disinfectant. If you can't stand scrutiny, you are in the wrong business.

I am not embarassed by what I did. I am chagrined that I am here, and have to defend this. Not by choice but by necessity. But defend it I will. And air it for the world to see your process. Yes, I will.

Moreover, I don't care if you think it as optimal from your viewpoint. Sunshine laws are a good prophylactic in the real world. Let's see if they work in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you overlooked where I said "In context, I don't think it's a big deal". I don't think that your comments to me help your case here. That's my viewpoint too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with pretty everyone here that High King's behaviour is what's out of line here. Articles are routinely improved during AFDs, and this is something we encourage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Have you noticed High King's follow-up comment a few lines above this one? JBL (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. I'm not saying this is something that needs to be acted upon, but in this kerfuffle, 7&6 has done very little that's out of line and HK was in the wrong (which he acknowledged). IMO, this should be closed as a nothingburger, as the Americans like to say. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment That is not applicable here: High King's behaviour has nothing to do with either. It is another ARS pile, the same errant behaviour I warned about 6 months and there is all repeated. Dream Focus pushing a non-RS Forbes web references as a though they are valid, when the are Non-RS, the exact same behaviour 6 months, back doing it again. One editor pushing a keep entry and doing it twice and having to be called out for it. Five members of the ARS squad called from entering the Afd. That is a coercive effect with a prior agenda. Effectively a conspiracy. Why is the being allowed on here. I took part in the Afd as well and knew it was going to back here. It is the same errant behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 23:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is destined for Arbcom. It another Afd problem that was never solved the last time. scope_creep^Talk 23:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Forbes are sometimes reliable sources, as I did explain [380]. Dream Focus 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I gather we allow canvassing now? Because this is textbook votestacking yet again from the ARS. 7&6 is even canvassing for this ANI discussion [381] [382] [383]. ––FormalDude talk 01:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  If you mention a person or Wikiproject in an ANI discussion they should be informed. Dream Focus 01:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the person who does the mentioning should notify those mentioned. But it's disingenuous to argue that the person who is accused of misconduct (regardless of the merits of the accusation) should do the notification in a way that, very predictably, tells those mentioned that they should come to his defense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm less bothered by the canvassing than by this. Can we not go five minutes without someone at the ARS calling people nazis or nazi collaborators? Though it remains a nasty slur, it's getting tedious and any impact it may once have had has been blunted through overuse. Reyk _YO! 03:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  When has anyone called anyone a Nazi before? You are acting like this is a common thing. The article linked to by 13, Quisling, says the word "Quisling (/ˈkwɪzlɪŋ/, Norwegian: [ˈkvɪ̂slɪŋ]) is a term used in Scandinavian languages and in English meaning a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor". Claiming it happens every five minutes when no one, to my knowledge, has ever done this before, is just slander. You argued with the ARS for years, so you are just making things up now it seems. Dream Focus 04:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oh please. The Nazi card has been part of the ARS playbook from the beginning, from crap like this to now thankfully permabanned pest Pumpkin King (and his cavalcade of socks) calling deletion "electronic book burning" at every opportunity; and if you want to pretend he wasn't equating article deletion with the book burnings carried out by the Nazis then take a look here. Now a loosely identifiable group of editors is being equated with a Nazi collaborationist regime. Just stop with the Nazi bullshit already. Reyk _YO! 01:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  So Colonel Warden said something December 2nd, 2010. Then an IP address 24.101.156.239 believed to be a blocked editor who hasn't been around for years said something on 10 September 2019. Doesn't seem like its a common problem for most members of the ARS, and certainly not a common problems. Dream Focus 02:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, the classic "Unless you list every instance to my satisfaction, I will brush it off" reply. I'm sure this will go over well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

what on earth is the ars clique?? --lettherebedarklight – 晚安 (おやすみなさい)。 05:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bogeyman you blame for anything that doesn't go your way. ;) Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list Anyone who wants help finding sources and rewriting articles to fix them, can ask for help there. Dream Focus 05:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That kind of comment is so very sadly typical of what appears in every discussion of the ARS. No, no, we at ARS are not responsible for these problems. It's just that other editors are always out to get us. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I've been notified of this discussion both by ping and by message on my talk page, and in the last thread on 7&6 I was the proposer of an indefinite topic ban -- initially on the grounds that it appeared that 7&6 had falsified a source. (It subsequently emerged that 7&6 had made a copy/pasting error while citing the source, and the source he intended to cite did at least have some mention of the article subject in it.) I am, therefore, involved at one level even though I haven't participated in this dispute.
  After reading 7&6's comments, he's snippy and dismissive. This is not unusual among Wikipedia inclusionists, who I've noticed often display hostility towards anyone who nominates an article for deletion and anyone who carries out a rigorous source analysis. 7&6 is not the worst inclusionist for this -- far from it, in fact. He also makes genuine improvements to articles. Although I feel that 7&6's source use is sometimes ill-judged or reckless, to take him to task for "behaviour" is to miss the mark.
  But in the subject discussion HighKing displays more enthusiasm than good judgment. His words do suggest that it's not OK to improve an article while it's at AfD, and I would hope that he takes the opportunity to reflect on what the community has already said to him about that.
  We likely shouldn't have a separate article on New Chapter and I hope it ends up being trimmed and merged in due course.
  My advice to those looking to censure 7&6 would be to spend less effort moaning about his attitude and more effort on checking that the sources say what he says they say.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've previously provided an explanation on my comments (above). My words at the AfD were wrong and did not convey the meaning I intended - I know well that articles can be improved while at AfD, I do it myself. What I don't do is completely rewrite the topic without addressing the deficiencies identified during the AfD - but regardless, please don't take that comment as me trying to justify what I wrote, I'm not because it was wrong. Your last comment is very welcome in the context of this discussion - you say that those looking to censure 7&6 should expend more effort on checking that the sources say what he says they say. Part of the issue with 7&6 is the lack of *any* discussion of sources at NCORP-related AfDs, including this one. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The ARS are here, trying to shape the conversation and fudge the whole thing again. It is almost exactly six months since 7&6 was t-banned from Afd and soon as it was over, the editor were back to Afd and back to their prior behaviour as though they didn't warning, in what is effectively a group effort to subvert the normal flow of Afd. scope_creep^Talk 23:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Denial. User:scope_creep states: "It is almost exactly six months since 7&6 was t-banned from Afd". This is a lie. It never happened. He needs to retract it and apologize. Give it whatever weight you deem appropriate in evaluating his comments and this whole thread. Spreading falsehoods should be subject to sanctions, but that is beyond my pay grade. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps it wasn't a t-ban. Lets take a look at the AN archive and see exactly what it says. scope_creep^Talk 14:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Your right, it wasn't t-ban. I missed the last part of the discussion and assumed it went through. I should have checked at the time. It states on the start of the comment: Based on the evidence here this user seems to have fabricated page numbers and, likely, falsified a source in an effort to prevent an article being deleted. I propose a topic ban from AfD.". which didn't happen as there was no consensus for it. I'm sorry if I've upset it. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  [384] You mentioned the disproven accusation, not the closing statement that says it was an accident mixing up two sources. Dream Focus 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: block 7&6 for unambiguous violations of WP:CIVILITY after final warning

This ANI thread was closed by Wugapodes as "a sufficient, final warning. If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue using existing tools." This comment referring to other editors as "Quislings" is an unambiguous violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Their subsequent comments make their lack of AGF even more explicit. I request that 7&6 be blocked until such time as they are able to participate in Wikipedia in a way that respects our basic behavioral policies. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, calling another editor a quisling would have been uncivil, but it is not clear that 7&6 did that. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe. I don't think that this is the kind of thing where there is going to be one or two smoking-gun diffs on which a sanction can be based. What's really relevant here is a cumulative pattern (which may well turn out to be better suited to ArbCom than to here). I'm not sure that a block or an escalating series of blocks will really resolve a more complex problem that will inevitably just return as soon as the block ends. I'm also concerned that this particular incident is a matter of bad cases making bad case law, because it's not a one-sided issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose "Quisling" was a poor choice of words, and I don't think 13 should say someting like that again. But as it wasn't directed at clearly identified editors not a personal attack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose If you misunderstand what he said, that's your problem not his. Dream Focus 22:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Civility blocks don’t work, are arbitrary, and inherently unfair. No evidence has been presented of harassment. Mere snarkiness should not be sanctioned. Use social pressure instead. There’s clearly no consensus for a sanction for the complained about conduct, substandard though it may be. Would an administrator please close this overripe discussion? Jehochman ^Talk 09:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Close the thread: This time-sink discussion isn't going anywhere constructive, since there's no consensus for a boomerang and 7&6's statements aren't actionable. If anything, it's a waste of everyone's time. Some people have already tried to politicise the dispute, and in the section above, there's an argument going on with one chronically uncivil partisan against another partisan on purely tribal grounds. Until HK or 7&6 does something disruptive, I think everyone needs to move on. Darkknight2149 10:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment 13 is a known topic warrior at AfD, but that’s cause for a simple topic ban. Only extremely extreme violations of WP:CIVILITY deserve blocking, but I’m not for nor against it because I’m not involved in the actual dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2022 (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.

Whodatttt

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.

---

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

Whodatttt is obviously the user account of recently blocked IP 2A04:4A43:4D0F:D59F:0:0:0:0/64, as they both attempted to add and revert more or less the same addition in Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran; [385] [386] [387] [388] [389]

Following the block of the IP, Whodattt started editing from his user account once agaon, continuing the IPs edit warring, and also made WP:HOUNDING reverts of edits by me [390] and User:Apaugasma [391] [392], because we both had reverted him in Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

More than one IP. I'm involved so can't deal with it. I'm hoping User:Zzuuzz will when back online. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify what I did there, because it's a bit unusual and I see it's already been misinterpreted. The block is anon only, a de facto restriction on logged out editing, which is another way of saying, "please log in to your account". This makes for easier and less ambiguous communication. In some senses it's a variation of WP:PBAGDSWCBY. Whether we can reach this editor to inform them of the errors of their ways remains to be seen, IMO. Over to others... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Continues to edit war with account. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Whodatttt has also been edit warring at Mu'awiya I ([393] [394] [395] [396] [397]), Al-Jahiz ([398] [399] [400]) and Barbary lion ([401] [402] [403]). Especially in combination with the random hounding reverts [404] [405] [406] and the silence at their talk page I'm thinking WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. An indef would force them to talk to us about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Whodatttt is still edit warring, and he also just made another WP:HOUNDING revert of a edit made by me in another completely unrelated article [407]. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Now he is hounding other users who reverted him as well [408], and he continues the same towards me [409]. Can someone please block him already? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

5 reverts on one article today, see WP:AN3#User:Whodatttt reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: ) Doug Weller talk 20:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Now 6. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 13 June 2022 (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.

Date-changing vandal from Mexico

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.

---

2806:106E:23:37AA:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

We have a date-changing vandal in the range Special:Contributions/2806:106E:23:37AA:0:0:0:0/64, geo-locating to Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico. This person makes unreferenced and wrong changes to dates.[410][411] Can this person be blocked? Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, Binksternet. Please let me know if you see any more of this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2022 (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:Invasive Spices: bad faith misuse of noticeboards, false accusations of 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.

---

User:Invasive Spices falsely accused me of vandalism for this edit. I do not think that anybody could honestly consider it to be such; instead, the user was making this false claim simply because they disagreed with the edit. They used a noticeboard in bad faith to try to get me banned from the page that I had edited [412].

They have been told by other editors that my edit was not vandalism, but they have not retracted their false claim or even acknowledged that they were wrong. Instead, they have doubled down on their attacks ([413], [414]), and also accused one of the people telling them they were wrong of making personal attacks themselves [415].

I think that editors who make such obviously false accusations of vandalism are a serious problem. Worse still is the aggressive refusal to admit any error. If this behaviour is not dealt with, it will no doubt be repeated. So I suggest that some administrative intervention may be necessary to assist this user in distinguishing vandalism from edits that they simply disagree with. Benchijiguando (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benchijiguando: I'm not convinced the initial report was a bad-faith assumption of bad faith. When an account goes dormant for four months and change and then comes back to resume an edit war, and when they do not participate in the relevant article's talk page, then it looks fishy.

That said, there's a point where the reporting editor needs to drop the stick and move along. Invasive Spices hasn't edited since that last talk page comment, so there's nothing to say they haven't done that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You think anyone could sincerely believe that my edit was "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? I do not think anyone could. I think it is absolutely impossible for anyone to describe my edit as vandalism and be acting in good faith. You could disagree with it, or dislike it, or even find it disruptive; none of those things turn it into vandalism.

Furthermore, the user has already been given several opportunities to admit their error. They have aggressively rejected them all. Benchijiguando (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. As is noted at WP:NOTVANDALISM, Edit warring is not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am and was aware of the difference. I was not reporting on the basis that they are the same thing. I have explained my motives below. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked Benchijiguando for 48 hours for edit warringm basically coming back and starting again. Warned Invasive Spices. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred is correct. The edit in question is

a resumption of edit warring after six months

after being reverted by myself and another editor because it was contrary to the source

is merely the flipping of one word to its opposite

repeating the same edit summary

an edit summary which is impertinent to the edit being made

and without participating on Talk

I will not hairsplit that kind of edit from vandalism. I and many other editors revert that kind of edit several times every day without controversy.

Benchijiguando's edits in this matter speak for themselves especially the incommunicative edit warring followed by suddenly verbose demands that I be struck back. Unfortunately the admin I "accused" did indeed employ a falslehood (the other admin who "warned me this was not vandalism" had done no such thing) about what was occurring and made a very peculiar personal attack. The one admin "warning" me to stop using the v word has the unfortunate effect of shutting down debate as to whether I sincerely believe that. Naturally I do.

As for WP:Drop the stick I haven't said anything about Benchijiguando for the past 4 days. C.Fred is noticing my comment on the admin in question's conduct. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: if you can't hairsplit that kind of edit from vandalism then you're going to need to find a different project to work on because wikipedia will not tolerate that, trust me I know I went through what you're going through now years ago. Being obnoxious/difficult/uncommunicative/verbose etc and being a vandal aren't the same thing, you will need to learn to be more precise and accurate when using the 'v word.' Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

aren't the same thing Yes but those are not the edits in question. These are [416][417][418][419][420][421]. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely those can't be the right diffs, theres nothing remotely resembling vandalism there. A good faith content dispute escalated to edit warring is a problem, but it certainly isn't vandalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Part of the dispute here is that some of the relevant facts are near at hand and some are far. describe, do not prescribe is most immediate and gives the instant impression that this is a difference of opinion. Next we examine the diff and see a very small change which reverses the meaning of the sentence and which does not resemble the edit summary. This gives us the suspicion that this may be a very common kind of less than wonderful edit, of which we see many on Wikipedia. Next I check the source and I am confident this is where almost everybody on WP parts ways. Checking sources is a big labour and almost no one does so – I am required to do this many times every day and so this is no trouble. I see that within the first few words the source says that the previous was correct and this edit is the opposite – I am tremendously grateful because this is chemical terminology which I will never learn. I accept that the source knows what the deal is – I do this every day. This has taken ~5 seconds. To me this is all very quick. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree you do an amazing job with sourcing. If I can try again with the core message: using the 'v word' outside of a very narrow context makes you vulnerable and the actor doing the 'v word' stuff no less vulnerable than they already were. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: Your WP:AIV report was replied to with a template that says the vandalism noticeboard is for obvious vandalism and spammers only. I think it's a reasonable inference to go from "this noticeboard is for obvious vandalism" to "the reported conduct is not (obvious) vandalism". —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My inference was the reported conduct is not obvious vandalism no (). I immediately thought that was understandable as my definition of obvious would require finding and opening the reference in question and then reading it and that assumes the responding admin has access. Not having seen AIV before I took the meaning that that is too much time. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Benchijiguando blocked as a  Confirmed LTA sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Others will also be curious: BKFIP. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 June 2022 (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 editor Clam chowdah

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.

---

Editor: Clam_chowdah is on a crusade to right great wrongs at the article President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief with the latest diff (Special:Diff/1092965454) from the discussion at Original Research notice board showing that they are unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia policy about original research and synth.

The thread on NORN and the Talk page of the article are littered with further rants and their most recent edit to the article (Special:Diff/1092866380) was to delete the introduction as "lies" since it does not match their worldview.

Page Block likely necessary as no editor has found value in their position and they are purely disruptive now.Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Right now the opening paragraph comes from a primary source that is contradicted by news articles prior to its publication in 2010. So the following PBS Frontline interview contradicts Bush’s and Rice’s recollection of what transpired at the turn of the century:

You went to see [then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice … in early 2001. Were you talking about the Global Fund then, and what was her reaction?

I came in to the White House, the first year of the Bush administration. I came in to see Condoleezza Rice, with whom I worked in 1989 when I was advising the new post-Communist Polish government, and she was in the National Security Council. ... I went in 2001 to say, "Here's another chance for a wonderful initiative; we need to help treat people that are dying of AIDS; ... here's a $3 billion-a-year plan," and put it forward.

It was interesting, the reaction. Well, first Condoleezza Rice said, "The president is interested in this." Thank goodness. And "It's interesting to hear you discuss this, but our experts tell us that people can't be treated." And I said: "Well, that's not true. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes, but I'm lucky to have as colleagues some of the world's leading scientists and clinicians in AIDS, and they've all just agreed on the fact that treatment is feasible, and it's even feasible in the clinical conditions you would find in impoverished places." Well, there was lots of philosophical argument -- no, it's only cost-effective to do prevention, and all sorts of misunderstandings. ...

I was utterly shocked, I think, completely stunned, when the newly appointed head of USAID [United States Agency for International Development], Andrew Natsios, then made the most remarkable and chilling set of statements about all of this as he was coming into office. He said: "Well, you can't treat Africans. Africans don't know Western time. They won't know the time to take their medicines." He said: "They may know mornings; they may know noon; they may know night. But they don't know Western time." Hard to fathom, actually, how a senior American official could ever make such a statement. But that was the statement of the USAID agency -- in his early days, admittedly, but absolutely shocking. And I talked to [then-Secretary of State] Colin Powell and others, and of course Secretary Powell said: "I've been to hospitals all over Africa. This statement is not our policy." But it showed how steep the hill was going to be with this administration.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/sachs.htmlClam chowdah (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Editor has also hit the NPA threshold in the NORN page: [422]. (I am one they have attacked). User us clearly NOTHERE to work collaboratively. --Masem (t) 19:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Again in their unblock request [423] --Masem (t) 21:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is what is currently the first paragraph under History which is from a primary source via a journal in which the editor wanted publicity for their new journal:

PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic.[5]Clam chowdah (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

G’day mates, I’m new to Wikipedia and I came over here after seeing a primary source being used in a history section AND the information was wrong to boot. I was then directed to this stonker right here. I don’t condone the editor’s incivility but he’s got his facts correct. And I know his facts are correct because I remember that period of time and I read his links and those links are to solid secondary sources and primary sources that are consistent with the contemporaneous news accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShortTermLoanRanger (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC) ShortTermLoanRanger (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Only 72 hour block and still need to sock? Good way to earn an indefinite. Sigh.Slywriter (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought this was so blatant it must be a joe-job, but no. Sock blocked and Clam chowdah now blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And such a waste of a cool username “Clam chowdah”. Truth69420 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I played a minor role in this psychodrama, but the checkusers did the heavy lifting. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (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 Australian IPs

• 1.146.13.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.146.72.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.146.32.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.146.93.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.128.104.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.144.111.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.145.10.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.145.34.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.145.92.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few months, I've been dealing with a series of Australian IPs (usually located in New South Wales or Queensland) that have been relentlessly reverting my edits even when I have made it clear to them that they are violating various policies. The most obvious example includes major disruptive editing on The Motown Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where, even thought I have constantly pointed out that the song was released in the UK on 3 June 1991, they insist it was first released on 5 August. All you have to do is check these two sources to know this is untrue. Whether or not the song was released in the US on this date is irrelevant, because they are not using the earliest known, reliably sourced date—they are replacing it with an uncited date.

Other disruptive behaviors include removing maintenance templates ([424], [425]), leaving rude messages on my talk page ([426], [427]), and especially adding unsourced recording years, which is their main focus. I'm starting to get tired of dealing with this immature behavior and waking up to multiple random reverts, and it's getting more and more evident that this battle is turning personal. I was wondering if there's something we can do to deal with these IPs without affecting a sizeable chunk of Australia in the process. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: here are some more IPs (Queensland), going back to the exact same articles they've been targeting before.

• 1.146.102.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.146.123.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.146.82.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.146.31.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not to rush anyone, but this is getting out of control. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

ResolutionsPerMinute, I’ve given 1.146.0.0/17 a couple of days off for disruptive editing, some abuse[428][429] and block evasion (1.146.93.149 was blocked by Widr yesterday; 1.145.0.0/17 was blocked by JBW in February). You may want to cast an eye over the edits in that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: They're back and badder than ever. Another IP has gone back and reverted 13 edits of mine: 1.128.104.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 IP blocked. May have to just Whac-a-Mole for a while. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I recall dealing with this one before, and it seems to be the same person who triggered the block on 1.145.0.0/17. Blocking single IPs is going to prove pretty useless. Switching to a new one is easy, just turn your mobile data off and back on again. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: And they're back on another IP (1.128.104.67) on 1.128.0.0/17 editing in one of the topics that was 1.145.0.0/17's favourite before being blocked, infobox stuff on named places in Eastern Australia. I had my doubts that the music disruptor and the geography disruptor were the same person, but all doubt has now been removed. Possibly consider using a /17 sized hammer to whack the mole? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd really rather not block the /17 if I can help it, but concede that it might be inevitable. For now, still blocking one at a time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: has now switched to another Telstra IP, 120.150.249.102 this time seems to be a standard WiFi connection. No doubt that it's them though. Adding elevations to the infobox without any sources is their favourite pastime (after disrupting music articles). I don't see any previous activity of theirs on the /16. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

COI editing by User:Meenakshidevy‎ and User:Jacobsingh72

User:Meenakshidevy‎ is editing the page Lakshmi Devy with an apparent conflict of interest due to the account's name. This account is either being operated by the subject of the article or a relative, and has continued to add inappropriate external links to the page despite warnings on their talk page, including a COI notice. See this edit. Later, User:Jacobsingh72 adds content very similar to what Meenakshidevy‎ added. I have stopped reverting the page because continuing to do so would be a violation of 3RR. Mori Calliope fan talk 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:COIN instead. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 11:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

IP disruption on article Danny!

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.

---

Weird IP from California is partrolling this article for the last couple of months and reverting every new edit without clear explanation, including the addition of an image to the infobox (1), adjustment of categories (2) or the fixing of links to disambiguation pages (3) --FMSky (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

They just revert and revert, even clear improvements, agree. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

these were the last edit summaries

• "undid unnecessary edit done for wiki points"
• "unnecessary pedantics for wiki points"
• "Page currently being brigaded by wikipedia editors looking for points and clout, article reverted and authors reported"
• "reverted unnecessary edit by amateur 'editor' looking to increase wikipoints"

FMSky (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What are they meaning by the amateur bit? Is the IP saying they are a pro? Pure disruption regardless by them. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Another one:

• "reverting racist editors with baseless "disruptive" accusations. There are tons more sites than AllMusic to validate these titles that you are so insistent on editing for WikiPoints. They are all in the reference section. Please find another low-hanging-fruit page to make minor pedantic unintelligent edits on".

X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There are tons more sites than AllMusic to validate these titles that you are so insistent on editing for WikiPoints. They are all in the reference section. Please find another low-hanging-fruit page to make minor pedantic unintelligent edits on, those titles have remained on this page for years clearly because they have references beyond your 10-second skim on AllMusic. Do better. {{{}}}

Ok, troll --FMSky (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So instead of adding them yourself you bestow the onus onto other editors? This isn't the old Gamepedia, there's no "points", you don't have "achievements". Quite funny how you call others amateurs without a fundamental understanding of how Wikipedia works... Even Danny!'s own Genius page (written by himself) lists him as a recording artist and producer, but go off with your aspersions. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 20:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Danny! should have a picture of Danny!

The IP is repeatedly removing File:Danny Drake Atlanta Concert.jpg, this removal is simply not an improvement. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that the IP doesnt want "Danny!" to be seen as a rapper or something, despite this being the only thing he's even known for. He also removed it from his occupations, instead adding singer-songwriter and composer FMSky (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• IP blocked for edit warring. I was going to partial block them, but they threw around too many accusations of racism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Also I semi-protected Danny! for a month. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2022 (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.

Add page User:User

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 think User:User, redirecting to User:Example would be helpful. Thanks, --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Special:CentralAuth/User is an actual editor, should they ever reactivate their account they would be able to use that page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:20, 15 June 2022 (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:Fasscass

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.

---

On User:Fasscass, Fasscass has been consistently casting aspersions that another user (Philip Cross) is engaging in ownership of The Grayzone since last year. Philip Cross took objection to this in October and removed it as a personal attack, but it was reinstated by the user twice, claiming that they are not making any personal attacks.

I encountered Fasscass today after they became involved in a discussion regarding the neutrality of The Grayzone and I noticed the personal attack on their userpage. I asked Fasscass to strike the accusation of article ownership from their userpage, though the user claimed that it was not an accusation. I then asked for clarification about what the user means by the statement, to which Fasscass replied I am not asserting anything by the phrase. I found it rather odd that the user meant literally nothing by the statement on their userpage that they had been repeatedly asked to remove, so I asked the user to remove it a second time. Fasscass responded again that they are not asserting anything.

The editor is clearly not taking the concern seriously, and I'm apparently not the only one who's had it, so I'm bringing this here as the user is refusing to remove what appears to be an obvious case of casting aspersions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Fasscass for personal attacks/harassment/casting aspersions on their userpage. Any administrator can feel free to unblock without my input if this editor agrees to remove the personal attack from their userpage, and never cast aspersions against their colleagues ever again. I will be going to sleep shortly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2022 (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.

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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.

---

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

Recently block user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done – block extended, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:38, 16 June 2022 (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.

Behaviour of User:Sabbatino

User:Sabbatino is constantly blindly removing (undoing edits) official data by the Territorial Health Fund by the Ministry of Health of Lithuania, analysis by the Bank of Latvia and other well sourced material, removing the newest statistics in the page of Vilnius. He is also Poisoning the well by ridiculing these sources or sources, who are using these official statistics. In doing so, he is warning another user with blocking, invents absolutely fake stories like, quote "before continuing your very well known behavior from the past, which got you blocked more than once" (a lie). Please, help to resolve this problem. Thank you. --78.56.247.147 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, define "blindly" in this scenario. The page history suggests he's pretty detailed on his objections. He's not merely hitting the undo/rollback button. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IP editor, as the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Also please provide diffs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, blindly here means, that he firstly removed a government data (the latest statistics) and ridiculed sources (in these cases, he ridiculed mapijoziai map makers, who use only official government data and the most popular solid journal Veidas, a well sourced article), that uses that data. Then there were explained, that this is an official data with the additional links to the government (Territorial Fund by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania; the newest official data) pages provided, he just again removed this data despite of such links and wrote warnings and ad hominem. What is this behaviour and how it makes an article of Vilnius any better? Now, for example, Vilnius metro population is without any source, just some random illogical figure (urban population larger than metro population - 'an absurd') as he removes the latest sourced data. 78.56.247.147 (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, per longstanding consensus we list the population of the last year (2021), because this year (2022) is not over and we also do not do daily/weekly/monthly update the the number of population. Secondly, "Mapijoziai" is not reliable since it is user-generated, which is WP:OR (despite using official statistics). Thirdly, the National Health Insurance Fund under the Ministry of Health (not the Territorial Fund by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania like you try to claim) does not list correct numbers, because it also includes non-residents of Vilnius. You do not have to be a permanent resident of Vilnius to join a clinic in Vilnius (Šeškinės poliklinika, InMedica klinika, etc). If you want to list correct numbers then use Oficialiosios statistikos portalas or even Registrų centras. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand your use of the word blindly, but it doesn't really matter. There's nothing wrong here, it's just a basic content dispute. You have provided content and sources, Sabbatino has contested them on multiple plausibly valid grounds. Sabbatino has done nothing wrong. Now it's up to you to get a WP:CONSENSUS that supports your changes, or drop it. If what Sabbatino says is true, you may need to overturn some previous consensus related to this scenario. Anyways, please work with Sabbatino rather than trying to report them. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What others have said. This is a content dispute that can only be resolved by discussion not ANI unless you want us to block you. I would note that the only blockable offence that I've seen anywhere in this dispute is your apparent false accusation of WP:vandalism which is a personal attack and something well deserving of a block if an editor keeps at it. (The claim that you're a disruptive IP hopper may be problematic if there's really nothing behind it. However unlike the vandalism accusation, this isn't an accusation that seems automatically wrong. Notably, if there is such an editor, even if it turns out you're not them, it's generally acceptable for editors to be mistaken in their identification provided they're reasonable about it and accept when they're wrong.)

Also it's not 'poisoning the well' to say you disagree with another editor's reliability assessment of a source. Actually it's a basic part of how things operate around here. In fact your claims make little sense, you can't on the one hand say and editor is blindly reverting because they haven't provided a good reason while automatically dismissing their policy backed reason, namely that the sources are not reliable, as 'poisoning the well'. Instead, you need to establish by consensus that the sources you are trying to use are indeed reliable. If it's obvious that the sources are reliable, it shouldn't be very hard.

I don't want to get into the content dispute here since this is ANI but I will point out that user generated sources are not reliable no matter where their data allegedly comes from. This doesn't say anything about the sources themselves other than they don't meet what we require of sources. Wikimedia projects including en.wikipedia are of course not reliable either. If a user generated source uses a reliable source you should get the data directly from the reliable source not the user generated source. That said, I will also point out we don't automatically trust all official data either. And you need to make sure the data is relevant, for example data about how many people are registered as patients in a certain territory may be of limited interest if we're interested in residents of an area.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP should have talked about this on your talk page before coming here, Sabbatino. That does not make edit comments like this ok. Do not label other people as kids, please. Nor assume authority due to your own closeness on the subject, which is a common cause for bias. To the IP: Please stop editing the page itself, and start a discussion on the talk page to resolve the content dispute.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lurking shadow: My edit summary was a response to the IP editor writing If you find yourself in a position where you are not a Lithuanian language speaker or do not believe... on my talk page. Therefore, the IP has claimed that I am a foreigner in my own country so that is where my edit summary came from (I am not saying that it was acceptable). In addition, IP's knowledge of guidelines and policies just makes my suspicions stronger. I remember there was an IP editor from the same area (Vilnius) like this IP that used to edit war on Lithuania-related pages so this would take time to find out if it is the same editor. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the IP didn't claim you to be a foreigner actually. The "or do not believe" seems to be addressed to you if you are a speaker of the language.

I'm more concerned about "kid", though. And no, I am not happy about the behaviour of the IP.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossed out the "or do not believe" part in the quote, because I accidentally added it and it was from the other part of the sentence (which was about not believing in the statistics published by the National Health Insurance Fund under the Ministry of Health). So yes, claiming that If you find yourself in a position where you are not a Lithuanian language speaker... quite clearly indicates that the IP editor thinks that I am a foreigner. If I was not able to speak, write or read in Lithuanian language then I would not even edit subjects related to it. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I read it as "Either you cannot speak Lithuanian language or you do not believe X". Yet, that's a thing we can disagree about. But you do agree to not use "kid" again like this, right?Lurking shadow (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Jamshid321

Jamshid321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please explain rules on civility to Jamshid321? No one should have to put up with stuff like this or this edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I just left a comment referring him to WP:UNCIVIL and advising him to contain his remarks to Talk:Heaven. Frevangelion (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and probable sockpuppetry by Խաղաղություն

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

I honestly suspect that this user is a sock, as he gave himself an Armenian name, when he clearly has no connection to Armenia, not even making any edits to Armenia-related articles and even attempts to remove information regarding the Armenian genocide; [430] [431] [432]

This user apparently knows who I am, as he says it himself and also mentions WP:NOTHERE, which I usually write when reporting other users. Another reason to suspect sockpuppetry. Not to ignore the general bizarre response:

Bla bla bla Wpnothere according to my ass Wpani according to my ass Against gloriness of iran aswell as our propagandas. Pls ban my fellow iranian brothers. I spotted cause I know you :)

He just edited my comment, calling me biased and what not [433]

EDIT: He just did it twice now [434], with the edit summary "rv, so you're accepting your bias and lobbying in Wikipedia :) anyways I am satisfiedone day you're going to get banned and one of the reason of this is gonna my useful changes that you changed against the policy."

Some other comments:

HistoryofIran, you are too biased to edit Wikipedia. You shouldn't be here. I added Turkish naming of the state only.

Your name is History of Iran and as we both now you are biased and shouldn't be here my last two changes wasn't against any policy unlike your reverts against me. Don't make edit wars and don't bite newcomers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, casual racism. If anyone's interested in more racist remarks by this user, then they should see the edit they made to my report which I just reverted [435] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for egregious personal attacks, which are bad enough to be straight to indef. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks. Could you also revoke his talk page rights? I'm not sure why he is so obsessed with me. [436] [437] [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, although you could have disengaged from their talk page much earlier. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @HistoryofIran: Your username is troll magnet. You have become a target for nationalistic trolls. They see "History" and "Iran" in your username and... They won't stop. So you better consider Wikipedia:Changing username. --Mann Mann (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Mann Mann. Fortunately these comments don't affect me, and I've had this name since I randomly (and so creatively xd) made it back in 2013. I will stick with it for now at least. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep on going HOI, don't let the trolls deter you!חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think HistoryofIran does an excellent job of attracting nationalistic trolls and helping us get rid of them! Thanks, HoI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruption by new user account BhushanPatil938

New account was created on 05:16, 15 June 2022  with User account BhushanPatil938. This user has been disruptive on many pages, adding honorific, altering information, [443],[444], [445], [446], [447], [448], [449], and removing discussion of other editors from article's talk page. [450], [451] Despite being warned to not cause such disruptions [452], BhushanPatil938 continued to disrupt article's again [453], [454]. I believe the user is associated with IP 117.228.180.5 as he reverted the changes back to this IP who was disruptive as well. [455]. I do not believe that this user is here to improve encyclopedia and is just here to cause disruptions. Action is required to stop this user to cause any further disruption. MehmoodS (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have pblocked the editor from the article namespace for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets their attention. Oz\^InterAct 14:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption from an IP range; WP:LTA

See [456]; persistent edit warring while switching IPs, adding, deleting and changing content without explanation or sources. How broad a range block is practical? 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• See also 108.53.41.190 (talk · contribs) for more of same. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• I blocked the range and the IP. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies, thank you. At some point soon I'm going to open a report on another IP range of similarly long term disruption, except they've been blocked multiple times and the user has a penchant for attacking/insulting other editors. Mickey's Christmas Carol has been one of their go-to articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Another Disney adult? Drmies (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Oof, is it that bad here? 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:B5:7C44:F9A8:AA3A (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
      • No, I would have dropped you a line straightaway if that were the case. Just another relentless I don't need to add sources, I know it to be true account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruption of AFD by Altering Source Analysis

An editor is falsifying my analysis of sources in an AFD:

• Zabikn7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabihollah Kohkan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zabihollah Kohkan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I nominated the article for deletion on 6 June 2022 and provided an analysis of the sources. Zabikn7 (possibly the subject of the article) altered the entries in the source chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zabihollah_Kohkan&type=revision&diff=1091877601&oldid=1091877119&diffmode=source This alteration was reverted by User:Penale7 with the (accurate) edit summary 'revert vandalism'. The alteration began to be restored with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zabihollah_Kohkan&type=revision&diff=1092820153&oldid=1092787618&diffmode=source More alterations were made with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zabihollah_Kohkan&type=revision&diff=1093321887&oldid=1093209358&diffmode=source Please note that when a change is listed as adding one byte to the chart, or +1, it is probably the change of No to Yes, and any small increase in the byte count is multiple changes of No to Yes.

User:Liz, in relisting the AFD, called the falsification to my attention, for which I thank her. Request that, at a minimum, the editor be partially blocked from the BLP and from the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Zabikn7 is continuing to alter the table. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the table to its original state and blocked Zabikn7 from the AfD for two weeks, which should be enough for it to run its course. Deor (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Which was generous. Altering someone else's signed comments is disruptive enough that I was about to block sitewide. —Cryptic 14:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Note the account was just indeffed for sockpuppetry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up on possibly bot-assisted edits involving language status graphics

This is a follow-up to the report, now here, about a user at 1.126.105.119 making rapid-fire edits, some of them problematic, involving the addition of graphics denoting endangerment status to the infoboxes in articles on language. Doug Weller blocked that user for 31 hours. Just a bit of ago, the same sort of edits were being made by a user in the same /24 range, Special:Contributions/1.126.105.219. I dropped a note about this to Doug, who blocked this IP for 31 hours, but I'm posting this notice to interested parties here as well for documentary purposes. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by 166.205.141.63

166.205.141.63 (talk · contribs) has been wp:VANDAL several political party pages, removing sourced information and adding unsourced info, while also breaking the infobox. Some more of his edits need to be reverted but I am going to sleep now, so hopefully someone else can do it; here is his editing history: [457] BastianMAT (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

N Stale. While I question why a response hasn't been made, it's certainly moot now that the IP has not been active since June 15. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Alansohn - Repeated Violation of IBAN

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:Alansohn has been banned from interacting with me as a result of this 2018 disscussion. The ban which was initially to alst for six months was extended indefinately later that same year. As recently as a year ago, Alansohn unsucesfully tried to have the IBAN lifted. In that discussion it was noted that he had actually violated his IBAN since the last time he requested it be terminated.

The terms of Alan Sohn's IBAN allow him an exemption to respond in a deletion discussion if it is an article that either he created or made a significant contribution to.

That brings us to now. I recently brought three article to AfD, see discussions [458], [459], [460]. Please note that two of the articles, Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey and Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey Alansohn never contributed to. The third aricle, Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey, he made a single contribution that I doubt anyone would considered significant. The exemption should not apply to these articles.

Therefore, Alansohn has violated his IBAN with these three edits:

• 1
• 2
• 3

There have been no other recent interactions between us and I clearly have not baited him into this. Since the IBAN was imposed he has violated it multiple times and thinks he can disregard it. Further sanctions are clearly warranted here, but I will leave it to the community to decide what exactly those should be.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• For a period of years, during which I made many tens of thousands of edits, I had been systematically watching every single edit I made to ensure that there was no interaction with this editor. After a period of time of checking my watchlist and potential edits for possible interactions, it became apparent to me that this editor was either not editing or was certainly not editing articles where there was overlap and at some point, due to the absence of any editing by this editor, I stopped checking. After all, there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And now that this notice has been posted, it seems that in the past nine months, I can see that this editor has made under a hundred edits. The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; I did not notice and had had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • As per usual, Alansohn takes no responsibility. Look at the previous threads where he violated his IBAN, he uses the same excuses time after time. He instead blames me for not editing enough. there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And just how much of his precious time is wasted to actually read the opening statement at the AfD to see which editor nominated it? (you don't even have to look at the edit history for that, my signature is right there in front of you) The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; Now, we get to the real issue for Alansohn, if the article has anything to do with New Jersey, he owns it, doesn't matter whether he edited it before or not. Alansohn behavior is the textbook example of WP:OWNERSHIP. had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life I'm not dead. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. The purpose of the IBAN is to have a check against Alansohn's OWNERSHIP behavior and arrogance which is display in his above response.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • But do these keep !votes really bother you? Why not let him !vote keep on everything New Jersey, even if you're the nom? (I mean a lot of people do that for various topics...) I don't find his reasoning persuasive but on the other hand, who cares if he !votes? (And isn't bludgeoning, canvassing, making personal attacks, etc.) Levivich 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @Levivich: You'll have to go back and look at the history in the previous discussions (linked above) to fully understand the issue with his behavior, but I will say that it is precisely at these types of AfDs where the problem originated. If you lift all restrictions on his voting at AfDs, then we will go back to bludgeoning, canvassing, and making personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Alansohn: Although you did not notice, now you are aware, but you haven't self-reverted or deleted/struck your edits to those pages, even though they violate the IBAN? Violating a sanction is usually not an effective way to convince the community to remove the sanction. Levivich 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Levivich, now that I realized that there was an inadvertent good faith vote, and now that I've been asked to do so, I have self reverted; in the past even self reverts for inadvertent edits accomplished nothing. I have been doing everything possible to avoid any contact with anything that this editor has touched and after having disappeared for several months I now realize that this editor has very much returned, necessitating that every single edit I make be scrutinized for possible overlap with the editor in question.
      I will ask again to have the IBAN removed. As stated at WP:IBAN, "The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals." There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc., now or at any time in the future, then block away. A week, a month, a year, a decade or permanent, but I plead to end this purposeless IBAN once and for all, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part.That says it all, Alansohn does not now, nor has he ever taken any responsibility for the conflict. And that is why I will always oppose lifting this IBAN. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc....My response: Please refer to the previous ANI discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

        He qualified that statement with "now, or at any time in the future", which does not speak to the validity of any past sanction, and the qualification seems relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Alansohn my problem with your explanation is that, as I read it, you're telling us that you did not notice which editor had nominated the articles for deletion. I find that difficult to accept. That's going to be the first thing I notice, either from the edit on my watchlist, or from the signature at the top of the deletion discussion. Rusf10's relative level of activity shouldn't affect that behavior. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  AGFing that voters read the entire nomination statement before voting, it's not really credible to claim to have read every word of the nomination statement except "Rusf", and to have done that three times. Levivich 00:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Mackensen and Levivich, the assumption that everyone does things the way you do is called projection, and I clearly edit differently from how you do. After seeing a new AfD, I clicked on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/New_Jersey, scrolled down to the bottom and worked my way up, while lots of other people go top down. I don't claim to have rad every word of the nomination, because I don't; it's the article itself that is of primary importance. I know that it's the article that's up for deletion, so I click on and read the article before passing judgment. Look at the order of the AfDs in that file and then at how I participated. I can assure you that I didn't pay attention to who submitted the deletion, nor do I see why I should. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  You have an active interaction ban with someone and have previously come into conflict with them over New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The specific question of violating the IBAN by participating in a deletion discussion that Rusf10 started was raised in 2021, when you asked for the ban to be lifted (you did not engage when asked about this), and when the ban was extended in 2018. If you can't see why, given that history, you should at least look at who started an AfD, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd say even aside from the IBAN, you shouldn't be voting on AFDs without reading the nomination statement. That's a problem in and of itself. Levivich 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional Sanctions for Alansohn

When I posted this here, it was my intention to have the community propose additional sanctions, but so far that has not happened. Based on his above responses above and the fact he has violated this sanction three times now, Alansohn clearly does not take it seriously. The last two times he violated this IBAN, he was blocked for 48 hours and 1 week respectively. Further actions are necessary. Therefore, I made the following proposals:

• Sanction #1: Alansohn is blocked for two weeks
• Sanction #2 Alansohn is TBANed from deletion discussions.

I will explain my reasoning below.@Levivich and Mackensen: would like your input.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support #1 & #2 As proposer. #1 is appropriate here as an escalating block, maybe it will give him so time to think about this. #2 will relieve Alansohn of the burden of reading AfD nominations (which he has admitted that he does not do anyway). He will no longer have to worry about who nominated the article. His attitude and disregard for the rules is what brought this on. I see no other way forward.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Alansohn's last block was almost 4 years ago (August 2018). I cannot see any justification for a 2 week block at this time - it seems like overkill to me. Since there is no ongoing disruption, and Alansohn has reverted (albeit under pressure), a block would appear to be punitive. Nor do I think that Alansohn's behavior indicates that a TBAN from XfD in general is warranted - as far as I can see AS's problem is with Rusf10, and not with deletion discussions overall -- at least, no evidence of such has been presented.. I do think that an extended ban from requesting his IBAN be lifted, or simply commenting on the IBAN, could be justified, as Alansohn appears to have a blind spot regarding the need for it, which seems to me to have been fully justifiable at the time, and has continued to show justification since. Should Alansohn continue to violate his IBAN with Rusf10 on an ongoing basis, the entire matter can be reconsidered and other sanctions proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In all fairness I should add that Alansohn and I have been involved in conflicts in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and as Beyond My Ken rightly notes Alansohn did (begrudgingly) revert himself. I'm not persuaded at this point that a TBAN from AfD would benefit the project, but I had considered it as an option. As much as I dislike warnings as a remedy, I think we need one here. We can't be back here at ANI with another mistaken AfD participation on the books. That would be at least three times. It's not as though Alansohn is participating in AfD every day; it is not too much to ask that he look at who the nominator is. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Mac and BMK. A clear violation of the terms of their sanction? Yes. But blocks are preventative, not punitive, and for a TBAN, I'd want to see evidence of broader disruption than three IBAN vios, and the problem seems to be with Rus and not with AFD in general (I might be wrong about that, I just haven't seen diffs to that effect). An extended ban from appealing the IBAN makes sense, but this thread will serve that purpose anyway. It will now be at least another 12 months before it would be considered, I'd expect. So I'd be in favor of a logged final warning as a resolution of this thread. This is one of those rare situations where I think logging the final warning at WP:EDR makes sense, so if this happens again, we'll have an easy reference. Levivich 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and end IBAN In September 2021, the editor had ZERO edits. In October 2021, ZERO. In November 2021, again ZERO. There were TWO edits in December 2021. The New Year 2022 started in January with ZERO edits. Another ZERO in February 2022. Yet again, ZERO in March 2022 and a final ZERO in April 2022. After eight months with a grand total of two edits, the editor resumed editing. For years, I had been checking every single edit to see if there was an overlap with the editor in question. But after several months with little to no editing, I let my guard down. I stopped checking. I ran through a series of AfDs and made the mistake of not reading the ID of the editor who initiated the AfD. That was my mistake, but it was entirely inadvertent. I didn't look, because my guard was down and I had gotten entirely out of the habit of checking. That was my mistake and I accept full responsibility for it. But I am not in any sort of conflict with this editor. I hope to see the IBAN overturned. I will avoid any conflict with this editor and hope that none occurs, as has been the case for years. If there is any conflict with this editor, I propose that there be a snap back to a block of months to years and impose TBANs. I hope that we can get past this and that we can each edit without any problems. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  But after several months with little to no editing, I let my guard down. How did you know that Rusf had gone several months with little to no editing? Levivich 23:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  It seems quite clear that If Alansohn cannot avoid interaction with Rusf10 when there is an IBAN in place, he would be even more incapable of doing so if the IBAN is removed. Their comment above is an example of why I believe a ban -- say for a year -- on commenting on the IBAN or requesting its removal would appear to be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me. Levivich 19:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I see no good reason for a punitive block, or for the sledgehammer of a total TBAN on AfDs. I still find it pretty much incomprehensible that Alansohn wouldn't have seen the name, but such draconian measures go too far. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• oppose both While I believe the iban should remain in place, I do not see the need for any further sanctions other than to strongly warn Alansohn that any further interactions will result in further sanctions and/or blocks. If, Alansohn wants the iban lifted, they should make a clear statement about what they did to cause the iban (they do not happen in a vacuum and it is foolish to assume it was caused by one person), and what they will do to keep it from happening moving forward. But at this time, leave the status quo and be more careful moving forward. Read every word of the AFD before voting. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both per Nightenbelle above. While Alansohn's refusal to take responsibility for any part of the IBAN is irritating, I see no indication that this was an intentional violation (and I highly doubt I would notice the nominator of an AFD either, since in most cases that's not really relevant). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @ThadeusOfNazereth:The nominator is relevant when you're under an IBAN. Being that this is now his third violation, I refuse to believe that he didn't know. He also seemed to have no trouble noticing my nominations in the past (before the IBAN) when he leveled all sorts of personal attacks on me.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom?

This is yet another issue at WP:ANI concerning proposed restrictions on the use of deletion. In my statement asking ArbCom to accept a case concerning Conduct During Deletion Discussions, I have asked that User:Alansohn be included as a party to the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks by OP

In his multiple posts here in this thread, the OP has made repeated baseless personal attacks, in violation of WP:NPA:

• In his original post on May 29th, he claimed that "he has violated it multiple times and thinks he can disregard it". I have no idea how the OP knows what I think, nor do I know how he knows that the violations are in deliberate disregard?
• In his edit the next day (May 30th, first edit), the OP states that "Now, we get to the real issue for Alansohn, if the article has anything to do with New Jersey, he owns it", that "Alansohn behavior is the textbook example of WP:OWNERSHIP." and that "The purpose of the IBAN is to have a check against Alansohn's OWNERSHIP behavior and arrogance which is display".
  Wikipedia policy requires that such claims be backed by evidence. WP:NPA in the section What is considered to be a personal attack? is explicit that "some types of comments are never acceptable", including "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." In the span of one edit there are multiple allegations of serious policy violations. Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever offered by the OP in this or any other edit in this thread of this alleged "OWNERSHIP behavior" happening now or at any time in the past.
• In his second edit on May 30th, in response to the simple question "I don't find his reasoning persuasive but on the other hand, who cares if he !votes? (And isn't bludgeoning, canvassing, making personal attacks, etc.)", he responds that "If you lift all restrictions on his voting at AfDs, then we will go back to bludgeoning, canvassing, and making personal attacks."
  Again, there is no indication that there is or ever has been any bludgeoning, that there is or ever has been canvassing or of "making personal attacks", nor any evidence that he has been able to enter my mind and can state this with any certainty and in the absence of any evidence.
• In his third May 30th edit, he states flatly that "I will always oppose lifting this IBAN". Yet WP:BATTLEGROUND emphasizes that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges". I have repeatedly tried to reach a resolution to be able to edit without conflict, I have made zero comments about this editor let alone engaged in personal attacks, edit wars, bludgeoning, canvassing, etc. I want to find a way where we can both edit. I hold no grudge, nor has any evidence been offered that I do.
• While bludegeoning an Oppose voter on June 11, he insists that "I refuse to believe that ihe didn't know" and that "in the past (before the IBAN) when he leveled all sorts of personal attacks on me". Where are all of these alleged personal attacks? Where is the evidence, as required by WP:NPA? Were these alleged attacks yesterday? Last week? A month ago, A year ago? A thousand days ago?

Per "WP:IBAN, "The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals." I have no conflict with the OP and I have not engaged in any conflict with this individual; the violations of the IBAN, now and before, were inadvertent and unrealized; I commit myself to reading edits more carefully and taking all possible steps to avoid any appearance of conflict, both while the IBAN remains in place and once it is ended, just as I have had zero conflicts with any other editor for years. Yet, the allegations made by this editor are the very kind of personal attacks that he claims me to be making, but for which he has offered zero evidence in the form of diffs, as required by WP:NPA. I have offered five separate diffs from this one thread.

While in similar situations like this one where there is a pattern of personal attacks it would appear that sanctions would be warranted, I hope that this is unnecessary and that the OP can be convinced to de-escalate and find a way that we can both work and edit independently without concerns that there will be any conflict of the kind seen in this thread. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Alan, you damn well know that my statements are factual. These are not personal attacks, they are accurate statements about your behavior. Anyone who questions that can look through the previous ANI threads linked above. If you want diffs, refer to the previous ANI threads. I am not going to waste my time to dig up 4 and 5 year old diffs. Man up and accept some responsibility for just once in your life. This thread was nearing its conclusion and you're actually the one extending the conflict now.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually I changed my mind, I will give two diff here. How about my very first interaction with Alansohn? Unprovoked he suggested that I be topic-banned. [461]. And who can forget the time he called me "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up" [462]. These are just two examples of the reason the IBAN is in place to begin with. Refer to the previous ANI threads if you need more.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2022 (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.

Johnpacklambert's recent deletion discussions

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 reading the discussion here, I took an interest in @Johnpacklambert:'s daily deletion nominations.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frans Kuijper Johnpacklambert says I did searches on google, google books and google news archives and was unable to find any addtional sources. I did a Google search and found that Frans Kuijper was the coach of the national water polo team of the Netherlands. It is true that Kuijper is oftem spelled Kuyper in sources, but my search was for "Frans Kuijper water polo".

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Francis Rider (philatelist), another editor pointed out that there was another article for the same person under John F. Rider.

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Stair, it was easy enough to find more articles about Stair as well as a television program that discussed him. That discussion is still open. (George Blackman is currently misidentified as "the last living man from the Caribbean who was known to have served in the Great War", who is actually Stanley Stair.)

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Beveridge (diver), a very quick search in Google books showed that he was also a well-known member of Scotland Yard. That discussion is also still open.

I do not mean to suggest that all of Johnpacklambert's deletion nominations are similarly faulty, but it is clear that there is a problem. If editors are relying on Johnpacklambert's assurances that he has tried to find more sources or more information, we are in danger of deleting articles that should be expanded rather than removed. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I did a stright up search for "Frans Kuijper" and nothing showed up in those searches. I did not think an addition of "water polo" would be needed to find something. Expecting someone to find a different spelling of the name seems to be excessive. For John F. Rider I did the search on Philatelist. I assumed that we had two seperate articles, on two seperate people, so this seemed to be a reasonable search. On Stanley Stair I unwisely operated on the assumption that the sourcing we had was complete. I do not remember exactly what sources I sought for. Peter Beveridge I was trying to find information on the diver, and so used diver in the search. I am really trying my best to do searches that turn up sources. I am sorry some of these were not as comprehensive as they could have been. I will try to dig deeper in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's illogical. Would Dave Mustaine (footballer) be deleted because nothing shows up and I have to add footballer when looking up Dave Mustaine? Just because it's the non-primary search term doesn't mean it's not notable.. Or should Rory Stewart, whose name is Roderick Stewart, shared with singer Rod Stewart, be deleted since I have to look up Roderick Stewart politician? If someone is looking for someone/something, is it not reasonable to assume they have a slight idea of what they're looking for? I.e. they know what field the subject is roughly in (sports, science, etc.), and probably a first name. Looking up "frans water polo" brings him up on the first page too. You promise to dig deeper in the future, and I wholly believe this & I think a great way would be to reduce your rate of deletions, and do a more thorough search before bringing an article for deletion. Quality over quantity. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert indeed has a VERY LONG history of problematic editing, but these are not particularly egregious examples. pbp 15:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I should say that these are just the last four deletion discussions started by Johnpacklambert. I did not "cherry pick" these or do a look at earlier ones. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• When I did the search for Stanley Stair, I got a whole lot of cases where the word stair and the word Stanley were paired together. I should have explained that better in my nomination. As far as I could tell though, I was not seeing any indication that this was ever referring to a person. On the Philatelist case I assumed, evidently falsely, that people had knowingly created a seperate article because it was a seperate person. So I included philatelist in the search so I would not be overwhelemed by false positives. I was not even given notice of this ANI on my talk page. It also seems an over reaction. Especially the case of Kuijper, when if you use the name you come up with nothing. I did not think to use "water polo" because who expects to find more information on a person by adding more information to the search. Here [463] is the google search results for Stanley Stair. Other than the Military Wiki, which is not a reliable source, and which looks to be a mirror of our article on him basically, we get things like [464] early on in the search results. I maybe should have dug deeper, but I do not think this is an issue that is worth bringing to ANI. On the case of Peter Beveridge (diver) the article literally had no sources at all. The general search for Peter Beveridge at google [465] turns up so many false positvies for the name that it did not make sense to try to plow through it. Maybe I should, and for that I apologize. I actually did try and search for sources in all these cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the AFDs provided as examples seem reasonable to me. One was withdrawn, but it doesn't seem to be disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: Two have been withdrawn now. I don't think this is *disruptive* but it doesn't need to be disruptive to harm the project. None of those articles should be deleted. If Johnpacklambert can't use Google well enough to find that out, he should not be allowed to nominate articles for deletion. Google them yourself and see how easy it is to find this out. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I wish that Mr. Lambert would do less AFDs myself, and I wish Mr. Lambert would be more thorough at WP:BEFORE. I wish that the editor would take slower steps, complete a quick google search, be more thoughtful--among many other points people present here. I've long supported the idea that AFD is not cleanup, that we shouldn't confuse stub-status with non-notability, and that Wikipedia is not about nothing. And I really wish that Mr. Lambert would leave articles alone that I create! But there's no policy violation that I have seen; no BLP issue; no legal threat; no copyvio, no edit wars, no 3RR, no name-calling or being uncivil--it all boils down to different flavors of "I like it" vs "I don't like it". Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Don't be frustrated when someone actually does edit it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald I suppose you are right. Thank you for this comment. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think that anything worse than the average deletion nomination has been shown here. I have crossed swords several times with User:Johnpacklambert, but let's let him catch his breath before involving him in yet another ANI report. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Stair may or may not be notable, but I think it is open to debate, I do not think it is a clear cut case. I do not think any of the sources shown pass GNG for coverage of him. As I said, it was a hard name to search for since a search came up with lots of places with Stanley and Stair used in close proximity or even next to each other without them being a name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• On fruther consultation I have also voted to withdraw the Peter Beveridge nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• This was the OP's first edit, at a time when JPL shared a similar sentiment on their user page. Six months later, here we are. Hasn't JPL had issues in the past with trolling socks? Not an accusation, just a curious observation. – ².O.^Boxing 16:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I objected to a userbox which advocated denying certain people of their legal rights based on sexual identity. I was told that my opinion would be worth more if I wrote some articles, so I did. That userbox as been deleted now, by the way. Johnpacklambert's userpage used to say This user supports man/woman marriage as the definition needed to protect the integrity of the family, preserve the true meaning of marriage, and keep it as a child-focused institution. I was not aware of that until another user asked about it on Johnpacklambert's talk page a few days ago. That anti-LGBT+ statement has now been removed. There is no connection between these two events except the obvious. Why do you think this is connected to deletion discussions? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well despite the threads above AND an open Arbcom case, JPL continues with his harassment of me with his very next AfD. I've flagged it up in both threads. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Nominating one of the very huge number of articles that you created for deletion is not harrassment. You need to stop calling things harassment that are not in fact harrassment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Lugnuts, I looked over that AfD and I'm not seeing anything that looks like harassment. Am I missing something here? –dlthewave ☎ 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, deletion discussions are opportunities for other editors to review the nomination and point out notable sources and points of view that the nominator may not have thought of. It is reasonable that the nominator, in good faith, may not have considered searching for alternative spellings, alternative search terms, or even duplicate articles. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Given there's a thread above and a pending ArbCom case with JPL as a party, I recommend the sturm und drang should migrate to the case. I don't see how anything useful is going to happen with a concurrent ANI thread after the intractability of the last one is how it ended up at ArbCom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:58, 15 June 2022 (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 to WP:BLPs by an IP user

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.

---

• Leon Bailey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kyle Butler (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 213.205.241.110 (talk · contribs)
• 213.205.241.20 (talk · contribs)
• 213.205.241.56 (talk · contribs)

At Leon Bailey (many edits); [466]; [467]; [468]; [469]; [470]; [471]; and multiple edits at Kyle Butler (footballer).

Is this a range that can be blocked? And do we trust the numerous unsourced edits they've made, largely unchallenged, to other topics like roads in Great Britain? Discospinster, you've crossed paths with this user at Leon Bailey. Thoughts welcome. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Ip range is Special:Contributions/213.205.241.0/24 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:51, 18 June 2022 (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.

Conversion Script

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.

---

Conversion Script (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Inappropriate username ... also, "Conversion Script" was created two days before "Conversion script" screwed up (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive88#Conversion script (talk · contribs)) Leonel Sohns (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

i'm not sure that it's a sock or not but WP:UAA and WP:AIV exist for a reason PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Leonel Sohns, that account was created sixteen years ago and has never made an edit. Ignore it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And now I'm reminded that I'm old because 2006 was 16 years ago. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:05, 18 June 2022 (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-Hopping edit warrior is back again

A little while ago, I made a few posts about an IP-Hopping edit warrior who routinely makes the same edits. They edit articles about subsidiaries from a company called Harman International Industries, removing mention that said company is itself a subsidiary of Samsung. I made a talk page listing about this issue months ago that the editor made a single unsigned post on and ignored afterwards. It appears that they have returned at: 91.184.107.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), making the same edit again to AKG (company), Crown International, Harman Becker Automotive Systems, Dbx (company), A&R Cambridge Ltd, Mark Levinson Audio Systems, AMX LLC, Soundcraft, Lexicon (company), Lexicon (company), and Martin Professional. JellyMan9001 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Entirely copy-pasted deletion discussion

A week ago, User:Matweyka2009 created Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 from a redirect, which I subsequently nominated for deletion. In response, Matweyka2009 nominated a different, related article for deletion, Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. Except if you look at the deletion discussion, it might look familiar: this user copy-pasted the entirety of the Armenia AfD, except that all occurences of "Armenia" were replaced with "Belarus", to make it look like all these people support the deletion of the Belarus article as well (which I don't). Besides that, this user doensn't have a great contributions history, with most edits reverted as they were unexplained content removal. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the similarity in editting, this is likely the same user as 95.24.204.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked on the 15th of May and is now back to the same distruption. Note the same retaliatory posting here - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As a complete aside, we have an article called Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 despite the fact that Belarus were, in fact, disqualified and didn't take part in the contest? Right ... Black Kite (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and... ~Styyx^Talk? 13:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, unlike the Armenia article, there is a little more background in the Belarus article. Might still be worth proper discussion for an AfD for a merge or redirection, though. --MuZemike 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

abbasulu, -"ography" lists and WP:IDHT

A few weeks ago, I noticed Abbasulu creating an excessive amount of crufty discography/filmography lists and templates for what are effectively poorly sourced stubs and sourcing all the works to variants of iMDb (as in, simple listings). I tried redirecting as they don't qualify for standalone articles and as I said earlier, are effectively nothing more than poorly sourced cruft. Abbasulu has ignored my and others warnings and despite several AFDs, continues to disruptively create said lists.

Worldbruce made a good point here: Abbasulu has created 84 articles in the past two months. So far at least 23 have been draftified, merged, redirected, deleted, or are currently leaning delete at AfD. Their record of creating unwanted content, their policy-blind !votes at AfD, and their evident inability to learn from these mistakes, suggests to me that administrator intervention is called for.}}

In the last month or so, they've created dozens of "forks" from the main articles by copying the content and just expanding the works list, where the works themselves are either non-notable, unsourced or sourced simply to a listing, as an example: List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle - which has roughly 50 listings and is probably the "best" out of their creations but ultimately can be covered in the target article.

Abbasulu doesn't seem willing to interact or listen to anyone, given their removal of discussions on their talk page and their backhanded responses (or no response at all.) So I'm left with no choice but to bring this here and ask for a pblock from mainspace or a restriction of some sort. Here is a brief list of problematic articles - I don't think having 50 AFDs is the solution here.

• List of songs recorded by Geeta Dutt
• List of Hindi songs recorded by Runa Laila (AFD'd and redirected)
• Template:Prabhat Roy
• List of Awards and nominations received by Olivia Rodrigo (improper split, redirected)
• Template:Sohanur Rahman Sohan a useless nav template
• List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade AFD'd, redirected
• Template:ATM Shamsuzzaman inexplicable nav template with....1? unlinked entry
• Template:Meher Afroz Shaon useless nav template
• Template:Kamal Ahmed useless nav template
• Kamal Dasgupta discography another ography article improperly split from the main article, entirely covered in main article and sourced entirely to listing sites.
• Template:Masud Akhond useless nav template
• Template:Munsur Ali useless nav template
• Template:Akhtaruzzaman
• Template:Shameem Akhtar

I could continue, this is only to the end of May (there are dozens of others beyond that, I'm not even exaggerating) and countless useless categories as well. Something needs to be done. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add that native bn speaker and admin at bnwiki, আফতাবুজ্জামান tried to discuss with them as well regarding their copying of articles unattributed and creation of non-notable articles but ultimately fell on deaf ears. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I've created most of my film articles abiding by wikipedia rules, with providing notable references. Template:Prabhat Roy has more than 15 blue mark articles. How is this useless? And all of the navigational boxes you mentioned were created more than two weeks ago. I've already stopped creating them. Thank you. Do research before making am allegation against someone. None of my created articles are of brand new genre. There are already discography articles of R. D. Burman and Anand–Milind who have just 5-10 references. There are many useless songography articles of American artists who could have been included in the main article as well. And this type of stalking is annoying. I don’t know whether that is allowed or not. Abbasulu (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  No one is stalking you, it's a result of WP:NPP and if your articles were in line with our standards, they wouldn't continually be deleted, but this doesn't address the substance of this complaint, of course. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've already proposed all of those useless navigational boxes with one or two entries for speedy deletion. Abbasulu (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Again, there are more than 20+ creations by you in the last 30 days alone that need to be deleted or redirected. You continue to add unencyclopedic cruft and ignore discussions by outright removing them and never responding, so this is a long term behavioral issue that you either don't seem to understand or are unwilling to abate, so here we are. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I had voted delete in some of the discography AfDs listed above based on WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDATABASE, but it appears that those articles were in line with the guideline WP:WORKS. DELREV is being considered for some of the deleted/redirected AfDs. Hemantha (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  WORKS is applicable for larger articles imo, otherwise we'd have 300000 list articles about everything any artist has ever done - that's what fandom is for, not Wikipedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Also I fail to see how a near decade old AFD about unrelated articles is relevant to this conversation about Abbasulu's behavior. I'd also argue that List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal is vastly different from the lackluster, poorly/unsourced articles on 2 sentence stubs that Abbasulu is creating. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a case, indeed, of IDHT and an editor being a drag on community ressources by constantly creating massive amounts of WP:NOT-failing stuff. Stuff like this, where they recreate a list right after it was redirected at AfD, is also telling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Most of the articles you nominated for deletion has successfully survived deletion. Most of them weren't WP:NOT-failing or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Because they were discographies of legendary and hugely successful singers such as Shreya Ghoshal, Lata Mangeshkar etc. Abbasulu (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And now canvassing... Articles "surviving" deletion because you canvass people to them, and because you keep making irrelevant arguments ("the singer is notable" when the issue in fact is "this is a song database and Wikipedia is not a song database") is just one more sign of the WP:IDHT on display here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Just noting here that Abbasulu's behavior has continued. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither John Komlos is stopping nor their mercenaries

John Komlos is trying from sometime to promote himself ([472]) Possibly, hired some people as there is a surge of Komlos-related work. First, came User:Stuart David Carter who just spammed a lot of economics-related pages with John Komlos' book. Created a spam, Bailout Capitalism (which was later edited by another UPE User:Kizule). Then came admin-hopeful spammer User:Kashem overflow who created Foundations of Real-World Economics, most probably a resurrected sock of ARNOBDAS099 (declared paid editing in a muted response here) Then, another mercenary, User:Alisha3107, spammed Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration with John Komlos book/paper. Alisha3107 has edited another article with a long spam history, Draft:Muscle and Strength India. And User:Bilby have strong evidence (User_talk:Alisha3107#Paid_Editing) that they are getting paid (it is obvious from pattern anyway).

Now, on User:Kizule who is a sysop on Serbian Wikipedia, but is treating Wikipedia as his spamyard. Editing odd topics like Miyu Nagaoka and removing UPE tag from Jared Madere are enough for a suspicion. They are not cooperative and are not willing to disclose, yet want to continue to write/link more spam. Good examples are their Nigerian spam articles: Draft:Kemi Filani Blog and Draft:Chiddie Anyasodo. It doesn't stops here as they went on and started spamming economics-related articles with John Komlos books/papers ([473], [474], [475]).

Also, John Komlos himself joined the party and is now spamming with this new account, User:Akarakis. Pretty obvious these accounts are not here to build an encylcopedia. Neither John Komlos is stopping nor their mercenaries. It's time to nuke them all. 174.89.81.141 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I must reply to this statement admin-hopeful spammer. and muted response regarding COI.

• I really am an admin-hopeful editor which statement can be found on my User page and who has been editing and publishing articles with faith and trust. I have never spammed on Wikipedia. And anyone on Wikipedia can be an admin-hopeful editor, there are no rules for being hopeful except for being truthful. There is nothing wrong to be hopeful.
• And I strongly stand on my statement that, this is my one and only User account. I am not connected, affiliated,or have used, hired any other accounts for my purpose of work. Nor my editing behaviour looks same as other users. I have never attempted any disruptive editing or spamming.
• I have been declaring COI on article Talk Page, Edit Summery and also in my User page. Though terms and conditions says only one place is a must. But I am being super crytal clear about the COI.
  • You, (the 174.89.81.141), have wrongfully^{(I believe)} added "Undisclosed Paid Editing" tags on; J. M. J. Supramaniam, Foundations of Real-World Economics and Draft:Rebill^{(I have undid your editing on Rebill)} though all three had COI notification on their talk page and on my user page also. And I would like to add that, there is no such thing as muted response for COI as you have said.

A special Note fo Admins: The above statements that I have made is only applicable for me/User:Kashem Overflow. I do not hold any responsibilities of any kind of editings made by other users or user teams mentioned above. And all my affilations are declared on my User Page. Kashem overflow (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kashem overflow: I'm very confused here. You mention the terms of use but AFAICT no where in the pages you mentioned did you ever declare yourself a paid editor or disclose who is paying you as you are required to do as a paid editor. You just said you have a CoI due to a connection with the subject which is fine for a simple CoI but not for a paid editor. The terms of use only apply to paid editors, they are irrelevant if you are not a paid editor. While we have our own en.wikipedia policy on editors with a WP:COI who are not paid editors, the ToU does not come in to it (other than the generic parts which are relevant to all editors here). To be clear, if you you have been or expect to receive payment/compensation for your edits, then the notices on your use page page and those you left on Talk:J. M. J. Supramaniam (the only one I bothered to check) do not comply with the Terms of Use as they do not disclose who is paying you. (As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.) So any an all editing you've made about the subjects are in violation of the rules you agreed to while editing here. So if you are a paid editor, saying you are an undisclosed paid editor is fair enough. Also even if you have not and do not expect to be paid, if you have no connection to any of the other editors who the IP feels are paid editors, then I have no idea how you know that there has not been paid editors. The fact you are not an undisclosed paid editor does not mean the other editors are not and you have no way of knowing since by your own admission you do not know who they are or why they're doing what they're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nil Einne, Thank you for your message an concern here. In a matter of fact that, the IP had also posted a notification on a draft that has been in the review process, here Draft:Rebill. And I thought it was also allegating me as a Paid Editor. I thought that, because I am the one only working on that draft. In a matter of fact that I am closely conneted with those subjects but not being paid, compensated or being offered any services in exchange. That is why I use the COI. I am not in an edit war or intend to do so. ASA I got the notification, I came to clarify my state in this matter.

In a Nutshell

• I got notified that Draft:Rebill that it has an undisclosed paid template. And I am the only one working on that draft. And two of the admins just neutered the draft. I have reverted the edit by the IP only on the Draft, as it was not true and relevent for that subject till this moment. But did not reverted the notification on two other articles. Cause there might be someone who got compensated for editing those articles.
• I came here and stated my statement that I am not the Paid editor in any of the articles that I have created, but as I had a close connection ,so I had declared that in every articles that I have created. That was my statement.
• Other editors that were mentioned above are on their own. Whatever they do I am not accountable for that. They might be compensated or not. But I myself stongly stand on my statement that, I am not being paid or compensated in any form,by any person, organisation or team, that I had to mention.
• And I made that reply to clarify my state with this case. I only intended to keep myself aside from thoses alligations of being a paid editor and about being a sockpuppet. That is what I am concerned about in this ANI.

Kashem overflow (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kashem overflow: so you have a non paid connection to 3 basically unconnected articles, all of which are you the only things you've edited here? Good luck on your admin goals I guess... Anyway putting that aside, by definition if some other paid but undeclared editors has edited any of the other 3 articles then there has been undeclared paid editing and there's no reason the IP needs to only direct the tag at one editor. Admittedly now that I look more carefully it seems only Foundations of Real-World Economics has any edits from editors the IP has mentioned are suspicious and that's from Special:Contributions/Akarakis who the IP has suggested is an article subject rather than a paid editor. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

IP, it's probably better to move this thread to WP:COIN where you're likely to receive more attention from editors familiar with dealing with this sort of thing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not able to understand the point of this discussion. By the way, reporter is suspicious for me, I think he is hunting me. I apologize if I think incorrectly.

I'm not John's sockpuppet, I'm not paid by him or someone else for edits. As an administrator, I'm aware of rule for paid edits. I wish reporter all the best. Kizule (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You are not an administrator here. Are you claiming to be one on another project? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds that are a funct and admin on srwiki but their edits here have been questioned by others, most recently at an SPI about a known paid editor and here by the IP and rightfully so. Kizule you've still failed to explain this edit, which you were asked about 2 days ago and how it is you know, an article you've never once edited before is "not paid"? And also how you managed to find an otherwise non-notable but clearly paid for PR spam about Draft:Chiddie Anyasodo and Draft:Alabi Oyinkansola and decided it warranted inclusion here, but not your home wiki. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)