Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Laurel Lodged at WP:AN

I was participating in a WP:AN topic-ban appeal from a user. Solavirum had some problems which came to light so withdrew the appeal. Personally, I think I made a few to several mistakes in my comments on that thread. In those situations, the best thing I can do is just disengage because I know I'm not being helpful to anyone.

Okay, then I saw this comment by Laurel Lodged. In it, he claims (without evidence) Solavirum is involved in some scheme by adults who ought to know better which recruits children to engage in Azeri-POV pushing on Wikipedia. If by the off chance, Laurel Lodged is right about anything he said, he should be emailing evidence to Arbcom immediately.

I seriously just spoke with Laurel Lodged about making unfounded accusations which he agreed he'd take in consideration. I'm seriously dumbfounded why Laurel ever would think the above comment was appropriate. Given that, in the Grandmaster WP:AN appeal, Laurel Lodged considers himself uninvolved in these types of disputes, I have serious doubts about his judgement here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot comment on this. It was a closed discussion. I saw it before it was closed. I would not have even mentioned it if Solavirum had not himself mentioned it. What I wrote about had emerged from the murky business. It involved another editor outing Solavirum and his activities in violation of Wiki policy. I don't have access to sealed discussions.That's why I did not mention it. But since he himself brought it up, it's fair comment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In any Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute, Laurel Lodged always unconditionally takes the Armenian side. They can not be regarded as a neutral user in anything Azerbaijani-related. On the other hand, they are not under any topic ban and may comment in these discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: While I am aware they may currently comment in these discussions, I'm sorta concerned about the types of things Laurel Lodged is using them to say about other users (ie. their actions are the result of a conspiracy to use minors to push Azeri propaganda). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit rich of @MJL: to jump in on comments about neutral users. He himself declares that he has a personal page on Azeri Wiki: [1]. In it he has lots of nice things to say about Azeri proverbs. I don't see the proverb about "Those in glasshouses should not throw stones". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Very interesting that you're so busy looking at my azwiki that you somehow managed to completely ignore my enwiki user page which clearly states my pronouns are they/them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

MJL, RE: pronouns — I think you're being too harsh. You can make that correction absent any of this... extra-stuff. I note that many users who wish to clarify their pronouns, do so in their sigs. Maybe consider also doing so if you find being addressed with the wrong pronoun to be upsetting. Otherwise, good faith mistakes should be expected. I remember a few years back, I called Fæ "she," even though I knew they preferred they. It just slipped for whatever reason (as I recall, I apologized and corrected it a few hours later, which Fæ accepted graciously). Anyway, largely a distraction here, is my point. El_C 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

responded on your talk –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable commenting on this. What am I supposed to say? Since @MJL: is the ON, there is an unequal balance of power here. Would it be politic of me to apologise for a perceived slight? Probably. Would such an apology sound like currying favour in the case? Who could be satisfied by such an apology extracted under duress under such circumstances? Why would you assume that I read every last detail on your personal page? That's not reasonable. As it happens, I didn't. On re-reading it, the pronoun thing is actually quite hard to find. Your criticism is too hard, too fast. The default position is AGF. I am entitled to that assumption. I stand by that assumption. Any lingering unease on your part might have been followed by a polite note in my talk page, not a public rebuke or value-laden "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" question at ANI. For the record, I did not read the pronoun note before writing the comment complained of above. For the record, I follow the Golden Rule (i.e. all instances of "he/him" in law are assumed to also mean "she/her"). Lazy, yes. Malicious, no. I will not make a further comment on this matter in this space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Okay, so let me get this straight.

(1) Not only are you not going to apologize because it might make you look bad or whatever, I actually am in the wrong because my pronouns are not visible enough.

(2) I am wrong to assume because you read the last section of my user page ("Alternate user pages") that you also read the first ("Pronouns / Nomenclature") because... good faith.

(3) You couldn't find my pronouns until it was pointed out to you just now despite the fact it is the first thing written in the first section written in a different color and in bold.

(4) You aren't ever going to correct your misgendering me because actually.. No, you didn't you follow an English common law called the Golden Rule which means actually he/him would be a right pronoun to use for me since you didn't know my actual pronouns (despite the fact you obviously know them now).

(5) You won't be engaging with me here at all because I hurt your feelings despite the fact all I did was point out you could find a thing I wrote on an entirely separate website as apparent evidence against me but ignored the notice on this website which says my pronouns.. and despite the fact you did ignore it because, as you just said, apparently the pronoun thing is actually quite hard to find.

(6) I should've gone straight to your talk page instead of asking you a question on here.. even though I have never once asked you a question on here. Everything I have said thus far has been an exact statement about what you have done or my own personal commentary on the same. Not once have I asked you any question.

(7) And finally, the entire purpose of your original comment was to unreasonably discredit me for openly having an azwiki page. Of course I am going to respond to that absurdity, and I am 100% going to point out when you misgendered me while doing it because that's what happened. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Laurel Lodged is also busy at Corofin (parish). After an earlier (March 2021) claim that I used Germano-English (I am Dutch), he is was here again provoking. Laurel Lodged is now inventing a new name for this parish. He found this page and know claims that the correct name is "Corofin (Kilnaboy & Rath)". In fact, it states that the name of the parish is Corofin and an amalgamation of the older parishes of Rath and Kilnaboy. I have pointed him at the books used for writing this article. But that failed to convince him. Even this source, which stated that now bishop Ger Nash "From 1996 he was also assistant priest in Corofin. In 2003, he was appointed as resident priest in Corofin (...)". Also on Corofin, County Clare he makes the same mistake. The Banner talk 23:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my favourite stalker. Hi Banner. Still trying to ignore what the diocesan website says is the name of the parish? Editors should also take a look at Talk:Corofin,_County_Clare#Merger Catholic Parishes. In this instance, The Banner saw an error. Instead of correcting it, he simply reverted it. It remains only partly correct because he has stubbornly refused to use his extensive knowledge of the area to improve the article. In this instance, he seems to be more concerned with making WP:POINTY comments than with improving Wiki IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And more personal attacks! But no, I am not pointy as you, I just try to keep the information correct. The Banner talk 15:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, please don't call a user in good standing a "stalker." That's a sanctionable personal attack. Don't even use WP:STALK, generally. Use WP:HOUND. For the record, I didn't quite understand The Banner's complaint or its relevance to this report, though admittedly, I'm writing/reading in haste. El_C 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in interacting with LL, so I avoid him when I can. But LL repeatedly started editing pages I have started adding incorrect facts. Correcting them means an editwar. I think that behaviour is here under discussion. The Banner talk 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I did watch that WP:AN thread, and while I certainly think some of Laurel's remarks were a bit too much, I do agree with him regarding The Banner's WP:POINTY comments. I've only interacted with him once, and that certainly wasn't a positive one [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Response I admit that I got very emotional in my contributions to the two requests from Az editors for unblocking. Although both Solavirum and Grandmaster showed apparent bad behaviour, the language that I used to highlight that bad behaviour could have been softer. I apologise for the intemperate language used. I should have let the facts speak for themselves. I am an Irish national. I don't have any conflict of interest in editing AA articles. I only have tangential interest in Caucasus topics. I suppose as an Irishman, I have a natural affinity to taking the side of the underdog. As a nation, we endured 800 years of occupation by a foreign imperial power, so it's easy for us to empathise with other small nations who have been similarly oppressed. As you'll see from my edit history, I have a wide range of interests: Irish nobility, local Irish geograpghy, central European history, Ancient Rome, Byzantium, church affairs etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - MJL, Laurel Lodged if I'm being honest neither of you are uninvolved. MJL, as I stated in AN, you supported Solavirum in virtually every case against them, whether in AN/I, AE, Topic ban appeals, etc. I can provide all the evidence/diffs, but I think it's redundant since all the people/admins involved including yourself know that, and I made sure to check previous noticeboard threads before my statements.

When it comes to recruitment/canvassing/off-wiki conflict of interest which directly impacts Wikipedia, it's actually rampant in AA, and third party users can confirm this LouisAragon, Kansas Bear. I actually had alot of information gathered from various social media posts/groups with hundreds of thousands of followers (you'd be surprised how shamelessly open everything is and easy to access by simple search), but as I said in my AN statement, I think it isn't appropriate to post it in any of these noticeboards. I made sure to email it to one of the involved admins and archive just in case it gets deleted. There was actually information about Solavirum's off-wiki canvassing and COI as well, so anything Laurel states isn't really far from reality. So this seems to be another lie, but the appeal was withdrawn before an admin could reply. Courtesy pinging Cullen328, El_C. Just my 2 cents. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, this is a subpar comment. First, for the sort of un-evidenced WP:ASPERSION accompanied with I'd provide the evidence, but everyone already knows. Well, I, for one, don't know that MJL leans one way or another in the topic area/s. Maybe instead of pinging me and three other users to confirm, just provide the evidence from the start?

Second, think about how this looks. You open with: MJL, Laurel Lodged [,] if I'm being honest neither of you are uninvolved — then you proceed to only criticize MJL, who is (or would be, at least) on the opposite camp from you. It comes across as partisan. Also, what's so different about MJL's user page at .az and .hy? I don't understand.

Finally, where does this "neither of you are uninvolved" framing even coming from? (There's a layer of irony here in that you could have included yourself, too, in that opening sentence.) And even if, say, "involved," so what? Involved how? Neither are admins at .en, was a discussion involved-closed or something by either? As for the allegations being made (possible WP:CHILDPROTECT matter), these are of a very serious nature and they probably should be directed to ARBCOM or WP:T&S (privately). El_C 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

El C I'll address your concerns. Firstly, I checked previous threads regarding Solavirum, in all of them, MJL was involved: [3], [4], [5], including the appeal yesterday. Secondly, I thought it was already being discussed that Laurel isn't really uninvolved, so I gave my 2 cents regarding MJL and their involvement, which wasn't being discussed.

To your last point regarding irony, forgive me, but I don't see your point really, because It's not like I'm hiding that I'm involved. I literally stated it myself in AN yesterday. I don't know the age of any of the users involved, but I know the seriousness of this that's why I didn't post anything in any of these noticeboards, and emailed (privately) to an involved admin instead. If you want me to email it to ArbCom as well, I can do that. Finally, I pinged you and the admin who received my email as being involved with the case. Hope I addressed your concerns. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You mostly did not address them, no. I hope to be able to elaborate on why that is later in the day (probably evening), but I thought you should know ahead of time. El_C 16:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

El C thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to clear things if I understood you incorrectly. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I have a user page on az.wiki (but don't on hywiki) because there was this thing where Azwiki has some problems with NPOV. I did things like this and this.. and this.. and this... oh and this. I figured having a user page would help people know I don't actually speak the language despite editing on their wiki (I also use it to keep an Azeri phrasebook handy). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, is your .hy user page refactored from .en, or Meta, or some sort of alternate dimension? El_C 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Meta, yeah. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unarchived

This thread was archived without any action. I think that is an obvious mistake given the seriousness of the allegations here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

All I want is to know whether this comment was appropriate and a closure reflecting on that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf68

Aardwolf68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned that professional wrestling is under general sanctions (WP:GS/PW) after an edit war in October.[6][7] His edits remain unproductive; this one is obviously fake and defamatory,[8] others are dubious and unsourced.[9] It's worth noting that there's a discussion on WT:PW regarding how ineffective these sanctions have been since they were implemented four years ago. This particular case seems like an obvious WP:NOTHERE.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The first one you mentioned was eventually accepted, because Becky had turned heel and every time that I or somebody else mentioned it, it was reverted. The third case you mentioned was confirmed in an interview with Shawn, that’s my mistake however for not sourcing it. The fourth case is literally able to be traced to the Survivor Series page, where Bianca Belair survived a 4-1 disadvantage, why is this not mentioned in her article? It’s mentioned that Orton and Ziegler are the only two people to survive a 3-1 disadvantage, so why isn’t Bianca’s surviving a 4-1 disadvantage notable? And the fact that you’re out here trying to attack my integrity when all I want to do is help genuinely hurts, please, for the love of god, do research before you call me out for making edits that are all true. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is an edit-warring report against Aardwolf68 filed by a brand new user at WP:AN3#User:Aardwolf68 reported by User:Mr. Crabx (Result: ).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Mr. Crabx as an LTA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what to make if all of this. There's a person out there who absolutely has it out for Aardwolf, and is block evading and IP hopping. But Aardwolf is not entirely innocent either, with some heavy handed editing and a fair amount of reverting. The IP hoping is worse though, in my eyes. But it's a bit hard to follow overall. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not innocent, I know, I've made a lot of issues within Wikipedia even though it wasn't my intention and I accept full responsibility over what had happened, and engaging with this troll again. Thank you for helping me out... although I'm not too sure how I'm gonna be able to handle another situation like this. Thank you, though Aardwolf68 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this can be closed as a final final warning. Aardwolf68 was a victim here but he must know that unproductive edits have to stop. An LTA is apparently after you, please don't give them material to work with.LM2000 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that i might've done lots of wrong stuff, but right now I Just wanna solve his vandalisms. Following several warnings on his talk page and an even an LTA warning, the user is still doing the "far too heavy handed reverts" and mistakes LM2000, Sergecross73 and Muhandes told him not to do again. Using the same misleading edit summaries he was warned not to use by SNUGGUMS. Look at here--146.241.192.13 (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'd like to call WP:BOOMERANG on the IP above. We all know who they are and they practically admitted it here. They are avoiding the block and should not have talk page editing privileges. --Muhandes (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll second this. WP:BLOCKEVASION is the bigger issue at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the IP - as Muhandes mentioned, their comment basically admits block evasion. Which was my suspicion anyways. I believe they are the blocked user "MoriceLibrary". Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And as expected, they immediately hopped IP. I wont bother you with another block request and since I have no opinion on the subject of this ANI I'll sign out before I'm accused of hijacking the discussion. Muhandes (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, they moved my talk page to another name, now known as Aardickk68 in order to mess with me. Idk how they did this when they aren’t an admin, but please check my talk page to see what I’m talking about. Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

They’re known as User:Vrocchio Brocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have opened a related SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrocchio Brocco Singularity42 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Aardwolf68 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to bump this thread again, but I'd like my talk page protected. It has been at the epicenter of this and I got hit twice more this morning.[10][11] I'll note that the SPI page is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso, where I reported one IP. I know ANV is quicker but I find that they sometimes deny blocks, citing insufficient evidence.LM2000 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I semi'd your page for 3 days. Let me know if it continues after that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:NadVolum

Over at Talk:Julian Assange a dispute has arisen over the issue of whether or not something should be included. This user has resorted to WP:BLUDGEON, and mocking when asked to actually explain how this is about the subject of the article [[12]]. This is an ongoing issue and represents pretty much their whole style and attitude on the article. They (to be fair) are not alone in the snark. But it is getting frustrating when they derail their own RFC with it. There is zero attempt at AGF from this user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The person helps organise a fund for their defence and the central item is a non-fungible token about their incarceration, it sells for $52m. @SPECIFICO: says it is not clear this is a significant fact of his life, and you say oppose as it is just a random factoid that tells us nothing of relevance, how does this add to our understanding of him or his case? That is simply ridiculous nonsense in my book and I think you should read what a biography is about in biography. How am I supposed to communiciate with that level of debate on practically every discussion? I find assuming AGF very difficult to near impossible with the pair of you. NadVolum (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well by not being sarky for a start, I can do it to you, so I fail to see why you are unable to do it to me? But I have now made my report, and I will let others chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way I have now informed SPECIFICO (as you were meant to) as (as it says at the top of this page) pings are not sufficant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Steven, thanks for the notification. Unfortunately I think that, in order to be effective, this complaint would need to link more of NadVolum's many ad hominem and disparaging talk page comments. It would be a lot of work for you, but I think it would benefit the community to see them and make a decision about this editor's conduct. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I did put a ping there so you'd know. Well let's see your list and perhaps I can trump it and perhaps you can get another topic ban. I don't think NPOV is consistent with your comment in Archive 25 "There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view". Or how about your call on the NPOV page of all places in Archive 91 "Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war". NadVolum (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

OK some other examples (from the same topic, but not the RFC) [[13]], [[14]] they are not serious violations, but they do represent a general tendency to be dismissive. and a few others [[15]] [[16]]. It goes back further (and indeed I have raised it here before) than this, but they would be stale.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add they launched an RFC after only 10 hours of "discussion", rather than actually discussing it (after deciding that this [[17]] was not worth answering [[18]]).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Was there an earthly chance either you or SPECIFICO would have changed your minds? SPECIFICO insists that just his one objection stops any addition because of the restrictions in force. In the previous RfC which I abandoned because of all the silliness you said "Mmm, that might be a good argument to exclude, we cannot have everything" where a person brought up some case in Australia not involving Julian Assange in any personal way and which wasn't even listed as an important leak and a journalist there described as a bureauratic exercise. Yo helped exclude something that he was personally involved in, has been reported on numerous times since and has been brought up again at his trial and formas a basis for some of the charges against him? You said there "And there is no guideline, policy, or essay that requires us to add any content. Indeed the opposite is (in fact) the case per WP:ONUS, policy says we do not have to add even verifiable material" and yet again supported using WP:SIZE as a reason to exclude practically any additions. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum:, Link, please, to support your statement, SPECIFICO "insists that just his one objection stops any addition because of the restrictions in force." ? Folks might think you're quoting something I said. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look and I'm pretty certain now I'm wrong about that, sorry. NadVolum (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes there was, as I have done before. Hell I did not even oppose, I just said I was unsure. I only opposed when the only reasons was given was A. "Well it was 54 million" and B. "And if you can't see why that is about him I can't tell you why it was". In fact, I note that some of the context from this source [[19]] was explicitly opposed by you, a context that might have made the inclusion of this acceptable (who knows, you offered no compromise it was your way or no way).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed the above is an admission you made no attempt to try and convince anyone before launching the RFC. You just assumed it would be opposed and gave up before trying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is what I said when SPECIFICO found a citation about that "Thanks for contributing by finding that. I don't see anything personally related to Assange but if it gets anywhere it could well be worth putting in some NFT related article and then I think it could be referenced from here. Amazing what people think sometimes!". And later in the RfC I said "Whether NFTs are scammy or not this is supposed to be an ordinary biography, not a hagiography, if it does come out he was involved in a scam somehow I'd have thought that would be another reason for inclusion." As far as I can see you are trying to imply I opposed it on POV grounds which was definitely not the case, I supported putting in a reference to the possible scam if he wasn't involved and it was documented elsewhere and for more in the article if some involvement was shown. As to where I said I saw little point arguing it two others said "Does the significance of gaining $52 million to help your defence need arguing? You either get it or, ...... for some unknown reason, you don't" and "There is no need to convince anyone. Reasonably confident that a large majority of rational people would consider $52 million a significant boost to Assange's defence." NadVolum (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash the talk page. I asked you to make a case that was more than "well it is 52 million", you have still failed to do so, you have still failed to explain what this amount tells us about Julian Assange, your response to that simple question was mockery and incivility.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not seen you show any indication of you thinking anything was worth including in the page, I have not the foggiest what you might consider worthwhile to include, and I do not think I could change your mind, so why should I respond to your demands to waste my time arguing with you? I've seen you contribute to the Elon Musk talk page, what have you thought was worth including there? Is for instance in the lead it says "Musk is the wealthiest person in the world according to both the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and the Forbes real-time billionaires list", or how about that a startup was acquired by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. What do they tell about Elon Musk or would you oppose including them? NadVolum (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This user, NadVolum, has been asked many times to present policy-and-source-based arguments to gain consensus for article content on this and other matters at the Assange article. I'm not sure whether it's a battleground unwillingness to give direct responses or whether it's a competence issue, but unresponsive replies of the sort immediately above, personal disparagement, and snark are a big problem for a newcomer with less than 1000 edits. Some kind of remedy is needed. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

and what about this treatment of me as a newcomer by SPECIFICO User_talk:86.20.127.101, If there's to be civilized editing and new people attracted to the article who needs remedies applied? NadVolum (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not about Elon Musk, but to answer your question, he is a businessman, so yes information about his business activities is relevant to his biography. Assange is a hacker, so information about his hacking would be too. I have said it before and will say it again, there is way too much stuff that tells us nothing about Assange on that page (which should be about him, and HIS actions). All he did here was put his name on something, this would as irrelevant as saying "and in 2022 Elson musk put his name to "Musk Musk aftershave"".Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So according to you the Elon Musk article should not cover non-business things listed in the lead like "In 2019, he won a defamation trial brought against him by a British caver who advised in the Tham Luang cave rescue. Musk has also been criticized for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and for his other views on such matters as artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and public transport." Would that be right? And yet I note you contributing to a debate about that paragraph and supporting having a statement in it. And defending against a charge of hacking is not hacking related? This is your understanding of what a biography is about - one decides in advance what the person is mainly known for and then excludes anything else on the grounds they don't tell anything about what they are known for? This is why I pointed you at Biography which doesn't describe anything at all like that.

Also about your 'way too much', if you will look at WP:BIO it's lead also describes what I've said repeatedly to you about WP:SIZE. You don't chop out important things from a bio to fit a byte count, you set up sub articles on aspects of the life. By the way the Elon Musk article is about the same size as the Assange one. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, this is not the place to push your content views, which are at or within WP:BLUDGEON territory at the article talk page. I think that what's needed is some commitment from you to be more responsively engaged with other editors and a commitment from you to stop making personal remarks and posting disparagement of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to explain by someone who seems to have no point of connection with me and I have tried as best I can by using the example of Elon Musk instead. As far as I can see they have come to very different conclusions in what I can make of their reasoning in similar situations. They think Assange just gave his name to the auction and the fact that it is about him and his defence and made a large amount of money are irrelevant because it is not to do with hacking. For Elon Musk his covid-19 misinformation was worth commenting on and saying how it should be phrased even though all that required was a bit of talk and had nothing to do with him being a businessman. So what am I missing that they're seeing that is so important to them? They needn't answer but then I'll not know and won't have a chance of getting on their wavelength to explain how I see things. Perhaps you see things the same way as you gave a very similar rejection - or would it be bludgeoning for me to presume to ask you to explain yourself? You can also of course not answer and just go on about bludgeoning. NadVolum (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not for the first time, this ridiculous attempt to mischaracterise other editor's actions as improper is a waste of editor and admin time. In my view it ought to result in a BOOMERANG against OP for that very reason.

The fact that they have resorted to trying to cast such comments as "You'd prefer I waste time arguing with you when you make statements like that and it is obvious from previous statements from you where it is going?" (in response to Slatersteven asking a question to which the answer was obvious in the OP and to which Slatersteven evidently already knew the answer) and "Okay it looks like an RfC is needed then. I'll raise one. after I come back from a bit of normal life." and "Ha ha. No wonder you don't seem to find anything is worth putting into articles!" (truly stinging) as worthy of sanction suggests a desire to WIKILAWYER to have an editor OP has frequently disagreed with sanctioned, so as to have one less voice against their and Specifico’s (frequently absurd) POV.

In my view the pattern of Specifico's and Slatersteven's editing on the page is so pervasive that its pattern is clear: wasting editor time by opposing even the most minor of changes to make editing the page more difficult. Single sentence additions or removals to the page have been opposed at great length by Slatersteven and Specifico on highly tenuous - in fact frequently absurd - grounds, only to then have yet another landslide RFC in which every editor opposes Specifico's or Slatersteven's fatuous arguments. OP's past willingness to resort to quite egregiously misleading edit summaries when it suits their purpose is far more damaging, in my view, than "Ha ha. No wonder you don't seem to find anything is worth putting into articles!" which at worst looks like the crime of banter.

We need a commitment from OP and Specifico to put a stop to grossly mischaracterising other editor's statements, and to their refusal to explicate their specious arguments beyond block capital references to guideline section shortcuts not relevant to the topic. They can of course post their shortcut references, but frequent refusals to actually explain their perceived relevance inevitably will result in a quick route to yet another RFC. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The talk page is filled with examples of Slatersteven and SPECIFICO stonewalling content additions and causing needless RFC's to satisfy some interpretation of what consensus is. It's been documented here before, but as the tepid response to this thread displays, I don't think anything will be done about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There is zero chance of Slatersteven and SPECIFICO being punished for keeping trivia out of a BLP article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

True enough, but as that's not the problem with Slatersteven's and Specifico's editing on the page, and not what's under discussion, it's of little to no relevance in this section. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme and Estonian POV

Shorter version - editor involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, and clear POV edits.

Longer version - H2ppyme (talk · contribs) is involved in edits like this, removing reference to the historical Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this, adding in clear POV of 'Soviet-occupied Estonia' and very concerning POV edit summaries like "Estonia was illegally occupied at the time". A quick look at their contribs shows that myself and many other editors have been reverted, sometimes multiple times. We need a topic ban or block to prevent ongoing disruption. GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [20], [21] and [22]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [23][24] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanna mention that the editor in question has been engaging in this behavior for years and was already warned and blocked for exactly the same actions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

State continuity of the Baltic states, please have a read. I'm pretty sure H2ppyme acts in good faith, unless the user broke the 3RR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [25], [26] and [27]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't covered what's been going on at non-ice hockey articles. But, I do know it's frustrating for us WP:HOCKEY members, to have to continue to revert such PoV edits on ice hockey (particularly player bios) articles, from time to time. Regrettably, if such PoV edits continue to be pushed on those articles-in-question? I fear that eventually, Arbcom may have to step in. This is no longer an issue of content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously ice hockey was especially important for Soviets, and is now for Putin (to alleviate the inferiority complex). Should his troll factory ever target wiki-topics, then hockey would be a logical one to start with. Of course, hopefully there are no paid trolls participating in the incident here. Nevertheless, in case there are some, let's have some human empathy for them – it's better to work, work hard, and hang on to a nice warm office job instead of being treated as cheap cannon fodder and sent to some seriously snowy, muddy and bloody battle in Ukraine, for example.80.26.203.48 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - and this is conduct which they have been warned about/blocked for before (please see diffs above) - although they have not edited in 2 days so the disruption has technically stopped. I suggest their edits are reverted and we monitor from there? GiantSnowman 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Long standing edit consensus on Baltic States related articles have been to use only short name, not full political name, as is standard in WP as also noted above by BilledMammal. Even the hockey does it China is listed as just China, not People's Republic of China. He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc. I noticed that a user with administrator privileges was reverting the edits. So i went to their page and asked few questions, but all I got was smirky sarcastic FO by WP admininistrator saying that Estonia should be removed and just Soviet Union be left. No explanation, no arguments. That's the level of administration in Wikipedia. what about WP:ADMINCOND? Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is because our article is just on China, not People's Republic of China. This is not, despite what you think, a political decision - it is merely reflecting the historical name of the country as confirmed by WP:MOSGEO. GiantSnowman 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell me? China is the common name, People's Republic of China is full political name of the state. China covers all the culture and history of China, same as Estonia covers all about Estonia including the Soviet period. --Klõps (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Estonian SSR was commonly known as Estonia btw. --Klõps (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

People's Republic of China and China are the same article, whereas we have separate articles on Estonia and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (and Governorate of Estonia) to reflect the changing political nature of the country over time. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Per Infobox person Countries should generally not be linked.That's why opening random Chinese hockey players most are China unlinked He Xin (ice hockey), and even Xi Jinping article has Beijing, China (unlinked). That's not a factor, and besides that Article Estonia has section about Estonian SSR. This is not really convincing argument from you. --Klõps (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Klõps: Perceived incivility does not justify obvious incivility. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Come on. You have higher authority here as a moderator, but instead of moderating you just answered with a sarcastic insult. Nothing to Percieve here. As a moderator you should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. WP:ADMINCOND, what you did was WP:ADMINACCT failure to communicate.

It's clear whats is going on here. User H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made some good faith edits restoring the articles with what has been a long standing edit consensus of having only Estonia listed as birth/death place in infobox. As seen it is standard to use common name even in WP:HOCKEY biographies (eg China instead of People's Republic of China) He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc to take some random articles. What followed is really toxic, he got attacked by a couple of moderators with highly opinionated opposite POV as you and GiantSnowman have clearly stated to support the opposite POV. WP:ADMINCOND if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith. You have both misused the moral highground that you have been given. --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea no, I don't think it's that simple at all. As was noted above H2ppyme synthesized ″information″ from a source to include content about Estonia on Geats and then participated in some minor edit warring once that was pointed out, that doesn't seem like good faith editing to me, that seems more like shoehorning Estonian content into where it doesn't belong. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

So now @Klõps: is engaged in the exact same edits as H2ppyme was (same article as well!). Disruptive edits, meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it time for a sockpuppet investigation?--Berig (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored it to the state before the edit war. I do not know H2ppyme. This is my only account. --Klõps (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If so you would not mind a sockpuppet investigation. It would only prove that you are not the same user.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, what do I have to do? --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There isn't anything; requests to prove you are not the same user are not accepted. If Berig believes they have sufficient behavioural evidence, they should submit a request at WP:SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is sock puppetry, but definitely a small group of editors closing ranks and covering each other's backs. Offline collusion? I couldn't possibly say. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Klõps, why are you removing in-line citations and valid parameters from infoboxes? GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, given the comments here that removing reference to Estonian SSR is disruptive, please can somebody restore the previous version on Friedrich Karm? GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In agreement, that it should be restored. But, if I restore it? members from WP:ESTONIA might disrupt the ice hockey bios again, particularly Leo Komarov. There's a kinda truce between both WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: feel free to post at Talk:Friedrich Karm and see if you can persuade @BilledMammal: to change it back... GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing BilledMammal involved in this topic-in-question, in the past. Would suggest that he back away from it. He seems to have taken the side of the Estonian-POV argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic bans for Estonian POV

There is a very long-standing issue with Estonian editors doing this sort of thing, and when challenged, several of them will turn up to the same discussion to back each other up (exactly as has happened here). Personally I would strongly support a topic ban for anything related to pre-1991 Estonia for these editors, as this has been going on for over a decade. Number 57 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds serious, indeed.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits for Klõps and H2ppyme (I am personally unaware of any other editors involved in this behaviour). GiantSnowman 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this is edit warring, the example provided includes edit warring by both "sides" (four reverts by GiantSnowman, three by H2ppyme, two by Klõps, with the status quo being the one supported by H2ppyme and Klõps), and it is not sufficient to warrant a full topic ban, particularly as such a sanction would go far beyond the issues discussed here. Give warnings to all parties, reminding them of WP:BRD and MOS:RETAIN, and if any party attempts to implement a change to the format through edit warring in the future we can return to ANI and consider actual sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would also note that so far the only evidence of Klõps "misbehaving" is two reverts to restore the status quo at a single article - it is not clear why they are grouped with this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Because they are engaged in the exact same disruptive editing and have been for some time (i.e. removing all mention of Estonian SSR/Soviet Union from appropriate historical context - see this and this and this and many, many more). GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How are those changes disruptive? You obviously are on one "side" of this content dispute, but as there is no global consensus (attempts to find one have always ended in "no consensus") it is appropriate to find local consensuses, and that can include finding such consensuses by editing as it appears they are doing in those examples. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you look at something like Leo Komarov, you will see that H2ppyme was making the same edit (changing Estonian SSR to Estonia) multiple times between 2014 and yesterday, calling their opponents "Kremlin trolls", every time they were reverted back, and they have, as far as I see, zero edits at the talk page, where the topic has been extensively discussed (and there is either no consensus, or possibly even consensus against H2ppyme). This is massive edit-warring for 8 years, mixed with personal attacks. Irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but that doesn't answer why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme - I am not seeing any basis for them being brought here, except for the fact that they are on the same side of the content dispute as H2ppyme.

H2ppyme does have a case to answer beyond edit warring, but I don't believe that a topic ban is appropriate for them at this point; they've only been blocked once, eight years ago, and aside from this recent discussion no one has attempted to discuss WP:CIVIL with them, or WP:EW since that block eight years ago. In other words, I've seen no evidence that a warning won't work, and I believe we should give it a chance. Specifically, give GiantSnowman, H2ppyme, and maybe Klõps a warning for edit warring, and H2ppyme a warning for personal attacks, and if any of them continue the behaviour we can return here and implement topic bans. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Klops has retired. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question of "why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme", it's because they have been part of the small group of editors doing this for years – see the history of Toivo Suursoo, where they made these edits repeatedly. Number 57 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. However, that appears to minor (three reverts over a couple of months) and stale (three years ago) edit warring. It would add weight to the notion that we should warn them alongside GiantSnowman and H2ppyme, but I don't see any reason why we need to jump straight to topic bans, or what the issue would be with trying a warning first.BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Great another one who has always has had very strong one sided POV on this question. Yes add random diffs without any discussions that were had then. The pattern has been always like it's with Friedrich Karm, for ten years since 2013 it was one way, then in January 2022 some random user changes it and then you guys appear to defend the change. 90% of Estonian biographies are it the way Friedrich Karm was for a decade, it's a small group of editors who for years have been trying to change it. Always the same, some random user changes ca 10 articles, and then your gang appears to defend them, But yeah having a strong POV on this question won't stop you for demanding a ban for someone who isn not supporting your POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're retired, stop editing while logged out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per above.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - There's something kinda odd here, concerning whether one chooses to accept or not, that the Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union. Why would he or she concentrate on only Estonia? What about Latvia & Lithuania? Are those country names also being pushed in bios, where there's "Latvian SSR" & "Lithuanian SSR"? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What's odd? We had this discussion already at WP Estonia I said to You that I'm an Estonian, I mostly edit Estonian related content, fix, add sources, update, remove vandalism. Estonian community here is small, there's a lot of really outdated articles, old vandalism from years ago. As I'm a football fan I have created Estonian football league season articles, given them prose content so that their not just tables etc. I have created Kaja Kallas' cabinet, Jüri Ratas' second cabinet, Jüri Ratas' first cabinet, Taavi Rõivas' second cabinet etc all of the existing ones. And as I said, Lithuanian and Latvian community here is much smaller even than Estonian, I have worked on many Latvian articles also if I have seen really low quality articles there that scream for attention, one liners not updated since 2008. --Klõps (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Objection I have tried to have a civil argument and to find a solution, like here, but got slapped without even a hint of effort to give argumented replay, I tried to make sense at the discussion at WP:Estonia, here, but got insulted that I'm nationalist doing historical revisionism. All I have tried to say is that isn't black and white as Gigantsnowman, C.Fred, Soman are taking the problem. There's a huge gray area. I'm saying everywhere that both are right Estonian SSR existed and Republic of Estonia existed as Soviet occupation was never recognized by the international community. For heavens sake there's loads of articles about it State continuity of the Baltic states read about it get to know the backstory and facts. The solution has been to use just Estonia (without political additions ), As is standard with other modern states. As noted above by BilledMammal, as I have noted about only China being used instead of full political state name People's Republic Of China.

Per WP:ADMINCOND GiantSnowman and C.Fred shouldn't even be judging here as they are very heatedly having really strong one sided POV on this question taking part of the edits. As seen in edits and talk like here Talk:Friedrich Karm. They should leave this for impartial admins. This is really low to hand out bans just because someone has different opinion than you do. --Klõps (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban for both of them, a long-standing issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I remember having long discussions about it with you before, you supported really strongly the soviet naming. The long standing issue is that you and I had different opinion. Go on ban my dead account . Thats just bulling to demand someone to be punished because you have different POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought you retired? now you're posting signed out. BTW, you messed up BM's above post. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for H2ppyme as this appears to be a long term issue, the misrepresentaton of a source seemingly in an attempt to shoehorn Estonian content into where it doesn't belong, edit warring and personal attacks makes this seem warranted. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support warning given how both sides have engaged in edit-warring and Klops in particular does not seem to have done enough to warrant a topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoQuesadilla (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Do you people not understand how you are defending the age-old systematic propaganda of a fundamentally sick warmonger?! To hell with all Russian propagandists on Wikipedia! This is not a neutral encyclopaedia anymore! H2ppyme (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area, especially with me just reverting an edit of H2ppyme's where his edit summary was "No to Kremlin propaganda, to hell with Russian propagandists!" Obviously this is going to be an especially touchy subject for quite some time to come given Putin's aggression, but we don't need the war played out on Wikipedia: it is plain that H2ppyme is NOTHERE. Enough is bloody enough, and this is coming from someone whose great-grandfather was from Lithuania. Ravenswing 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sick Kremlin propagandists should be the ones who get banned. You are the lowest of all human forms, you warmonger apologists! Disgraceful that people like you are even allowed to exist on Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, it should be based on facts, not on the fundamentally sick propaganda of systematically lying hostile dictatorship like Russia! You people make me sick for defending their sick crimes! H2ppyme (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • ... whereupon H2ppyme immediately reverted [28], with the edit summary "Leave fundamentally sick Russian propaganda out of Wikipedia and stick to international law and mainstream interpretation of history!" At this point, while he isn't (yet) in 3RR territory, given the viciousness of his personal attacks and his plain intent to editwar these changes Wikipedia-wide, I think an immediate block for H2ppyme's in order, and I would willingly support any proposal to indef. Ravenswing 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. H2ppyme (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • All you Russian propagandists should be banned and never allowed to return! Wikipedia is no longer neutral, it has been overtaken by sick Kremlin propagandists! H2ppyme (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This has gone beyond blocking territory, I think. I'm proposing an outright community ban on H2ppyme; it's plain that he's declared war here, and given his long history it doesn't seem likely that he'll ever be an asset to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Russia is literally invading peaceful European countries, you keep defending age-old Russian systematic lies, and I am the one who has declared war, lol? H2ppyme (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Ravenswing: "Declared war"? slightly unfortunate choice of words, old chap SN54129 15:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Not particularly contrite. We none of us can do anything about Putin right now, and I called it exactly as H2ppyme is acting. I have this tight-lipped feeling that we're about to see a tidal wave of such disrupters from all sides, and we'd better be prepared for the onslaught. Ravenswing 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban or at least a topic ban from all topics related to Estonia, Russia, and the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. They have demonstrated that their personal opinions about Russia have overpowered their ability to constructively and collegially edit the project. (I have no particular love for Russia. No country is perfect, but they've got some pretty atrocious things on their track record, and...they aren't exactly on a PR and goodwill tour right now. But I am able to compartmentalize my opinions and not let them cloud my judgment while editing. If there were a topic where I couldn't maintain neutral point of view, I'd step away from the topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 1 week due to the above aspersions, which have also spread to other threads on this page. This is a stopgap measure to halt current disruption, and can be superseded by whatever outcome this thread arrives at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in examining the extent to which Wikipedia has a bias related to Russia, check the relative ratings of Russian state media at WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG, as compared to both independent Russian media and media from other countries. (Spoiler: as a community we don't consider Russian state media to be reliable on anything controversial, and there currently isn't a single Russian source, state-backed or otherwise, that has unequivocally been judged as "generally reliable" by the English Wikipedia community). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering their latest comments, I support an indef block. Isabelle ^🔔 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Coming here to post this diff and edit summary to one of the disputed articles - please can somebody revert this editor's disruption? Given this response to their block I think we need an indef? GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Austet H2ppyme, Klõps and all honourable wikipedians, make no mistake, during putinist rule the Russian govt and intel agencies have been putting great many technical and human resources into propaganda and modern "hybrid warfare", including aggressive disinformation campaigns on social media channels. What you may have noticed here is just the tip of the iceberg, not only an odd Wikipedia editor or two with a pro-Kremlin-Stalin-USSR-etc-trolling hobby but a whole network of hundreds of editor and admin accounts, in concerted action and manned 24-7-365 by professional staff. For these operatives, inserting "SSR" somewhere, deleting "Estonia" in another article, or reverting another edit somewhere else once every 2-3 minutes is nothing but routine paid work (with getting an honest anti-Soviet editor blocked or banned sometimes as an additional bonus). Just my two kopeks' worth.37.143.124.39 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-genuine suggestion - indef ban for any editor who comes here to accuse other good faith editors of being Kremlin/Putin stooges etc. IP should also be blocked. GiantSnowman 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I get it, but tensions are understandably very very high right now. Let's not completely bite the heads off people for it at the current time unless there is genuinely a lot of disruption. We can ignore the odd comment and focus on making sure articles aren't disrupted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Except articles are being disrupted, with editors such as H2ppyme and Klõps having engaged in long-standing whitewashing (by removing reference to Estonia SSR). GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should we ignore the comment? It is hate speech.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, tensions are elevated in a number of quarters, but that doesn't mean that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been suspended for the duration. For a Ukrainian IP address, I'd cut some slack ... presuming, of course, that your average Ukrainian had nothing better to think of today than editing Wikipedia. 37.143.124.39, by contrast, is geolocated in Spain. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Today is also the Estonian Independence Day - I wonder if that is what has inspired the recent outburst... GiantSnowman 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Am I reading things clearly? Has H2ppyme promised to create sock(s), if banned? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, he sure did. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Perhaps could be along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Accusing other editors of "pro-Kremlin bias" is a personal attack and should be discouraged. TFD (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban - on the basis that the reported editor has promised to evade any topic ban handed out, via creating socks. I realise, H2ppyme emotions have been charged up, since Putin's latest actions & well, he can & should be upset. But, that doesn't give him the 'green light' to be disruptive across several articles & make personal attacks, let alone promise to continue to do so after he's blocked or possibly banned. He's definitely not here to contribute constructively, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic or infef ban unsupported accusations of pro-Kremlin propaganda must not be accepted. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment), Support topic ban per GiantSnowman. This is protracted edit warring with inflammatory rhetoric, seemingly without any willingness to find compromise solutions. --Soman (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Klõps appears to have retired to restrictions against them probably not needed; can an uninvolved admin therefore please review consensus against H2ppyme? GiantSnowman 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte

I was recently blocked from all of Wikipedia by User:Geschichte. On February 19, 2022, I only did 3 reverts to Template:Morgana Lefay. WP:3R states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period". I made a mistake with one of my reverts, but the overall impact came out in essence to only 3 reverts within the 24 hour period. Additionally, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block. Furthermore, Geschichte who reverted my edits did so in violation of WP:BRD. The reversions that I did were "16:54, 19 February 2022", "17:00, 19 February 2022" and "17:55, 19 February 2022" [the reversions at "17:54, 19 February 2022" were in error, and "rm * Symphony of the Damned (1990) * Sanctified (1995)" was done because I added those back by mistake]. My block was reduced to restrict me from only editing Template:Morgana Lefay, which would serve the purpose of a 48 hour cooling off period involving editing that very template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, this does look like a rather clear WP:INVOLVED violation. Jax0677 creates a template, Geschichte edits it, Jax0677 doesn't agree with those edits, back and forth, and after Jax's 3rd revert, and without any warning (or template talk page discussion), Geschichte blocks them? That is textbook admin tool abuse, unless there is something I miss. Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice that 331dot downgraded the block to just the template, thus taking ownership of the block and reducing it to something simple. I agree with Fram that this is a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. I would like an explanation from Geschichte per WP:ADMINACCT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I would also be interested in an explanation(I didn't have the time to pursue one earlier). 331dot (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The explanation is as follows, the reverts done by Jax were very swift and without a specific reason, other than implied WP:OWNERSHIP. That the block was instituted after three reverts and not more than three reverts can be considered an error on my part. While also noting that the block was not laid down so one party could benefit in the edit-revert cycle, as I laid down a self-abstention on the template in question. Thus the situation cooled down. As for BRD, Jax had attempted to prod certain pages (music albums) and seemingly mask other music albums by the same artist from a navbox. I was actively editing this group of albums and at the time I considered the removal of material from the template as being clearly disruptive. In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So no comment at all about the WP:INVOLVED part? Never mind that blocking one side from the whole of enwiki, while you takign a voluntarly break from one article, is not equal in any way of course. So no, the block after 3 instead of 4 reverts is the least of the issues here. If you had been uninvolved, that would just have been a minor error (you are actually allowed to stop an edit war even before the 4th revert, though preferably not without warnings); that you were heavily involved here is the main issue and is what makes it admin tool abuse. Fram (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so they remained quiet until pushed by Ritchie333 on their talk page to come here and comment, and they again become silent when it is pointe out that their "explanation" above neatly sidesteps the main issue with their action. Not a good look at all when a simple acknowledgment would initially have been sufficient. Not sure how to deal with this, while it doesn't seem to be part of a pattern of such issues, it gives no confidence that they actually see the issue with their actions (and if they don't see the issue with it, then it's hard to trust their judgment as an admin). Fram (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:INVOLVED + ADMINACCT is the subject of a current Arbcom case. SN54129 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - @Serial Number 54129:, which Arbcom case would that be? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - The reverts performed were in accordance with WP:BRD, WP:NAV and WP:WTAF, not WP:OWN. I was restricted from editing almost ALL of Wikipedia while Geschichte chose not to edit Template:Morgana Lefay. "WP:NAV" indicates that a navbox should link existing articles. "WP:BRD" states that if a bold move is reverted, it should then be discussed. I should have been brought to WP:ANI so that an uninvolved administrator can make the decision. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple of key answers I'd like from Geschichte. I'm not into witch hunts, and Geschichte has already said "it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion", resolving most of my concerns, so if the answer is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was policy, I'll remember that from now on" then I think the matter can be closed.

1. Why did you block a user you were edit-warring with?
2. Why did you use rollback on a good faith edit? (Sorry, I know this is a pet bugbear of mine so you can ignore this one if you want)
3. If you thought you could voluntarily step back from edit-warring, why didn't you think Jax 0677 could?
4. If you think Jax 0677 was trying to take ownership, do you think Jax 0677 would have reasonable grounds to think you were too?
5. Why did you block Jax 0677 from the entire site, preventing him from editing several million articles he has never been disruptive on?

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that we can close the matter if the answer is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was policy, I'll remember that from now on". I can't in good conscience believe that an Admin doesn't know not to block someone that they're involved in an edit-war with. I also think Geschicte's problem with Jax0677's WP:PRODding articles is a laughable. If anything, PROD is the least disruptive form of deletion! -- Mike 🗩 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted articles by OE1995

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

---

• OE1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

OE1995 has been disruptively creating previously deleting articles with no regard to community consensus and notability guidelines.

1. OE1995 created Faria Abdullah which was previously deleted via an AfD. It was speedily deleted under G4 but OE1995 recreated the same article again as Faria Abdullah (actress) within 4 hours with no improvement. Same is the case with G4-deleted Sree Leela which was recreated as Sree Leela (actress) within hours.
2. OE1995 copy-pasted content from Draft:Pathan (film) to create Pathan(2022) and later Pathan (film) without complying to any copyright attribution requirements.
3. Earlier in December, OE1995 attempted to create Kabzaa (2022 film) directly in the mainspace by copying the content from a draft awaiting AFC review, thus trying to bypass the AFC process. The article was subsequently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabzaa (2022 film).
4. Despite having several notices, OE1995 has made a grand total of three edits to talk pages, which include: 1. Trying to create an article at talk, 2. moving draft talk, and 3. accepting their own AfC on user talk. This indicates the editor's lack of willingness or inability to communicate with the community.

All these actions simply waste the valuable time of other editors which can be better spent than CSD-ing and AfD-ing their disruptively created articles. Propose to block OE1995 from article creation until they display their ability to communicate and understand notability guidelines. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Black Kite for deleting and protecting the Sree Leela pages. Also note WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pathan (film): a history merge will be needed, and a few other pages need to be cleaned up. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The editor has been trying to game the naming of articles at Pathan, Kabzaa, Sree Leela, Faita Abdullah, and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support the recommendation of the OP for any of a partial block, topic-ban, or block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Update OE1995 seems to have chosen to ignore this discussion, and went on their way to create Laththi by copying the content from Draft:Laththi, which was draftified a week ago as an outcome of the AfD. I request administrators to look into this case. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

...Yeah, this is ridiculious. Blocked for two weeks and lets hope this shot across the bow gets the needed attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969

• 2001:4455:364:A800:69ED:98AE:B3B4:FB90 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 recent behaviour includes:

• Personal attacks and incivility.
• Mass templating and redirecting articles for self-admitted reasons that conflict with WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ATD.
• Edit warring across multiple articles to keep redirects in place after they have been disputed (WP:ATD-R).
• Switching his reasoning in the second or third revert as an excuse to keep edit warring.
• Edit warring to keep notability templates in place after they have disputed and ignoring attempts at talk page discussion.
• Even in discussions, filibustering by repeating the same claim over and over without saying anything new, even after it has been addressed numerous times (WP:STONEWALL).
• Canvassing (campaigning and vote-stacking) by alerting his fellow New Page patrollers to a wholly unrelated dispute to gain supporters (in a notification that wasn't even neutral).

The situation started when I spotted a dubious claim on the article Kayako Saeki and asked for verification on the talk page: [29]. For whatever reason, Onel5969 responded by redirecting and slapping notability templates on as many poorly-written Ringu and Ju-On articles as he could find (compilation). The edit summaries weren't clear to me whether he was following WP:ARTN and several of the articles he templated/redirected were questionable at best. A few examples include the original Ringu novel, the protagonist of the original Ring, and even Kayako Saeki (Kayako and Sadako are the two biggest J-horror icons). He also admitted here to not following ARTN and that some of the articles can be fixed with rewrites.

I reverted most of them so that he would gain consensus (WP:ATD-R) and also replied to him on the talk page: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

The next day, Onel5969 signed into his account and reinstated several of the templates and redirects: [42], [43], [44], [45]. I reverted him again, advising him to take the matter to WP:AFD ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50]). I also took the discussion to his talk page: [51]. He responded by claiming that all of his templates and redirects were backed by WP:BURDEN and made another round of reverts: [52], [53], [54]. There are a couple of problems with his reasoning here:

1. His claim that the articles he redirected are "wholly unsourced" is actually false. The redirected articles consisted mostly of straight plot summary backed by primary sources (WP:SOURCE and WP:PRIMARY).
2. WP:BURDEN says nothing about reinstating templates and ignoring talk page discussion. Additionally, no exemption exists at WP:3RRNO.

I reverted him again ([55], [56], [57]) and he reinstated his edits again ([58], [59], [60], [61]). At this point, I dropped an edit warring warning on his talk page ([62], [63]).

Someone else opened a third talk page discussion to encourage discussion and curve the edit war: [64]. However, Onel5969 showed up simply to make spurious allegations and claim that he wasn't really edit warring because his edits are correct ([65]). I responded to the thread and told him he had a single day to engage in dispute resolution or I would report him for edit warring. He instead kept responding (or rather, not responding) by repeating the same point about WP:BURDEN over and over without saying anything new, no matter how many times it was refuted. I could say literally anything and Onel5969 would go right back to Point #1.

The following day, Onel5969 decided to canvass his peers at the unrelated WP:NPPR to gain supporters, with a notification that wasn't even neutral: [66]. It's likely that he engaged in stealth-canvassing even before that, because the only previous support he got was from two other NPPR reviewers who simply repeated his claim without actually responding to the counterpoints anything: [67], [68]. One of them is actually a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's who engaged in obvious tag-team behaviour, including filibustering of his own, accusing me of Onel5969's canvassing ([69]), replying with generalised (sometimes non-sequitur) platitudes instead of responding to what I actually said, and trolling to goad me to keep replying.

Additionally:

• Evidence of weird policy gymnastics: [70], [71], [72]
• Onel5969 ignoring more advice to open an AFD per WP:BLAR: [73], [74]

This was resolved when another user intervened on the Kayako page ([75]), and I stopped replying to the stonewalling and simply demonstrated what I was saying about WP:BURDEN (while adding a new section for good measure): [76], [77]

I left an additional warning on Onel's talk page about engaging in disruption in the future and was prepared to let the situation be. However, he wasted no time making personal attacks and continuing the exact same behaviour elsewhere: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]

Darkknight2149 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Onel pretty clearly violated WP:ATD-R by reinstating the contested BLARs instead of going to AfD. They said that there is an exception for "wholly unsourced" articles, but I'm not seeing this alleged exception in the policy. Regarding the dispute about WP:BURDEN, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. The articles were sourced to the book which the characters are from, which should be enough to satisfy verifiability (although not notability) per WP:ABOUTSELF. And WP:BURDEN has literally nothing to do with templates, so I don't know why that was getting brought up in response to the OP's objections. Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying. Either way, Onel should have brought the articles to AfD after being reverted. And reading through Onel's talk page, violations of WP:ATD-R seems to be a recurring theme which they refuse to address even after being notified about it multiple times. I do appreciate the irony of them calling the OP "ignorant" and an "utter fool" (nice personal attacks, by the way) when they themselves are a serial policy violator, though. I recommend some sort of sanction on Onel for edit warring, personal attacks, and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior. Either that, or an apology for the personal attacks and a commitment to no longer reinstate contested redirects without consensus. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I should clarify that the initial redirects were fine. It's the subsequent ones after they were contested that were not. Mlb96 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's self-contradictory to say that someone "violated alternatives to deletion" by not nominating something for deletion and enacting one of the alternatives instead.

    And "sourced to the book" (actually a movie in this case) is not the case for content like "Yoichi is very independent and quiet for a boy of his age", "The only person he seems to have a close relationship with is his maternal grandfather", "Yoichi is very similar to his father in looks, behaviour and feelings; both are aloof and suppress their feelings. Despite their estrangement, they appear to have a special connection, in which they can sense when they are both in danger. He clearly loves both his parents,". This is character analysis, being performed by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia, based upon what is "clear" and what "seems" and "appears" to them. It isn't summary. "Sourced to the book/movie/television show" is not a wholesale escape clause for articles about fiction.

    This sort of squirming around the Wikipedia:no original research policy is how these disputes arise, time and again. We could avoid the disputes in the first place by actually writing character analysis that is verifiable. How a character appears to a Wikipedia editor watching a movie is not a verifiable thing.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    • But Onel did not simply remove the parts which they alleged were unverifiable, they alleged that the entire article was unverifiable (which is patently false) and then BLARed it. BLAR has the same effect as deletion: the material is no longer on the page. No editor can unilaterally delete an article unless a CSD applies. The purpose of the sentence at WP:ATD-R is to require consensus to redirect articles. It essentially makes BLAR the same as PROD. If the redirect is challenged, it has the same effect as challenging a PROD: send the article to AfD. Everything else is secondary, NPPers are not given the ability to unilaterally delete articles without a CSD applying. Not even admins may do that. It doesn't matter how bad the article is, if the redirect is contested, it must go to AfD for consensus. Or at the very least, it should go to the talk page, which did not occur until after Onel had already reinstated the redirect twice more. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• The redirected articles consisted mostly of straight plot summary […]

  If people actually wrote the encyclopaedia articles being hidden behind the Wikipedia-editor-made plot descriptions, the lists of fictional mentions, and the lyrics dumps, you all wouldn't get into these disputes in the first place, you know. Time and again this has happened over 20 years, and time and again it has been the case that writing an actual encyclopaedia article ameliorates the dispute. I've done it more than once myself, and the world isn't short of expert sources for movie, television, music, and literary criticism that discusses both character and plot. It really is time to learn. Uncle G (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149, you have also made serious accusations against editors other than Onel. As far as I can see, you have not even pinged them. Please leave talk page notices for all editors you are accusing of misconduct. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This report specifically pertains to Onel5969. That being said, I did point out that John B123 engaged in dishonest tag-teaming with Onel5969, who is now pinged. Darkknight2149 07:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the versions that Onel turned into redirects, they all appear to be violations of WP:OR, which states Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. It seems that Onel's actions were appropriate, and should not have been reverted without the addition of non-primary sources; when that was finally done, it appears Onel stopped turning the articles into redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think most editors are aware that articles require secondary coverage. However, that in itself isn't a deletion criteria or something that supersedes WP:ATD-R, the dispute resolution process, or the deletion process. There also isn't an edit warring exemption for it. Edit warring (instead of taking it to WP:AFD, as he was advised to do) was not appropriate. Frankly, neither were the several other cases of disruptive behaviour mentioned aside from the redirecting. Darkknight2149 07:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If Onel was edit warring, so were you - and while being right is not a defence, edit warring to restore content that violates core policies across multiple articles is very disruptive. It would be inappropriate to sanction Onel without sanctioning the editor whose behaviour was more disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G and BilledMammal here. An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste. That argument implies that any topic with a plot deserves a Wikipedia article if only some editor coughs up an plot summary. The fact of the matter is that countless works with a plot are not notable, including various science fiction short stories that I wrote in the 1970s and photocopied and distributed to my friends. Any competent editor can ensure that such an article will be kept by adding references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. If such articles cannot be properly referenced, then they should be deleted. On my own user page, I list hundreds of articles that I have expanded and improved and in many cases, saved at AfD. I take great pride in these articles. But I would take no pride in fighting to save an article that clearly does not meet our notability guidelines, despite the efforts of good faith editors to find proper sourcing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If we put our soapboxes away and only look at policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. The deletion process is how we determine what topics are notable and what aren't. The policies are clear that if you redirect an article and someone disputes that redirect, then you have to seek consensus instead of continuing to reinstate the redirect. Do reliable sources on the topic exists? An WP:AFD can easily determine that.

But let's not lose the plot: Onel5969 is also guilty of canvassing (that alone is worthy of a block), personal attacks, template warring, and filibustering, and has continued to do so elsewhere. In terms of "You were edit warring too", I attempted talk page discussion with Onel5969 multiple times including on his talk page and (per WP:ATD-R, WP:BRD, and others), my reversions are in the clear. Darkknight2149 08:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Let's not lose the plot?" You've been involved at ANI, one way or another, often enough to know full well that the actions of the OP are as subject to scrutiny as any other. You no more get to place your own actions beyond question than you're justified in dissing editors who disagree with your POV. While we're talking about whacking with sausages. Ravenswing 08:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand. "Let's not lose the plot" means "Let's not talk as though this is only about the redirects." Hence my following sentence. Darkknight2149 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no deadline. I've seen some pretty egregiously bad articles at AfD, Will it carbonate? being one of my personal favorites. That article was PRODed and then dePRODed by the creator. Should the PROD have been reapplied despite the creator's objection? Or better yet, if the PRODer was an admin, should they have simply deleted the article themselves without a discussion? No, the article should be taken to AfD where a consensus can form so quickly that the article is SNOW deleted before 7 days have elapsed. What exactly is the downside to this approach that makes so many users shudder at the thought of it? Because I don't see any. Mlb96 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the downside? I can think of one big one: AfD is a large waste of editor time when it can often be avoided (why PROD was invented in the first place). Every editor involved spends a decent amount of time reading the article, checking the sources, and doing a WP:BEFORE. That's a lot of time that can end up being eaten up with each discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 13:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering that, apart from other policies and guidelines, the article actions of Onel are in line with WP:V and the actions of DarkKnight (e.g. here) are directly opposed to what WP:V states (e.g. "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.", I think that at least for this aspect a boomerang trout for Darkknight is warranted. I haven't looked at other behavioural aspects by the different people involved here. Fram (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been addressed numerous times, but the articles in question were mostly plot summary cited by WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE. I removed any bits and pieces that can be construed as WP:OR in this edit and this edit and the majority of those articles are still intact. My alternative proposal is that the next person to bring up WP:BURDEN and WP:V without saying anything new should be wacked in the head with a sausage :/ Darkknight2149 08:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I linked to Kazuyuki Asakawa, where you make numerous claims about different versions of the character, all without any source whatsoever. This includes claims like "The filmmakers felt a female character would be more appealing at the box-office for the more maternal job of going to great lengths to protect her son. It also enabled a more intimate relationship between Asakawa and Takayama." Your constant dismissal of these concerns is problematic. Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Until this and this, I hadn't seen that part because of Onel5969 edit warring on so many articles. There's a reason it didn't get restored with the other two (because that already-short article would become a stub). That being said, Onel5969 should have removed the original research specifically, instead of blanking multiple whole articles and refusing attempts at discussion. Darkknight2149 — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how bad the articles were, because WP:ATD-R does not make an exception for bad articles. The reason for this should be obvious: what may seem bad to one user might not to another. One of the reasons that violations of WP:ATD-R is one of my biggest pet peeves is that it happened to an article I wrote once, and when I finally convinced the user to bring the article to AfD, the result was a unanimous keep. So we don't make exceptions for when a user really truly believes that they are right, we require them to get consensus no matter how bad the article may seem to them. This is completely normal for a contested PROD, so why would a contested BLAR be any different? Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs), for starting this report. I have similar concerns with Onel5969's redirects in a different topic area, Hong Kong public housing estates. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection says:

  A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

  Another editor started a discussion about Onel5969's actions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting (permanent link). Onel5969 had blanked and redirected 21 articles about Hong Kong public housing estates, and 11 of these redirects were reverted. Onel5969 re-blanked-and-re-redirected four articles: Tin Heng Estate, Tin Ching Estate, Shun On Estate, and Lai Yiu Estate. I discussed this with Onel5969, noting that blanking-and-redirecting the articles a second time violates the deletion policy. I asked Onel5969 to self-revert their edits but they have not done so. They said, "Actually it's not a violation". When I followed up asking why it is not a violation, they did not respond. I would like Onel5969 to stop blanking-and-redirecting articles after being reverted. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not make an exception for allowing re-blankings for articles that are poorly sourced or have original research. If editors would like there to be exceptions, they should amend the deletion policy. In any case, the articles about the Hong Kong public housing estates were well-sourced. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that those articles about public housing estates are also sourced entirely to primary sources, which means that Onel's actions here are also attempts to bring the articles in compliance with core policy. To do it twice on four articles doesn't appear to be out of line, particularly when the objection is as obscure as "Redirect not obvious". BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not have an exemption that allows editors to blank-and-redirect a second time Hong Kong public housing estate articles that are sourced to government sources. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Edit warring does not have an exemption putting the creation of redirects under 0RR; four singular reverts is consistent with seeking a consensus through editing, and not an issue worth discussing on ANI, particularly when those reverts were attempts to bring articles into compliance with core policy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that reverting four times while refusing to discuss isn't an edit war? That's the very definition of an edit war. And while WP:EW may not impose 0RR on redirects, WP:ATD-R actually does. You're avoiding the subject with all these arguments about the quality of the articles. The fact is that Onel violated policy, engaged in an edit war, and then attacked the individual who tried to point it out. And this isn't an isolated incident; judging by Onel's talk page, this is a pattern which they have refused to address. It is appalling to me that so many users are defending Onel's behavior. Mlb96 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have been clearer. Four different articles, with one revert each - I believe this is appropriate as an attempt to obtain consensus by editing, and certainly not worth bringing to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with you if not for the fact that Onel appears to have reinstated the challenged redirects multiple times and acted rude and condescending when informed that they shouldn't do that. It is not unreasonable to request that Onel no longer do this and to apologize for the rudeness. Mlb96 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC) My apologies, I misunderstood what you were referring to. It does appear that Onel only reinstated those particular redirects a single time. However, even this is still a violation of WP:ATD-R, and while it may not have been worth bringing to ANI by itself, it does establish a pattern in combination with the instances the OP brought up. Mlb96 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO part of the problem is you're using terms in inaccurate ways. There's no 0RR for all redirections, WP:0RR does not mention any such thing and WP:ATD-R does not establish such a thing. 0RR is a hard limit like 3RR where the only exemptions are WP:3RRNO. (The only 0RR cases not arising from general sanctions or arbcom including the discretionary, would be one imposed on an editor as an unblocking condition or by the community. Or maybe by the community on some specific article or topic although I'm not aware we've ever done that without general sanctions.) Like 3RR, 0RR also only technically applies for 24 hours unless an admin has set another period although again like 3RR editors may still get in deep trouble if they edit war too much beyond 24 hours especially if it's just after or if it's happened over multiple days. I mean ATD-R doesn't even try to establish such a limit it says "an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again" (emphasis mine) rather than "consensus must be reached before". I'd also note that 0RR means all reverts (again excepting 3RRNO) are forbidden so applies to the editor who reverted back to the pre-redirect so actually what ATD-R says is closed to enforced BRD than it is 0RR. Further what ATD-R says is really not that different from what Wikipedia:Consensus itself says or WP:BURDEN+WP:ONUS and yeah the essay WP:BRD. Yet no one will suggest this means we actually have 0RR or 1RR or imposed BRD or whatever. So all ATD-R is really saying we handle it like we do with most disputes. For a variety of reasons in most cases we have a hard limit of 3 reverts in 24 hours but also forbid edit warring in general. If someone makes a change and it's disputed, generally they need to try an address the objections and so modify their changes (which probabyl isn't possible with a redirect) or discuss and try to achieve consensus. Note I specifically didn't say "start", since a lot of the time the person who disputed ideally should have started the discussion anyway. But while these are what happen in an ideal situation we recognise that it can get complicated and so explicitly do not block editors just because they don't follow the process although may block them depending on precisely what they did, how many times they did it etc. If it's a back and forth between two editors especially if it's on multiple articles and there's no bright line broken by either, both editors may very well find themselves blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute between people who think every patch of land that ever had a house on it needs an article, and those who think street directories and real estate brochures based on primary sources should be deprecated. IMO Onel is correct on the policy question and, although some of his language has been less than optimal, I think getting exasperated is a natural response to endless meddlesome obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is the correct take from this. For example, let's look at some of the articles that DarkKnight2149 repeatedly edit-warred to restore. I've only picked two, but there are more - this one, edit-warring to restore an article with nothing but primary sources, but wait ... this one, edit-warring to restore a version with no sources whatsoever. As User:Cullen328 said above, "An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste.". Meanwhile, this is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang

I came close to bringing this to ANI myself after Darkknight2149's totally unfounded insinuations of canvassing by email[84]. However, as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with WP:BURDEN, I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally and there was no point in rekindling the flames. Despite warning from myself[85] and Insertcleverphrasehere[86] that going to ANI may boomerang, the OP refuses to drop the stick.

This all started with an IP redirecting Yoichi Asakawa, Kazuyuki Asakawa, Reiko Asakawa and Kayako Saeki. The OP claims above that the IP was Onel5969. I can see no evidence to support this claim, and looking at the edit summaries of the IP and Onel5969 I would say they were not the same person. That aside, the redirections were reverted by the OP in violation of WP:BURDEN. There then followed a round of redirecting and reversions. The OP's justification of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ALLPLOT simply don't hold water, as commented by other editors above.

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[87]. This seems to be an appropriate notification and calling this canvassing is incorrect. Although the post linked to the discussion on the article talk page, the OP took this as an opportunity for a further venue to attack Onel5969[88].

The OP refuses to WP:AGF on the part of other editors. When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs[89].

If 3 experienced editors told you that you were wrong, most people would either look again at what they thought, or even if they still thought they were right, would accept consensus. Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as tag-teaming.

The OP has made much of a 'template war' at Kayako Saeki. The OP reasoning for removing the notability tag is 'there are already talk page discussions open'. WP:WNTRMT is clear: You should not remove maintenance templates if ...... there is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue

I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am. I am offended that my integrity has been brought into doubt when trying to give an opinion of policy as an uninvolved editor at that time.

Whilst I'd hoped the matter would die a death, it's clear that isn't going to happen. What's happened has happened and I'm not sure that everybody's time is well spent dissecting the details. Suffice to say people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Moving forward, something needs be done to stop the vendetta by Darkknight2149 against Onel5969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Response: John B123 got a few things wrong I would like to address.

as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with WP:BURDEN

This is factually incorrect. As you can see here and here, the only sources I added were to a brand new section (created by me) that wasn't previously there. Everything I re-added is still only backed by WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE.

I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally

So did I, until Onel5969 continued the same behaviour elsewhere ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]). I didn't want to have to file this report.

The OPs justification of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ALLPLOT simply don't hold water, as commented by other editors above.

So far, I haven't seen any policy-based rationale for this. Neither have some of the other editors who have commented above. Onel5969's reversions go against WP:ATD-R, WP:Deletion process, WP:3RRNO, WP:DELREASON, and WP:SOURCE. One user pointed to a sentence from WP:OR that says that articles require secondary sources. However, even this doesn't justify Onel's behaviour. Policy consistently says that if editing can be done to improve a page, editing should be done to improve a page. If the concern was WP:BURDEN, then he should have removed the specific bits of original research instead of continuing to blank the whole page.

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[96]. This seems to be an appropriate notification and calling this canvassing is incorrect.

This is frankly dishonest. The canvassing wasn't neutral at all, Onel's exact words were "Interesting pseudo-discussion I've had over at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, regarding these two policies. Thought reviewers might benefit from checking it out." Onel was then advised to take the dispute to WP:AFD per WP:BLAR ([97]) and his response was equally dismissive ([98]). The dispute was also 100% unrelated to WP:NPPR. Onel was attempting to canvass his editing group for supporters, which is a form of vote-stacking.

When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs

This wasn't an accusation, I suggested that the two of you may not have read through everything. The reason for this is that, after Onel continued filibustering by simply repeating the same point over and over (without responding to anything I was saying), you and Buidhe replied the next day simply to repeat his one already-addressed point ([99], [100]). Other editors above have noted this: "Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying" and I myself pointed this out to you several times at WP:NPPR. See also: [101], [102] (which you didn't reply to).

would accept consensus

Wikipedia is not a vote. Two editors repeating a pre-addressed point without responding to anything isn't a consensus. Onel5969 was also advised by other editors to stop edit warring and discuss here, to open an AFD here, and his template warring at Kayako Saeki was reverted here.

Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as tag-teaming.

John, I didn't accuse Buidhe of tag-teaming. I accused you of tag-teaming and only after your actions had demonstrated that. You showed up to Onel5969's canvassing at NPPR specifically to accuse me of his forum shopping ([103]) and your responses after that weren't constructive either: replying with vague generalised platitudes, nonsequitor accusations, trolling to goad me to keep responding, ETC. Your claim that Onel's canvassing at WP:NPPR was "neutral" is even more evidence of that. The User Interaction tool also revealed that you are a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's, which normally wouldn't mean anything by itself. But coupled with everything else.

Meanwhile, this is relevant.

Based on the canvassing, tag-teaming, you and Buidhe being part of Onel's user group at WP:NPPR, and your responses at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that stealth-canvassing may have taken place. However, I'm not going to outright claim that without proof. You mistake a question for an accusation.

I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am.

If you are looking for a boomerang sanction, I would recommend doing that. Darkknight2149 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I note you haven't responded about your claim that the IP who originally redirected the articles is the same person as Onel. Please share you evidence to substantiate your claim. --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'll note a disturbing behavior by Darkknight that I noticed just before this ANI was filed (and mentioned on their talk page), regarding his intentions to stalk Onel for more ammunition to use against him. Darknight removed the section in this diff from their talk page (and strangely decided to answer our criticism in the edit summary where they deleted the comments, instead of simply drafting a reply for us to read). If I were a cynical man, and I am, I'd assume that this was an attempt to avoid having negative comments on their talk page (that might draw scrutiny) just before posting on ANI (deleting the section was the last thing he did before posting here)... I'm seeing a lot of Wikilawyering out of @Darkknight2149, who doesn't seem to understand why Onel has done what he has done (the deficiency of plot summary articles sourced only to primary sources), and doesn't seem to realize how disruptive their own edits have been and the phenomenal waste of time that this has been to everyone involved.

I will say this now: redirection is NOT directly comparable to deletion, both of the complainants seem to be justifying everything on the basis that his redirection represents summary deletion. It doesn't. All the info is still there in the redirect history for anyone to find and build on. The correct response is to find sources for unsourced articles, and rebuild the article, not to revert the redirect and just claim that an article sourced purely to primary sources is A-OK, then try to Wikilawyer your way out of restoring an article that clearly fails what Wikipedia is not.

Do I think Onel could have been a bit more circumspect in his edits? Perhaps. Do I think he is the one causing the disruption here? No. At worst I'd give Onel a slap on the wrist for not communicating more clearly why he has done what he has done (in the case of the Hong Kong articles anyway). As for @Darkknight2149, well, he has shown a remarkable ability to stonewall everyone who has explained that what he is doing is not productive. I even showed him the way forward, by putting the effort to add some sources to one of the articles, which allowed the removal of the notability tag. I recommended that Darknight take that approach, adding sources and actually improving the articles, rather than simply complaining and making threats. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 01:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

if you think someone is a disruptive editor in one area, they're likely going to be disruptive editors in other areas. Many times I have encountered vandalism, checked the user's contribution's history, and found far more to revert. Not saying they wouldn't be hounding if they stalked Onel's contributions and mass-reverted a bunch of them, but sanctioning someone for merely saying that they're going to watch someone's contribs for disruption doesn't seem like a good interpretation of WP:HOUNDING. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chess, note that I said that "I suggest that the behaviour stop immediately before it progresses into WP:HOUNDING territory." OP has clearly and repeatedly indicated that being right and proving Onel wrong is more important to him than actually improving the articles in question (which is disruptive). See especially the long edit he left on Onel's talk page (the "you're so lucky I didn't take you to ANI" comment linked above) that reads like a threat. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 11:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, you would support a boomerang sanction because I:

• Removed a question from my talk page and answered it in an edit summary.
• Said I would keep a cursory glance on Onel5969 to make sure he doesn't engage in this behaviour again elsewhere (which he immediately did: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]).
• "Wiki-lawyered" by citing policies correctly.
• "Stonewalled" by addressing all of Onel5969's points, even as he kept repeating the same thing over and over no matter what (without responding to anything I said). Something that others here have also pointed out.
• "Edit warred" by attempting talk page discussion multiple times.
• Simply complained and made threats instead of... Taking the matter to WP:ANI?

With all due respect, your reasoning is odd and the things you are saying don't reflect how policy works. For instance, how am I "lawyering" these policies? By following them literally and complying with the spirit of the deletion process and dispute resolution?

Per WP:ATD-R:

A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Per WP:Dispute resolution:

When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

Per WP:ATD:

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

Per WP:Edit warring:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

Pertinent

Per WP:PRIMARY:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

The policy WP:OR does say "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." But per everything else I just cited, that isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969. WP:DELREASON and WP:3RRNO are also relevant. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere point on deletion is a good one and one I was thinking from early on in this thread. We do not treat turning an article the same as deletion because they are not the same. Deletion prevents anyone except admins from seeing the history or restoring the same version. (If you have a copy of the article before deletion you can technically restore the article but unless you're the only substantive contributor doing so would be a WP:COPYVIO and likely to me something you'll be blocked over if you keep doing it regardless of the merits of restoring the content.) If two admins got into multiple wars deleting and undeleting an article, we'd have a WP:WHEELWAR and possibly be contentemplating an arbcom case to consider whether to desysoping them both.

There's also no requirement redirection must be discussed via XfD. Even if there's a dispute, while it's one possible venue, it's disliked by some if that's the attention and discussion on an article talk page with or without an RfC is another possibility. Sometimes an XfD is even closed with a suggestion to continue discussion on turning it into a redirect on the talk page.

In the same vein while a WP:PROD is a one time thing and completely overriden by objection (including future objection) or previous deletion discussion, it's a lot more complicated for redirections. For example, if an editor turns an article into a redirect, someone objects and then no one bothers to do anything further then 15 years later with the article still in a sorry state and perhaps whatever changes in notability 15 and some new editor turns it into a redirect, merges with proper attribution and adds new content into the target, the editor is unlikely to have done anything wrong, indeed people will probably be thanking them. (The earlier editor or some other editor could still object and it will need to be discussed but if the editor takes part in the discussion and doesn't edit war, anyone who complains about their behaviour is going to get short shrift even if they find 100 times it happened.) If an editor prods an article and someone objects, 15 years later someone prods it again any admin should reject the prod and if they don't people will (generally) rightfully say they shouldn't have done that even if most agree we shouldn't have an article. If someone find an admin did it 100 times, again we may be considering an arbcom case or at least a strong reminder to the admin.

Likewise if an article is delete under PROD, 15 years later someone asks for it to be undeleted, this will generally happen and if someone wants to delete the article they will have to take it to AfD (I'm assuming in all cases there's no CSD) and non consensus means we keep the article. By comparison if someone turns an article into a redirect and 15 years later someone overturns it, the status quo ante is likely to be considered the redirect and so a no consensus outcome is generally going to mean we keep the redirect etc.

You can come up with many other ways deletion and turning an article into a redirect are different, suffice to say if you treat them same you're distracting from possible real issues with what an editor did.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Please see the policies quoted above, which are pretty clear about reinstating disputed redirects. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I did and nothing in them disputes what I said. For example, ATD-R explicitly say you can use a talk page just like I said, something which isn't possible for an actual deletion. And there's nothing in it or any other page which can be taken to suggest that if an editor turns an article into a redirect and it's reverted, then 15 years later another editor turns it into a redirect while merging and expanding the content in the target then they've done anything wrong. WP:PROD explicitly says that a PROD is a one time thing so implicitly makes it clear this is not possible with a PROD, and so if an article has been prodded (or discussed for deletion), you cannot PROD it again and no admin should honour such a request. You just need technical experience to know that as a non admin, I cannot see Nitharwal or Daisuke Nakamaki but unless they were actually deleted, I can see everything Onel5969 has turned into a redirect regardless of the current state. Note I never disputed that an editor should generally discuss before restoring redirects, simply that it's not the same as deletion, and any such comparisons are rightfully criticised as inaccurate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149 WP:ATD-R doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean 0RR. It never did. Read the vast majority of comments on this thread by very experienced policy gurus and stop parroting the same point as if it somehow will make you right this time. I agree that WP:ATD-R should be written more clearly, so as not to create confusion like this, but please take other's comments on board. This is the sort of thing I was alluding to when mentioning lawyering before. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 10:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Negative. WP:ATD-R makes it clear that the onus is on the person who redirected the article to gain consensus, instead of edit warring to restore the redirect. Nothing about that is ambiguous. Darkknight2149 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

See the long comment by @Nil Einne in the section above explaining why WP:ATD-R is not WP:0RR. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 12:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support some form of boomerang or sanction, e.g. a ban on reverting a redirect without providing a good secondary source. Their attempts to justify their reinstatements of unsourced plot summary only articles (often tagged as unsourced for years) are completely unconvincing and go against the basic elements of what enwiki articles should be. Going on an on about "but it's a disputed redirect" completely ignores "why" it has been turned into a redirect and why reinstating such articles is very poor practice. If someone was creating such articles now, they would end up with a topic ban (after enough discussions of course), no matter how much they wikilawyered. So why would it be more acceptable if someone is reinstating such articles even though issues with them have tagged for years? It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome, so some other approach to make this clear may be needed. Fram (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of soapboxing in this thread about how policies should work and the way things should be. However, if we're going by actual policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. Citing policies correctly isn't "Wiki-lawyering", regardless of how much you disagree with the content. "It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome" So far, nobody has argued that all-plot articles are "welcome" or acceptable in their current state. The concern is that Onel needed to open an WP:AFD and gain consensus, instead of unilaterally redirecting an article and edit warring to keep it there (even after attempts at talk page discussion). I hope the closing administrator keeps actual policy in mind when closing this thread, because I have a feeling it's going to have to go to ArbCom next. Darkknight2149 09:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did cite policy in my first comment here, WP:V, which you violated with your reverts. Fram (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:Dispute resolution and WP:ATD-R, you don't blank an entire article just to remove some original research, and WP:SOURCE is part of WP:V anyway. Onel5969 should have removed the original research instead of repeatedly blanking the page. My primary concern was reverting the redirects and restoring the articles themselves, not restoring the few claims in each one that weren't backed by primary source. Darkknight2149 10:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have just reread Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, and I see the same Wp:ICANTHEARYOU displayed by you there, dismissing all comments which tell you that you are wrong (citing policies which explain why you are wrong) which statements like "I don't think either of you actually read through the exchange above", "both of them seem to have skimmed through the thread without reading through everything", " I don't mean any disrespect, but this is actually why I suggested that a couple of other editors may have skimmed through the thread.", "Because you haven't said anything of substance or addressed any of the points raised.". People not agreeing with you or people seeing other issues, other policy violations by you, as more important or the core issue, is not the same as people not reading your points, never mind not saying "anything of substance". WP:V makes it clear that you shouldn't reinstate unsourced statements, and WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that you shouldn't have plot-summary-only articles. Your constant repetitions of "but for a plot summary, primary sources are allowed" doesn't overrule or counter these arguments at all. In our myriad of policies, there are often aspects which contradict and can be cherry-picked to counter the necessary cleanup someone else is doing. Simply repeating these bits and ignoring what by now quite a few people have explained, is not helpful at all. In the end, we have one editor getting rid of years-old, long-tagged, policy-violating articles by turning them into redirects (which doesn't restrict anyone from actually writing a policy-compliant article instead of the redirect), and another editor reinstating the policy-violating articles because not all ts have been crossed during the cleanup. I believe that an editor using policies to improve the actual reader-facing part of enwiki clearly trumps an editor using policies to keep a worse state of the reader-facing part. Fram (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no WP:ICANTHEARYOU at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, because I responded to and addressed everything that was said there. Even though all of my points were ignored (mostly by Onel himself, who was the only person to consistently respond there). You are arguably engaging in ICANTHEARYOU right now, because you are ignoring the overwhelming number of policies that have been presented to you and are (almost self-admittedly) cherry-picking.

• WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE make it clear that if editing can be done to improve a page, editing should be done instead of scrapping it.
• WP:ATD-R makes it clear that once a redirect has been disputed, you need to gain consensus instead of repeatedly restoring the redirect.
• WP:DR makes it clear that you don't delete salvageable content just to get rid of some original research.
• WP:DELREASON gives a list of deletion criteria, and there is an entire deletion process and a dispute resolution process that you are overlooking.

Flaws in articles that can be solved through rewrites (such as being WP:ALLPLOT) are not solved by deletion or getting blanked. Getting consensus at WP:AFD could have determined if the topics are notable, if sources exist, if they are worthy of deletion, or it could have encouraged rewrites. The system exists for a reason. Onel's actions were not backed by "overwhelming policies", the only ones you've been able to point to are WP:V and WP:BURDEN. As I said before, "Per every [policy], this isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969." Darkknight2149 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the above (and the repeated "per every policy", even though this has been shown again and again to be false), and per the very similar reply to Insertcleverphrasehere below, I rest my case. Fram (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The only policies you have named are WP:BURDEN and WP:V, both of which have been addressed many times by now. Do I need to list some of them again for you?

Restatement of policy analysis collapsed for readability Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:ATD-R: A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Per WP:Dispute resolution: When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war. Per WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles. Per WP:Edit warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Pertinent Per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. The policy WP:OR does say "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." But per everything else I just cited, that isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969. WP:DELREASON and WP:3RRNO are also relevant.

Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine... I'll be explicit about your points.

Per ATD-R: I've explained ATD-R repeatedly, he explained in his edit summary of the revert, he didn't re-revert, there is no edit war (3RR).

Per DR: an explanation in an edit summary may be sufficient, provided there is room, again, he didn't start an edit war, he reverted once. As per deleting salvageable text, other policies say that it is fine to delete unsourced material, so this is just advice that may apply.

Per ATD: Does not apply, redirection is not deletion, the content still exists in the edit history. In any case it says that it "may" be reduced to a stub, or may be sent to AFD, not that it has to be. Discussion via an edit summary may have been sufficient if you hadn't been such an obstructionist, in which case it would have saved a whole lot of his time (and other editor's time; AfD is a phenomenal waste of man-hours when overused, ANI moreso).

Per WP:Edit warring: There is no edit warring. He did 1RR, not 3RR. Does not apply.

Per WP:PRIMARY: May, not should and certainly not "a whole article based on". In fact you specifically cite the passage from WP:OR in your next paragraph that makes this explicit.

You seem to justify your actions of restoring improper content with procedural nitpicking. I would define this as disruptive editing, and, to a lesser extent, wikilawyering. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 12:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

And restoring the article, which violates WP:NOT is fine because... Why? The main question is why you disputed in the first place. If you are so knowledgeable on the policies that you know that it should be stubified, then why didn't you? Why dispute something, and when you are in the wrong, bring it to ANI to say "but he broke the procedural rules". I've said before that Onel could have explained better why he was doing what he was doing. Stubification would have been my preferred action as well, but Onel choosing to use an edit summary to explain why when reverting can be interpreted as an "attempt to gain consensus" per ATD-R (as others have pointed out). If he had reverted without saying anything in the edit summary, or reverted multiple times, I might agree with you. Most of the time, other editors will read his edit summary and say to themselves "oh... that's why, well, let me add some sources and restore to prove him wrong". Instead you did the opposite, reverted on procedural grounds regardless of whether the article met WP:V; hell some of those articles had no sources at all! You cite WP:HANDLE, but have a look at the next section below that one (WP:DON'T PRESERVE). — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Onel choosing to use an edit summary to explain why when reverting can be interpreted as an "attempt to gain consensus" per ATD-R That is preposterous. If one editor asserts that the policy requires X and another editor asserts that the policy requires Y, then simply repeating X and Y at each other does not achieve consensus, and no one could reasonably claim that it will ever result in a consensus. If two editors disagree, then the correct course of action is to obtain community consensus, either via AfD or an RfC or some other method, and WP:ATD-R puts the burden of obtaining consensus on the user seeking redirection. Onel did not make any attempt whatsoever to establish a consensus, they simply edit warred the redirect back in and then lobbed personal attacks at the OP. There is no universe in which Onel did not violate WP:ATD-R, no matter how you interpret that policy.

And by the way, obtaining consensus to redirect an article is a permissible use of AfD, so AfD would be an appropriate venue for the discussion. Mlb96 (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that simply repeating X and Y at each other would not be productive. Onel is a prolific editor, that deals with massive numbers of articles. Doing a single revert with an edit summary explaining why restoring the material was improper is a short cut intended to save time. I'll agree that it isn't best practice, and I've said previously that Onel could have communicated better (particularly with the Hong Kong articles, he and others actually had a very long discussion with Darkknight, he just didn't want to listen). As others have said though, ATD-R has never been interpreted as 0RR; it's main point is that you must try to gain consensus. On the other hand, what DarkKnight has done (restoring unreferenced material repeatedly and without justification other than "Because I can") is ridiculous and disruptive. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149, Onel didn't take these to AfD because AfD would be the incorrect venue. AfD is for deleting stuff that isn't notable. Onel didn't think that these were non-notable, otherwise he would have taken them to AfD. Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and redirection is not deletion. He did a WP:BEFORE search, found that they were probably notable, but that the current article violated WP:NOT and made them a redirect until such time someone decided to come along and write an article that didn't violate WP:NOT.

We don't AfD topics that are likely notable, but we also don't keep around articles that are written and sourced so poorly that they violate Wikipedia's core policies. Redirect was a correct action here, though WP:STUBIFY may have been another option. I note that you say "Onel5969 should have removed the original research instead of repeatedly blanking the page", which is essentially describing stubification. This is ok advice actually. However, in your actions you ignored your own advice and just reverted Onel's redirect rather than restoring just a stub of verifiable material, in the process restoring the article that violated WP:NOT. This has actually been explained multiple times. The core issue here is the restoration of violating material; if you had just restored the article as a stub with a source or two, Onel would not have objected. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ATD-R and WP:RCD, the onus would have been on Onel to stupefy the article (or remove the bits of original research) instead of redirecting, if his concern was WP:V. Darkknight2149 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that procedurally the correct action is stubification, how does this justify your reversion? On procedural grounds alone? Because you can? That's disruptive editing.

On a side note: whether stubification is the best option is actually something I've seen heavily debated at NPP in cases like this, as a redirect can often be more useful since it leads back to a main article where better quality info about the subject already exists (is it better to have a one line stub, or is it better to link to the main article where a paragraph already exists about the character and the reader can find more related info about the series?). — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, any editor can contest a redirect. Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with @Reyk's comment above "getting exasperated is a natural response to endless meddlesome obstructionism", and bow out from here. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 12:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Insertcleverphrasehere: I would advise you to stop bludgeoning the discussion by replying to every single comment. This is a form of disruptive editing that can lead to a temporary preventative block. I myself won't be responding to you much at this point, because I can't see any constructive reason to continue doing so. Darkknight2149 13:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comical for you to accuse someone of bludgeoning the discussion, when all you're doing is repeating the same misunderstandings of policy like a mantra. You are in the wrong here, Dark, and need to step back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Darkknight2149: You may have missed my request above to provide evidence that the IP who originally redirected to article was Ontel as you claim. When a redirect is changed into an article, the article is added to the NPP queue. This queue is ordered by article creation date. The queue can be ordered either newest first or oldest first. As Ontel works mainly at the back of the queue, I assume they would have the queue ordered oldest first. A far more logical explanation of Ontel getting involved soon after you reverted the redirect is that these 2006 articles appeared at the top of the NPP queue, not that he was the IP. --John B123 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. This is an interaction that @Darkknight2149 couldn't really have known about, but is definitely what happened. The IP made it a redirect, Darkknight reverted, and then it ended up at the back of the NPP queue. Because Onel is doing most of the work at the back, it's no surprise that he got involved shortly afterwards. Unless you work at NPP though, I wouldn't blame you for thinking that the IP was Onel, so I don't blame DarkKnight for making that assumption. The accusation should be struck though. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Plutonical

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

Could someone please look at the contributions of this account, especially their attempts at getting involved in administrative areas and their interactions with blocked users? There's a distinct pattern of disruption and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE that is causing a lot of time wasting.

Going through some potentially problematic edits in reverse chronological order

• 18th Feb - They show up at the talk page of a user that was CU blocked for joe jobbing, demanding to see the SPI that lead to the CU block [110]. There is of course no requirement for an SPI to be held for the use of checkuser tools. They follow this up with the ridiculous statment Remember, the duck test is not grounds for a CU-block. [111].
• 15th Feb - They show up at the ANI discussion regarding a user who was blocked for genocide denialism POV pushing saying that they hope they get a second chance to edit here [112]. Drmies points out that the user isn't listening [113], which obviously means they are not a candidate for an unblock.
• 8th Feb - They start a poorly thought out RFC proposing that we bulk delete all userboxes related to DS topic areas [114]. This is naturally heading towards a snow oppose [115]
• 7th Feb - A user brings a case to ANI regarding misuse and misrepresentation of sources. Plutonical jumps in incorrectly declaring this to be a content dispute [116] then gives out two completley innapropriate trouts [117] [118].
• 6th Feb - A poorly thought out bot proposal that would have spammed users with warnings about battleground behaviour if they used certain words [119].
• 3rd Feb - They show up at the talk page of an obviously upset user that had just lost some user rights at ANI (and received a short block for being uncivil in response) to warn them that content on their talk page may be inappropriate [120]. The warning itself isn't wrong, but it was completely unnecessary "pouring fuel onto the fire" when dealing with an already obviously upset and annoyed user.
• 31st Jan - they show up at the talk page of a user banned for copyvios, advising them to use synonyms and swap the order of words around (i.e. engage in WP:Close paraphrasing, a form of copyvio). They also state that they should use earwig to ensure they've moved the text around just enough to avoid detection. [121]. They return a few days later to state that they had "No idea" that using automated tools in this manner was not a good idea [122].
• 31st Jan - an attempt to join a community ban discussion after the discussion had already been closed with a largely unhelpful comment that was mostly unrelated to their editing on Wikipedia [123].
• 28th Jan - During this MFD [124] Plutonical decides that they like the page, and they attempt to unilaterally move it to their userspace - this predictably makes a mess. Once the page is put back where it's supposed to be they perform a cut and paste move of the content, resulting in a copyvio [125].

Having gone through their last 200 edits I'm going to stop, Hopefully this demonstrates the recurring problem. They do seem to have their heart in the right place and their article space work seems to be fine, but their involvement in administrative areas, especially their interactions with blocked editors, is problematic. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have no dispute with this. If an administrator sees it right to issue sanctions and it's best for the encyclopedia, then so be it. It's unfortunate, but I can see that I have made many mistakes over the course of my editing career and that I might have WP:CIR issues. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Plutonical: I don't think that a complete ban is required, as I said your article space editing looks to be mostly fine. The issue is that you're trying to "run before you can walk" as they say, and are getting involved in behind the scenes areas that I don't think you have the experience or knowledge to be in. A more refined restriction should be possible here, but I'm not sure what form that might take. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  There are plenty of other forms my punishpreventionment could take. Topic bans or partial blocks or anything else in that vein. Even a Topic ban from WP-space in general. It's all up to the administrator and what they see fit. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  We don’t do punishment here, under any circumstances. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dream on. EEng 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given that the user already acknowledges that have room to improve, would a Wikipedia mentor be helpful in terms of navigating the more administrative areas in a way that isn't disruptive? If the work in the article space is good and the only issue is the more arcane areas, I feel like this would be more narrowly tailored towards prevention than a block. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the best navigation advice that can be given at this time is to steer clear for a while. Plutonical has been extraordinarily active in projectspace, and especially at ANI, for someone with their level of experience (as I write this comment, 37% of their undeleted edits were to the Wikipedia namespace, and about 10% of their undeleted edits – 84 out of 830 – were to this board). I don't think venturing into the internal workings of the project early in an editing career is a bad thing per se, but it can lead to friction when it's too much too early, and I agree with the OP that that unfortunately seems to be the case here. However, the fact that they seem to be open to working on the issue makes me hopeful that this can be resolved without severe sanctions. Plutonical, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would strongly recommend that you focus on mainspace editing for a few months and steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I had previously given a friendly warning to Plutonical about high activity in ANI-space and attempting to reach conclusions in ANI discussions that aren't warranted by the evidence, precedence or policy on Wikipedia. Such ill-directed contributions, although made in good faith, can inflame tempers of already-degrading situations and further drag out the conflict in a manner that requires more time and effort for an admin to clean up. As I said before, I'm not going to be throwing stones on this since I also have a high level of project and Wiki-space contributions. I think Plutonical generally means well and that they ought to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that don't require a very high level of experience and understanding of Wiki-culture. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Gebagebo

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

Gebagebo is a user formerly editing under the name Dabaqabad.

Gebagebo received a one-week AE block for violating the March 4 prohibition in August 2021. From his comment to me in December 2021, Gebagebo seems to think this block was "because edited without indicating the source."

And in October 2021, Gebagebo's editorial policy was criticized by several people at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, including myself, but no particular conclusion was reached at that time.

There are a number of problems between Gebagebo and me. Most of them involve Gebagebo reverting my edits and pushing his own policy on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS. I try not to force my edits until we reach an agreement, not just in dialogue with Gebagebo. Gebagebo probably knows this, and thinks that if he (she) shows a "no agreement" attitude, he can settle for editing to his liking.

Some of the pages that Gebagebo and I have discussed include the following:

• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag
• Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
• Talk:Khatumo State
• Talk:El Afweyn

Although Gebagebo's argument seems plausible at first glance, I think he actually has the intention to write in favor of Somaliland and is searching for rules or sources to do so, rather than having the attitude of writing based on Wikipedia's rules and sources. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Gebagebo only writes in favor of Somaliland in his editing of this complex situation in the region.

The latest trouble is occurring in Talk:El Afweyn. I have tried to include information about El Afweyn in this article, but Gebagebo won't let me post it as it is "irrelevant". When I asked why it was irrelevant, Gebagebo would not respond. (Except to explain that it is "irrelevant" and "no agreement.")

I expect Gebagebo to edit neutrally, and to adopt an editorial attitude that aims for consensus rather than mere argument.--Freetrashbox (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have tried my absolute best to reach a consensus with Freetrashbox, however it is very hard to do so when they are being uncooperative, including threatening to re-add disputed content on two occasions despite that not being allowed by WP:NOCONSENSUS ([126], [127]). His accusation is completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Another interesting thing to note is the timing of this report. This report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([128]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([129]). Both users are in regular contact ([130], [131], [132], [133]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([134]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([135]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([136]) after a poor explanation made by Heesxiisolehh that another editor refuted (Freetrashbox didn't even bother changing his original explanation for his previous delete vote, instead just changing the vote itself) . This indicates to me that this report was not filed in good-faith and kinda feels like tag-teaming.

Then is the fact that this would fit better as an RfC or WP:DRN given that this is a content dispute and a Third Opinion has previously failed to solve it due to no one showing up. Gebagebo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this is linked to the same topic area as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Long running original research in Dervish-related content then this needs a wider review at a dedicated venue, such as RFC/DRN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That is my point exactly; this is a content dispute that has so far not been resolved. Therefore it should be discussed in the right venue, like RFC and DRN. Gebagebo (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything I wrote in User talk:Heesxiisolehh are requests for improvement in Heesxiisolehh's editing attitude. Heesxiisolehh has not answered my questions many times and I think there is some problems with his attitude. And I have more stringent requirements in User talk:Heesxiisolehh#Your uploaded figure. If I were to defend Heesxiisolehh, I would defend it directly on the discussion page where Heesxiisolehh is being criticized, not in this roundabout way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the thing; you have a history of contacting the user on multiple occasions, and the criticism you give him is lackluster. In addition you changed your vote on an AfD concerning an article he added massive amounts of original research to to "keep" due to his rather lackluster and unconvincing explanation that was refuted by another edit, not even bothering to change the reasoning behind your original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale (which is backed up by reliable sources).

That and the timing is too close (I mean really, five hours after I contacted GiantSnowman regarding Heesxiisolehh's continued OR?) to be a coincidence. Either way I proposed a compromise on the El Afweyn talk page, I'd suggest you take a look at it. Gebagebo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [137][138] Gebagebo was dishonest in his dialogue with me at Talk:El Afweyn, even though he could afford to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. The time between Gebagebo's second response and my posting on this noticeboard is two hours.

I have only interacted with Heesxiisolehh within Wikipedia, and that relationship is available for anyone to see. I don't know why Gebagebo thought that there was a special relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh. Gebagebo seems to think that they and Heesxiisolehh are opposites, but from my point of view, both attitudes are very similar. It's just that the subject who want to argue for is different.

I thought that by talking to Gebagebo, he would realize the true appeal of Wikipedia, but as it turns out, Gebagebo is only interested in describing the wonders of Somaliland on Wikipedia, and for him Wikipedia's rules and sources are just a means to that end. I think everyone can see that from his short description above.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo: I accepted your suggestion in Talk:El Afweyn. Next time, I hope you will be in good faith even if we don't use the Administrators' noticeboard.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how Heesxiisolehh mentions this ANI and uses it as rationale for removing a user's post warning about his original research from his talk page ([139], keep in mind this was almost 12 hours before he was pinged by Freetrashbox, not to mention the very similar opinion). There is also no evidence of communication between the two on any talk page regarding this.

This seems to make it more clear to me that this is a retaliatory filing, and might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on. Gebagebo (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have given notice that I will remove the description by Heesxiisolehh. Why is it that Gebagebo interprets that as me deleting Heesxiisolehh's opponents' opinions?--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The description I posted in El Afweyn is statements of the role Puntland and Somaliland played in El Afweyn. I tried to be impartial, but the result is a description that shows that Somaliland put a lot of effort into the administration of this town, while Puntland was just a nuisance for sending militia troops. In contrast, Gebagebo says that the expression "Puntland influence" is "implying that Puntland has influence and some sort of control of the town (which it does not claim), which is POV pushing". In other words, Gebagebo considers any representation of Puntland's activities in the region, no matter what the content, to be distasteful. Honestly, I am annoyed that Gebagebo called this statement a violation of POV. Nevertheless, I have continued to discuss whether the description could be changed to something Gebagebo would find acceptable, in order to make the post more fair. I agreed to change the headline of the article from "Puntland influence" to "Security". I also moved the description from El Afweyn to El Afweyn District, accepting Gebagebo's assertion that the Puntland Constitution is about the District and not the Town. However, as the dialogue progressed, I noticed that Gebagebo did not concede his opinion at all until the other party was bored with the discussion. I think this is a enough reason to report it to the Administrators' noticeboard. (To add to that, it is also very disconcerting that Gebagebo suggests I am Heesxiisolehh's meatpuppet without any evidence. I think Gebagebo is familiar with Wikipedia discussions and knows that the community does not like private connections between POV users.)--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Alpaps, copyvio and promotional editing

• Alpaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fikile Mbalula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alpaps, who has said that they are one of the advisors of Fikile Mbalula, keeps re-adding copyright text copied from Mbalula's government biography, which is so promotionally written that it wouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedia even if it was compatibly licensed. I have repeatedly tried to indicate the issues on Alpaps' talk page – this was my most recent message to them on February 9, but they have largely ignored these messages and re-added the text five days ago. DanCherek (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost every edit Alpaps has done has been to add or restore copyright violations. Alpaps came around editing the article substantially again after OhnoitsJamie excon protected the article for a month. In July 2021, Alpaps also came around with what I presume as restoration of copyrighted material after an IP was reverted repeatedly. It's flat out disruptive at this point, with five restorations in the past month alone. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Zabbix / Afd for Zabbix

While following a spam trail, I encountered the article Zabbix. The article was, in the form that I encountered it, a rather promotional piece with no independent sourcing of significance. The next day I decided to revisit (noticed an IP edit upating version history) and went through the history. There I noticed several accounts & IPs with a conflict of interest (probably the reason for the promotional content), and SPAs (including IPs geolocating to the Riga, Latvia area where the subject is from). A quick google search showed mainly results from zabbix.com and various blogs and no obvious material that could be used for sourcing. I AfD'd the article and tagged it with various tags. (I considered to stub it down, but with the COI editing going on I was expecting that to be countered and I sometimes find AfD then a more suitable point of reference to get something done about an article with specialist input - I do not necessarily disagree that the subject is notable but would like to see significant evidence of that).

The AfD was countered with some pretty strong points. I did not apply WP:BEFORE, etc. etc. People suggest a list of books, where the first two were (co-)written by people with a direct connection to Zabbix (even if that was denied later). Other part of the arguments are WP:WHATABOUTX ('Zabbix is more popular than Nagios and is also open-source').

They were quickly followed by Hlovdal (talk · contribs) (note that it was their first edit after 3 years), 5GZPPwkICWU (talk · contribs) (new editor solely for the AfD), larcorba (talk · contribs) (new editor solely for the AfD and the article). A quick search on internet gives this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/zabbix/comments/swoyid/the_wikipedia_article_for_zabbix_is_up_for/ (note that the opening statement was different when I found it, it has since been adapted), by u/riffic. riffic (talk · contribs) is one of the first commenters in the AfD. One of the commenters on Reddit on that thread goes by u/larcorba, whereas u/Pseudocoder3 on Reddit says they changed the article. Later Trikke76 (talk · contribs) follows as a new user, and they self identified as writer of one of the books. The Zabbix book by this writer that I encountered had Rihards Olups as co-author, who worked for Zabbix according to the biography connected to the book (note Rihards Olups (talk · contribs) is a regular on the article).

User riffic has since admitted that they are the writer of the Reddit thread, and has since adapted the thread to what it currently reads (which, to me, reads as a veiled threat). I would like to request some independent opinions on this situation, and suggestions on how to proceed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I left Zabbix 6+ years ago. In my edits before joining, during the time there, and after, I tried to be as factual as possible, and for the past 6 years my edits should be neutral (and not too frequent, too). If there are specific edits that are of a concern, please let me know. In any case, a suggestion to delete the article seems to be way over the top. --Rihards Olups (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Did you try to be verifiable though? This is the point that people miss. However true something is, if it hasn't been already reported in good sources outwith Wikipedia it cannot be written in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • That's a good point, thank you for mentioning that. I did try to be verifiable, but, as I was not directed/paid to make any edits, it was a "best effort" level. This is a good learning experience as well, will keep this in mind for any future edits, thank you again for the reminders and explanations. --Rihards Olups (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

    @Rihards Olups: You were editing this article in 2013, 2014, 2015 (6+ years ago) while you were working for the company, without having disclosed that you were working for this company. At the least you were editing in contrast to the suggestions of WP:COI, if not in violation of m:Terms of Use, however neutral the edits were. And those edits continued in exactly the same way way after 6+ years ago (until about 4 years ago at least). I did a rather wide analysis of the editors on Zabbix, the COI connections go wider than what is appropriate to discuss here on ANI, but full disclosure of the accounts that do have that connection (any connection) would be appreciated. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• This article has been subjected to promotional editing for years, including edits such as this one where the editor who's comment appears immediately above mine listed his book on the article, with external link to the publisher's store page for easy purchase. The AFD, like a lot of AFDs that have been the target of canvassing, is full of arguments that have little or nothing to do with policy, including assertions that there's nothing wrong with the COI editing. I strongly feel this should be at minimum draftified (if not WP:TNTed), but I suppose that is a matter for the AFD. At the very least the canvassed editors should be reined in and promotional editing on the article should be curtailed going forward. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Entire AfD is filled with policy and ToS violations particularly COI, undisclosed paid editing and WP:BLUDGEONING.Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I can't add much more. The article is bad and the links to purchase books unacceptable, the AfD is a real mess. I don't know how we deal with something like this where we have inexperienced or brand new editors making arguments such as "Keep, this is notable software. There are books written for its use". Doug Weller talk 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I hadn't realized it was improper to post Google Books links when contributing sources to an AfD discussion. I was just following the "Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs)" links found at the top. Feel free to unlink them. riffic (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Quite clearly, M. Weller is talking about the hyperlinks direct to a bookseller's purchase-the-book page in the article itself, as added by book author Rihards Olups (talk · contribs) at Special:Diff/739538690 and by Packt Publishing (talk · contribs) at Special:Diff/684206633. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Okay that wasn't obvious to me, I assumed this was centered around the Google Book links in the AfD itself. Apologies! riffic (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• New editors canvass all the time. We haven't sanctioned new editors in the past for inadvertently breaking WP:CANVASS policies and I don't see why we should start now. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One wonders if this is not in and of itself canvassing, given that this isn't a super neutral notification of the dispute in question. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Chess: riffic is not a new editor, they are here since 2006. Sixteen years should be ample time to understand that we have policies and guidelines to go by. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I fully understand the policies and guidelines riffic (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

riffic has again changed the statement on Reddit, still missing the point however. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think I'm allowed to mention wiki-happenings off-wiki. In the future I'll be sure to disclose. riffic (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This does not fall under WP:OFFWIKI. This clearly falls under WP:INAPPNOTE under stealth canvassing, where Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions is inappropriate. This is not about disclosure, the very act of you posting on the Reddit itself is considered disruptive. SunDawntalk 03:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I deliberately chose to ignore the rules on canvassing and, with edits, phrased my statement in the /r/Zabbix Reddit thread to show that the AfD discussion was not a vote. My intention was to try to fix problems and a bit of transparency has in fact been effective here. riffic (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think perhaps "The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC." is the most amusing of the totally wrongheaded novice comments. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the correction @Uncle G. As you maybe have seen my account is still wearing the "this is a new user" badge. I'm genuinely sorry that I have said something which was counter productive and is considered a beginner mistake. Would you like to clarify what makes my behavior amusing and wrongheaded so I can learn from it? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @GavriilaDmitriev: you were welcomed on the 2nd of February on your talkpage, that welcome contains the sentence "Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest." When you then edit anyway and do not declare that you have a conflict of interest then it becomes a violation of our m:Terms of Use. Wikipedia is high on search results, and showing off your product/company here still helps. And the problem with the trainwreck that the article was, was that Zabbix LLC (and I suspect some IPs to be of a consultancy company that was doing the same) was editing the article, as well as people who still profit indirectly from having a promotional article on Zabbix. Also I see the (unintended) irony in your remark. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We most definitely do not want articles to be owned by commercial interests. This is an encyclopaedia, not a free advertising billboard. We need articles to be neutral, verifiable, and free from original research; and by and large commercial interests instead want sanitized promotional content based upon press releases, only their own statements, and stuff that isn't actually properly documented outwith Wikipedia in the first place. It's very tempting for commercial interests to come here and abuse Wikipedia as a free WWW hosting service for their own companies/products/people, but this is strongly rejected by the community of people who are here to actually write an encyclopaedia whenever we come across it. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Alerted to this on my talk page, full disclosure: I am GavriilaDmitriev's mentor (see claim) and adopter.

  I'm slightly concerned that we're making the (subtle) allegation that Dmitriev has a conflict of interest based on one edit to the article (adding reasons why you shouldn't install the software rather than the contrary) and the AfD comments. I think no one has noticed so far and Dmitriev didn't make it obvious so I'll say it here: English is not their strong suit. No wonder their comment, "I would keep the pressure on Zabbix LLC to improve the article by themselves. The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC.", has been misinterpreted as a statement from Zabbix LLC and not themself. Since I did have a way to contact them directly through IRC, I took it upon myself to ask them their original intent when writing that sentence, and they've said this with regards to Zabbix's COI editing of the article: "I was thinking that Zabbix messed it up and they should fix the article in time or it get's deleted." (and yes, I asked for consent before quoting that here). In case you're still confused, Dmitriev intended in the AfD comment that Zabbix LLC fix the article since their COI editors were involved in skewing its point of view (something that I've now told Dmitriev is frowned upon by the community and disallowed by the ToS). This fully confirmed my suspicion that the language barrier had caused a misunderstanding between editors (which I had already assumed after being alerted to this thread). Dmitriev has been editing within FOSS-space articles for a while now, and have told me that it is their preferred space of editing, so this doesn't come off as suspicious to me in the slightest. FOSS editors will edit FOSS topics, and especially given that article alerts are present on WP:FOSS, there's no mystery here as to how Dmitriev would have found the AfD discussion (in fact, Dmitriev had asked me yesterday how the article alerts system worked).

  I'm not a fan of drama, so let's try to put the pitchforks down for now and consider their non-native English and rookie experience in policy (of which they are still learning) before marking them as a paid editor. Chlod (say hi!) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Chlod: I did not consider GavriilaDmitriev as having a conflict of interest with Zabbix, and have no reason to think so. I fully understood it as you here now explain. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Beetstra: I didn't mean you specifically, but rather Doug Weller in their talk page message to me ("They seem to be a paid editor"). Although I did read your message and at first thought it may be an accusation, I thought that maybe the subject of the "you" being talked about had changed mid-message from Dmitriev to a theoretical person, so I didn't mention it directly. Chlod (say hi!) 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Beneficial Canvass

Before this fades away into the archives, I'd like to draw attention to this comment made mid-thread about how ignoring the rules and posting to reddit was actually helpful. Was that a valid instance of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? - MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That is also my concern. From the viewpoint of the people that wanted the article kept, they think they did it in the name of "article improvement", while others think that it is canvassing. As I note above, that Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions is inappropriate. SunDawntalk 01:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I also feel that that point of my original post has not been sufficiently addressed. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

NemesisAT disruptive editing

This editor is following me about. It is relation to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969, the same behaviour from the same group. Editor User:NemesisAT seems to be following me about and is reflective of that groups efforts to try and subvert the WP:NPP and WP:AFC process. The article J. Albert "Tripp" Smith was reviewed at NPP several weeks ago and reverted to a redirect. There is not a single reference there that supports a BLP. Another editor reverted it, I had a conversation with then they reverted again today. I think they are likely a UPE but a seperate issue. User:NemesisAT came along an reverted it back to the article, even though is a pile of junk, they is no other way to describe. The whole thing is this one group, desperate to get articles into Afd so they can be saved via a pile on. It is the same group that hassling onel above and me. I can't work as a NPP reviewer with editor following me about. The worst of it, the editor doesn't about the quality of the article, which is the most egregious aspect this problem. They've written any kind of high quality article that I can say for sure that they have level of judgements. It is all political with an agenda. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure how the ANI thread shared relates to this issue.

As we've spoken before, I have Scope creep's talk page on my watchlist and that's how I came across this article. I find the issue of stealth redirecting frustrating, which is why I also got involved in the Hong Kong housing redirects involving Onel above. I find it funny that Scope creep accuses me of following them when they have retalliated against me after I removed their PRODs in the past.

The redirect should not have been restored per WP:BLAR. NemesisAT (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ironic that we got rid of the Scientology discretionary sanctions as unnecessary, but I note that the page protections remain. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

But what connection does User:NemesisAT have with scientology? As far as I can tell neither that editor nor User:Scope creep edited that section or the talk page section in question, so why was it brought up? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is the wrong link. I will fix it. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the link. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thinking @Scope creep: may have meant Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring,_canvassing,_filibustering,_and_personal_attacks_from_Onel5969 given it's also about redirects. I don't think Nemesis' !votes are always made in policy (worthy of an article, routine doesn't apply to biographies, Young player at the start of this career so likely to receive more coverage in the future.), but nor do I think they're in bad faith. There's definitely an issue with AfD wars back lately, but at least in the ones I've closed, Nemesis is more indicative of a the symptom of the issue and not the problem. Star Mississippi 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hmmmm. Seven minutes after writing here, Scope creep commented on an AfD that appears in the first page of my recent contributions. Talk about following people around. NemesisAT (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear NemesisAT's good faith explanation as to how the J. Albert "Tripp" Smith article they restored meets our policies and guidelines (like NOTRESUME and NBIO). Levivich 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  The Sky News article and the Wall Street Journal article both have WP:SIGCOV on the subject and as searching brought up further coverage, I thought there was a good chance the subject could pass notability guidelines. However, no matter how non-notable you believe a subject to be, the last thing you should do is revert again with an unhelpful edit summary. NemesisAT (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick answer. I don't have access to WSJ. Personally I wouldn't consider the Sky Sports article to be SIGCOV, but that's a debate for AFD. In my view, there's at least enough in the Sky Sports article such that an editor could argue it's SIGCOV without that argument being totally frivolous or in bad faith--I wouldn't agree with it, but that doesn't make it a completely BS argument, it's still a good-faith argument in my view. (And if the WSJ article has similar or more content about Smith, which I AGF it does, then that would strengthen the argument further.) I might have voted to delete it, but it doesn't strike me, for example, as a CSD candidate. So I don't think it was disruptive to expand the redirect into an article with those sources. Anyone wanting to can take it to AFD, but re-redirecting it strikes me as edit warring. NPP and AFC have no special standing -- I for one don't think twice before "overruling" those content review processes (pulling a rejected draft out of draftspace, or nominating an approved draft for deletion, for example) if I think the reviewer got it wrong. We have processes for resolving these sorts of disputes, and those processes should be followed, as long as they're followed in good faith (which seems to be the case here). Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with expanding a redirect into an article, but there is something wrong with edit warring to re-redirect an article instead of taking it to AFD. And "It is all political with an agenda", without evidence, strikes me as an aspersion. Levivich 21:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  No problem. The article has now been nominated for deletion by scope creep. I'm not going to vote, as I don't feel strongly about this particular article. I'm happy though that there is now discussion and sources being raised that would not have happened otherwise. NemesisAT (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  It not an aspersion. The editor can't seem explain what WP:BIO, WP:BEFORE WP:SIGCOV are, core biographical policies when asked him about it, in conversation of my talk page, but magiclly knows about WP:BLAR. He simply doesn't care about quality at any level.scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon

Just under a month ago, I left a message on the above user's talk page due the editor following me around the website (WP:HOUND) (sometimes their only edit of the day is to revert or edit something I've recently done). I've just posted, at the above link, a snapshot of eight recent examples of such occurrences, most of which have occurred within six hours of my creating the article. Not sure what else I can do, having given them two warnings before posting this. Seasider53 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• It seems that a more correct statement of this is that a New Pages Patroller has several times pointed a new pages creator to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries and disputed whether the map pin for Craigie (Perth, Scotland) should be in the area where the Craigie school, Craigie post-office, and Craigie church all are (where the Ordnance Survey map on Bing Maps puts Craigie, I observe) or over by Upper Craigie. Uncle G (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The coordinates edit was two days after the article was created. How many pages of "new" articles would that be, roughly? Seasider53 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Likely one, as the current extent of Special:NewPages is 500 entries in one and a bit days right now, and back then was Christmas Day when things are slower. Special:NewPagesFeed is of course infinite scroll and doesn't come in pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree; it seems highly unlikely. Seasider53 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        • @Seasider53: This is what new page patrollers do; they review new articles to see whether anything's obviously wrong with them. They're instructed to look at the older pages as well as the newer ones, in case there's something lurking there and it drops off the back end of the queue. It isn't just Tagishsimon; I looked at the history of your talk page to see whether they'd been leaving you a lot of notifications, and I only see 3 in the first page, which goes back to 22 January, but that led me to this snide edit summary by you, and then to Ari T. Benchaim, who says on his user page that he's a recent changes patroller, PROD'ding Wetter House 9 minutes after creation (I note you are now starting articles with "in use", and I agree that was a bit fast, but the article was very unprepossessing when you first saved it). I didn't see Tagishsimon anywhere in the history of that article, so I looked at it. It had an enormous gallery, no Commons category; and I started seeing other things, beginning with the huge biographical section, and wound up checking most of the references on the house and discovering you'd misunderstood/misrepresented what the books said. So then I looked at an article where Tagishsimon had flagged the gallery issue to you, St Serf's Church, Dunning (I got it from your list at Tagishsimon's talk page, since checking a page 24 hours after creation didn't seem offensive in itself), and not only had you reverted their edit removing the gallery without giving a policy-based reason (and as my edit summary shows, I consider only one of those images useful; and again, you hadn't added the Commons category), but the Dupplin Cross is mentioned twice, and there was more info about the church in one of the sources. You're giving us articles on some good topics, and I know what it's like to create an article and have somebody come along and carp about it, especially if I've had to do a hurried save (I created some articles on down-time at work, living dangerously), and some of the MOS rules are very picky (and many of them there's disagreement about), but throwing in a bunch of pictures isn't a substitute for actually writing up the information that's there in the sources (and it's important to get it right!), especially when the Commons category is available to send the reader who wants lots of pictures to a collection of all the ones we have, viewable at full size. That isn't one of the guidelines that's worth fighting, especially not for Historic American Buildings Survey shots from every angle. (I reduced the gallery for the Wetter House to 3 different views, but someone's probably going to come along and replace it with one captioned pic of the balcony ironwork.) If you were doing a great job with your articles, I'd recommend you apply for the autopatrolled right, which removes your articles from the unreviewed category, but based on those two, your work still needs checking. And remember, new page reviewers—and recent changes patrollers—have no idea what they're going to see when they open a new article. It could be an attack page, it could be copyvio, it could be written in a foreign language; we need those folks, they do a hard and necessary job. And your edit summary that I've linked above was uncivil and uncalled-for; as I've shown, not just Tagishsimon, others are checking your work too, this is a collaborative project. This edit summary that they complained about on your talk page is assaholic, too. I think you owe them an apology, actually; they've linked to the policy in question and have not picked apart your articles, as I wound up doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
          • I mostly just wanted to document his/her following me around. I will add to the list of examples as necessary, but I think their feathers have been sufficiently ruffled, for he/she hasn't responded to my communications before now. Progress, at least. As for apologising, you'll note that he/she gives as good as he/she gets. (I know, I know: "That was ten years ago. Let's assume good faith," etc., etc.) Seasider53 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
            • @Seasider53: if you want to keep documentation of someone allegedly following you around, do so privately. Doing so on-wiki unless it's only a short term thing for a case your about to bring isn't acceptable and will lead you to being blocked for personal attacks. If you're digging up something Tagihsimon did 10 years ago, this shows you have absolutely zero legitimate complaint. Also I have no idea why you said "I agree" above since you're clearly not agreeing with Uncle G said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
              • I'll do it as I have been doing? Don't know why you're implying otherwise. Seasider53 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
                • @Seasider53: Because you opened this nonsense thread, after writing a nonsense complaint on Tagihsimon's talk page, and said it's because you wanted to "document his/her following me around". You then said you "add to the list of examples as necessary". Where you planned to do this was never stated, but since nothing else so far has been private, you can forgive my concerns you planned to continue to do this on-wiki. If you do keep a list privately, well that's none of our concern. But just note that once you bring threads like this, or post on Tagihsimon's talk page, or on your user page, or your talk page or otherwise post it on Wikipedia, it does become our concern. And it's important you understand if do keep up with this nonsense, you should eventually expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
                  • It was a legitimate concern, which has been skewed by assumptions that it's all just a coincidence. What's the point of this page if investigations are basically "there's a Special:NewPages that people watch", even though, as I stated, out of the hundreds of new pages per day, mine just happen to the one Tagishsimon has a concern with? I'll communicate via the user's talk page, as I have been doing. Thank you for the threats, though. Seasider53 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Tolu io

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

---

Hello, over the last two days Tolu io (talk · contribs) has gone through hundreds of Nigerian pages adding a single source at random in the introduction. While most of these references are reliable, the vast majority are not relevant or reliable to the places the user puts them. I have attempted to communicate this on their talk page but they have been combative and kept on alluding to someone instructing them to do these edits which has confused me. They have also claimed that the edits were needed to prove that the "individuals exist" which doesn't make any sense. I would really appreciate swift action here because the rapid pace of these lazy edits means that dozens of pages are being changed every few hours.

Examples of questionable edits: In the Abdullahi Balarabe Salame page, the user put a source for him killing an intruder on a sentence that describes his time as house of assembly speaker and acting governor. On the Musa Sarkin-Adar page, they put a source of a group calling on Sarkin-Adar to support a candidate in 2019 on a sentence talking about his life before politics in the mid-2000s. On the Abdullahi Idris Garba page, the user again added a political article from 2019 to a sentence talking about his life before politics. On the Julius Ihonvbere, the user put a recent article about sports policy to a sentence about his educational history. None of these are needed and it is likely that the user just searches up a name, picks any random article, and places it in any random place in the page without care for the people who might need a relevant source or those that will have to remove the problem edits.

I first entered this on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but was recommended to put it here. Thanks you. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Another issue is their oddly targeted messages at me, including a new email stating "If you take down my account cos of your greed, Heaven will punish you and everything you exist for. spoken to you as calm as possible but because you get paid to write articles, you don't want me to just update wiki pages. i'm not gettin paid, neither will i reply you again but if anything happens to my credible contribution cos you're looking for fellow blocked individuals for your misfortune, heaven will always block your progress." Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed they are using the edit summary "#1lib1ref". I have seen similar edits from other editors using the same summary, often adding sources almost at random to articles. This is a Wikimedia project, which probably needs some much better guidance for participants. Number 57 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Number 57: The edit summaries are so you can use the Wikimedia hashtag search tool to find all the edits from this project. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that this project continues to be problem. I was hoping the "anything that sticks" sourcing issues would have been resolved after the previous discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Still at it - I will leave them a final warning for spam, if they continue then they get an indef. GiantSnowman 19:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And they continued after the final warning, so I have indeffed them. GiantSnowman 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering if this set of contributions comes from the same account operator as the recently blocked editor as their edit summaries appear to be the same as each other which is rarely used among us active users. Though having a look at the stats from the link the IP has added, there are just over 2500 users who have used the hashtag edit summary. So I am doubting this is the work of just one person. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits like this are identical (even the same source!), but I don't think it's sockpuppetry, it's some kind of editing contest that is (once again) causing no end of headaches. GiantSnowman 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Iggy the Swan: The edits are from meta:The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Civil POV pusher on Peter Dinklage

For the past few weeks, there has been an editor who appears to not have a static IP address who has been repeatedly adding the same "Controversy" section on Peter Dinklage over a comment that the actor made about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs on a podcast last month. As documented on the talk page here, the IP user is a WP:SPA that has been Sealioning and intentionally ignoring - a la WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - reasons that other editors - mostly User:Escape_Orbit, User:BriefEdits and myself - have for why the section isn't necessary or appropriate. The IP user repeatedly posts non-RSS sources and pretends like they weren't repeatedly shown WP:RSS, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:CPP, WP:UNDUE and any other policy page. They don't sign comments despite being asked. The user does indicate that they have modified other wikipedia pages and celebrities. It's possible those are related to this issue but since their username changes every day I haven't been able to find those edits or tell if they are part of this agenda. The tendentious editing has been pursued through several different accounts including 151.18.86.170, 151.18.39.109, 151.44.95.125, 151.46.89.30, 151.82.185.222, 151.36.80.46, 151.38.93.88 and 151.36.186.84. The user just continues to claim they are right no matter what, today declaring "why should I stop?" This indicates a determination to pursue the POV pushing no matter what the consensus will ever be. I don't know how static IP's work, but whoever they are, I am recommending that they, and any other sockpuppets they create, be blocked from Peter Dinklage at minimum and possibly other pages related to the issue as well. Kire1975 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the user doesn't have a talk page, someone will need to explain how to give proper notice of this incident to them. Kire1975 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Since they are actively reading the talk page, we can link this section there in a comment? — BriefEdits (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure if there is a template to use or what. Kire1975 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if this is a vote, but I agree with this summary and assessment. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for one month. Please let me know if the disruption resumes, and it will be three months next time. Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• It does seem odd to have the casting of a forthcoming Disney movie in a biography article of someone who isn't being cast in it, and symptomatic of the perennial tendencies of some Wikipedia editors to wrongheadedly shoe-horn everything into biographies. Perhaps you should have explained this point more directly. I once did it with a pretty coloured box at Special:Diff/133146202#Arbitrary_Section_Break. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• There wasn't any need to protect the page! Should have never been this discussion or arguing! I think I was right when I said I was victim of a hypocritical bias! I followed all the instructions, the objections, the reasons of the objections, I always edited and edited, removed and removed, added sources and added sources to validate and confirm the reliabilty of the content, omitted sources and omitted sources (following the list I was given), always slightly modified phraaes because apparently didn't sound neutral enough (facts or not facts, source or not source), always trying to (uselessly) satisfy the users (I won't name any for my own security) but it was never enough and there was always a reason to erase and revert all my work indiscriminately and now even request to block the page...and it was blocked! It's clear there's something personal here or something special about the article in question, 'cause I've never had problems like this before for similar articles! It's absolutely ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.18.130 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

IP, you were editing against consensus - repeatedly. That is unacceptable conduct. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS campaign by IP 37.111.219.223

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

1. IP tried to remove the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies) from the Badi al-Din article, to add Islamic honorifics in violation of MOS:ISLAMHON, and to add the deprecated "shattariya.blogspot". Edit summary: "last reliable version"[140]
2. IP tried to revert XlinkBot at the Badi al-Din article, in an attempt to restore the same edit. Edit sumary: "last reliable version"[141]
3. IP tried to remove Brill/EI3 referencess from the Badi al-Din article, calling it "link spam" and "reverting paid link promotion" in their edit summary[142]-[143]-[144]
4. More attempts by said IP at restoring doing the same material at the Badi al-Din article.[145]
5. Comment by IP at my talk page "I see you are promoting, paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it<, because paid link are usually not cited as reference. Since Wikipedia is not the vehicle for promotion. Thank you. "[146]
6. Comments IP left at Talk:Badi al-Din, in reference to Brill sources "I see someone spamming paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it?" and "Since most of the content is based on Brill online, I am restoring it to last stable revision"[147]
7. Issued IP warnings on several occassions[148]

It appears said IP is on a WP:SPA campaign to remove well-sourced content provided by the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam through structural violations of WP:WAR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said IP's editorial pattern is marked by WP:CIR at least as far as editing goes (removing proper WP:RS, reverting Wiki bots, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

More: It is interesting note that IP 37.111.218.109,[149] which is clearly operated by the same user, tried to add the exact same "shattariya.blogspot"[150] to the Badi al-Din article, but was likewise reverted by XlinkBot[151]. The same user then, used another IP to revert XlinkBot yet again.[152] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

More2: Now they've started to use even more IP socks as we speak[153] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This editor (seems to be paid editor) never tried to discuss the issues at the article's talk page, rather he/ she has reverted back to back to his/ her preferred version, anyways I am trying to address the concerns of Honorifics and Original Research, by going against paid and excessive promotion of Brill Online. Thank you. 37.111.217.215 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Note 2 The Link which this user is adding is only accessible to paid members/ or need special access which is against Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. 37.111.217.215 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That's only for the external links section. Citations that are supporting article content are allowed to be behind a paywall, see WP:PAYWALL. You should not be reverting these. - MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is terrible that the editor or his/ her sock/ meat [154] do not wait even few minutes to revert, even though the article was tagged with inuse, it clearly explain their COI. I will again remove that paid link and will try to add better source relevant to Sayed Badiuddin, against Wikipedia:Spam 37.111.217.215 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

IP, thanks for responding here. There is nothing wrong with using sources that are behind a pay wall, provided they are reliable. Brill is a respectable academic publisher, I see no problem with that source. Please stop attempting to remove it - your changes are contested by multiple editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, I think both the user who have reverted me possibly the same person, can you please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansas_Bear. 37.111.218.223 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Brill Publishers is the single most high-quality publishing house for anything related to Middle Eastern history, as well as classics and some other disciplines. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the standard reference work in the field, and as reliable as it gets for an encyclopedia. Anyone who would think that adding references to this is unduly promoting Brill has a very serious competency issue. Being confronted with such editors is rather daily grind on WP, but when combined by such a severe lack of AGF as seen here, it really gets aggravating. On top of all this, the IP is clearly not a new user, so it's not like we could regard WP as a place for them to learn about Brill et al. I recommend a temporary range block, to be extended when necessary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• The IP must be the same person as the disruptive IP who used IP socks at Tariqa, where also attempted to do something akin (and also starts with the IP number 37.111), including the use of shattariya.blogspot [155] [156]. I did already report him but to no avail [157], even though he kept attacking me in the very thread as well, just like what he is doing now to LouisAragon. Think it's about high time a range block is made. He does not bring anything to Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, the 37.111.218.179/24 range that was disruptive at Tariqa posted in this very ANI thread. May need to be blocked in addition to the 37.111.219.0/24 range. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran Most likely and is most likely in a public building like a school or library, somewhere in Dhaka, Bangladesh. I also concur with Apaugasma about Brill. The individual behind the IP is obviously not a new editor and has been switching from device to device but is still under the same network 37.111. I think a range block should be implemented. Jerm (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Note Administrator must note that the User:LouisAragon, has past history of abusing multiple accounts, can check their Block log 37.111.217.56 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can say the same thing about you IP hopper. Jerm (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not my problem, that my IP changes frequently, it might be the provider issues. 37.111.217.56 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's true that the term 'IP hopper' is not very helpful. A lot of editors with accounts may have an IP that changes just as frequently, and it's not in any way of the user's choosing how dynamic the IPs allocated by their local internet service providers are. It's in my view a very good reason to disable IP editing, but that's another discussion. Add 37.111.217.0/24 to the ranges on which this user is active. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the malformed, bogus SPI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP user came to Jpgordon's talk page to complain about this deletion, was warned by Jpgordon that filing a bogus SPI like that constitutes a personal attack, but the IP user went ahead and recreated the thing. For some reason they used the talk of the SPI before, but now they also posted a duplicate bogus report on the SPI page itself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 IP blocked 72 hours for personal attacks in light of the reinstatement noted by Apaugasma. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Didn't hold, so I've also blocked the underlying /18. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Historiantruth WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

Almost all of this user's edits consist of removing well-sourced information they don't like with edit summaries such as:

• [158] "Why is Non Samaale descendants im assuming Daroods always try to lie on Samaale lineage? Hawiye and Dir elder agrees that they are descendant from Samaale who also was descendant from Ham the son of Prophet Noah!"
• [159] "Fixed the misinformation"

More recently they started to remove sources without explanation [160] [161] or with rather more aggravating edit summaries such as:

• [162] "Theres a source white man saying Daroods were pagans"
• [163] "Wlh if this Fiqishini edit doesnt stop i’ll post a colonial sources were they were saying daroods were pagans and etc since i know for a fact its darood editing this! Wlh stop whilst you can. I am Fiqishini and we are Hawiye, Habar Gidir Cayr.. what a confused white man saod is irrelevant. Its me now saying Dhulbahante sub Cali Gerri is Duduble even tho there is a source from the white man! Like i said this false narrative better stop before i go ape shit and start posting L..."
• [164] "Source that Fiqishini are HG, lets not fucking edit otherwise or bs wlh some of yall are mentally tapped"

There's also a legal threat: [165] "Wallahi yall have agenda on Samaale and Hawiye lineage! Im literally in Somalia and asked Hawiye traditional elders and said they never claimed arab and that they are not! Wlh legal actions will be soon taken if this propaganda edit will not stop! Lying about lineage and origin of my people will not be tolerated!"

They seem to have a specific issue with the idea that Somali clan genealogies generally claim origins among early (Arab) Muslims, a fact about which scholars are univocal. They have repeatedly inserted or restored a line ([166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]) instead claiming that Somali genealogy "dates back to their Cushitic ancestors 5000 YBP", in blatant contradiction with what the source cited after the line actually says (Ioan Lewis, pp. 11-12 here).

Most recently they have taken to editing logged out on Dir (clan) and Garre (note the nice edit summaries).

I believe there's nothing to be hoped for here, so indef is probably a good idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed. I blocked the /64 of the IP as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the swift action! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What's the wording of the rule of accounts with Truth in their name? Anyway, another proof. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it bears similarities to the rule about countries with "Democratic" in their name. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

IP 31.15.188.144, Russian POV pushing and disruptive editing.

A quick look at the contributions of 31.15.188.144 (talk · contribs) will show that this IP is almost exclusively used to make edits on Ukraine/Russian related articles, usually changing subjects nationalities from Ukranian/other Soviet related nationalities to Russian. This includes changing categories as well, if they do not change it outright, they will make an edit claiming (without any sources) that the subject is of Russian descent. The edit summaries used are extremely vague, usually ″Fixed error″ or something along those lines. Sometimes they are completely inaccurate such as with these edits: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8. Another editor also pointed out the erasure of a group of people as well as the lack of sources here. The edits coming from this IP can more or less be summarized as ″everyone is Russian, other former soviet ethnic groups don't exist″. This IP was blocked for the same behaviour back in November, and has been on a spree since getting unblocked. I'd recommend a longer block this time as this is in my view a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

At least some of the edits are correct, so we may need to examine them one by one.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Highly embarrassing rename request of article about ongoing Russian invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_24_February_2022 seems very obvious close that would allow to remove embarrassing rename template. Originally proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests under "if it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move"

At the very least user completely misjudged situation. Given that they just renamed from "Nastyasholr927" and have few edits I suspect that is not just a bad judgment Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Go outside and touch grass instead of getting defensive over an article with a name that literally nobody uses (besides for the conflict that began today) Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not think this is a good response for somebody who has less than 100 edits and has just opened a RM likely to be snow closed as completely inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Should be noted that the user also used an r-slur to address another user. As seen in their reply to this thread assuming good faith is difficult. TangoFett (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I will block now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Spamming autobio across multiple wikis

I'll be brief: this man Draft:Joilson Melo and Draft:Joilson Junior de Melo has been spamming multiple wikis with his autobio. He's been banned using several accounts in Portuguese wiki (there's no IP editing there) and he's been trying to get an article up somewhere else to be able to use interwiki for a notoriety claim. He's had over 20 articles deleted in Portuguese, in French and in Simple English (there's one there right now pending elimination). In Portuguese he's tried at least 4 different article names with slight variations. All of his sources are paid promo pieces. The mere fact that he has not one but two drafts up in here should be enough to show you what he's about. Please remove the drafts and ban these articles from being created, lest he continues spending precious editors time around the world. Thanks! Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Drafts can be removed by nominating them for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion. However, less time is wasted by ignoring the drafts than would be wasted by coding an exclusion rule in the Title blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We love you Wikipedia

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

---

Please protect all Ukraine related articles. Humble request from Ukrainian — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• No point, Wikipedia is flooded by pro-Kremlin propagandists who will spread age-old Kremlin propaganda anywhere they can. Wikipedia is no longer a neutral encyclopaedia, it is simply a platform for Russian propaganda... H2ppyme (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violation

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

---

ShayaGoodman has created the draft article Draft:Reaping the Informational Surplus in Bayesian Persuasion four times, each instance a copyright violation. They have ignored all warnings and show no intention of stopping. I think a block is in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

...and salted. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Kitty Is Not a Cat disruptive editing by IP hopper

• Kitty Is Not a Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some people have been dealing with this IP hopper in Italy. They mainly WP:OVERLINK things and disruptively edit (including adding fanfiction episodes to Kaeloo, which resulted in the page being protected). When an editor reverted their additions to Kitty Is Not a Cat, they attacked them by saying "Fuck You!". (They also told someone to "Shut Up!")

They use the following ranges:

• 5.169.113.64/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 158.148.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 79.22.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 5.168.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

And the following IP addresses:

• 93.45.125.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.250.142.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I went to RFPP, but considering the backlog, I think this is a more urgent manner. wizzito | say hello! 19:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a month. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour

I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re fora

Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO (non-admin closure) SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an WP:UNBLOCK request on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Per Jayron32, and in answer to the OP's question: No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) To create a unblock request: copy and paste this: {{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~ Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. Severestorm28 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC) That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC) If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) In addition to Canterbury Tail, it will probably not, due to the fact that this is a noticeboard, not a page for appealing blocks. Severestorm28 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Wikipedia version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. Ravenswing 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no other place to appeal your partial block, there is a block notice, and you can appeal it below the block notice. This is how other blocked or partially blocked users do. Severestorm28 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. Ravenswing 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a WP:SELFBLOCK anywhere other than your talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice WP:WIKIHOUNDING though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a page besides EoW's talk page where I can decline his unblock request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, no. Severestorm28 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, Floquenbeam said it was behavioral, not a content dispute, Mjroots said how about a WP:PBLOCK, and El C said done. Then Jayron32 endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? Schazjmd (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Adding onto what Nil Einne said above, if you'd like an unblock request to be given serious consideration by an administrator (or the community, assuming broader input is needed), you need to make a point of addressing exactly why you were blocked in the first place, ideally by demonstrating that you understand how your past actions were problematic, and committing yourself to avoiding repetition of the same conduct in the future. Some other things that are generally taken into consideration when an administrator reviews an unblock request include the amount of time that has elapsed since the block was placed, along with your activity in other areas of Wikipedia within that same interval, and your overall editing history. This block was implemented only a few weeks ago, and the main reason for its existence is because your editing of those two articles was tendentious in nature—unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles—or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and never have been. Literally, the page WP:PBLOCK states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Wikipedia can request the review here, he's quite allowed to do so. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Wikipedia has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --Jayron32 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I agree entirely with Jayron32, both on the procedural question and the merits. A cardinal rule for requesting an unblock is that you have give some kind of rationale--the block was improper, I'm sorry and I've learned my lesson, the cabal (TINC) is out to get me. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I'd like to see a rationale as mentioned by by other editors here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in WP:UNBLOCK#Routes to unblock that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full mea culpa on my part. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if WP:NOTBURO becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Wikipedia can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)  Done SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing awards and honour, Persistent disruptive editing

This SaNaNtha Hegde sockpuppet of [[174]] is back reverting and vandalism with disruptive edits over the pages. At Meena (actress), Vani Bhojan

with unsigned IP 27.61.27.250 at Meena (actress) - [[175]] at Vani Bhojan - [[176]]

with signed IP SaNaNtha Hegde at Meena (actress) - [[177]] at Vani Bhojan - [[178]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.88.20 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of talk

User:Nerguy has repeatedly (and without comment) deleted new sections and discussions that I have added (from 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B4E4:6286:6DBD:170B) to the relevant talk page Talk:Yitzchok Hutner, in which I discuss my attempts (also undone) to add alternate (and preferable to my mind) anglicizations (Yitzchok, Yitzhok, such that appear in the New York Times and in Hutner's own English articles, and elsewhere) of his Hebrew name.

   curprev 21:45, 24 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:950a:acd8:fce:779b talk‎ 49,673 bytes +107‎ →‎Spelling: new section undo
   curprev 19:53, 24 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −835‎ No edit summary undo Tag: Manual revert
   curprev 06:31, 24 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 50,401 bytes +289‎ →‎Vandalism undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 06:30, 24 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 50,112 bytes +546‎ Undid revision 1073680082 by Nerguy (talk) unjustified undo Tags: Undo Reverted
   curprev 00:29, 24 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −546‎ No edit summary undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted
   curprev 20:58, 23 February 2022‎ SineBot talk contribs‎ m 50,112 bytes +364‎ Signing comment by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B4E4:6286:6DBD:170B - "→‎Vandalism: new section" undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 20:57, 23 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 49,748 bytes +182‎ →‎Vandalism: new section undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 19:30, 23 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −924‎ Undid revision 1073627190 by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B4E4:6286:6DBD:170B (talk) undo Tag: Undo
   curprev 18:01, 23 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 50,490 bytes +924‎ Undid revision 1073575673 by Nerguy (talk). Why remove discussion of the correct spelling?! Don't vandalize. undo Tags: Undo Reverted
   curprev 11:37, 23 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −924‎ No edit summary undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted
   curprev 17:33, 22 February 2022‎ SineBot talk contribs‎ m 50,490 bytes +361‎ Signing comment by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B0CE:21B:B5D6:7E16 - "→‎Name: " undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 17:32, 22 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b0ce:21b:b5d6:7e16 talk‎ 50,129 bytes +274‎ →‎Name undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 15:25, 22 February 2022‎ 2a02:14f:1fa:7d96:9c57:8635:da1a:3796 talk‎ 49,855 bytes +289‎ →‎Name: new section undo Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:950A:ACD8:FCE:779B (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that attempts to discuss with the other person directly have already happened, with no response. Special:Diff/1073575385 Special:Diff/1073575673. And this does appear to be a good faith attempt to discuss how the article should deal with alternative name spellings. Uncle G (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. I will stick a warning on User:Nerguy's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evation

Long term abuse blocked user [179] has again being evading block with new IP [180]. --C messier (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Now he uses a new IP [181]. --C messier (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked this one as well. May be someone more skillful than me can block the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on behavior this could be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07/Archive. The IPs reported here are mobile phone IPs that geolocate to Athens. No obvious range blocks. I would suggest that individual IPs that seem to be this guy should be blocked for at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I reblocked both for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User: ZaniGiovanni

User ZaniGiovanni is showing continuous and disruptive behavior. In the talk pages, if he WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, he almost straight jumping to the accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, which is WP:NPA and continuously threats with ANI, which is disruptive and if not helpful for the [WP:IMPARTIAL] discussions. User not tries to understand others on the talk page and reach the consensus. User continuously pushes his WP:PUSH. This user treating editing as a battleground which is clear WP:NOTHERE.

Moreover, user in is editing career contribution highly involved into the reverting any changes he do not like on the AZ-ARM related topics, He holding his positions in the talk pages (not interested reaching consensus) and involved in the number of the ANIs where he also tried to push his POV. I have suspicion that it is coordinated WP:SPA account.

Examples:

1. With no reason he reverted the valid DRN which I raised.

2. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lachin&diff=prev&oldid=1073940146 he started the edit wars, instead of reaching the consensus on the edit he proposed, and then on the talk page he again started threatening me and accusing me "'[nearing into another ANI report if I'm being honest, this WP:SPA journey of yours is becoming very disruptive]"; "[just edit-warring at this point for the sake of pushing your POV without providing valid arguments for your removals of sourced content.]";

3. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan [he reverted the change on which consensus reached thru the detailed discussions where number of editors were involved.]. He not spent time to read the Talk page, but instead again jumped in to straight edit wars and accusation that I make an edit by myself.

4. [started the talk page, and user, instead of the focusing on the discussion, started his reply with direct accusations.]

5. Although consensus was reached on the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan page that information is [WP:EXTRAORDINARY] and [WP:BLPSOURCE], user started new dispute and edit war on the same information on Hajibala Abutalybov page.

6. On this case, despite of the fact that I tried to explain numerous of times that information is WP:RSHEADLINES and either need to be removed or improved, he continues to state same argument over and over again. User clearly not interested in reaching consensus.

--Abrvagl (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

1) You started multiple DRN discussions without even letting the talk discussion to develop or for the mediator to respond. The recent one was couple of hours old only and from the same talk page. I don't see how that's productive, you could've waited at least for the previous one to be resolved or for the mediator to respond before dumping random couple hour old talk page discussion into DRN. You also didn't respond to my last message in that talk discussion Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Missile_strike_on_the_nuclear_power_plant_in_Armenia or provide any valid arguments for your proposal for that matter, hence I found your DRN addition unfounded.

2) You're the one actually reverting me without valid reason in Lachin, which I also noted in the current DRN discussion and in talk page, see discussion

3) I explained my rationale in DRN and waiting for an input from the mediator.

4) you're an WP:SPA account imo, and it was noted by other editors from your previous ANI report as well, it's not like only I share this opinion.

5) Not sure what you're trying to say when I removed the BLP myself today when an IP tried adding it back, and which other Azerbaijani users removed too [182] including 3rd party editor from BLP discussion [183]. I'm actually in talks with the 3rd party user trying to reach consensus in their talk page.

6) ??

I'm actively trying to reach consensus both in DRN and in talk, meanwhile this user edit-wars and removes HRW sourced info, basic POV push and JDLI [184], [185]. They don't provide any valid arguments in talk either, see Talk:Lachin#HRW. I do believe this user to be on a sole WP:SPA journey and pushing their single POV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like the 2nd DRN user added from the same talk page was closed by the mediator. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

1. I started multiple DNR on different topics. if required moderators will decide to delete it.

2. I have very strong valid justification, which I already stated in the Talk page. And ah, it is you who trying to add information without reaching consensus, not me "removing sourced information".

3. You reply in the DRN not even related to the to topic of the DNR, and you even in the DNR could not manage to stick to the topic and started [WP:IMPARTIAL] discussions.

4. My previous ANI was raised by you, where you very harly pushed your POV to get me banned, but unsuccessfully. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

1) It was unneeded as it's another discussion added separately from the same article in the span of 1-2 hrs, and the mediator closed it.

2) No you don't and the talk discussion is evidence for it Talk:Lachin#HRW, what is this "strong" argument I've yet to hear about? It's very straight forward. We have the HRW source, you kept removing it and citing "ONUS" without actually giving your argument for it. You can't just cite random guidelines as a reason for your edit-war, it's just abuse of guidelines. You have to have an actual valid argument for removing sourced content by a very reliable source [186], [187].

3) I commented in DRN regarding both discussions in talk, including the one I suggested you to open a DRN for which I fought was important to comment on.

4) That doesn't change my point, other users have also stated that you're an WP:SPA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've recently closed some discussions on this topic area and while Zani's behaviour hasn't been entirely civil in my experience I'm not sure anything past a reminder to avoid disputes and have some more WP:CANDOR is needed. Zani is from what I read above clearly interested in working with you to reach common ground and resolve this issue. I would appreciate if you could refer to the actual threads were consensus was built before accusing Zani of acting against consensus, Abrvagl, as it is hard to follow exactly what your evidence suggests without this context. Abrvagl you are also a very new editor, so you might benefit from some more experience and training before starting so many noticeboard threads. Templates like {{help me}} or asking for advice at the Teahouse on how to settle disputes will be infinitely more helpful to you than getting involved in quick-fire succession at DRN and ANI (from my own personal experience, one needs much more competence to engage productively in these noticeboards). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!, I do not have personal issues with Zani. I try to threat everyone on the wikipedia in the same respectful way. I’m transparent and willing to accept if I m wrong. The only issue I having with Zani, is that he turning every discussion into the accusations, which is WP:NPA and this prevents us having effective and WP:IMPARTIAL conversations. He hold very defensive position and pushes his POV, while not hearing other editors arguments which he dont like. I can see same behavior from him not only against me, but also against other users, where he holds very defensive and aggressive positions, and he were involved into number ANIs / ban appeals agains other users.

That created suspicions for me that this account is SPA account, which aims to create this ugly situations where he continuously accuse editors on things, that they didnot do, and subsequently manages to ban/block other editors or damage their reputation. For example he collected information, created ANI agains me , and extremely pushed his POV to get me blocked. while I was not even involved with any conversation or connections with Zani.

Apart from that. Can you please look at the following discussions and help us to achieve consensus? I will follow your lead. Here are the talk pages:

Talk:Lachin#HRW; Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan; Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

thanks! --Abrvagl (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not the only one thinking that you're on a single purpose journey [188], [189], [190]. I don't mind 3rd party giving their input in talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!, Well, all of above who "think that Im SPA" did exactly like Zani - instead of contributions to the discussions, they immediately started threatening me and accusing me in things in which Im not involved. I still surprised HOW suddenly all of this people found out that there is ANI of me, because they were not replying to the talk pages for the weeks, but suddenly popped in the ANI. It is still very suspicious for me, as all of them are tied with Zani in previous ANIs and other pages. Suddenly from nowhere, Zani, which whom I previously not crossed, spent his time and raised ANI against me. Especially I would highlight inputs of the User Kevo327, who has connections with Zani, and who did WP:WIAPA accusations againt me in the ANI, in order to get me banned. This all look very suspicious, like coordinated efforts number of editors to ban me. I am ready to discuss and justify every single edit proposals I did, all of them were to improve article and Wikipedia, non of them had disruptive intention. --Abrvagl (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you on about with this rant? Did you even check the diffs of editors I linked? Yeah, apparently everyone is in a big conspiracy against you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Did I check? For sure I did. LouisAragon, whos first reply was accusations of SPA. HistoryofIran, who not replied in the talk page, but popped in the ANI with accusations. Kevo327, whom I mentioned above. But, all off these were groundless accusations which not followed WP:SPATG. Anyways, I decided that the only time I will ever respond to you, will be only on the discussions of the related article. I am out of the toxic conversations from now on. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!, I am ready to cooperate with you to solve our disputes with Zani. Thanks for the offer. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you should do the basic courtesy of pinging editors you rant about. Didn't you open another DRN regarding that talk discussion you're saying was "never replied" and the 3rd party editor closed it and basically told you the same thing? Yeah, for some reason you didn't address this. I suggest you stop casting aspersions and ranting about your fellow editors. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The editors seem to be throwing back and forth the allegation of being a single-purpose account as if there were a policy against single-purpose accounts. There is not such a policy. There is a guideline saying that they should attempt to edit neutrally, and that their contributions can be noted as such in deletion discussions and the closer may use judgment as to how much weight to give to them. This quarrel doesn't appear to involve deletion discussions. What we clearly have is two editors who do not like each other, and who may need to be reminded as to what the second pillar of Wikipedia and fourth pillar of Wikipedia are. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Do either or both of these editors need to be topic-banned, or is an interaction ban required (they usually do not work well), or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk), Dear McClenon, I wont say that I dont like Zani. Really, I can not say that, I do not know him personally and I like him same as I like you and any other people here. I dont think that Zani not likes me either. What I think is that Zani prejudge me and biased against me.

On wikipedia, I putting everything aside and trying to be 100% neutral despite of anything, because I like following rules to the word and I like to ensure that others follow the rules. My point here was that it is impossible to achieve WP:IMPARTIAL talks when you get constantly accused in different kind of things instead of having fruit-full conversations. Zani was on of the editors, who inclined to talk accusations in his responses, instead of purely focusing on the topic of the discussion. It was like bias and prejudice against me.

To stop that I taking action from my side that I will never engage to any toxic/blaming conversations with Zani, and response him only on staff that related to the article/edit. I will just ignore any comments not related to subject of the discussion. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment from a Non-Mediator

I have closed two requests for dispute resolution at DRN because this conduct dispute is in progress. Also, I will not be mediating any of these disputes. I was asked why I had accused an editor of removing sourced content. In looking at the exchange, it seems that I was being named, thus pinging me, but my name may have been mistaken for a signature. I am not involved in any of these battles on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but I do not intend to mediate any of them when my neutrality has been questioned. I would advise the editors to try to resolve these disputes somewhere other than at DRN, because I do not know whether there is a volunteer editor at DRN who is willing to take on a dispute that has become ugly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I'm willing to resolve Armenia/Azerbaijan disputes in general, but this one in particular I don't see how it can be solved at DRN as it is clear to me that it is not about the content as much as the editor conduct. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro

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

Hi all, I feel that this user is becoming a bit of a problem and resorts to very unpleasant attacks, particularly relating to two recent AfDs for Lelo Sejean. In this incident, he calls another user an imbecile and a racist and tells them that they're not allowed to edit any articles relating to Paraguay. Sejean was sent to AfD again this month and their response was to tell The-Pope to stay away from Paraguay football articles as well. What then follows is three posts which are clear verbal abuse. It's all in Spanish but I don't think that you will need a translator: [191] [192] [193]. This verbal abuse appeared to stop for a bit but there was one more incident. Please note 'hdp' means 'hijo de puta' (son of a bitch). If you look at this user's talk page history, they have had a plethora of warnings and have made no improvement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add canvassing for AfD.[194][195][196] Their behavior in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lelo Sejean (5th nomination) is out of line. Their comment there indicates they are using machine translation to write in English. Has made no comments on article talk pages since 2020. Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Block the number of personal attacks has been way too many. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• "I'm in charge of PGY Football Portal and PGY Articles"? The hell he is. Beyond that, someone who solely requires machine translation to edit frankly doesn't have the competence to edit on the English Wikipedia. I'm happy to support indef block as well. Ravenswing 20:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CIR combined with WP:CIVIL... never a good combination. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• One unblock request made so far. I've pointed directly to the diffs that are unacceptable. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

They have made another, which I have declined. Canterbury Tail talk 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comes back to WP:CIR Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they still don't address the issues. I've also directly asked them about the Google Translate comment. Canterbury Tail talk 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• I see at the AFD discussion for Lelo Sejean some have speculated that Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro is in fact Lelo Sejean. Interesting to note that Lelosejean was blocked some time ago for sockpuppetry. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this user has now said they will "come back with other account" to continue editing, so threatening to sock. Might be time to revoke talk page privileges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

IP editor doing something weird with repetitive edits going nowhere

IP editor 98.16.48.211 has added and removed a single full-stop more than 25 times at Melissa Perry (epidemiologist) here: [197]. I have no idea what they might be up to? Elemimele (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 IP blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing; they also seem to be evading a block on Special:Contribs/173.184.132.157. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Maybe the IP thought, incorrectly, that they could game autoconfirmation or extended-confirmed status for an IP address. There are a lot of myths and mistakes in Wikipedia, some of which are held by disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To defend him, unblock the UTRS pending user.

Admin, please. Gnisu (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would be difficult unless some context has been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I really think that we know the context. Special:Diff/1074060180 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeezGod Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• FWIW, I've restored NT4M's TPA, blocked the quacking OP, and voted "d" in what may or may not be a NT4M vanity-vs-UPE piece AfD. Insomnia! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump

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

---

I think the self-admitted incivility in these diffs (1, 2) speak for themselves, but a tl;dr - an editor blocked several times previously for personal attacks and harassment thinks more of the same will help Dr. Wikipedia save lives. --Equivamp - talk 13:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because obviously 'civility' matters more to this project than killing off readers with grossly misleading medical content created by semi-literate obsessives cherry-picking poorly-sourced content they clearly don't understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how intimidation and insults removes, rectifies, or prevents the misleading presentation of MEDRS content on Wikipedia. --Equivamp - talk 13:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that nothing else seems to prevent misleading 'medical' content either, maybe the answer is to stop creating such dangerous garbage entirely. Or at least ensure that articles are assessed by someone who has a fucking clue what they are looking at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Two things can be true here: an editor can be adding bad information that should have been caught by the AfC process and wasn't, and you're being grossly, inexplicably uncivil. One does not justify the other, and in fact the one probably undermines dealing with the first since it distracts from the real issue. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's inexplicable, the name is right on the tin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interestingly, I notice that you were able to raise this issue with the person who approved the draft without the same awful behavior. That user's fault is arguably greater. They're specifically entrusted with the responsibility to understand MEDRS guidelines and their failure caused the Draft to actually be indexable by search engines. But no threats or name-calling were posted to their talk page. You've had disputes with CycoMa1 before, it seems - would that have anything to do with it? --Equivamp - talk 13:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'real issue' here, beyond the obvious one of potentially killing readers through misinformation, is that the project is being damaged by an obsessive and incompetent 'contributor' who is utterly incapable of recognising their limitations, and who refuses to take note of civil advice regarding their behaviour. So yes, I've had issues with CycoMa1 before. Which is the only reason I discovered this particular spectacular example of incompetence. Would you have preferred that it went unnoticed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest anyone killed by Wikipedia content should write in and complain. But it is a worry. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I would have preferred is that such issues be caught in the filter it went through, AFC. Barring that, I would have preferred it had been discovered by an editor knowledgeable enough in the topic area to put the statistic into the proper perspective, rather than merely blanked by an editor armed only with a five-minute web search. Barring that, I would prefer the editor who removes problem material control their behavior when addressing it, equally when dealing with an unknown editor as they do one they have previously been in disputes with. --Equivamp - talk 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't there a thread here about CycoMa1's general competence and misusing and misrepresenting sources only a couple of weeks ago? I think it was related to Talk:Furry fandom#Gross misuse of a source. and Talk:Furry fandom#This article has deteriorated drastically in quality during the past few months. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't actually matter here, as it doesn't justify harassment, intimidation, or name-calling. --Equivamp - talk 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the big problem here is that we're at risk of "missing the forest for the trees". The big problem here is that we have an editor that clearly does not understand medical topics writing gibberish articles full of poor quality sourcing, incorrect information and synthesis. The fact that Andy finally lost their temper and told them to stop writing such poor quality articles is only a small part of the problem here. I've been here long enough to know that in the world of wiki-politics the way you say something is just as important as the actual substance of the comment, but I don't think it would be a good idea to sanction an editor for being rude without considering why a long term established editor felt it necessary to leave such a message in the first place. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Andy should raise those issues at appropriate venues, such as ANI or AE, instead of posting the way he did at the editor's talk page. No where in WP:PA does it say that editors are allowed to harass or personally attack others in name of the project. Isabelle ^🔔 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am aware of CycoMa1's editing weaknesses. See Talk:Detransition for an example in the MEDRS area where I was involved. I have seen people lose patience with him in a variety of ways, but I have not once seen anyone use such frustration to treat him or anyone else in such a disgusting manner. --Equivamp - talk 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not think that Andy's comment was acceptable and there are much better ways of dealing with these kind of issues. My point is that normal people do not just go around leaving messages like that for no reason, and I think it is a good idea to look at the circumstances surrounding the message. If Andy had instead collected together 20-30 diffs and put together an ANI report briefly explaining the issues with each one the discussion would probably be heading towards a topic ban or CIR ban for CycoMa1. IMO Andy needs some kind of warning about personal attacks and dealing with issues with other editors, and CycoMa1 needs a topic ban from medical topics. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(EC) You're thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Competence issues regarding User:CycoMa1 which was started by AndyTheGrump. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, there was a previous ANI thread. [198] Which seems to have had no effect whatsoever, given that CycoMa1 is now engaged in creating another semi-literate poorly-sourced content fork of the article discussed there. [199] Not that I consider writing vacuous furry-fancruft drafts to be remotely as damaging to the project. It the rest of the furries amongst contributors (there seem to be a few) are happy with such drivel, I'll agree to ignore it, if you like... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look at AtG's 'telling it like it is' "unfriendly advice". People have been killed by insane nonsense (drinking bleach, taking vermicide intended for horses, etc). No matter how much we declare that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that readers should read the citations, they have come to trust that Wikipedia articles on medical topics are fact-checked, that MEDRS works. So an editor who is willing to ride on that reputation to publish dangerous nonsense deserves nothing less than a tirade of abuse. This is not a just a question of 'competence is required', it is much more serious than that. AtG deserves a barn-star, not time on the naughty step. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, please. What AndyTheGrump removed was hardly the touting of poison as medicine, but the repetition of a statistic as reported by various RS, eg this. And aside from the complete AGF failure required to assume here that the edit was done to "ride" Wikipedia's reputation in order to get something published, WP:CIVIL makes no endorsement of abusing editors who are wrong. Even when it's serious. --Equivamp - talk 14:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand the statistics either. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems more like you don't understand what I said. --Equivamp - talk 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It was a bit like reporting the survival rate for leaping from an airplane without mentioning that the persons sampled were wearing parachutes. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

OTOH, people can get on an airplane without having any trained parachute professionals involved, but nobody can get this diagnosis without having their own personal, licensed physicians involved, and presumably those doctors will be saying things like "Yes, the five-year survival is basically 100% if we do this surgery, and it's a bit less than 100% if we don't". This is a characteristically slow-growing cancer, and sometimes you look back at the mammograms and discover that it's been there, and been the same size, for five years before diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe it would help if AndyTheGrump changed his name to AndyTheLovableCheekyChappie? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Support. Theknightwho (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  support but I personally favor AndyTheGump. I mean, who’s more likable than Tom Hanks? Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with AndyTheGrump that CycoMa1 should stay away from medical articles, given the previous WP:CIR issues. The statistics presented in the tubular carcinoma article for creation were indeed grossly misleading and dangerous. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish, I'd like to learn more about why you think those stats were grossly misleading and dangerous. Can you give an example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Prognosis is 93% to 99% survival rate at the ten year mark if identified and surgical intervention takes place. CycoMa1 stated that there was a near 100% survival rate and one person was known to have died. This gives the impression that it's not a serious condition. It would be nice to think that people didn't believe stuff that they read on the internet and listened to doctors and scientists, but I'm afraid I stopped believing that in the last two years. A schoolkid trying to avoid doing his homework should not be writing WP articles on cancer. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  A 99% survival rate is generally considered to be "a near 100%" survival rate. If we wanted to be absolutely precise, we'd have to specify that this is the time since diagnosis rather than time since genesis (a woman diagnosed at age 65 has probably already "survived" 5 to 10 years of cancer by the time of the diagnosis), and whether the number given is all-cause mortality (older patients die of unrelated health problems all the time) or disease-specific mortality. Or, indeed, whether those numbers are "survival" (the 99% number is always overall survival) or "disease-free survival". But at some level, since most people's mental model for cancer is "cancer in general", and since the 10-year non-breast-cancer survival rates running around 50% for cancer, anything in the high 90s is pretty much interchangeable in practice. Tubular carcinoma of the breast is cancer on the level of non-melanoma skin cancers, which are considered so non-dangerous medically that they don't even bother keeping statistics on them (they have a 98% disease-specific survival rate). The story in the doctor's office will be "You have pure tubular carcinoma! Feel relieved! This is good news!" And the patient will probably go home and cry her eyes out for a week, and resolve to do all the pink ribbon stuff, because all she remembers is that cancer is bad, and she really has no idea that in the context of cancer, this is not just not that dangerous. It's worse than the flu, and it's worse than DCIS (that's the form of breast cancer that actually increases your five-year survival rate compared to the general population – they're talking about reclassifying DCIS as a precancerous condition because of this), but I think there is a risk here of editors feeling cancer=dangerous!!!!11!! without actually understanding that cancer runs on a very wide spectrum, and this is very far down on the less-dangerous end of it.

  More practically, it sounds like your main concern with that sentence could have been solved by adding "with treatment" to the end of that sentence. This would have been a simple clarification for anyone to add. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I have other concerns after looking through their contributions, like editing numerous articles about intersexuality and gender identification after making a statement like this [200]. Yikes. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: dude I was new plus I was merely joking back then and I have already been called out on that before. To be honest right now I’m still debating to myself whether or not I should leave.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That was one of his first edits over 2 years ago, with 20,000+ since. There have been no issues with civility in his editing in that topic area since then. He would have ended up here for it if there had been. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Completely open to the idea that CycoMa1 should be asked to stop writing medical articles (and that perhaps HitroMilanese should stop accepting them at AfC), but ATG, when you find yourself tempted to create a section header "An unfriendly and uncivil word of advice" and start the para with "Stay the fuck away", it's time to go do something else for a while. valereee (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Ignore it. The WMF will survive for a few years even if we lose a few readers to treatable breast cancer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say ignore it. I said go do something else for a while. Once you're back in control of yourself, leave a civil warning. Something like a section header of February 2022 and an opener of "I think you need to stop creating medical articles." valereee (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to think that 'civil warnings' would get anywhere. Can I ask how you arrived at that conclusion given CycoMa1's history of making excuses, saying it won't happen again, and then going back to doing exactly the same thing? (See also [201]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe sanctions would be in order. People can understand you getting frustrated by this, especially when people's health is potentially at stake. But sweary comments can sometimes just inflame vandals? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

ATG, that diff appears to be an announcement of a wikibreak from about a half hour ago? valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've not been involved in the topic area, but pretty sure I'd prefer a gruff advocate for sound medical science over the quacking of fringe advocacy. People are getting hung up on the wording of the message, when the message itself is on the nose. Also not a fan of filing ANI reports on behalf of other users. If this CycoMa1 (who should be promptly banned form creating medial-related articles IMO) has a problem with AndytheGrump, then they can be the one to raise it here. Zaathras (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, the incivility was also directed at me, so I should be considered Sufficiently Involved to raise concerns over AndyTheGrump's behavior. --Equivamp - talk 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was uncivil to you. Had you actually shown the slightest concern regarding the issue that led to my comments to CycoMa1, I'd no doubt have been more polite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

How broad does this circle extend before you no longer consider such behavior justified? Does this self-imposed limit on your civility mesh with any warnings you have received before, during, or after your previous blocks for similar things? --Equivamp - talk 15:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Andy if you cannot contribute in a civil way perhaps you need to take a break from editing Wikipedia in general. This is a collaborative project, with one of its Pillars being, Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. You are clearly unwilling or unable to do that given the diffs provided and your behavior here. What do you plan on doing to correct that behavior? PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think that, at least in part, this is due to the continuing interaction between AndyTheGrump and CycoMa1 that led to AndyTheGrump blowing his stack. I would propose a temporary interaction ban between the two to let this cool down. Other people can oversee CycoMa1 (and I do believe he/she needs oversight). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is not simply between these two editors, as can be seen at this ANI thread and at his response to Equivamp. An interaction ban between Andy and a user that appears to be quitting Wikipedia is not the answer. Isabelle ^🔔 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_radicalization_of_users came to mind when reading this thread. AndyTheGrump I'd recommend spending some time in very uncontroversial areas for a bit so the wikistress from dealing with incompetent or vandal editors doesn't end up becoming more of an issue. The end don't always justify the means. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's a bit of a pattern with AndyTheGrump:

1. Andy attempts to deal with a problem user civilly
2. He is ignored
3. The issue doesn't get resolved
4. Andy blows his stack and gets taken to ANI
5. The underlying issue gets resolved as a side effect

If you want Andy to behave with civility, how about taking him seriously when he does so? 207.38.145.230 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A step that could be followed is that after Andy's advice is ignored by a user, Andy can bring the case themselves to AN/ANI as appropriate rather than trying to handle it themselves and then running into the latter problems. Warning the user, finding the user unresponsive, and reporting the user is absolutely within scope we expect and easily a means to keep civil. --Masem (t) 18:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Because people need to learn if they don't snap to it, Andy will blow his stack? I don't think that's a great training program. valereee (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What should we do? As this is a recurring issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's try this: Warning: AndyTheGrump, please stop leaving uncivil warnings on user talk pages. If a warning is clearly needed but you cannot come up with a civil warning yourself, please post a diff to AN/I for someone else to handle. WP appreciates your hard work and diligence, but you need to get the incivility under control, and now. valereee (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think a warning for AndyTheGrump is the bare minimum that should happen here. It's one thing to politely say to an editor "I think this set of contributions is problematic" either directly to the editor on their talk page or at one of the relevant noticeboards, it's another thing entirely to say Stay the fuck away from articles on medical topics.[202] WP:WIAPA is very clear on this, as is WP:5P4. If Andy cannot bring himself to being civil to other editors, and past history may allude to this being a long standing issue, then something stronger than a warning is warranted. The issue that caused the outburst is in no way proportional to the message left on CycoMa1's talk page, nor the contributions between Andy and Equivamp in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Andy has been warned multiple times. As we can see, it has zero effect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, then I'm of the opinion that Andy should be blocked per WP:BLOCKPOL or banned per WP:BANPOL, for persistent personal attacks. A quick look at Andy's block log does show a history of personal attacks. Though they are all from around ten years ago, the pertinent question is, has Andy shown any signs of changing over the last ten years? Or is this disruption likely to continue in perpetuity? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think a one week block might do it.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you often see step 1, or mostly just the others? SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Andy has been here for over a decade and he’s listed as 2295th by the number of edits.

Don’t you think he should have learned by now how to not blow a fuse when something doesn’t go his way?

I just have a hard time sympathizing with him because he’s clearly an experienced editor but hasn’t learned to control his temper.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Teapot, meet kettle. You've been here over 2 years and are 4631st in edits, yet are having significant WP:CIR and WP:CV issues, at the least. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing 2 years of experience with an decade of experience?

I admitted to y’all I was 20 which basically means when I first started editing I was literally a teenager and I also admitted to y’all I’m neurodivergent as well.

Andy is clearly older than me and has more experience. Yet he continues to break one of the five pillars WP:5P4.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Also with the whole WP:CV I already learned my lesson from that. You are just bringing up past mistakes and act like they are still relevant.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The cries of "but I am right" do not excuse their behavior. "I wouldn't beat my wife if she didn't deserve it" does not work in this day and age. He is an adult and completely responsible for his own actions. Period, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you perhaps clarify who you are comparing to a wife-beater, and how you think such comparisons are compatible with civility? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is being compared to or being called a wife-beater, it is a metaphor. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And if I described someone as an asshole for using such metaphors, that would be synecdoche. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's cocktail hour... valereee (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Medical articles topic ban for CycoMa1

• Apparently CycoMa1 is taking a break from Wikipedia until April 9. I suggest it would be useful if they find they are topic-banned from medical articles when they return. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It would. And I'd suggest that maybe someone familiar with Wikipedia copyright policy might be asked to look at their broader content too. From what I've seen, CycoMa1's content tends to fall along a line between very close paraphrasing of sources, and illiteracy. The latter is (barring bad medical advice) just Wikipedia's problem, but the former might possibly be of more significance. Mostly the cherry-pickings are short (and lacking context), but some might step over the line, maybe? Not my field of expertise, but some of it looks questionable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, of indefinite duration, from all MEDRS-articles, broadly construed, for CycoMa1 on the grounds of gross incompetence, recidivism, and a clear inability to follow policy. Normally I would suggest waiting for their input before proposing, but the numerous previous guarantees—and concomitant breaches of said guarantees—indicate it would be pointless. Per BlakKite: It would be useful if they find they are topic-banned from medical articles when they return. SN54129 15:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Normally I'd want to see input, also, but while I do think their taking a break sounds like a good idea, I don't think this should go away in the meantime. I have no objection to them appealing upon their return from their break. valereee (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per SN54129. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Guys I haven’t even touched medical topics in a long time anyway. Like I didn’t even touch that draft that was accepted by AFC. You guys are going around suggesting a topic ban over a draft that hasn’t been touched in a long time. Plus have you guys seen my other medical articles. No one has issues with those other articles.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Plus that draft was deleted anyway.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Actually nevermind I decided to retire Wikipedia takes too much of my time and its gotten boring.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of that, perhaps just agree to a voluntary restriction? i.e. you simply pledge to stay away from medical topics, rem0ove them all from your watchlist, etc... Then go about editing topics that are less controversial that interest you. Zaathras (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  No I’m quitting because apparently an uncivil editor like AndyTheGrump can just get away with uncivility and he acts like he’s the boss yet he’s been blocked so many times. Plus this site has gotten boring for me anyway and it takes up too much of time. I have better hobbies than this and I should get onto doing school work.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed my mind about quitting to be honest.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The community seems to be supporting a ban not just because they see disruptive editing in the past, but because they expect that pattern to continue into the future. Replying that the community's concerns are not relevant rather than admitting your shortcomings will only weaken the community's expectation that you can learn how to edit MEDRS constructively, CycoMa1. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  By 'a long time' do you mean a week? - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support although I haven't crossed their path recently, it appears as if they are still being difficult, and I have every sympathy with AndyTheGrump... and yes, it is my real name. -RoxAndy the Grumpy dog. wooF 16:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support and suggest we do indeed have a look at his other medical articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  CycoMa1 lists his/her medical article creations here: User:CycoMa1/Medical Articles. Judging from the lack of quality of the first one I looked at (Cancer recurrence), concern is warranted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  And Banki syndrome contains text copy/pasted from a US Govt site without attribution: I've fixed that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

With Banki syndrome I didn’t even do much of the work on that anyway.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The infobox with the copy/paste without attribution was one of your contributions, CycoMa1. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I warned CycoMa1 for copyright violations recently (not just unattributed use of public domain content, but copying from an obviously copyrighted source [203]). Looking at the cancer recurrence article, I quickly found another instance of unacceptably close paraphrasing (article: local recurrence after surgery with curative intent is regularly observed within 2 years for a majority of patients; source: Local recurrence after resection with curative intent is frequently observed within 2 years for the majority of patients)... just a trivial swap of two words. I worry that the issues with this user may extend beyond their editing of medical articles. Spicy (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

CycoMa1 was notified/warned of the copyright rules at least twice: 4 Jun 2021 and 29 Aug 2021, and the copy/paste on Banki syndrome was after that, on 10 Sept 2021. The cancer recurrence article violation was even later: 28 Sept 2021. Showing continuing WP:CV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

See also Wells-Jankovic syndrome, also created in September 2021. The article is a copyvio with trivial changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And I’ve found more very recent copy violations. I’m dealing with them one by one. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support After reading CycoMa1's comments on Talk:Detransition#suggested_sentence_describing_new_detransitioner_study, I support this on WP:CIR grounds. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest that CycoMa1 pick ONE area that he is interested in, and contribute to that topic only. When you see how many different areas he's tried to write articles in, you understand how he can easily go way beyond his competency, and currently appears to lack the experience that would help him understand when he is working well beyond his current capabilities and expertise. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Before blanking his userpage, he was in the following WikiProjects: Missing article, Mythology, Paranormal, Folklore, Religion, Sexology and sexuality, Biology, Ecology, Plants, Animals, Medicine, Geography, Furry, LGBT studies, History, Unreferenced articles, Missouri, and Geology. That's eighteen different projects, many of which are far afield from one another. Pick one and stick to it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support given the unwillingness to voluntarily step away from the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Too many excuses, not enough maturity yet. Miniapolis 01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can't read the underlying diff that led to this dispute so I won't give an opinion on this topic ban (perhaps the diff [204] on tubular carcinomas changes everything). But from the evidence I can see here, CycoMa's problems aren't related to medical topics in particular. They are deeper than that and as someone who commented at the furry fandom thread this seems to be an ongoing problem that won't be prevented or addressed by t-banning from medical topics. All that will happen is the disruptive editing will be displaced to other topic areas. CycoMa needs time to become more mature and understand what they are and are not competent at doing. They also need to understand when to stop talking, give up, and apologize because they thought they knew more than they actually did. This is a life lesson that will likely not be taught by a medical article t-ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum, though I share Chess' concerns. Given the issues with copyvios, misuse of sources, original reasearch/synthesis and poor quality English it would not surprise me if we were back here in a few months. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Block for AndyTheGrump

• This was just on this notice board two weeks ago.[205] Given the diffs here, his behavior in this discussion, and the various previous discussions on this noticeboard I am purposing AndyTheGrump receive a block. Please comment below with thoughts on the issue and a possible duration. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Two weeks pre all the previous blocks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support A two week block seems fine.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe that's necessary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wasn’t Andy warned multiple times? I’m pretty sure giving him another warning wouldn’t help.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Too soon. I think we need to see the outcome of the above proposal "Medical articles topic ban for CycoMa1". Whether it's cocktail hour or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why? What aspect of Andy's incivility becomes lesser or greater if CycoMa1 is or is not topic banned from medical articles? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I just think it's better to treat one issue at a time. The outcome of the proposed action against CycoMa1 is likely to sway my assessment of AndyTheGrump's incivility in that area. Sorry if you think these two topics are wholly separate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that could set a bad precedent, in that it allows for incivility directed at an editor so long as that editor is issued some sort of ban or block. I don't see any circumstances where Andy's incivility is warranted or acceptable. Frustration and anger because of the actions of another? Sure, that's part of being human. Acting on that frustration and anger and lashing out at another is unacceptable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - There are two issues at play here. Whether or not CycoMa1 should receive a topic ban from medical articles has no bearing on the disproportionate and unwarranted level of incivility demonstrated by AndyTheGrump. A glance over his block log history, and past discussions show that this is a chronic and long standing issue. This isn't an issue where only one editor is at fault. Both issues can be equally valid and need resolutions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on this reply on AndyTheGrump's talk page, I think a block of longer than two week's is necessary. To say (translation)I roar/growl/howl/rage therefore I am, followed by the paragraph on an intentional disregard of civility, which is part of the five pillars per WP:5P4, I now think that Andy is meets the criteria of WP:NOTHERE. Specifically per Little or no interest in working collaboratively, and Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention. I would suggest a longer term block on the order of 3 to 6 months, if not indefinite, given that Andy seems unwilling to moderate his own behaviour and actions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Having spent more time on my response to Girth Summit's comments on my talk page than was probably necessary, I'd be happy for more people to read it. And then decide whether they are going to block me for showing self-awareness, or for showing doublepluss-ungood-think with regard to Wikipedian creation mythology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and nice use of selective translation, by the way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: dare I say it, but while Andy absolutely should have brought the issue to ANI rather than taking it out on the editor, anger is a perfectly reasonable response sometimes, and dangerous misinformation strikes me as one of those times. That being said, I would strongly suggest that Andy spends some time away from disputes like these until he has a better sense for when issues need to be delegated upwards. Theknightwho (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Dangerous misinformation.

Keep in mind this is Wikipedia, teachers say nonstop “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.” Even Wikipedia itself says it isn’t a reliable source.

He has been uncivil for years with little signs of stopping. Also WP:CIVIL doesn’t say anything about whether or not uncivil behavior is justifiable due to misinformation.CycoMa1 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Very true, but I did actually say Andy absolutely should have brought the issue to ANI rather than taking it out on the editor. Plus the fact that a source purports itself not to be reliable isn't particularly relevant to whether or not it's reasonable to be angry at the propagation of misinformation on a website with one of the largest reaches in the world. Theknightwho (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way the only reason he found out about the issue was because he was WP:HOUNDING me. Before his outburst on my userpage the last time I interacted with the guy was like a week ago.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I was hounding you by not interacting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I believe I used the wrong terminology. But you were following me around nonetheless.

Your uncivil comment appeared like it was fueled by revenge or a grudge rather than something serious.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CycoMa1: I don't predict that your continued comments of this nature are going to be of any benefit, either to this proposal or to the one regarding your edits. --Equivamp - talk 01:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as previous warnings about this behavior have gone unheeded. A minimum two week block should be instituted. ––FormalDude talk 01:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose AtG's heart is in the right place, I think, and I've seen too many civility crusades like this used to string good editors up. Miniapolis 01:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support. I don't have an opinion about duration - previous blocks of similar length have clearly not resolved the issue, but the last one was some time ago, and I'm not familiar with how such a thing would normally be handled. I am frankly appalled at the number of editors who seemed to think AndyTheGrump's behavior is justified because my reporting it lead to additional eyes on CycoMa's edits, or worse, because a misrepresentation of CycoMa's stub cancer article as dangerous, fringe lunacy is so terrible that he deserves verbal abuse from someone wikihounding him. This has surely contributed to AndyTheGrump's continued insistence that he acted unassailably and less than a block will merely reaffirm such an idea. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The previous two-week block for uncivil behavior (vandalizing a user talk page, multiple times, to call someone a "homophobic turd" [206][207][208]) obviously hasn't worked. I suggest at least a month minimum. The next violation should be indef. Also, I think the closer should discard Oppose votes like the one above that basically says "Incivility is a perfectly reasonable response", which clearly contradicts a fundamental policy (and pillar) of Wikipedia. Consensus cannot be based on arguments that violate policy. Modulus12 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are you really suggesting that a ten year old block is relevant to this? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  And frankly I disagree with that block. The "victim" there was indeed a homophobic turd [209]. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, very reluctantly. CycoMa1 has really overextended himself and the lack of competence is notable in many of the areas he/she is trying to contribute to. I, too, am upset at some of the poor contributions CycoMa1 has made. That said, there is a good future for CycoMa1 if he/she backs away and listens to the counsel people have provided. The extreme language used by AndyTheGrump does not contribute to the encyclopedia and is counterproductive when trying to improve CycoMa1's future contributions to Wikipedia.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  And for duration, I support one week. We're not here to punish someone, but to protect Wikipedia. One week should be enough for AndyTheGrump to cool down and give thought to his future actions when dealing with frustrating people. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose No to cool-down blocks. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Those comments were wayyyy over the line. There were far better ways to have phrased it and it's not a binary choice between doing nothing or writing what he did. Another editor here brought up what they say to be the typical chain of events. AndyTheGrump attempts to deal with an issue civilly, is ignored, then loses his shit, and the underlying issue gets resolved at ANI as a side effect of the civility thing. As someone who hasn't interacted with AndyTheGrump very often, what exactly was stopping him from just starting another thread here at ANI? I understand that the previous thread didn't result in consequences, but that's because it was the warning thread. A second thread likely would have and currently is resulting in sanctions against CycoMa. I'll throw 1 month out of my hat because this continues to get worse. Being right is not an excuse here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy needs to be advised to phrase his warnings in a much less overtly confrontational and profane manner, which I have just done. CycoMa1, on the other hand, is introducing dangerous garbage into the encyclopedia, and that is a much more serious matter. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support two-week minimum block. I don’t care how fucking stupid a user is, you don’t treat them like that. AtG was and is being, quite frankly, a [redacted] meanie-butt. Human decency is one of the core values of this project. Saying someone is beneath it for being stupid and incompetent is an atrocious precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • What is the difference between saying an editor is acting like an "asshole" and telling an editor to "fuck off, fuckwit"? Levivich 08:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Levivich: Because Andy is clearly engaging in WP:HOUNDING and WP:legal threats and his verbal abuse goes beyond just calling someone “fuckwit”. He’s not just insulting someone in a moment of anger (like I just did)— he’s clearly trying to bully them off the encyclopedia (and at least partly succeeding), which is absolutely not okay. But since you politely complained I’m being polite in return and redacting it. Dronebogus (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:legal threats? How on earth did you come up with that ludicrous assertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • • @Dronebogus: WP:legal threats is quite a serious accusation... one that would get Andy indeffed immediately. Can you provide diffs to back up your claim? Also where is the evidence of WP:HOUNDING? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • He’s also already stooped to vandalizing someone’s userpage with juvenile insults multiple times, which is just pathetic and should make anyone think twice about someone’s ability to obey WP:CIVIL. Dronebogus (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do you just not believe in diffs, Dronebogus? Bishonen | tålk 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC).

• Support He was just here days ago for dropping the r-slur on someone. The nastiness is getting worse and there will be more victims. 2600:387:F:401B:0:0:0:B (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose punitive traffic-ticketry given the circumstances. Just because it's easy to point out a violation of WP:CIV doesn't mean we should block. Better to figure out how to stop the underlying issue of "introducing dangerous garbage" per Cullen. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The enthusiasts above might like to read WP:NOTPUNISH and WP:COOLDOWN. While it would be great if everyone was always nice, the fact is that people are different and they react differently when they see repeated article damage. My current strategy is to walk away because I'm busy with other things and someone else will fix the problem. Andy cares enough to stay the course and be that person who actually fixes the problem. It's unfortunate that he vents occasionally but the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not offer false civility to people who should not be here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Being right doesn't mean you have to be a **** about it. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 10:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst I am sure that Andy will no doubt talk himself into a block at some point in the future with his occasional outbursts, I note that CyCoMa1 (who caused the entire issue in the first place) has been quite vocal in his angling for a block above, and I am uncomfortable with being seen to reward his behaviour on this occasion. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per no previous blocks in a ~decade and NOCOOLDOWN. The support is unconvincing, not to say mealy-mouthed. SN54129 12:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Punitive, or even puny, traffic-ticketry, per Sluzzelin. It's interesting to see the bludgeoning of this very discussion by CycoMa1. Bishonen | tålk 13:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC).

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

Personal attack

I'd like to ask the administrators to appropriately sanction User:Jonny84 in order to prevent further disruptions, as the user continues to add disputed material to the Zabierzewo (a small village in Poland) article. This includes statements such as: "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany." [210], "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [211], and "Till 1871 it belonged to different German States and was Part of Prussia." [212]. What makes this behavior paritaulariy problematic is that this village has a population of only 150 and apparently the only thing that matters to user Jonny84 is the need to highlight that this area belonged Germany at some point in the past. This is a clear POV push to add all this to an article which originally just looked like this: [213]

Also, when I informed the user of that this type of controversial subject matter is under discretionary sanctions he removed my message form his talk page writing: "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [214]. --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@E-960, you didn't open a talk page section at the article in question? valereee (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, he wants sanction me, for putting in informations, which are facts.. That's funny as f***.. While he deletes German place names, which were sourced... While he puts in informations in nummerous articles without ANY SOURCE. I guess he lives in another reality.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope E-960 will get consequences for his vandalism and his POVish edits. He tries to block me, because I'm trying to stop his vandalism. Dear Admins please think about it. Thanks. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee, from what I understand the person proposing the new and disputed text should be the one who initiates the discussion and argues their case, the burden is ultimately on them to gain consensus for inclusion (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Also, this does not address the personal attack for which I'm mainly filing this notice. --E-960 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@E-960, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to discuss at article talk before going straight to ANI. And this editor doesn't have a lot of experience, so opening a talk page section would be possibly a way to help them learn to contribute productively.

@Jonny84, you are not making me confident that a talk page section would have been productive. Take it down several large notches. valereee (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not very active on English Wikipedia, because it's not much in my interest to work on its articles. But im observing since years, how polish wikipedians are trying to delete sentences about Germany in many Place Articles.. And I'm observing E-960's Edits since 4 years.. It's always the same, he deletes in hundred of articles German place names, even with source, statements about German history, even if it's a fact, and even more.. This is no coincidence. This is a really big planned vandalism since years and nobody works on stopping that. I can't ignore this mass manipulation. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, at this point the village has been under Poland longer then under Germany, so instead of adding stuff about Prussia, and the Germanic tribes, perhaps write something about the place now, like if it has a post office, as school, etc. Otherwise this POV push to show how "German" the place was a one point creates problems with historical context. --E-960 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• BTW, I would like to note that the statement made by user Jonny84 stating: "he deletes in hundred of articles German place names" is false. I do not go around removing "German place" names. However, recently I revised a number of stub articles, which included the problematic sentence: "Before 1945 it was Germany". So, I'd like to highlight and emphasize this misrepresentation, which was made by user Jonny84. It is simply not correct. --E-960 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't like getting into content here, but for purposes of better understanding what the asserted behavioral issue is, what is the misrepresentation? valereee (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh he still "plays his game" (everybody here can see that this is a planned provocation), trying to act innocent and ignoring everything, while giving nationalist and POVish statements like "the village has been under Poland longer then under Germany"... Totally blending out the historical fact, that it belonged to the Holy Roman Empire from 12th to 19th century. Communism is over E-960 and it will not come back and its fake history will also not come back. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-1945 Map

1)Everybody please read slowly his statement:"which included the problematic sentence: "Before 1945 it was Germany"" He just stated that history is problematic.. I know.. Because some want to create fake history instead, so thats why history is "problematic". 2) Don't tell me to contribute to articles, while you are mass deleting sentences, instead of contributing and expanding articles. Maybe to start first with expanding.. Deleting facts is not expanding, it's just the opposite. It's a reduction of articles. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, this is the second time you are personally attacking me by throwing around the "nationalist" label. --E-960 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@E-960: I always say someone needs to initiate discussion, it might as well be you. Just to further emphasise what Valereee has said, BRD doesn't actually say anything about who has to initiate discussion. You're thinking WP:ONUS but even that doesn't actually say who has to initiate discussion, just that the onus is on the party seeking inclusion to achieve consensus when there is dispute. In fact if you read the supplement WP:BRD, it specificially notes in the revert part "Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." The whole point of BRD is that the next part of the cycle after being bold and reverting is there needs to be discussion, so whichever side your on, it's generally unhelpful to demand the other party initiates it. Noting also that since you generally shouldn't revert simply because the edit wasn't discussed first, you must have a reason for disagreeing with the proposed changed. So unless the edit is so bad you couldn't understand it, even with out longer edit summaries you can probably offer some more detailed explanation on the talk page why you disagree with the proposed change. The end result of all this is that most of the time, it's a bad idea IMO to open an ANI thread which relates to content dispute when there's been no discussion on the article talk and you're involved in that dispute. To some extent it will depend on the specific case, while we don't rule on content issues here, in reality if someone was trying to add that Trump said Putin was smart to the lead of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, we'd probably not care that people reverting them didn't start a talk page discussion. On the flip side, if it was well supported in reliable sources that the invasion had ended after Russia and Ukraine signed a peace treaty, and someone kept revert this from the lead demanding that the people seeking to include initiate a discussion, their actions are unlikely to be viewed with sympathy. But generally, just start a discussion and don't worry about who should. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania. Having said that (and acted on it) I see nothing wrong with including the German name. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the former German place name was not a problem, and I have no issue with having it in the article.--E-960 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is primarily a content dispute. "Nationalist" may be an insult, or it may be descriptive. It rather depends on whether one's editing intimates it. In any case, this is all good stuff... for the article(s') take page(s). SN54129 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  54129, when someone says to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [215] I take it as an insult, I am not a "nationalist" and I do not wish to be labeled as one. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Per this map the area was also part of Poland during its history, so the stand alone "before 1945 it was Germany" is a an out of context statement.

• Sure you are not a nationalist lol, when it's important to you to claim multiple times, that the village belonged longer to Poland when to Germany, even if it's falsifying. You are a really good joker. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84. Me a joker... a nationalist??? No, just a mathematician I guess, please consider... Germany form 1871 to 1945 (74 years), Poland form 1945 to 2022 (77 years). --E-960 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess you forget about the German Confederation and Prussia and so on... You're really bad at mathematics.. And there are some maps missing like these for example... But I'm a good guy, and I'm helping you at that ;) --Jonny84 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I am engaging on the point on when the region was part of Germany. The region under discussion was part of HRR in 1181, termporarily, then finally, from 1227.

1) Germany is NOT a creation of 1871. I have noted that the Polish like to claim this everywhere. The northern part of the Holy Roman Empire was the Kingdom of Germany - please consult wikipedia: Kingdom_of_Germany! Please look up some books from google books from say the 17th century that even have today's Slovenia classified as a "region of Germany".

2) As Jonny84 pointed out the unification of 1871 persupposes that there was "Germany" before - actually, since the Middle Ages. From when on can the Holy Roman Empire be called "Germany"? German historians are actually careful and do not take 920 AD as starting point of "Germany" - but rather the 12th century: "Besonders seit dem 12. Jahrhundert kann jedoch kein Zweifel mehr daran bestehen, dass die Zeitgenossen dieses karolonigsch-antike und christlich-kirchliche Reich als Lebensform, Eigentum und Stolz des heanwachsenden und weiterhin heranwachsenden deutschen Volkes verstanden haben. [...] Daher kann die moderne Wissenschaft spätestens seit dem 12. Jahrhundert unbesorgt von Deutschland sprechen [...]" (please use linguee translate, citation from "Norbert Conradis: Schlesien" p. 43on Silesia, but same for Pomerania)

3) Please compare that Polish sources employ "Poland" even to the early state of Mieszko even round 1000 AD, which is HUGELY debatable as Norbert Conradis points out! There were no modern states around 1000. By this (weaker) standard of historians, "Germany" was created in 920 AD.

Oh sure, all people think: there was this Holy Roman Empire - but not Germany. The Polish like to tell that the Holy Roman Empire was not Germany but some other strange realm. No!, the HRR was Germany at the time - at least the northern part truly was the Kingdom of Germany. It came from the East Francian Empire. The rulers had the titles German king and Holy Roman Empire.

The term "Holy Roman Empire" relates to the claim that the realm was not ONLY the German kingdom but also a claimed hegemon to all European states. The term "Holy Roman Empire" relates to the claim of being something more than the other kingdoms but DOES NOT mean that the realm was less of a kingdom of Germany. Yes, the Holy Roman Empire was a multinational state- but so were all European states of the time.

The term "Holy Roman Empire" rather is a title Germans used themselves, like they now use "Bundesrepublik" or like all people use "United states". The term hence even must NOT BE USED when taking of Holy Roman Empire as compared with Poland - but here "Germany" should be used

Summing up: the Polish seem to DELIBERATELY misunderstand the term "Holy Roman Empire" to point away from the facts that the regions Pomerania (today's Polish Western Pomerania) and Silesia were part of "Germany" since the Middle Ages.

As for the edit "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany" - it is fully justified by facts. Was German since the Middle Ages.

The sentence "from 1871 to 1945 it was part of Germany" is bad because it implies that it was German only from 1871 which is blatantly false. Its is a joke that the Polish claim that it was German only in 1871. I guess that Polish historians are a bit more careful in sweeping history under the rug, but "German only in 1871" seems to be the implication that successfully transpired. By this standard the Polish should also say that, say, Cracow was "Polish from 1919 to 1939" and then since 1945. Nonsense.

--Tino Cannst (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Facepalm... seriously, the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation, were not Germany, look it up, Germany was created in 1871. You only prove my point that the original statement was out of place, and you have a vague and mixed up understanding of history. Btw, interesting touch by including the 19th century map of the Germanic tries form 2000 years ago. hmmm... this talk about the ancient Germanic peoples and their claim to the land strikes an uncomfortable tone. --E-960 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

1) Funny, so how comes the word Deutschland (Germany) existed before 1871 if there was nothing like that... The word Germany wasn't invented for the German Empire of 1871.. They even called it the "Unification of Germany", so how could they unifite Germany, if it didn't exist before? Ha? 2) You are trying to divide German states into parts without connection, while stating Polish Peoples Republic, modern-day Polish Republic, Poland-Lithuania, Piast Poland "as one" at the same time..(I would called it DOUBLE STANDARD = not neutral) I feel very amused. Your POV is not going to anywhere... This is blatant POV-pushing.. and creating and invention of fiction.. And hopefully it gets you banned one day.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - whilst not having looked into the dispute in question, on Wikipedia we do not rewrite history. If a Polish village was part of Germany between 1871 and 1945, we record that fact. If said village was part of Prussia before 1871, we record that fact also. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots, sure and if it was part of of the Duchy of Poland we record that fact, and if it was part of the Kingdom of Denmark we record that fact, and if it was part of the Kingdom of Sweden we record that fact. Not "before 1945 it was Germany." since the last ice age up to 1945, I guess. --E-960 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, pleasse address the name calling by Jonny84, this is my main complaint here. --E-960 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, stop talking about editors (nationalist, joker) and start talking about edits. E-960, removing any reference to a area's history of having been part of another country does very much look like POV pushing, which is a behavioral issue. Stop that. The two of you should now be able to take this to talk. valereee (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee, please consider the earlier comment by user Phil Bridger, the issue here is not removing history, but article balance, and full context. --E-960 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing "Before 1945 it was Germany" from multiple articles because it's "problematic" instead of correcting the statement to something like "from 1871 to 1945 it was part of Germany" does appear to be POV pushing IMO and a behavior issue. Phil Bridger is free to discuss that as a content issue with you and Jonny84 at the article talk, but what I am seeing is a behavioral issue on your part w/re that removal. valereee (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, the edit removed (this one) does suggest that the area had always been German before 1945, which is of course misleading (not to mention that it was unsourced). A sourced edit showing the correct history would have been fine, of course. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, in this point you are right. But deleting it DON'T solve this. Now it's even worser, it suggests it was always Poland and never anything else. Misleading anyway. The only solution would be expanding. And i don't mean the addings of E-960, they are misleading even more. And last but not least, most of the villages didn't existed in 960, becuase they were founded by German settlers in the 13th century and were first mentioned in 13th century, so what is the sense in writing of Poland in 960? --Jonny84 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, but add what, more historical and unsourced POV nonsense like this which user Jonny84 added: "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [216]. Lets try, because of the Yalta Conference. I ask the admins to carefully look at what user Jonny84 actually added, none of its sourced, and like user Phil Bridger stated: "Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania." It's all about context, accuracy, balance and due weight. --E-960 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This should be a brief article about a small village. Couldn't there be a statement that refers to the history of pomerania or western pomerania and just states that the village has been part of many different countries over its history? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I can't agree with some of the statements above supporting retention of this content. There are many thousands of villages in the world that are located in places that have been part of different countries over the last few centuries. Should we be repeating the history in every one of them, even when no source has been provided about the particular village in question, and admonishing people who remove such content? Of course not: that belongs in articles about the wider region that has changed hands, rather than in each one of the village articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  And that is a fine discussion for the talk page. Unless someone thinks there's still a behavioral issue to deal with, I think we can close this. valereee (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which brings me to my main complaint when Jonny84 wrote this in response to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [217]. I think at least a formal warning is in place, personal attacks and name calling are not ok. --E-960 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which has been dealt with. The user has been asked not to talk about editors but instead about edits. Please go discuss your content dispute at the article talk. valereee (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  You accused E-960 (who I am no friend of) of POV-pushing for removing material that is not sourced to anything mentioning this village. That is a behavioural issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  So, when I see information in an article that isn't sourced, but doesn't seem actually dubious, but I don't know enough about that information to know where/how to find a source, I usually tag it or open a talk section or both. E-960 on multiple articles is apparently instead removing information that isn't dubious (but simply partially imprecise) and that it seems like they do know where to find sources for, and calling the actually-not-dubious but simply not-precise information "problematic". I'm trying to be open-minded, here. But, okay then. If you think this is a behavior issue on my part, I'll excuse myself from this discussion and someone else can take over. valereee (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I meant that you were accusing E-960 of a behavioural issue, not that there was one on your part. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry, Phil Bridger. The reason I said "Unless someone thinks there's still a behavioral issue to deal with, I think we can close this" was that when I earlier had said "Jonny84, stop talking about editors (nationalist, joker) and start talking about edits. E-960, removing any reference to a area's history of having been part of another country does very much look like POV pushing, which is a behavioral issue. Stop that", I thought that adequately addressed the behavior issues, which to me seemed not to require anything more than a simple "Please both of you stop, and start talking productively." I know that E-960 has still been asking for further action about Jonny84's calling them a nationalist and a joker (which I agree Jonny84 needs to stop doing, and have told them that), but at this point I don't really see the need for further action, myself. Do you? valereee (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil abuse from Ronherry

Background: User:Ronherry already has a long history of making personal attacks towards me, going back as far as September 2021, which was covered in this past ANI thread here. Previously, he has insulted my editor status, my writing capability ("not being able to write your own sentences"), accused me of not knowing what an FA is... general attacks that made me feel very uncomfortable. At the time, ANI thread agreed to drop the stick, and I felt that it was the best action going forward.

However, another dispute that has made me uncomfortable again happened. I was editing "Do We Have A Problem?" when I noticed that Ronherry had added unsourced information about the song's commercial performance, that didn't seem to belong there. I reverted it saying that it didn't have a source. (and the source that he later added changes from week to week.) General disagreements occur, until he takes it to the talk page and makes me uncomfortable again, by using my user page as an insult, (saying my "fan feelings" are "influencing my edits", even though the part they linked doesn't say either at all..).

I was actually going to reply, as I was open to having a discussion about the article's content, (for example, Anaconda doesn't mention Shake It Off blocking it from the top spot) but the hostility of their reply reminded me of the abuse I had received before from them. That's why I'm asking here as I feel I will be baited into an argument that will reach a dead end and just ruin my mood. I am frankly sick and tired of this hostility.

Pinging all of the people who commented on this specific dispute before in the last thread, so that hopefully they may be able to offer insight as they have experience with this. @Bbb23, Floquenbeam, Ravenswing, Cullen328, JayBeeEll, and EEng: shanghai.^{talk to me} 19:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'd point out that you've exceeded WP:3RR on that article, having reverted four times in the last 24 hours (as far as I can see, though I could be wrong, Ronherry has only reverted three times, as some of their additions were different). Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  The content was unsourced, that's why I initially reverted at first. Also, I didn't exceed 3RR? This was revert 1, revert 2, and revert 3. If you're talking about the initial edit, that wasn't a revert, it was just removal of content.... shanghai.^{talk to me} 19:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but it was content added by the edit previous to it (by the IP). Anyway, regardless, I appreciate that it wasn't sourced properly because it would be out of date in a week, but it wouldn't have been difficult to do so (in fact I just have, you only need to append the date to the URL), and it is quite notable for a single by a major star to hit the charts at #2 and then fall that far the next week (it's not so unusual for more niche artists). Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be open to having a conversation about the article's content, which is what I initially wanted to do anyways at the talk page, before Ronherry threw multiple personal attacks and consistent aggression and hostility at me. As of right now that's my main concern. I don't really want to take any more insults from them, in all honesty. shanghai.^{talk to me} 20:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I struggle to see much difference between You cannot let your fan feelings influence your edits and this edit summary. Neither are worth the attention of ANI. – ².O.^Boxing 22:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither constitute as being uncivil in my opinion. If anything, I see as this thread as just bringing over the issue that should be on the talk page over to ANI. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In my defense, RogueShanghai has created a version of myself, in his head, that targets him. All I have did is safeguard WP:NPOV in every article I come across, so when I perform neutralizing edits on those articles, some of which Rogue has edited on, he has problems with it and claims I'm biased. I also think bringing this up to ANI and making it about me without even attempting to directly address the actual dispute on the article's talk page eventhough I asked them to is just another way to deflect from the subject. ℛonherry☘ 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Okay, now this is even more uncivil, you're straight up misgendering me which is ticking me off. Are you kidding me? Seriously? his head, that targets him. We have already had disputes several times before, and you've already used several parts of user page as an insult against me- how are you missing the part where it says I use they/them pronouns?

This is just more uncivil insults from you and I'm sick and tired of it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually told Ron, directly, that you wish to be referred to by those pronouns? If not then your response above is coming across as an attempt to make something stick (which would be rather uncivil). – ².O.^Boxing 10:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you don't understand how quite triggering it is to be refereed to with pronouns that don't match my gender identity. Ronherry has already looked at my user page before using it to throw insults at me, and at the time of that initial reply I already had they/them pronouns on my userpage. Furthermore, how is me expressing my frustrations as a genderqueer person about being misgendered uncivil, but them misgendering me in the first place... isn't? shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't know about anyone else but I generally completely ignore userboxes on people's talkpages as they very rarely provide any useful information relating to actually editing Wikipedia. I think the fact that Ronherry is presumably now aware of your preferred pronouns means that issue is now solved. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns came up in the last ANI, too, so one would think Rh could have picked them up there. Both this and the previous ANI left me very unimpressed with the behavior of both Rh and RS, I think an interaction ban should be considered. —JBL (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They came up in the last ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Ping abuse by user:RogueShanghai but AFAICT, not directed as Ronherry so it's possible they simply ignored that part of the thread or at least didn't pay enough attention to notice the pronoun issue. Likewise as Black Kite said, even accepting Ronherry has looked at parts of RogueShanghai's user page enough to notice the mission statement, it's easily possible they did not notice the user boxes for a variety of reasons. I think it's fair to say Ronherry should know now. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If I can miss it when specifically looking for a mention of pronouns then it's more than reasonable to assume that Ron also missed it. It might be useful to add it to the written introduction. – ².O.^Boxing 15:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73

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

---

User:Sergecross73 is Wiki admin who unfairly houdned and banned me for trying prevent vandlism on the following Wikipedia article: Heartbreak on a Full Moon.

Someone recently alerted me on my talk page Link to disruptive editing and blatant vandalism on the aforementioned article; where large portions of the source article were removed without explanation or consensus. I subsequently reverted said vandalism as I've done so previously on the same article (as can be seen in the edit history of the article). Following this, a user falsely accused me of being sockpuppet account of another user. Because apparently its unheard of for multiple editors to take interest in the same articles and stop vandalism of said articles. Nevertheless, following this false accusation, multiple accounts left messages on my talk page alerting me to the sockpuppetry accusations. While this was happening, Wiki admin User:Sergecross73 started editing my talk page to remove said messages without engaging with me directly or explaining to me what was happening. The same users that were leaving messages on my talk page also tagged me in a message on User:Sergecross73 talk page. I responded to one of these tagged messages on User:Sergecross73 talk page and indicated that I was not a sockpuppet and that this was a false accusation. I also asked this admin why they were editing my talk and not engaging with me directly.

User:Sergecross73 later responded on my talk page by saying it was extremely suspect that I responded to a tagged message on their talk page from a ban evador and was reverting vandalism on the aforementioned article in a similar manner to the ban evador. Now to be completely clear, I have no idea that the individuals leaving messages on my talk and tagging me in messages on User:Sergecross73 talk page were ban evadors and enaging in sockpuppetry. I simply responded to a message I was tagged in on their talk page. Following this response from User:Sergecross73 on my talk page, I told them that multiple editors can take an interest in stopping vandalism on the same articles (just as vandals can engage in the disruptive editing on the same articles). I reverted the aformentioned article to its previous state to remove what I believed to be vandlism. I didn't do it with the intention of continuing someone else's pattern of editing. I also informed User:Sergecross73 that they were welcome to conduct a sockpuppet investigation on my account to clear any doubts they had. They however ignored this suggestion and started hounding WP:HOUNDING me, under the false and baseless assumption that I was a ban evador using a sockpuppet account. As part of their hounding, they gave me nonsensical warning of edit warring because I made 1 revert on the aforementioned article to correct for blatant vandalism.

Later in the day, I updated an excerpt on the following article Chris Brown. Mind you, the excerpt I updated on this article was previously added into the article by me. I was only updating it to reflect revised sales data using the same sources. The update was reverted by the same user who had been reverting the Heartbreak on a Full Moon article. I reverted it again to reflect the update sales data. Now as mentioned previously, User:Sergecross73 had started hounding me and monitoring my edits across articles. They noticed me updating my own excerpt on an article and ironically enough banned me for edit warring. Apparently, I was engaged in an edit war against myself (to revise a previous interation of my excerpt on an article) and was banned for 48 hours as a result of it.

They later tried to justify this nonsensical edit warring ban on my talk page. Apparently, when 2 parties are engaged in reverts, only the party that is reverting an article to its original state to remove vandalism (where large sections are removed without explanation or consensus) is engaged in an edit war. I explicitly told the admin that the real reason for this nonsensical ban was their false assumption that I was a ban evador and seeking to continue their edits. I'm simply interested in correcting for vandalism on the same articles. The admin later admitted that this was the reason for their behavior. And laughably enough, they implied that hounding users and abusing their admin powers to enfource bans based on false and baseless assumption is in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Eventually this admin did conduct a sockpuppet investigation on my account (which I had suggested in my initial exchange with them) and found that my account is unrelated to the ban evadors and sockpuppets they have had issues with previously.

Essentially, this admin operated under false assumptions to hound me and abuse their admin powers in a one-sided manner. If they believed me to be a ban evador, they should've confirmed their suspicions with an investigation beforehand (as I had suggested initially) and then taken actions against guilty parties actually engaging sockpuppetry. I simply chose to preserve an article as is and got falsely accused of sockpuppetry because of it and eventually got hounded and banned by this admin for trying to clear my name of this false accusation. It goes without saying that multiple editors can take interest in the same pages/articles and are concerned with preserving their contents; and to be clear I do have an interest in the aforementioned artist and their discography pages. As stated before, there was a clear pattern of disruptive editing and vandlism on these articles. Unfortunately, if you try to correct for vandlism on these pages you can get falsely accused of sockpuppetry and the disruptive edits remain. This is also happening on a number of other articles related to the artist, again without explanation or consensus by the same users. The main issue here is that these articles are being destroyed.

I would like to correct for the vandlism on these articles again but I won't do so until its deemed acceptable by another admin. Because quite frankly, the admin User:Sergecross73 seems to have an interest in preserving the vandlism on these articles and hounds editors who try to correct for it. Most of the evidence related to this complaint can be found on my talk page, the talk page of User:Sergecross73 and the edit histories of the aformentioned articles that resulted in the edit warring ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantwatym (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I warned this editor about edit warring. They ignored me and kept reverting. So I blocked them. I told them they could file an unblock request and they didn't. And they didn't notify me of this discussion, I only stumbled upon it because of my watchlist. I also have no interest or history in Chris Brown or related articles. I only intervened because I was notified of a conflict unrelated to this editor. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above the edit warring warning wasn't even justified and was based on the admins false assumption that I was a sockpuppet continuing someone else's edit war (which they fully admitted to as well in an exchange on my talk page). Again an abuse of admin powers without justification. Moreover, the edit warring warning was 1 sided and the admin also accused of edit warring between different versions of my own excerpt on another article (as ridiculous as that sounds). Following my edits across multiple articles based on a false assumption of sockpuppetry is hounding. Personally, it seems that the admin has an interest in preserving vandalism on the aforementioned articles. - User talk:Instantwatym — Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, your edit warring was unrelated to whether or not you were a sockpuppet. That had no bearing on your edit warring warning and subsequent block. You're conflating issues. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again, not vandalism. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not vandalism in your opinion. It is afterall subjective. A lot of the sourced content in the article was removed and in my opinion it was done so in a biased manner and in my opinion it constitutes vandalism. Nevertheless, the edit warring warning was ridiculous and applied in a 1 sided manner, and under the false assumption that I was a sockpuppet continuing a previous edit war. - User talk:Instantwatym — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. See WP:VANDTYPES and WP:VANDNOT. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue about your content disputes. That's for the talk pages you generally haven't been using so far. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you are aware of what constitutes vandalism. Aardwolf68's edit was very much warranted given the unnecessary bloat before their edit. In fact, I'd argue it was borderline WP:FANPOV. As for the block evasion/sockpuppetry, I would need further evidence before commenting on the matter. As for the hounding, Sergecross73 was well within their admin rights to warn you of the situation to prevent further edit warring. If anything, the talk page should have been your outlet if you had issues with the content removed. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Calton (1961-2022)

I regret to inform the Wikipedia community that User:Calton has passed away after a short illness. I've known Calton online for almost 30 years; the worst one could say about him is that he didn't tolerate fools well. He was an honest seeker of truth, and I'll miss him. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know, Jpgordon. I've added the various templates, protected his userpage and added his name to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, and have also arranged to have his account locked. Risker (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Proletarian Banner seemingly WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Besides their name being an obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX, most of their edits are either removing perceived “bias” from socialism articles or complaining about the same on talk pages. On an unrelated note they also identify as a “militant atheist” which may be a violation of userpage policy as inflammatory and/or the WP:UCOC. Overall I’m concerned they have no interest in collaboratively building an encyclopedia. Yes I’m aware I’m supposed to try discussing this with them first but I’m not sure what the point is with a clear WP:SPA Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

So you barge into ANI, link someone's contributions list, refuse to elaborate further, and leave. I'll look at some of these diffs since you won't link them. For instance, on the article Erich Honecker, they replaced the word "regime" in many parts with "government". [218] While obviously this user likes Honecker given their avowed "anti-revisionism", the term "regime" is loaded language so it would seem like they are removing bias (even though they did misuse the minor edit functionality). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for misusing the minor edit functionality, that was when I didn't understand how to use it, I didn't realize there was a thing explaining the usage of such until a couple weeks ago, then I read it and learned how to use the feature. Proletarian Banner (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Don’t be so hostile. You aren’t an admin and nobody asked for your opinion. I honestly didn’t think it needed elaboration. This is about a pattern, not a specific edit or edits. While I think some of them are legitimate edits most of them seem like WP:GREATWRONGS. Dronebogus (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They weren't being hostile in my opinion and they were defending me, a relatively new user. This is a site where one's edits are subject to being scrutinized as it is a community, collaborative effort. I felt the usage of loaded language was perhaps unnecessary when other terms can be substituted in their place. Proletarian Banner (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Responding like this with unprovoked “in my humble opinion” complaining-about-complaints is why ANI has such an awful reputation. The point of this board is to request rapid administrator feedback and action against fast-moving potential problems, not to argue with other users about who’s stupider. Dronebogus (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: - two points. 1) anyone is welcome to contribute constructively here, be they Jimbo, a steward, beaurocrat, admin, registered editor or IP. 2) Editors who raise issues where are liable to have their own editing scrutinised. Some get hit by boomerangs. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think the fact that PB is trying to justify their edits on talk pages, often extensively, is a positive rather than a negative criteria. I also note that they are capable of apologising to other editors when their rhetoric has been a little over the top. PB hasn't edited for nearly two weeks so there is no urgent problem here; I suggest that if there are future genuine issues then they are brought here with appropriate diffs. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

PB in fact has edited today: Dronebogus has simply linked to the second page of their contributions. (Though their only edits today are five consecutive talkpage edits, and their last articlespace edit was over a week ago, which IMO doesn't rise to the level of "fast-moving potential problem"). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. The point still generally applies though, to be honest - I don't see an immediate problem that needs admin action. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see anything that needs to be discussed here without seeing specific diffs. At a glance, most of the mainspace edits consist of the likes of changing "regime" to "government"... which is arguably more neutral. I'm not concerned about the user name either. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost all of the OPs ANI participation has been like this, despite many comments about it; is there anything that could be done? —JBL (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

An ANI could be opened about it? I'm a bit concerned about comments made in a different discussion above, where the OP appears to have made baseless accusations of WP:legal threats. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP originating from Philippines

• 175.176.24.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 175.176.26.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range has been going around various articles and introducing unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials since January 2020, I have warned the respective IPs at User talk:175.176.24.158, User talk:175.176.24.17, User talk:175.176.24.103, User talk:175.176.24.58, and User talk:175.176.24.34, of which they have no intention to provide even a single source nor have any intention to stop introducing unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials.

Please help to range block as they're using dynamic IP of which 175.176.24.158 and also 175.176.24.17 operates at the same time with same behavior of introducing unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated at 10:36, 27 February 2022. IP hopped another range and started adding back the unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials to various articles. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And how did you know that they originated in the philippines? —Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki Click Contribs, scroll all the way down, click on GeoLocate. Maybe not as accurate as the tools used by admins but should be more or less accurate to certain extend. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done I have blocked both /24 ranges for 3 months as there doesn't appear to be much collateral damage, and there are too many articles to be semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Osman ibn Ali2001

Osman ibn Ali2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another typical case of a WP:NOTHERE user attempting to push his/her pov.

Since November 2021, user has attempted to change the ethnicity of this person to Uzbek, completely disregarding the cited sources; [219] [220] [221]

[222] 27 February 2022 - Replaced the Persian spelling with Uzbek

[223] 27 February 2022 - Replaced the Persian spelling with Uzbek. Added "Uzbekistan" as birth place, even though it first came to existence after the Soviets fell.

[224] 27 February 2022 - Replaced "Persian" with "Uzbek"

[225] 27 February 2022 - Added three non-Uzbeks in the article.

[226] 27 February 2022 - Replaced "Iranian" with "Uzbek"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

blocked. GiantSnowman 16:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Lives Matter, I've just removed the following off-topic text about behavioural grievances:

Good afternoon. I am seeking advice for what my friend User:Michri michri and myself believe to be racist comment [227] against Bengalis in particular and against Indian people as a whole. The responsible person is User:Blue Square Thing who has refused to discuss matter User talk:Blue Square Thing#Edit summaries and talk page comments raised at his talk page. There have been discussions by myself with others because I am not confident in how to approach Wikipedia processes like WP:ANI and I have been seeking advice. Please to see also discussions at User talk:Nthep#Police threat and long-term abuse by an editor and at User talk:Michri michri#Blue Square Thing. Also please to see [228] at teahouse page but I was not part of this discussion.

Besides racist comment, Blue Square Thing breaks WP:LEGAL saying he has reported other person to Kolkata police. This is sort of thing to rebound on Wikipedia if other person claims provokation. I agree with Michri michri that other person must also be blocked for comments on Blue Square Thing talk page. Abuse like that is wrong but is no excuse for racist retaliation or for telling Kolkata police and reporting IP address.

I was editing Pat Cummins article. I studied its history and found several posts by Blue Square Thing which demonstrate his insulting comments and dubious actions on that article: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237]. In these, he is at turns sarcastic or extremely rude. He tries to belittle other editors and discourage them. He removes valid, useful information for no apparent reason other than his own dislike. In the second one, he flagrantly insults the Kolkata Knight Riders franchise. In the last few, he claims to be writing better English and proceeds to make four very clumsy errors including '2105 season', a broken link and 'Kolokota'. He asserts that a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (used by the site for redirection) is something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. I believe this is another insult directed at Indian people. He refers to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. On his own talk page, he talks to User:Krish edits675, who is a new member (a 'newbie'). There has been disagreement and, I suspect, reverting each other's edits in cricket biographies, again about IPL. User:Krish was obviously concerned about edits being reverted and wrote to Blue Square Thing about it, though he was perhaps less polite than he could have been. Even so, there is no justification for [238] this insulting response, calling User:Krish a 'dick' and so on. It is, as I have found, a typical reaction by Blue Square Thing.

It was suggested to me that Blue Square Thing has long time record of abusive comments in edit summaries. I looked at contributions and there are bad comments on every page. I managed to view December 2018 contributions as random date to use for samples. I saw all of the ones I listed, the 'diffs', at other discussion pages and I repeat them here as they prove Blue Square Thing is guilty of long time abuse. Please to see: [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248]. They are variously hostile, sarcastic, condescending and they are not as required by the WP:CIVIL page.

I do not like Delhi Capitals one because I found that the person being addressed is a young Indian editor. The tone is condescending as if Blue Square Thing is some kind of 'superior'. This reminded me of a line I saw on WP:CIVIL page which is 'Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully'. Please to note that it is not only his comments that are a problem because he is always removing content too, even content that has sources cited, and useful things like further reading sections.

I have seen many times here that editors must help to build the encyclopedia but he is doing opposite. I can see that in some of these examples and in recent ones. I have also noticed he objects to use of crore and substitutes other currencies like Australian dollars [249] even when they are not mentioned in a source like 'Hindu' newspaper. Surely that is what you call original research and is not Wikipedia:Verifiability? About crore, please to see the comment by Michri michri that in the article Mohammed Shami where Blue Square Thing converted crores into USD and removed a large chunk of stuff with the least replacement. What can be wrong with specifying crore except that it is Indian currency? His objection to crore is most revealing.

I am sorry but I only have little time for this fine site and I am hopefully thinking I might one day have much more. I do not want to see the site being ruined by abuse and absolutely not by racist abuse. This is why I must seek help from experienced editors who know how to use processes like the ANI. I must be thanking you for your time if you have been reading this and if you can help with persistent long time including racist abuse by Blue Square Thing. 79.73.31.28 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The anonymous user has wonderfully explained the issues raised against BSF. Now as a conscientious Wikipedian, I'd just ask if one is not blocked for this much of abuse, then when would one be? Would not it be a shame and scandal of Wikipedia? Want only one thing--- the toughest punishment, the longest possible BLOCK of BST.Michri michri (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing wrote on their talk page yesterday, I really need a break and the sun is out. I don't know how long I'll be but the start of the season is a good benchmark in my mind, although I may pop by before then, it depends. I apologise to them as ANI is a horrible headache. Nonetheless, we need to at least investigate whether any people need to be sanctioned for their harassment of Blue Square Thing. — Bilorv (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This does indeed look like harassment of Blue Square Thing. The mock offence is palpable. The original supposed "racist" remark was BST calling an IP user a sad little boy from West Bengal when removing a pretty nasty talk page message [250]. I mean, it's up there on the yikes spectrum. The reference to West Bengal looks to me like BST was telling the IP that their IP geolocates to West Bengal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/79.73.31.28 raise some questions of how independent they are from Michri michri. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The diff shown above (this) shows ongoing harassment of BST. Whoever is the editor behind the IP edit, they have been doing the same thing for a while now against BST, and myself, and others too. This is one of their IP accounts. Notice how all their edits have been rev-del'd. If an admin would care to look at any rev-del edits from BST's talkpage, or mine, from the past couple of weeks, you'll see the same "Black dog , you son of a nasty bitch" rubbish. I don't know what Michri michri's involvement here is, but maybe a check-user would be needed before things get really bad. And stuff like this from Michri does not help one bit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, BST does tend to spend a lot of time reverting IP and editors edits to certain cricketing articles which all go against either Wikipedia's manual of style, or against the style set out by the cricket WikiProject, or adding unsourced and inaccurate information to articles. BST always comments in his edit summary on why he's reverting. He's also spent considerable time improving some of these articles that he's made reversions to, such as the Mohammed Shami article. It all just seems like these editors who have made these allegations are upset that the edits are being reverted (and in the majority of cases I'm guessing correctly so) and so are using anything to try and discredit BST, and taking edit summary comments out of context. Constantly having to revert the same issues on the same pages is frustrating, such as on the Pat Cummins page, and this can lead to some edit summaries or talk page messages that maybe weren't necessary, but those that revert the same thing regularly will know how frustrating it can be. I've also got concerns on whether there is Socking going on here as has been mentioned above. Personally I feel that BST has done now wrong here, and that the accusations from the other editors involved here should be removed. Also why was this posted on the Black Lives Matter WikiProject? Can't see any connection there unless it was a canvassing attempt. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

CarlostheJackal01

CarlostheJackal01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has jumped into the "List of terrorist incidents by year" articles and is ignoring the explicit inclusion criteria, which are detailed in each article and were determined by the Rfc at Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 2#RfC: List criteria.

• 1991. Adds Amiriyah shelter bombing, a US Air Force bombing
• 2004. Adds Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, a US Air Force bombing of a village. Edit wars repeatedly to add back after it's disputed
• 2005. Adds Haditha massacre, a series of killings by US Marines. Edit wars repeatedly to add back after it's disputed
• 2007. Adds Nisour Square massacre, killing of civilians by Blackwater Security Consulting. Edit wars to add back after it's disputed
• 2017. Adds 2017 Mosul airstrike, a US Air Force bombing

They've been warned about post-1992 US politics discretionary sanctions and I've tried to discuss with them at User talk:CarlostheJackal01, to receive the reply "Do your best, American bastard. Of course, you were disturbed when you wrote about the massacres you committed. I will keep writing, you can't stop me. FDW777". FDW777 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s my understanding that you're a Scottish bastard; CarlostheJackal must be reined in for this churlish attack. Less seriously, I have also had to revert a number of inappropriate mass category edits by CarlostheJackal01 (removing Al-Qaeda from battles involving Al-Qaeda). There is no evidence of constructive contributions from this user, as far as I can tell. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I found a grand total of one clearly constructive edit: a fix to a date for an event that was already in a table. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on this, I'm inclined to believe they are not here to contribute and want to push POV. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

He was offended that I wrote the massacres of the Americans on the list of terrorist incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Uhm what???. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

answer me, let's see if the massacres are included in terrorism or not? He was offended that I wrote the massacres of the Americans on the list of terrorist incidents. The massacres committed by the Serbian army in Bosnia are also included in the list of terrorist incidents, why doesn't he mention it?

No one is offended. If there's a criteria for these pages, it's for many reasons. If you can't satisfy such criteria, they shouldn't be mentioned. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the massacres are on the terrorist incidents page, it means that the criteria are met.

CarlosYif and WP:V

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

The user was persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced info in the articles related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I had a conversation with them at their talk page (please read it), trying to explain them WP:V, and their position seems to be "If I know the information is correct, it can be added to the articles". For an example, see the history page of Pechenyhi (currently protected). Probably a block is needed at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And this is disinformation. The city is not part of Russia, not de jure, not de facto, even if it under Russian control (which I am also not sure about).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• What I mean is that sometimes I can know if a city is under partial Russian control by watching a video on Twitter of a town square or something similar. If you can't provide reliable sources, you shouldn't be adding content. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Okey, it's understood. But my contributions about Novhorod-Siverskyi were referenced, and everything was according to the article Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It doesn't matter. As I have already told Ymblanter, I'm not going to continue making contributions, so there's no need to make this any kind of conflict or for the administrators to have to decide. I understand what you are saying and you are right. I think a blog or Twitter is more appropriate for me. God blees you! CarlosYif (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the page you mentioned, you did not provide any reference either. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the reference I was referring to: https://suspilne.media/210832-icnanskij-vijskkomat-sogodni-zranku-pereihav-do-priluk/ but I certainly don't think I added it in that editing (I think I did it later). It is complicated to follow the actual situation on the ground, of each Ukrainian town and city and then change it on Wikipedia. You are right in what you state about my editions and my mistakes, and as I said, I will no longer be making any contributions. CarlosYif (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)