Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060

Light show violating topic ban

I just came across three different edits from Light show (talk · contribs) on Talk:Albert Einstein which clearly violate his topic ban on biographies listed at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community that was implemented per consensus here. This report might feel a bit late when those were from a couple weeks ago, but I'm surprised he hasn't already been blocked for these when the ban hasn't been lifted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure." There doesn't seem to be any grey area in that August 2017 editing restriction. I would say that their three edits to J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur in December were violations as well, [1],[2],[3], as were these two edits to Jonas Salk in March 2019, [4], [5]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Light show was blocked in early April for a topic ban violation, which probably involved the edits to Jonas Salk, but the December edits were not caught, like the current Einstein ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! I agree that each diff you linked also violates the ban, and the restriction was very straightforward. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

These are definitely edits made in violation of Light show's community-enacted topic ban, and two of them, as linked here, were made less than two weeks ago (1, 2). I don't believe that this user has successfully appealed their ban, either. Because of these violations, and the fact that this user has been blocked multiple times for violating their topic ban in the past, I am blocking Light show for two weeks. They may appeal their block by following the appeals process on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD nominator closing own discussions

The user Störm has recently closed a number of AfD's that he started himself. He has stated on his talk page that his motivation for doing this was as there were alternatives for deletion. After telling him that it is a conflict of interests he has continued to close his own Afd as redirects. Many of those that he has closed I have no qualms with the outcome, however I feel that it is still and improper process and on many of them the consensus was not clear. Some examples of those that he has closed recently include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (1970s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imran Ali (WAPDA cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Taylor (cricketer, born 1999), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kidd (cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaman Akhter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1925). If he is allowed to do this then please remove my complaint, but for me it seems a clear conflict of interests and deletion of what may be some acceptable articles for something that is his view. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Störm should not close their own AfD nominations. See WP:CLOSEAFD. The exception would be a speedy keep for a withdrawn nomination with no deletion arguments. Störm, you need to revert your closes and redirects, restoring the AfD templates. Fences&Windows 22:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not allowed but there is still an underlying problem that some AFD nominations are on the off-chance that the consensus will be to delete and some people vote delete regardless of anything. Thincat (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The closures should be overturned; if no one takes this on in the next few hours, I will do so. Only uninvolved editors may make a closure in an AfD, except under the narrow circumstances of SK1. Although a BOLD blank-and-redirect may not require an AfD, once an article is before AfD, it should not be blanked until closed by an uninvolved editor (see also Template:AfD). I understand and appreciate that Störm was trying to find ATDs, but they should advance that argument in the AfDs themselves, and not close them (six days early, no less). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've reverted all of the closes linked in the OP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've also raised this issue and proposed a solution below at WP:ANI#User Störm. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User persists making a political point

This user Gomes000 (talk · contribs) has an array of problems: he keeps inserting old Portuguese provinces that were abolished in 1976 (such as the Estremadura Province (1936–1976) or intermunicipal communities on every article he can find [6], even if the article itself is about a geological feature (e.g. Nazaré Canyon), he inserts articles in the wrong categories in Category:Municipalities of Portugal (this [7] after this [8]), he deletes templates [9] and reverts edits for no reason [10], he is constantly edit-waring despite being warned multiple times, I gave him 2 warnings (one of them he deleted) and an administrator gave him another, he does not talk, does not want consensus and most of his edits are reverts of other user's edits, adding to that he barely knows any English and his edits constantly present grammatical errors [11] (even in Portuguese). None of his edits are constructive and he cannot be reverted.

I believe he is making a political statement of some sort (does not agree with the changes made in 1976), he specifically focuses on central west Portugal and I also believe he has a sockpuppet Morenaang (talk · contribs), who does the exact same thing. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Average Portuguese Joe, seeing as it's been over 5 days since their last edit, this complaint does seem to be a bit on the Stale(ish) end of Incidents, at least in so far that an attention-seeking block for a few hours would be unlikely to produce the desired outcome (i.e. even just having them acknowledge these concerns, per se.) . But I do note that these additions count as fabrications, so this probably will need to be handled sooner rather than later. Feel free to re-list, if and/or when the problematic editing resumes. El_C 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Well if that wasn't recent then this should clarify his point [12] only took him 6 min to revert what I just put. This just makes it more obvious that he just doesn't care. What's your opinion on this? He only edits to revert someone's edit. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

​​For what it's worth, the subject of this thread is also actively edit-warring the same articles on Wikivoyage and causing cross-project issues. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Upon further thought (per the latest), since this user still isn't communicating, may as well set the block duration not to expire. El_C 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Awful experience with an admin

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

---

I posted here a while ago about a biased admin who was patrolling the cultural marxist conspiracy theory page despite being a marxist himself. After this, another admin who had a photo of Lenin on his page reverted months old edit that I did on the Jewish views on slavery (despite me having 3 sources) out of spite and then suspended me in a mocking way.

Needless to say, this was an awful experience. I shouldn't have to experience a power hungry admin taunt me and verbally fight me. I don't think an admin should use power like that. What can I do about this? I believe that I was targeted due to ideological differences. My edit was fair. I will no longer use wikipedia if this continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.140 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• A couple of questions and concerns arise here:

(1) No one's going to do anything about this complaint unless you name names and provides diffs for every claim you make. You can't expect people to spend their time searching all over Wikipedia to find evidence for your complaint.

(2) Have you considered that the admin with the picture of Lenin on his page might have been displaying it ironically? Or not.

(3) When you say that the second admin "suspended" you, I assume that means that they blocked you from editing. Did that block run out? If that's not the case, and you're here posting, and this is the first edit that this IP address has made, I guess that means that you are evading your block by using another IP to get around it, which -- in and of itself -- is grounds for this IP to be blocked.

(4) If you're still blocked, did you file an unblock request on your talk page? Every block comes with the instructions on how to do so.

(5) You might like to bone up on WP:Assume good faith, as in perhaps the admin blocked you because you were violating Wikipedia's policies or best practices, and not because they're a commie.

(6) But, as I said, no one's gonna jump to your assistance if you don't provide diffs, and f=diffs will -- of course -- show what the behavior was you were blocked for, whether you are still blocked and evading it, and so on.

Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Here [13] and here [14] and here [15].  // Timothy :: talk  01:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The first way to having your account unblocked is not to continue to edit from IPs evading your block. And as such, this IP has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment RickinBaltimore, Beyond My Ken, this was not reverted and remains [16]. Since it has been there a while, I can't revert it, it could be rolled back to [17].  // Timothy :: talk  01:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original IP's contributions and user talk page. Anyway, I don't need telepathy to know what this is about. And no mocking on my part, as that would involve additional interaction with this individual, one with whom I have absolutely no interest to engage with any more than I have to (not one iota). Noticed them via usual patrolling of this noticeboard, btw, in a thread they, themselves, had started (diff), again, containing bluster of much the same orientation as all of their other disruptive edits. It all speaks for itself rather unambiguously, I'd say. //Out. El_C 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Gah, I guess a got beat to it while grabbing a snack! El_C 01:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

About a removed NPR (-patroller)

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

---

Hi, good day! I would like to directly report to you an editor, whom admin User:JJMC89 has removed of patroller role, due to multiple inappropriate draftifications, cut/paste moves, and inappropriate CSD. Seems like User:Spiderone hasn't learned their lesson. They have explicitly draftified four of my recently-created articles:

• San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School
• Buting Senior High School
• Sta. Lucia High School
• Eusebio High School

Hilarious thing is he even tagged a non-official essay on my talk page as basis for draftification. It is as if the sole source I have cited there is a non-independent and non-reliable one, which is untrue as those were not school websites and promotional ones — those were from the national basic education agency in the Philippines. I don't think draftification is necessary. The notability stub was enough. The article didn't even last for its first 24 hours before being taken on such action. I am supposed to expand the article and put another independent sources. That draftification was unnecessary and unfair as well. Chances were not given. The created articles are with neutral point of view, without copyrighted contents and WP:COI. I don't think the articles are "de-qualified" as an WP:AfC. Personally, I look this one as an "insult" as the article were made in good faith. Some of the articles he created did not even have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and has cited only two sources. I believe I could have cited more on the articles I created.

I hope that the administrators look into this matter. Thank you! ~PogingJuan 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PogingJuan WP:NORG is absolutely not a 'non-official essay' and is, in fact, what all articles on schools should be required to meet. The source linked in all of these mass produced articles was just this which is woefully inadequate in meeting the relevant guideline for notability, which explicitly states that significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A search for each school does not yield any sources that show this level of coverage either, however, in good faith, they were sent to draft so that such sources could be found. I don't believe that any of the articles would pass WP:AfC in their current state and they are not suitable for main space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether the articles are made in good faith or not is not the issue. Nor is COI. I've noticed that Nagpayong High School, Santolan High School, Sagad High School and Kapitolyo High School have also been tagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines either (by a different user - User:John B123 - one of the most experienced patrollers here!). All of them are sourced only to an exhaustive database for schools so they do not demonstratively meet WP:NORG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I've noticed that you created all 9 articles within 45 minutes as well, please take more time. There is no rush. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone I am well informed of the WP:NORG and WP:Notability in general. I won't create articles of subject that lacks reliable and independent sources. What I'm saying, you should have given me ample time. The articles didn't even reached its 24th hour. One of it, I have already put another independent source. Again, the notability stub (which states the need of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic) put by User:John B123 was enough for the current time being. I don't think you must have draftified it explicitly and immediately. ~PogingJuan 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone The source from the educational agency in the Philippines is only an initial one. Eventually, I'm gonna put another reliable and independent sources. I just cannot work on Wikipedia for 24 hours, but tbh, the early publish would definitely "energize" me to "solidify" its notability and not forget the subjects. ~PogingJuan 13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PogingJuan - Per WP:DRAFTIFY, The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. Draftifying is not deletion, if the topic is notable, then it will clearly pass WP:AfC once demonstrated. In my opinion, 18 hours without the article being edited is long enough and I don't believe that this was an inappropriately quick draftification. All of the first 3 points at DRAFTIFY were met in these cases; the topic has potential merit, it doesn't meet our standards currently and there was no evidence of active improvement. Also, I don't believe the required steps were taken here before going to WP:ANI. I can't see any evidence of trying to resolve the issue with me on my talk page. ANI is a last resort only. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone 18 hours were DEFINITELY NOT LONG because I have a life outside Wikipedia and it is recognized. The notability stub, I believe was put less than 18 hours ago. After the consecutive creation of the articles of schools, I was still able to create another two articles. I don't think 18 hours were that long. The draftification was inappropriately quick and I think, without consideration. ~PogingJuan 13:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The following statement is a whataboutist one but there are so many articles in the backlog with the notability stub a long time ago. Compared to the article created 18 hours ago, I think those should've been given attention first. ~PogingJuan 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PogingJuan - just out of interest, what would be an acceptable amount of time to wait before sending them to draft? I've seen articles sent to draft that have been on here for barely even an hour today. Please can you point me to an appropriate guideline which says that draftifying an article after 18 hours of inactivity is inappropriate? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone I don't think there's a rule but I also think the WP:COMMONSENSE should have been implied. I don't think that the explicit and immediate draftication was the best judgement, especially when the article creator have worked hard before on seriously contributing in Wikipedia, in compliance with policies and guidelines, for better. I have been here for years.

I think that I have a point here, based on the rationale that you were removed as a new page reviewer for the same exact reason of "multiple inappropriate draftifications" and etc. ~PogingJuan 13:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think that the administrators know better and are expectedly, more experienced. ~PogingJuan 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You've taken that out of context. The 'inappropriate draftifications' were when I had attempted to draftify articles by cutting and pasting them rather than using the draftify option. That has no relevance to this discussion. Had an 'experienced' patroller draftified those 4 articles would you still be reporting them to ANI? I get that you have taken offence to what has happened but I still don't see what rule I've actually broken here nor do I see anything wrong with draftifying any of those articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another way of looking at this is that if articles are created in draft or userspace and only moved to mainspace when they comply with the minimum standards, including notability, then the problems here don't occur. One of the requirements of WP:DRAFTIFY is there is no evidence of active improvement. Creating 9 articles in 45 minutes and then doing nothing with them since gives no indication of improvement imho.

As per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not inherently notable. I tagged the articles yesterday with {{Notability}}, with the intent of sending to a bundled AfD if they were not improved with a couple of days and a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up anything significant. Whilst this is a different approach to that taken by Spiderone, it doesn't make either right or wrong, it's just different ways of dealing with the same situation. In my view Spiderone's draftification of the articles was compliant with WP:DRAFTIFY.

As you have indicated that your intent to improve the articles, I don't see where the problem is in doing that in draft? --John B123 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PogingJuan, you should simply have gone to Spiderone's talk page and asked him to revert the draftification per WP:DRAFT#Requirements for page movers. If a discussion here then became necessary you should have informed Spiderone of it with a message per the prominent instructions. Spiderone, now that you are aware that the moves are contested you should follow WP:DRAFT#Requirements for page movers. To everyone in general, this is just one more problem caused by the use of draft space. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Concerns about the usage of draftspace if you have feelings either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for an admin to delete the redirect pages that were created during the draftifications, then the pages can be moved back. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: None of these pages meet notability guidelines; they should be moved back and then deleted at AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  14:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: After taking a look at the above mentioned articles, I looked at PogingJuan page creation history [18]. I think they have been creating a significant number of non-notable articles, some of which have been deleted and some that need to go to AfD. The community may want to consider restricting PogingJuan to only creating article through AfC review process, after the coming AfDs for these articles.  // Timothy :: talk  15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I've restored San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School, Buting Senior High School and Eusebio High School as requested. Santa Lucia's redirect is still awaiting deletion so I will need to wait until that happens first before moving back. Please note that this is not, in any way, a suggestion that the articles are ready for the main space and does not mean that another user couldn't take them to AfD or PROD should they wish to. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I nom'd them at AfD, I didn't do a group so the results are clear, didn't PROD because I assumed the author would dePROD. These are all the same, based on one line in a government database that is not an IS, and definitely not SIGCOV. None of these are even remotely notable, just a collection of substubs from a database. Creator needs to study notability WP:N] + WP:NORG and sourcing guidelines WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, before creating any more articles. As I stated above, the community should consider restricting this author to submiting new articles through AfC for review.  // Timothy :: talk  17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — @PogingJuan, for starters, the title you chose to give this non existent incident would not automatically land credibility to your claim, I figured we should start with that, to get that out of the way. Loudly echoing Phil Bridger, If I may ask did you bother to try & engage Spiderone, before bringing this to the ANI? was any dialogue initiated prior this being brought here? if they waited for 18 hours to draftify the aforementioned articles then I’d say they were in fact, far too kind, as 15 mins — 1 hour is the threshold for draftifying. The long and short of DRAFTIFYING an article is because they simply are not suitable for mainspace at that point in time, be it because they are not sourced at all, they are under-sourced, do not meet our general notability criteria for inclusion, COI reasons & whatnot, so as far as policy is concerned, Spiderone hasn’t erred in any way. Furthermore Blue Linking to WP:COMMONSENSE is very rude of you and the hidden premise there would be insinuating that they lack common sense which like I said is rude. In fact I feel a WP:BOOMERANG should be initiated here, & like TimothyBlue suggested, have op create there articles via the AFC process as it appears they do not grasp policy on notability. Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have now restored Sta. Lucia High School to main space, which is the last of them; TimothyBlue you may wish to run the rule over that one as well as I know that you had concerns about the others. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I can see no major issues with User:Spiderone's recent editing, though I do see problems with User:PogingJuan's recent contributions. Does anyone object to me closing this discussion as no action required? Deb (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deb, Deb, please do so. I think it’s a unanimous decision that @Spiderone hasn’t violated policy. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mansigh

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

---

Hi there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1008959037 did not satisfy. Where's the correct place? Here, or DR? Thanks for help!...?? Regards PS Wiki's huge, and easy to get lost... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ema--or (talk • contribs)

• Ema--or, perhaps you could do so on your talkpage. This board is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The Eloquent Peasant

• User The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs · logs)
• Reasons for reporting: Continuously ignoring guidelines agreed by Wikiproject:Puerto Rico to reach consensus when using and replacing files relating to Puerto Rico. User has constantly contradicted themselves in statements relating to consensus yet have failed to do so. An example of a file replaced without reasoning other then personal preference is this file which was replaced on wikipedia and wikidata without consensus by this file. With the attitude of the user this can be considred as disruptive editing, especially after threatening myself that "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles" which you can ctrl-f and find on this specific noticeboard here. It seems the user is appealing to ones self interest then others as a group. Here is the page for consensus discussion which was agreed upon we would all have to agree to use files here. The user clearly has done this with almost all files added and replaced after the agreement. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. Block per WP:NOTHERE or TBAN for Puerto Rico and all articles of interest to wiki project Puerto Rico. 4D4850 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My bad, i added the tag --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I moved it into it's own section, just so they would notice it is not to do with the strawberries. 4D4850 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@4D4850: Cheers, i didn't realize i slapped it with out a header. You've been good help, thank you! Do you think It would be a good idea that I take down the files that the project didn't agree upon and we continue its discussion there on consensus and what files to use? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would go with what's used now at the moment, but have a discussion or RfC for what files to use. That way consensus could be obtained easily. The ones with no consensus should be kept if and only if they are used currently and there are no better agreed upon files. 4D4850 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Duly noted, i'll start working on that in the upcoming weeks. I'll come to you if I need anything relating to this specifically since you are the one dealing with this atm. Thank you and have a nice rest of your day m8! Take care :D --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI that pings don't work unless you add the ping and your signature in the same edit. Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I won't be available for a little while starting later today, because I got overzealous in another ANI thread and accidentally assumed bad faith, so I'm taking a short self-enforced wikibreak. You can see when I'm back to editing when I post I'm editing again on my talk page. 4D4850 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@4D4850: User is still able to edit pr topics, i thought they where tban? --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I used to disclose that I'm not an admin, before I was convinced people would know that I wasn't if they needed to check. We need to get an admin to TBAN Eloquent, but I'm unfortunately not an admin. Sorry for the misunderstanding. (Also I know I'm breaking my own wikibreak, but I felt I needed to clear this up.) 4D4850 (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Background for this issue is here:

Cookieman1.1.1_is_making_funny_statements report on Commons Administrators' noticeboard --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

None of that is background, you are uploading files without consensus and are getting too personal about everything. Like here a few months ago with your "have a nice life comment. You are being disruptive, and your actions could drive away others in the future or you calling something "farts and logic" or whatever as a way to just mock myself like a child. Etiquette is extremely important here, but it becomes absolutely hypocritical and contradictory to say that you want concensus when you have over a dozen files uploaded without concensus from the wikiproject then act like i have forgotten the consensus? What a joke. "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles", you are literally threatening to replace a perfectly fine file because you don't like it then go "I think you should remove the Trujillo Alto stuff on the mountain. It looks really awful. I am a lady - a lady who's been around awhile so please be a gentleman..." Then asking me if any of it is in the blazon? Give me a break, sounds like you are attempting to troll me with questions that are obvious even after i explain with real examples. And now you are trying to get commons admins to delete a file of mine for absolutely no reason then spite now and is literally looking into my other actives as she as looked into my other hobbys like Micronationalism. "Also note that the user, in his previous posts, mentioned micronations and a user at Micronations with same user name has founded a micronation and he has made himself the president of such micronation which unfortunately includes Puerto Rico. The problem is Puerto Rico is not a micronation. Perhaps the user has taken his imagination too far and transfered his micronation hobby to Wikipedia so I am baffled." What? (No I don't claim Puerto Rico as apart of a micronation) and the user claims i've transferred my interest in Micronationalism to Puerto Rico when that has never happened nor have I ever claimed Puerto Rico. Do you know what Micronationalism even is? I've never made any edit relating to micronationalism and Puerto Rico. You are baffled? I am baffled by the concerning the lengths this user is getting into to attempt get me into more issues. How much time do you have on your hands to search for myself on other wikis and websites? Its a little bit creepy and unsettling. You have had to have looked on the internet for me and that makes me greatly uncomfortable. You are cyber stalking me now, I never even hinted here that I run a micronation. Admins, please handle this, this user has gone too far and i am very concerned now. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Sorry for the ping, you just happened to be on the top of the list of active admins. This is urgent and please look into this users actions towards me as i am genuinely concerned. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Sorry for the ping, you just happened to be on the top of the list of active admins. This is urgent and please look into this users actions towards me as i am genuinely concerned and ive been waiting days for this to be handled, can you give a hand?. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexually explicit non-english edit summary

Hopefully this is the right place to ask for this. Can someone remove or hide this edit summary? Diff. Thanks. Squeakachu (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm sending it to the folks at oversight, just in case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it. Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been revdel'd, but I too think it should be oversighted. (It's my curse that I can read those languages.) I've asked a friend who has the permissions — not sure if BMK sent it along or not? IP blocked for a week. Bishonen | tålk 21:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC).

Yes, I e-mailed Oversight with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• We need a rule that all sexually explicit edit summaries must be in English. EEng 01:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I don't think that will do much to stop vandals. Legitimate users may need to use it, but vandals never obey the rules. We can use google translate to catch this sort of stuff. Steve M (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  I believe EEng's comment was humorous. Worked for me. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, you must from this point on tag all jokes as <joke> under penalty of indef! El_C 05:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  You think I was joking? Why should foreigners be the only ones to get a little frisson? This is the English Wikipedia -- off-color stuff should be in English for all to enjoy. EEng 05:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  !לך לעזאזל, EEng — which actually would probably be a kindness mid-winter... El_C 06:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  You forgot to say . And your אִמָא wears army boots. EEng 10:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, think of the Jewish children already. אמא שלך הייתה אוגר, ואביך הריח ריח סמבוק ... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  Martinevans123, full credits. EEng, this is for you, then, in English as requested: Well your mother was an ogre and your father smelled of dinkle-berries. You think you'll live after insulting us? El_C 16:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

סבא מלקה את התינוק EEng 17:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if Steve M's comment should have been tagged as <meta-joke>. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We already have {{fbdb}} for the humo(u)r-impaired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:No legal threats

In a thread at WP:AN with the title "Unban request: topic ban issued, without warning, based on WP:BLUDGEON", I believe that I have been subjected to a legal threat, since I have been accused of a crime there. Since I openly disclose my real world identity, I take this seriously. I humbly request that an uninvolved administrator evaluate this situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

lblocked. But to be pedantic, technically, defamation is not a crime where you live ("less than half of U.S. states have criminal defamation laws," with CA not being among them). Also, further pedantic ramblings, they called it "slander," but it would actually be libel. El_C 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift block, El_C. Thanks also, I guess, for educating me about California law. Nice to know that, according to you, I would be vindicated if legal action was taken. I agree that would be the likely outcome, but I would incur legal fees and it would be very disruptive to my family and personal life, and that would inevitably impact my editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, silver lining: at least I won't get yet another call to bail you out of jail again, Cullen328! Kinda getting sick of those. El_C 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll sue you for tort.

-EEng

With all respects to El C, speaking as the admin who first triggered that discussion by imposing the initial sanction on User:Bavio the Benighted, I'd like to say I'm not a big friend of "NLT" blocks like that. Not every mention of a word like "slander" is a legal threat. There are many things people routinely accuse each other of on Wikipedia that could, in principle, also be the object of legal action, but never are. Saying "you did something bad to me" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for doing something bad to me"; it simply means "stop doing something bad to me". Saying "you violated my copyright" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for violating my copyright". Saying "you insulted me" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for tort". Saying "you defamed me" doesn't equal "I'll sue you for defaming me" either. I myself have certainly been the victim of defamatory statements from multiple sides on Wikipedia over the years, and I've never shied away from saying so when I felt that was the case. I'd never have dreamed of taking legal action over that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, that's a fair point. Not sure if their behaviour in that thread (from the little I've seen) merits an unblock at this time, irrespective of NLT, but if you wish to unblock on those grounds, I have no objection. Anyway, you're right, probably there should have been a follow up at least, like, do you actually intend to sue for libel over this? That would have been better, I now recognize. El_C 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I see Future Perfect at Sunrise's point; really, the No Legal Threats policy should be something issued by WMF Office (or possibly Arbcom on the advice of Legal) rather than just dished out on a whim by a single admin. However, No personal attacks is a relevant policy and I have declined the unblock request for this reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I actually don't think that's the worst idea, though I've lblocked so many users whose legal threats were as unambiguous as they come. More pointedly, I think it may simply fall down to sufficient staffing. I'm sure there's money for this, though who knows how the Foundation would view such a proposal, regardless. But, if we are able to get a response time from WMF Office/Legal which rivals that of WP:EMERGENCY —well, obviously, not expecting it to be as lightning fast, but, say, half or a quarter of EMERGENCY's response time, I'm pretty sure it would still be quite prompt and doable— then, indeed, why not? El_C 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, Looking back at the history, "No legal threats" stems from a time when the WMF as we now know it was in its infancy, and the structures we now have in place for actual legal problems weren't established. The original revision of the policy suggests to me that a block should be applied when the actual court action is started and kept in place until a conclusion is reached. Frankly, I suspect half the people who say "you'll be hearing from my solicitor about this" are just toy chucking and making idle threats - we can still block them, but we might as well call a spade and spade and cite WP:NPA. When you're actually considering legal action, you weigh up the costs, who's going to pay them, and how likely you are to win. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thanks for the history background. Personally, as an admin, I've always felt quite uncomfortable representing WMF/Legal in any capacity, whatsoever. Not that it ever stopped me from taking necessary action, but still. I realize that while as a general tendency, we at en do not like giving up any existing autonomy to the WMF, that is something I would gladly support. I'd much rather rather have us admins attend to any and all legal threats from the vantagepoint of NPA rather than that of LEGAL — i.e. the sooner we redirect WP:CHILLING to the former instead of the latter (etc.), the better. El_C 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, NLT was originally written to deal with people actually filing suits against Wikipedia or editors, but got expanded to deal with the chilling effect that such threats have, which is where we're at now. It might be worth proposing a change to policy, and treat empty legal threats under NPA instead, and let WMF handle actual lawsuits. The vast majority of these threats are just an attempt to intimidate, with no real intention of going to court. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph of WP:NLT already says: Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action. That should probably be expanded. "Insta-block" enforcement of NLT policy doesn't make sense.

We can't expect people to shed the language used in "the real world" simply because they're on our website. In the real world, people often accuse other people of "stealing", "fraud", "bullying", etc., and all of these are crimes. But just because a word is a crime doesn't mean that every use of the word is an accusation of criminal behavior.

When you say, "hey, you stole my pen!", you don't mean you're going to report the person to the police for it, and you don't really mean to be accusing the person of a crime. Similarly, people often say, in the real world, "That's slanderous! That's libel! That's defamatory!" And they're not accusing people of crimes, or even of illegal (civil, non-criminal) conduct. They're certainly not threatening to report it to the police or to file a lawsuit.

"I am going to talk to my lawyer" is also not a legal threat. That doesn't mean "I am going to talk to my lawyer about filing a lawsuit," and shouldn't be interpreted as such. Even talking to a lawyer about a lawsuit isn't a threat to bring a lawsuit. (As an aside: in the US, there are probably legal ramifications to shutting down someone's access to a website in response to their announcing that they will consult with counsel about something, because consulting with counsel is a US constitutional right. But that's for WMF Legal to figure out.)

There are good legal reasons to not allow people who are actually engaged in Wikipedia-related legal disputes (lawsuits, criminal investigations or prosecutions), or are about to engage in such disputes, to edit Wikipedia. It creates all sorts of legal problems to allow people to keep using the website under those circumstances. But I agree with C, it should be the WMF, not volunteer editors, who take action to protect the WMF during litigation involving the WMF. WMF Legal, not volunteer editors, should be deciding what is a legal threat and what is not, and what to do about it.

But in any case, accusations like "you are stealing" and "that was slanderous" are not legal threats. Legal threats look like this: "I will report you to the police unless...", "If you don't do this, I will sue."

WP:NLT should be revised to make this distinction clear. Block people for threatening legal action; don't block people for using words like "slander" or "libel" to describe other people's actions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Hand and others. In a litigious society such as ours, and given the number of enemies that we've gained in both marketing and political circles who'd love to fund suits against us, I fear that a harsh attitude towards these matters may be necessary in self-defense. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Actual physical threats are handled by NPA without it causing any problems, right? Whatever we do with physical threats should be done with legal threats. As an aside, I plan on beating the crap out of User:Example soon. Just look at how many warnings the admins have ignored! I looked it up, and it appears that he lives on Null Island.^{[Citation Needed]} --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Creepercast888

Creepercast888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, Whitewashing Falun Gong / Epoch Times / Shen Yun / New Tang Dynasty Television and their perceived allies while attacking their perceived enemies. Multiple warnings and ds-alerts. Examples:[19][20][21] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. I will keep an eye on future edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:BLP violations at Wilton Sampaio

Of the defamatory ilk. Please consider rev/deletion as well as page protection. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ve given it a few days protection. Thanks for reporting this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Malcolmxl5. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, it's probably time to lock Feminazi. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and I see there’s a request for protection for it at RfPP too. I’ve given it a few days protection. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Historyday01 personal attacks

• Historyday01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to them, Crossroads, you ruined it. Screw you. [22] This is after the user pinged me (and others) asking for our opinions. I gave mine, civilly, based on policy. I don't understand the reaction.

They shortly thereafter removed another comment of theirs, stating, withdrawn because of a jerk who edits LGBT pages. [23]

These matters from today are pretty egregious, but on December 31 the user also stated, removing section to deal with annoying editor. [24] This was also a reference to me, as made clear by this discussion.

This is all odd since I don't interact with them much. I have civilly disagreed with them on occasion, but no more so than for other editors. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I apologize for saying what I did on the Pansexuality, Media portrayal of pansexuality, and Wikipedia:Proposed article splits pages. I just got caught up in the moment, a clear WP:EUI and WP:NAM situation. As for the WikiProject Television discussion, I really regret that whole episode and wish it hadn't happened. If I could go back, I would have handled it on there and on other pages (like the comment on The Simpsons page you cited) differently, working with you more rather than acting the way I did. I definitely should not have said those things and if I had thought about them, I wouldn't have said them at all. So, again, sorry for saying those two comments, and others I've said in the past. I'll work to improve my conduct in the future, so nothing like this happens again. Sometimes, I just get too passionate about pages I edit and it bleeds over into my comments. It's as simple as that and I have to do better to be more civil. I've also returned the discussions to their previous form before my comments, so the discussion can continue with other editors apart from me and yourself. I suppose my response to you earlier today is colored by other incidents in the past, some of which I've discussed on this noticeboard, as noted here and here. But, I'll read some more rules on here and familiarize myself with them so I can become an even better editor going forward. Notices like this always leave room for improvement and I am committed to becoming a better editor in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate this. I think you need to keep in mind that we have the same goals, namely to have high quality encyclopedic coverage of LGBT+ in pop culture. Quality is better than quantity; sometimes 'less is more'. Coverage based on reliable sources about characters that really are LGBT+ is educational to readers of any identity; I assure you that badly sourced or speculative material reflects very poorly on the topic, as does redundant or overly-long coverage or undue weight in articles about the show in general. It seems that you tend to reflexively defend material that other editors challenge, and you need to really consider carefully what they're saying instead of just reacting. We have WP:OWN and WP:ONUS for a reason. Again, remember that we want the same thing - quality. It is a learning process. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I will keep that in mind going forward and I definitely want to have "high quality encyclopedic coverage of LGBT+ in pop culture" too. I agree with "coverage based on reliable sources about characters" and that it can be "educational to readers of any identity." I can also agree that "badly sourced or speculative material reflects very poorly on the topic," along with redundant or overly-long coverage, or even undue weight. That's why I've been trying to reduce the size of some of the sections reviewing shows on some of the pages I've created, like Netflix and LGBT representation in animation, bit by bit, and carefully. You are correct that I do "tend to reflexively defend material that other editors challenge" and I'll do better to consider what others are saying, while keeping in mind this is a learning process. Historyday01 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaming of permissions by User:Isaccc

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

---

I was viewing the page history of Kannada and came across suspicious edits by Isaccc (talk · contribs). They were adding a blank space, removing and adding it back in lots of edits like this. Seeing their contributions show the same pattern of editing across multiple articles. These are some articles where this pattern of editing is found -

• Kannada: 90 edits between [25] and [26].
• Vaani Kapoor: 107 edits between [27] and [28].
• Yuvarathnaa: 30 edits between [29] and [30].
• Telugu language: 84 edits between [31] and [32].

All of the above examples are from their oldest 500 edits and done over a period of 2 days. It is pretty obvious that these were done to artificially boost their edit count to gain Extended confirmed access. I request Adminsitrators to consider removing Isaccc from the Extended confirmed user group since it is was gained by gaming of permissions. AVSmalnad77 ^talk 09:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to observe a few things: 1) They have not edited for about a year... later edits do not display this behaviour 2) They stopped, apparently immediately, after first being asked to stop doing this. 3) With a total of 922 edits, they would probably be extended confirmed without these edits. I haven't done the exact maths, but it looks close enough. Other admins may act differently, but personally I have considered removing EC and a raft of other sanctions, but as a result of these observations, have decided to take no action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Prteamsoc

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

---

This editor has been here for a while but their recent behaviour is a serious cause for concern. They have hijacked Nik Carter and Nikhil Arya to promote the non-notable 'MC Nikhil'. I have also reverted some promotional edits to Gully Boy. They have also created MC NIKHIL (Rapper) which seems to be the next attempt at promotion. They have then linked this article on the talk page as evidence for notability for MC Nikhil but, interestingly, you can see that this article is by 'Prteamsoc' which is the same as this user's username, so we have probable WP:COI here! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Recently warned user resuming tendentious editing for which they were previously blocked and warned

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

---

Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Was recently warned by ArbCom regarding their behavior in Kurdish-related articles. They just resumed removing the same sourced content from the same article they were blocked for a back in July by El C. Regarding these very same quotes they have ignored suggestion by volunteer user Nightenbelle that they should be kept in aDRN case they opened but still decided to remove the SOURCED Washington Post material and Washington Institute material and continued to edit-war. They even removed the material during the DRN. That initial removal of the WaPo content was criticized by BDD here during the ArbCom case eight days ago, but here we go again, they just removed the same content for the nth time. I think a tban is now warranted. Thank you, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the filer is topic banned from Kurds and Kurdistan by the arbitration committee, though I am not sure that bringing this to ANI is a violation of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned by Hemiauchenia, the filing editor is currently topic banned from articles and events relating to Kurds and Kurdistan. Besides I have opened a discussion about the subject at the article talk page. The filing editor had since May 2020 mainly the argument sourced and ignored multiple questions at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that WP:BANEX allows a topic banned editor to file an AN/I report about the subject they are banned from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I have not edited in the area. I am just bringing the issue to the admin attention given that the editor in question (Paradise Chronicle) is obviously taking advantage of my absence since we had argued on this before. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And I just read the WP:Banning_policy#Topic_ban; tbanned users are not allowed to edit in: related articles and lists, related categories, related project pages, related parts of other pages, discussions or suggestions such as a deletion discussion. It is mentioned nowhere that interaction with admins or admin noticeboards about the topic is prohibited. Now let's focus on the issue at hand. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh, that is the issue at hand — that though ANI isn't ordinarily a related project page, it does temporarily becomes such a page once this prohibited content is introduced to it by the banned user (or, saving that, surely this thread counts as discussions or suggestions, etc.). I'll spell it out: no mention of the topic area by Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is permitted, whatsoever. The only exception to that would be once the allotted 12 months had passed and the user submits their appeal to the Arbitration Committee. It isn't complicated. El_C 01:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

So, do I take it that this thread serves as the (first and only) warning to the OP, and that the next violation of their topic ban will result in a block? Paradise Chronicle, on the other hand, was not warned about the subject per se, but about their general behavior: "Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future." As far as the results of the Kurds and Kurdistan case is concerned, they are not restricted in their editing of that subject in any way, as I read it, so the OP's report was totally unnecessary in any case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note taken, but can we hear from ArbCom members? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, this isn't the forum to query the Committee. That is done at WP:ARCA. El_C 03:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a cut-and-dried situation, black-letter law, as the attorneys say. If BANEX doesn't say that you can do it, then you can't do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the filer for a week for the topic ban violation--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Claudia Webbe

Some concerns of the editing of the Claudia Webbe changes to the way the results of previous elections are related to the last. None registered editor seems very competent with tools. Happy to bandy around accusations of sexism. The upcoming trial does it need protection.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kitchen Knife: I've semi-protected the article for a month. There are unreferenced statements in the article which need to be either referenced or removed. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As the subject of the article is involved in legal proceedings, I've created an edit notice to remind editors that sub judice applies. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Llywelyn2000 personal attacks during CfD

• (→‎Category:Welsh-speaking politicians: Oppose deletion of reasonable category by anti-diversity editors.)

In Carlossuarez46's eyes this constitutes OR. That is claptrap. ... That's no rational; it's pseudo-rational, and goes against WP:BOLD and ethos. Removing this category is a bias against the Welsh language, and is WP:NPOV. The Welsh language is already being attacked by Northern Irish Unionist, elsewhere. Now it seems we also have a Spanish inquisition. God help minority languages on the English Wikipedia.

Accuses Carlossuarez46 of anti-Welsh bias against minority languages, calls his well-reasoned discussion "claptrap". Yes, his user name is apparently of hispanic heritage, but that's no reason to call this "a Spanish inquisition."

Moreover, I'm not a Northern Irish Unionist. Politically, I'm a supporter of Irish self-determination, and of Scottish self-determination.

We have Categories for Discussion. WP:BOLD does not apply. This vitriol violates WP:AGF.

Please strike this !vote, and take whatever sanctions are appropriate for this contentious user.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson, I've redacted the personal comments from the discussion, which I agree were beyond the pale. I'm not going to strike the !vote, or any of the rationales for it - whoever closes the discussion will give them whatever weight they feel they should be accorded.

Llywelyn2000, do not make comments of that type ever again about your fellow editors. I can think of very few reasons it would be necessary to mention the (presumed) nationality or political persuasion of another editor - this is most certainly not one of them. WP:NPA is policy, you are expected to comment on content, not contributor, in that sort of discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The use of 'Northern Irish Unionists' was not directed at William Allen Simpson but generally in other discussion on enwiki: note my use of 'elsewhere'. The attacks against Welsh language editors are coming in high and low, and are mainly from editors from Spain and Northern Ireland. Fact. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, well here's the thing: you personalised it, and someone took offence, even though they weren't your intended target. If you refrain from personalising things in that manner, as required by policy, nobody will take offence.

If you have evidence to support there being an orchestrated campaign by a group of editors to victimise Welsh language editors, by all means raise a separate thread here and present it - that would be terrible, and I would support taking action against them. Adding snark to deletion discussions isn't the answer, however. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Considering the OP of this thread seems only to be proposing Welsh language categories for deletion, and no other languages, it seems fair to ask a question. Albeit that it might not have been phrased in the best way. This doesn't require an admin or a block to resolve in my opinion, and ANI seems like a massive over reaction (unless there is previous, which hasn't been demonstrated here). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: personal attacks have continued after your minor sanction, this time in the guise of a hypothetical "sinister intent"

• (→‎Category:Welsh-speaking academics) missing edit summary:

Or is this a part of a wider, more sinister attempt to wipe out all references to Wales and the Welsh language from the English Wikipedia?

• This is not the first such incident, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Ethnic cleansing allegations.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? They're referring to English Wikipedia, not to any editor in particular. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - Frankly, I'm very concerned about the recent activities of William Allen Simpson in relation to the Welsh language, which could be construed as springing from racial bias. I am not accusing him of being racially prejudiced, but he seems to be coming from a position of ignorance in what appears to be a campaign to remove categories and other articles relating to matters of Welsh interest. Deb (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Deb, if there's background here I don't know about, and I've waded into something imprudently, I apologise. I just think that we should be careful about how we speak about each others nationalities, and raise problems at an appropriate location rather than making snarky jibes in deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Deb's point, and it's a much better wording of my point above. I don't think I've interacted with William Allen Simpson much, but whenever I notice unusual patterns, I tend to ask questions. And nominating multiple categories about one particular thing (in this case Welsh language) means it's definitely worth asking a question about why just Welsh language categories. As with Deb's comment above, I'm not making accusations, I'm just wondering if there's a reason why it's just Welsh language categories being deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I fully trust your judgement because I know you practise a high level of integrity, but it may be a good idea to take national sensibilities into consideration when dealing with issues like this. There are two sides to this particular argument. Deb (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Deb, OK, I'll step back just now, sorry if I've trodden on any toes. I'm enjoying a glass of wine and a fire at the moment, I'll take another look tomorrow and see if I can form an opinion on the bigger picture. Congrats on the rugby by the way :) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, Diolch! That amazed me as much as it probably did you... Deb (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why there is concern over some particular editor in relation to Wales and also can be be clear who we're talking about? AFAICT, User:William Allen Simpson nominated Category:Welsh-speaking academics for deletion [33]. Category:Welsh clergy was nominated by User:Rathfelder [34], and closed by William Allen Simpson as withdrawn [35]. William Allen Simpson did not otherwise participate in that CFD. Category:Welsh-speaking politicians was nominated by User:Carlossuarez46 [36]. (This is the editor Llywelyn2000 attacked.) William Allen Simpson !voted in support. Carlossuarez46 did not participate (as yet for academic I guess) in either of those 2 other CFDs. Rathfelder did not participate in either CFD they didn't nominate either.

AFAICT, William Allen Simpson has not nominated any other categories that relate to Welsh or Wales since they started editing again last year. Unless you count Category:Wikipedia categories named after counties of Wales and Category:Subdivisions of Wales which would be silly considering they were part of a whole spade of nominations of similar UK categories [37] [38]. Actually, I didn't find any edits from their edit history since they started editing again last year where Welsh or Wales is present in the history (i.e. edit summary or article name). Note that proper CFX nominations should be detected because the editor needs to tag the category when nominating so if it has Welsh or Wales in the category, it shows up.

BTW, I also found William Allen Simpson nominated Category:Jewish magicians [39], a whole bunch of murdered categories like Category:Murdered serial killers and Category:Murdered Serbian royalty (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 17). William Allen Simpson seems to be heavily involved in the CFD area, so I'm fairly sure they also !vote delete in a bunch of similar categories. (I know due to a previous dispute they had some involvement in a HK ethnicity related cat dispute.) So where is this alleged anti-Welsh bias? Please don't tell me nominating one category and !voted in support of deletion of another is sufficient evidence. (I assume it's obvious that closing as withdrawn a nominating by someone else isn't evidence.)

I understand why 3 Wales related categories coming up in ~3 days may be concerning for those involved in the area, but I see no evidence of a conspiracy or any particular editor acting with bias against any particular nationality or ethnicity. If there isn't better evidence, I suggest the comments above should be withdrawn with apologies for those impugned since the evidence I've seen suggest this JAQing is incredibly unfair to those involved.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very wise, Nil Einne. Editors can (for perfectly good reasons) sometimes have a narrow focus, and coincidental actions, which infringe upon that focus, can seem to be forming a pattern never intended. This seems to have been a case of overlap of focus. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

My comments were general, no user was named. However, when an user states on their User page that their first language is Spanish, and they have a Spanish User name - they're announcing to the whole world, openly, that they're Spanish. Whether this is correct or not is irrelevant: they've made a statement on their identity. Same with the editors from Northern Ireland who have made anti-Welsh edits, many of whom have a tag announcing that they are based in Northern Ireland etc. I only repeated what's on the editor's User pages. Or was it the word 'inquisition' which offended? This was my poetic way of stating that there exists on the English Wikipedia a group/s of people and individuals who are carrying out cultural cleansing of matters relating to minority languages and non-state nations, and I'm not only referring to categories. It has been going on for years and in the last few months has gathered momentum. I except that the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 25 discussion may not have been the best place to have said these remarks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you may have missed the fact that, just before the nomination of Category:Welsh-speaking academics, was a supporter of the move to delete Category:Welsh-speaking politicians, making this offensive comment about a category that has been in existence for six years. It may be that he wasn't aware of the checkered history of the "Welsh-speaking..." categories, but it's odd (in fact, perverse) that he moved to delete the category on academics two days later, when it was becoming apparent that there was not a consensus to delete the politicians category. Deb (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: I explicitly noted that they had !voted delete for that category so I'm not sure how I 'missed' it. I did not read the vote very well, but I see nothing in that comment that is offensive. As it stands, it seems confirmed that you're accusing an editor of some bias against Welsh cats based on participation in a grand total of 2 CFDs. If you don't withdraw the offensive accusation, you're the one who needs to be forbidden from participating further. At least in CFDs, if not site wide. @Llywelyn2000: the editor may be Spanish, it does not excuse your personal attacks on them because they are Spanish. I'm guessing you're Welsh which is fine, but it would be likewise unacceptable for anyone to make personal attacks on you because you are Welsh. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 13:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To further clarify, there's nothing perverse about nominating a single category your recent research uncovered which you feel isn't justified under our policies and guidelines. Indeed, it surely happens all the time both with cats but without many other things. An editor researches something because of something else, they find something they feel is a problem under our policies and guidelines and they try to fix it. If there really consensus for both of these categories, then this will be shown in the CFD outcome. If they keep nominating such Welsh cats after that, then there may be concern, but that hasn't happened. And yes, the Spanish inquisition comment is offensive and a personal attack when the editor being targeted is openly Spanish by your own admission. Bringing up an editor's ethnic or national background in any discussion is often problematic in a discussion. It can be justified, but editors need to think carefully before doing so. I'd note even in a case like this, I'd find it very hard to see justification for an editor bringing up that supporters of these categories are Welsh or Welsh speaking and it's far easier to see why a Welsh editor may be biased in favour of a Welsh related category, then it is to see why a Spanish one may be against. Don't joke about an editors heritage unless you're friends and you know they won't find it offensive. And speaking generally to all. I don't know if you understand how badly these personal attacks harm your cause. Frankly, I'm very tempted to !vote delete both of those cats based solely on the behaviour I've seen from supporters. It strongly suggests to me there is no merit for them since why else would defenders need to resort to personal attacks? I won't since I need more research to truly confirm my hunch which I can't be bothered doing and I'm not sure I can evaluate them fairly anymore anyway. But if you want to defend these cats, you need to learn to do so without resorting to personal attacks. It doesn't help your case, it harms it. If there is evidence a group of editors is targeting Welsh cats, that should be presented somewhere appropriate an action can be taken. But please make sure it's good evidence. If the only evidence is one editor !voting in one cat and then nominating another 2 days later, please don't waste our time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Welsh cats? Poor little things. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"...please don't waste our time." Nil Einne, where exactly do you think you are? Drop the threats to vote for deletion out of spite, because any such vote would not be counted. Deb (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No one should be voting at CFD. If you're voting, that's partly why there's a problem. Maybe there is a problem, since this is the second time in about 2 weeks where someone seems to think people should be voting at CFD. I hardly ever participate there yet I know I should never ever vote. I may sometimes !vote there, and I know why the distinction matters. Also, we're currently at ANI, where from all available evidence you made a personal attack (an accusation with basically zero evidence) which you won't withdrawn, in a thread about personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh good. Then I guess you didn't mean it when you said "Frankly, I'm very tempted to !vote delete both of those cats based solely on the behaviour I've seen from supporters." That's all I need to hear. Deb (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to bludgeon the discussion so I'll leave one final comment. TL;DR version: You can't CFD something that doesn't exist or you don't know about. And there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why William Allen Simpson knows about the Welsh-speaking categories but not any other that may or may not exist that people seem to want them to CFD to prove they aren't singling out Welsh-speaking. Namely that those Welsh speaking cats do seem to be the odd ones out.

In the CfDs, one claim made by William Allen Simpson and others is that those 2 cats are basically the only examples where language is non defining to the occuption. Some examples were given for the others. I had a look at all the categories in Category:People by language and occupation. AFAICT, it's correct that all other examples are stuff like revivalists, activitists, linguists, grammarians, lexicographers, translators, calligraphers, poets, playwrights, novelists, writers, composers, musicians, singers, comedians, theatre performers, actors, radio or television presenters, Youtubers, critics. Some are of specific types e.g. television vs film actors or film musical score composers, playback singers. There are some which are basically the same as those e.g. Category:Hebraists + 2 Regius Professor of Hebrew categories, Category:Kabarettists, Category:Urdu scholars. (I didn't check, but I'm sure the cat is intended for scholars of Urdu, not scholars who speak or write in Urdu but not professionally.)

The odd ones out were Daigou] in Category:Chinese-speaking people by occupation and Category:Telugu politicians. In the case of Daigou, it's sort of a requirement that those involved in the sales do speak Chinese to some extent so I can understand its presence, in any case, it probably isn't an issue for CFD, it can be removed if people feel it shouldn't be there. Telugu is a better example, but not really the same since it's an ethno-linguistic group. (I assume we do have a Welsh politicians category.) Oh and there's also Category:Coptic-speaking people by occupation and Category:Coptic people by occupation which probably need some work on the subcats etc.

It's not hard to see why those earlier examples are seen as cases where the language spoken is a defining part of their occupation but this is disputed for politicians and academics. Given that Welsh is the only example where this seems to have happened (excepting the complicated Telugu case), there's an obvious reason unrelated to any bias why Welsh was "singled out". It's because it was the only special case. William Allen Simpson can't nominate categories that don't exist to prove they are unbiased.

To be clear, perhaps the best outcome would be to expand our cats so we have more cases like Welsh. Perhaps it's fine to have Welsh the odd one out. Perhaps the Welsh cats should be deleted. That should be dealt with via CFD etc not here and again doesn't excuse any unfair accusations. Also, it's possible there are categories outside people by language and occupation that I didn't see. But it's hardly surprising that William Allen Simpson also hasn't yet came across them since that seemed to be what they looked in to themselves.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify why the Telugu one seems different: My heritage is Malaysian Chinese and Pākehā. The specifics as I understand it are Taishanese for the Malaysian Chinese side and Irish for the Pākehā side. I'm not aware of any significant Welsh heritage. Despite that, if I were to move to Wales and learn the Welsh language and become either a notable politician or academic, I'd likely end up in one of those categories. I may very well end up in those categories if I skipped the "moving to Wales part" and stay in NZ. By comparison, it's a lot less clear how or whether I could even end up in the Telugu politician category. That's why ethnolinguistic groupings are complicated. I sort of glossed over the Coptic ones because I think they need some work. It seems to me that the Coptic one is probably intended to cover Copts rather than speakers of the Coptic language per se. (From what I understand from our article, it's more of a ethnoreligious grouping than a language one except that the language used in their religion is the Coptic language.) Which also means the Category:Coptic Orthodox bishops etc does I think mean they speak the Coptic language since from what I understand, it would be required to perform religious service, similar to how in the past Roman Catholic priests and bishops would need to speak Latin to at least some minor degree. (Perhaps mostly memorisation in some cases.) All of this adds up to there being no comparable examples I can see for those Welsh-speaking categories hence why an editor who disagrees with their premise which is perfectly reasonable, may nominate them and no other language categories without any bias against the Welsh language. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Is anyone requesting any further specific action as a result of User:William Allen Simpson's original complaint? If not, I would suggest this discussion be closed by an uninvolved admin. Deb (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations by same user

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

---

Persistent copyright violations by User:Pstevensfan105 (contribs) on article Greek Orthodox Church of St. George (Piscataway, New Jersey), despite four warnings/messages on their talk page. They haven't replied to any of the messages, either. Not much more to say, other than that one of their edit summaries (attached to what seems like a blatant copyright violation) says Added info that was deleted by a miserable wikipedia moderator that has nothing better to do then to delete our pride of our religion. Should you continue to delete the page will come back and better than before, as you can see, more information has been added then previous updates., so... color me surprised that they keep adding the same content back to the same article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing by User:Klaysaurus

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

This user is persistently updating golf related articles, predicting the winners well in advance of the conclusion of tournaments and confirmation of results, e.g. with two holes left to play today (diff, diff, diff; diff, diff, diff), and then edit-warring following reversion. User has been requested to stop and wait for confirmed results, and subsequently warned, on multiple occasions (e.g. diff, diff). In response, they claim it only 2 minutes early when it was 15-20 minutes (diff), not to be predictions because the result is "beyond doubt" (diff).

It started with disruption at Matthew Fitzpatrick (history), apparently seeing at a race to update articles first and mock other contributors (diff), and has reoccurred at Paul Casey, Dubai Desert Classic, 2020–21 PGA Tour, Patrick Reed, and again today. Following advice from @Mattythewhite: (here) after the previous incident, I am bringing this here. I am aware that there have been attempts to prohibit live-scoring through WP:NOTNEWS which have failed to gain consensus, but predictions go beyond that and while the disruption may be short-lived due to the nature of sport, these contributions clearly violate policy (WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is constantly engaging in edit-warring on results of confirmed golf events (as noted by the user). None of his reversions actually merit any need because the user is editing correctly input information. Seeing how no one but only this user is engaging in such disruptive behaviour, I would request you to question his motives and revise his editing priveleges. The user stubbornly argues that he is preventing predictions, when in reality all my inputs in every of the above instances were accurate and not disruptive in any way. To the contrary, it was the edits of this user that required revision in every of the above instances.

I'll use an NBA Finals as reference. During the 2014-15 NBA Finals, I remember seeing Wikipedia read the Golden State Warriors as NBA champions even though there were more than a couple mins still left in Game-6. Of course no one in there right mind would call that particular edit a prediction (and thus revert the edit) seeing that the result is beyond all reasonable doubt. If anything, the person (similar to this particular user) who is reverting the edit 'simply because the game hasn't offically finished even though it is realistically impossible for any other outcome to occur' is the one engaging in disruptive edit-warring. Once again, I request a thorough look into the rationale of this user's reasoning which to me appears questionable at best and malicious at worst. Klaysaurus (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• We may have a competence, issue judging from this user’s response. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Uptick in vandalism on months pages

• Special:RelatedChanges/Template:Month header

A large number of seemingly unrelated IPs have shown up attacking January through December. Izno has protected a few pages, but more help might be needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be challenge made by a Twitch streamer that has sent all of the followers to these articles. Schazjmd (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Started filter 1126 (hist · log) looking for a few terms, in case they move away from month pages. I'll be back later to look at the log, but in meantime it might help find pages to protect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

They hit Jeans (which was quickly protected). Schazjmd (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also hit Sham marriage briefly but moved on. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The edit filter caught a handful and now seems to have halted the attempts. Great job, Suffusion of Yellow! Schazjmd (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't take credit here. The filter hasn't been set to disallow yet, though I will do so (with a few tweaks) if it picks up again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked a few since they are obviously not here to build an encyclopaedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Moncton Canada music vandal

• 2607:FEA8:F201:EB00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Looking for a rangeblock here. It's a long-term abuse case from New Brunswick, Canada; no communication at all; massive amounts of music article genre warring from the following ranges:

• Feb 2021 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F201:EB00:0:0:0:0/64
• Jan 2021 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F225:CE00:0:0:0:0/64
• Dec 2020 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F221:9800:0:0:0:0/64 (blocked twice)
• Nov 2020 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F200:1391:0:0:0:0/64 (blocked twice)
• Jun–Aug 2020 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F220:B315:0:0:0:0/64 (blocked twice)
• Apr–May 2020 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F220:146E:0:0:0:0/64
• Jan–Mar 2020 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F220:8021:0:0:0:0/64
• Sep–Dec 2019 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F220:7AC:0:0:0:0/64
• Apr–Aug 2019 – Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F220:7A3:0:0:0:0/64

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A block of Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F201::/40 might be considered even though it is large. These appear to nearly all be edits to music articles, usually genre changes, and most of them since 1 October 2020 have been reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion. The collateral damage to good-faith users would be small. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked two months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! This post can be archived. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTokyo

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

---

From archives

This timeline is not exhaustive and, before 2021, comes from the list in the ANI notice of November 2020. --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

September 2017 (TBAN and warning)

TBAN "due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia"

Warning "against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive_accusations_of_antisemitism_and_homophobia.2C_and_threats_and_personal_attacks_by_XIIIfromTokyo

Additional comment by admin: Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block. --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

September 2020

ANI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Infringement_of_caution_against_attacks_and_of_topic-ban_by_XIIIfromTokyo (according to me, unfounded accusations of "xenophobic behaviour" by Wikipedia admins and agressivity towards me)

--Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

November 2020

ANI notice by Guy Macon listing previous ANIs about XIIIfromTokyo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#XIIIfromTOKYO_%28need_an_admin_who_speaks_French%29 --Delfield (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

9-18 January 2021

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

The user XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants".

I tried to add a story that is all over the news the best I can, and it made XIIIfromTokyo say about me: "Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New."

Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is a pretty serious BLP issue, dealing with the ongoing sex crime accusations against Olivier Duhamel. I know that's somewhat afield from what OP is concerned with—that XIIIfromTOKYO's references to "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University" is directed towards Delfield. Interestingly, the content at issue does not seem to discuss Paris Assas University, and in fact seems to be a throwback to accusations made in a SPI case opened against Delfield that closed without action. I think there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asterix757: Made a clear statement about 1/the quality of sources, and 2/the inaccuracy of the writting, and then added the corresponding tags {{Failed verification}} & {{Better source}} to the article [40]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[41]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757[42][43].

And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

No, it seems clear to me that you violated the outcome of that ANI thread. BD2412, I think a block is in order, given your conclusion here. Delfield may be a sock, I don't know, but XIIIfromTOKYO was warned, and in this very thread they had an opportunity to retract the worst of their personal attacks; they didn't. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.

The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [44]. I quote "written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article[45]" :

"pretending facts that are not in the sources" is not different to "fraudulent use of references". I'm strictly following the openning statement.

Gala is nothing more than a tabloid. See the SPI for more input on the use of that kind of material. Asterix757 has provided more element on that newspaper[46], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.

In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.

"abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.

So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a WP:POINT. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.

You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional[47]. You do it 8 times on the edit summary, it's acceptable, I do it once with a 25'000 SPI bytes, it's not ?

You have just removed a full paragraph because, according to you "whether Eduniversal is a good enough source for this remains to be seen"[48], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[49], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.

I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.

Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.

I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.

--Delfield (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"pursuing this obsession you say "[50] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2[51] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[52]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented that diff as if it applied to the "obsessed" statement. It has nothing to do with that, and it seems you're determined to distort this matter until it suits your agenda. 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 2: To admins: I won't engage with XIII at all. He has been harassing me and the only way not to be a victim a such verbal abuse is to just ignore him if possible.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-mysteries-love/201612/the-best-way-end-verbal-abuse I made a report, you assess the situation in whatever way you want. He is trying a classic debate technique: make a scandal about the report so that the original issue get drowned in the smoke (what they call gaslighting: https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/what-is-verbal-abuse#gaslighting). I won't fall for that and I leave it to you, as I did last time (I did not comment), even though nothing was decided in ANI and even though the comment section proved him wrong and XIII was imo aggressive toward Narky Blert as an answer there (pointing imaginary mistakes instead of kindly discuss content).

Psychological health is therefore the reason I am not answering to XIII or going deeper in the ANI dispute. Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You have already made comments about my mental health, and I have clearly told you that it was not acceptable. Yet, you made the choice to keep the discussion on that track, conspicuously using website like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-healt.

You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[53] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[54]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[55][56][57]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.

It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, either file a WP:SPI or withdraw this accusation. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August[58] . Already mentionned repeadly on that ANI, you can't have missed it. I have added some inputs to that SPI, and went as far as asking if he thought a third account should be added[59] before actually adding it. I haven't voiced an opinion that is not shared by at least one other contributor.

It took us 6 monhs to solve the issue at FR.Wiki, but it has been draging on for 4 years at EN.Wiki. It might be time to consider that you might be wrong on that. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A stale SPI from August is not a reason to repeat those accusations months later. Either file a new SPI with new evidence, or withdraw the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. --Delfield (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify further: I am fine, these guidelines I follow are just to keep it this way. No risk of self-harm of course. --Delfield (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1-2 February 2021

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

Because I asked an admin to "clean up" a talk page of personal attacks, he answered: "My comments are not dirty things that need to be, as you said, "cleaned", thank you. As you might know, stereotypes about French people include having a poor hygiene, so that choice of words is a bit unfortunate."

--Delfield (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, make it quick this time :

• A 40 months old edit about a past beheaviour[60], what do you want to prove with that ? Yes, I know than I'm not perfect, but Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds might apply after all this time. Yes, I claimed that a contributor was abusing sockpuppets, and yes, I'have been cautionned against that. And yes, it turned out that I was absolutly right, and that that contributor was indeed abusing sockpuppets.

A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. It's was not the first time that you have tried to rewrite one of my message in order to alter its original meaning, and I have already clearly said that it was not acceptable[61]. So you knowingly behave in a way that I have asked you to refrain from.

It's the third ANI that Delfield has started against me during the pasts months[62][63]. Mostly off-topic accusations, always starting with that once a bad guy always a bad guy mantra over and over again. And everytime I waste more time on ANI than on the article. That's how Brandolini's law works, and Wikipedia:POV railroad also apply there.

I see that Delfield only has 200 edits so far (3 ANI started with only 200 edits, that's actually amazing), so it might be time to draw a line between harassment strategies, and genuine grievances. And I understand that, as a still young contributor with edits on controversial articles as a sole experience, it might be hard for Delfield to make that difference. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. Incorrect. Please see WP:TPO for specific instances in which the comments of others can be edited or deleted. I'm not saying that any of those apply, just correcting your blanket generalization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

New ANI notice

XIIIfromTOKYO is once again again making a whole section in talk page on my edits (implying bad intent), even though what he is talking about had already been sorted out by Asterix757 (there was a confusion about where the claims took place: the institution or a group of institutions).

His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1007909303&oldid=1007908098

Former edits by Asterix757: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1008065409&oldid=1008062642

Warning of XIIIfromTokyo about this (and above the 9-18 January section) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XIIIfromTOKYO#Topic_ban

At every ANI post, he is trying to have the admins not reading by writing long texts in which the line of thoughts seem difficult to follow (or trying to make obviously bad faith claims, like on 12:20, 11 January 2021 above about the word "obsession" I used), so that they let down the whole subject.

Even if Asterix757 had not already made these judicious improvements, I feel it is not normal that every edit I make is observed by XIIIfromTokyo and a whole section is made each time a sentence in my edits can be improved. Even if XIIIfromTokyo did not create a new section, I do not think he should ever write "Delfield has done this and this" but "This is written in the article, I think that should be written for this reason" without mentioning me in talk pages. It has been polluting discussions between Asterix757 and me for months and it is becoming difficult for me to write anything even in talk page because for everything XIIIfromTokyo has a bizarre comment (see above 1-2 February where I asked the talk page to be "cleaned up" of his personal attacks, and he answered referring to the stereotypes about French people like him having a bad hygiene).

--Delfield (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Delfield's harrassement

Hi,

I think it's pretty obvious that Delfiel has been filling a swarm of ANI in the last past months in order to harrass me. Per Brandolini's law, I won't waste my time to debunk any of this, unless expressly asked my an admin.

There is a strong case against Delfield for a long time abuse of sockpuppet; It was opened by an other contributor, but I totally support it. We just need 1 admin to have a look at it.

There is also a strong case against Delfield for enduring misrepretention of sources and/or use of poor material[64]. As you can see, when caught, Delfield doesn't answer, and opens an ANI as an answer. Delfield has also tried to remove failed verification tags[65]... So the real question is, is Delfield able to contribute to Wikipedia. Afer 200+ edits, and already a long history of ANI and editwaring, I strongly doubt it.

The Sciences Po article is now filled with that kind of QAnon Pizzagate elite pedophile conspiracy mumbo-jumbo : "Duhamel was indeed organizing many events with the French intelligentsia involving a lot of sex and alcool and mixing adults and children. Small children were told about loss of virginity at 12 and were asked to mime in front of parents sexual acts, 12-year old girls were dressed with provocative clothes and make-up and sent to dance with 40-year-old men, older children are asked to tell the audience about their first sexual experience and young boys are "offered" to older women. [...] ". And it's not even connected to that college. The controversy section is now longer that the History section. 200+ edits of pedophile conspiracies. An other contributor has already tried to make it understand that it was turning the article into a gossip magazine, BUt Delfield sees nothing bad about it [66].

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The section in question, while it needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, seems to be well sourced enough. I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well. 4D4850 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As seen in the below section, he may have falsified the entire start of the conversation. 4D4850 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@XIIIfromTOKYO: the SPI you linked to was closed back in October with this comment "Open for a month and obviously not going anywhere, so closing with no action taken. If anybody has some new evidence and can present it in a clear and concise way so it's easy to evaluate, file a new report." So it's fairly unlikely "just need 1 admin to have a look at it". What you need to do is follow the advice given. If you have new evidence, present it in a clear and concise and manner in a new report. Edit: I see you were already told by User:HandThatFeeds to stop treating that old report as convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. You really need to follow that advice as well. Just stop mentioning that SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yes, it was closed because no one took a look at it. Two contributors spent hours to collect evidences, so far, for nothing. I have more elements to provide, but for that I need to have someone who is willing to have a look at other peronn's work. That's a shame, because that's the fastest way to deal with that ANI.

I have 110'000+ edits and 13+ years as a contributor. Delfield has 200+ edits, and only controversial edits. So maybe, maybe, the old grumpy contributor has seen something. And maybe MePhisto, who openned the SPI, has also seen something. And maybe, Asterix757, who found that a lot of references discrepancies[67] (failed verifications and poorly sourced claims), has also seen something. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@XIIIfromTOKYO: it's not possible to parse that closing statement (in particular, the request for new evidence) as there being no review of the evidence. It's clear that it was reviewed, perhaps only cursorily given the length, and was found insufficient compelling to demonstrate sock-puppetry. You and MePhisto should take this advice on board, and if you have new evidence open a new case in a clearer and more concise manner. Until you do so, you need to drop the sockpuppetry allegations. Even if you are right, the evidence presented to the community thus far is not sufficient for finding of sockpuppetry. There are plenty of times when sockpuppetry happens but the evidence isn't sufficient. You can continue to personally believe whatever you want provided you don't let it unreasonably affect your editing here and especially stop making unfounded accusations. As for the other stuff, I'll put it this way. I had a quick look at the talk page of Sciences Po and what you said there did lead to concerns on my part about Delfield inaccurately summarising sources. But I didn't investigate further in part because I didn't feel I could trust you either. I don't care that much how long you've been here and how many contributions you have. I do care in my one recent experience with you, I found you continued to make an unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry even after you'd been told to stop. If you keep at that, why should I believe anything else you have to say? In other words, maybe you are right, but you haven't given me a reason to think you're right. The opposite in fact. So rather than spending hours reviewing if it's a persistent problem with Delfield editing, I'll just drop it. If you're lucky, maybe someone else won't be so daunted. If not, well maybe reconsider you approach. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: If I have to drop the sockpuppetry part, why is Delfield allowed to use past ANIs, especially when nothing came out of them ?

I don't ask you to "trust" me, I ask you to understand that other contributors have also voiced their concerns about this contributor (that lead to an SPI and the finding of multiple references discrepancies). I want you to undertand that Delfiel's narrative and habilities don't match at all with a 200+ edits contributor. It was already true last septembre, when it toped only 140 edits. Let me explain that again :

• 4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris[68]
• 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Citation needed}}[69]
• 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork[70]
• 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection[71]. The aim was to have the artile locked on the version the Delfield wrote.
• 43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles[72]
• 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination[73] : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield[74][75] in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
• 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page[76], in order to promote Assas.
• 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins[77]

5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts red herring tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.

• 121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard [78], targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
• 125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield opens a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto[79]
• 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me[80]

In barrely more than 100 edits, that contributor has been able to use correctly a very specific template (8th edit), create and article (23rd), make a request for page protection (33rd), start a merging process (43rd), start a deletion process (55th), start an SPI (113rd). It doesn't really fit the narrative of new contributor discovering Wikipedia throught a trial and error process, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible falsification of conversation (verified: no)

Looking at the edit history and Delfields user contribs, it seems he might have falsified an entire conversation, because I can't find a blanking of the section before that, and he added multiple comments in that edit, so it seems he may have falsified the conversation. 4D4850 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If I did everything correct, this should be the diff that added 26000 bytes. 4D4850 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, is there a policy that can be applied? Possibly the policy against impersonating could be applied, but it still seems unique. 4D4850 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They copied that section from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#XIIIfromTokyo. That's why it says "9-18 January (from archives)". Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for clarifying. I thought those headers discussed what the reported user was doing at the time, not previous discussions. Thank you for the clarification. 4D4850 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Bluelinks would have been more compact than C/P, but I see nothing untoward. I remember those ANI reports; I participated in a Talk Page discussion during one of them, in relation to French-language sources (though not to XIII's satisfaction). Narky Blert (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4850 you may wish to deal with this edit where you're trying to make something out of a theory that Defields falsified a conversation. I suggest some apologies and self reversion may be in order. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have assumed bad faith. I struck through all my other comments in this section and I'm about to apologize. 4D4850 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to take a self enforced wikibreak starting later today for assuming bad faith. 4D4850 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@4D4850: I am not sure you really "assumed" bad faith, since you wrote "possible", and you stroke everything when Canterbury Tail told you it was a mistake. Now that you have read this conversation, if you could stay at least to give your input if needed in this issue, it would be of some help. But mistakes do happen, it is exactly what I am saying when on my many edits with sources there is one thing that can be a mistake, and XIIIfromTokyo makes a whole section about me in talk page on how a bad faith editor I am, each time and for some time now. --Delfield (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not an admin, and I'm going to need to start disclosing that again. 4D4850 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible falsification of conversation (verification needed)

As a matter of fact, I have already mentionned in a previous ANI that Delfield has already altered one of my message to alter its meaning[81].

• Delfield said "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him""
• The full message was "attack [him] on [his] number of edits, then on [his] grammar"

The first message is a blend accusation, the second message clearly shows that I have explained why the comment was problematic. It's pretty relevant, because that actually the first time that Delfield talk to me. I think a look at the original discussion shows that all these incidents are created by Delfield. It all started when an other contributor started a SPI against Delfield[82]. I wrote to support that contributor, explaining that I came to the same conclusion. Delfield didn't even answer me, but immediatly opened an ANI against me, using years old edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=977943897)

First messages

It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016[83]. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time. Good luck. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that this edit from this user, about some unspecified "behaviour pattern" from an another user, is their second edit in 2020. It is written in their talk page: "you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block." Would this user be MePhisto? --Delfield (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits[84]. Happy ? I don't think starting a discussion like you do by trying to know who has the largest editcount is very mature.
Yes, back in 2016 I tried to warn EN.Wiki about Droas82/Launebee crosswiki massive use of sockpuppets. Launebee managed to get me topic-ban to silence me, and came back with a brand new army of sockpuppets. And then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee was openned, and it was proven that I was right all along. So, yea, maybe I should ask for the topic-ban to be lifted, but I don't feel like dealing with admins thinking that my "lack of facility with the English language" can cover their xenophobic behaviours.
The "behaviour pattern" has already been introduced by MePhisto. So, no, it's not "unspecified". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What do your problems with the administrators have to do with me? I mentioned your text on the noticeboard because I do not see what I can answer to that. --Delfield (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Answered at AN. Now back to the real topic.
After only 131 edits as of today, you have shown that you already have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia ([message at the AN), and of a 5 years dispute (enough to provide very fast some years old diffs). But of course you know nothing about and are not connected to Launebee/Droas82 . XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You message is not clear. I found where one can ask Wikipedia if there is a problem and I provided the "diffs" available on your talk page for more clarity. Besides, could you be a bit more gentle please? I am not responsible for your problems with Wikipedia. --Delfield (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. Being "a bit more gentle". Sure, why not ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it shows very well that since DAY 1, Delfield has wage an all out campaign, and more often that not relying on dirty tactics. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Further conversation

XIIIfromTokyo saying the Duhamel story, sourced with so many reputable newspapers (New York Times, The Times, Le Monde...), is a QAnon conspiracy theory (above 12:04, 22 February 2021), and writing so long texts so that the original discussion gets drowned under, is just one new example of what he is constantly doing in talk pages. On top of using this to constantly attacking me and making whole sections about how a bad faith user I am, each time my edit has been improved by another user). Discussion between me and other users become impossible, since it is polluted with these long personal attacks.

Right after this ANI, he did it again. I wrote to Asterix747 "you are right" but I am discussing how with him to improve the sentence in the article, but XIIIfromTokyo makes a long comment trying to prove that I am a bad-faith user ("only what fits in the narrative is mentioned, contradictory statements are ignored. That's Cherrypicking"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sciences_Po&diff=prev&oldid=1008356814 (precedent similar edit already mentioned: [85] . Previous edit already correcting what he is talking about in these two new "analysis" of my bad faith: [86] )

Two users have already been in favor of a block (Drmies 23:04, 10 January 2021 and 4D4850 14:34, 22 February 2021). I do not know if it the right answer but what I know is that it has been going for a long time, without any instance of apology (Asterix757 was in favour of an apology 00:53, 11 January 2021) or retraction of obviously wrong statements about me (like I was accusing him to have a medical condition, and The Hand That Feeds You asked him 18:55, 12 January 2021 to retract that statement above, which he did not do, or like my comment about cleaning up a page had anything to do with his personal hygiene). Besides, it seems it has been going on for much longer, since he was already cautioned against discussing character of other conversants in talk pages under penalty of possible immediate block on 11 October 2017 (for false accusations of antisemitism according to the ANI).

--Delfield (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me give the full quote that 4D4850 gave "I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well". You have altered that contributor's quote to fit in your narrative. It says a lot about how much you can be trusted, and about how much your contributions have to be checked. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't find any policy violations in the logs., and even if there were, you would still be blocked if I was an admin, which I really need to start disclosing I'm not again. 4D4850 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's argumentum ad ignorantiam. A proposition is not true because it has not yet been proven false. You claimed that you were taking a wikibreak, maybe that's why you didn't find anything relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Two things. A: I only started the wikibreak later that day, I didn't manage to follow through and not edit today because I had 5 messages. B: I checked before I started the wikibreak and didn't find anything suspicious, aside from one edit which I mistook for a policy violation and me mistaking it for a policy violation was the whole reason I chose to do the wikibreak. Overall though, everything in this ANI is too confusing for anybody to make sense of while editing, so later today I'll read it through and try to finally make a tl;dr for anybody who can't understand the ridiculously over complicated discussion. 4D4850 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• In favor of a block if there is no retraction about the conspiracy nature of the pedophilia scandal in France I read better the comment of XIIIfromTokyo (12:04, 22 February 2021), and I saw that he is directly calling the Duhamel story "pedophile conspiracies". I cannot withstand that such comment is so hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France, thanks to the testimony about the REAL victim of Duhamel, and who could read such comments online. Such a statement should not be taken lightly and, I am now in favor in a (permanent) block. It is an extremely serious matter and this only should be subject to a permanent block if there is no retraction (and if he strikes his whole comment too of course). If there is a retraction and a strike, I let the community decide of the right path on the basis of the personal attacks against me and pollution of the discussions in which I am involved, since I would not be neutral enough to be the judge of this. --Delfield (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware that you want to ban me. You opened the first ANI against me last September because I wrote to support an other contributor who openned an SPI against you[87]. The first time that you talk to me was to attack me on my grammar and on my edit count[88]. You have since then started half a dozen of ANI against me in the last 2 months. Mostly because I was trying to show and explain your mistakes. Needless to say, there are a lot of them.

You are now accusing me to make an apologia for pedophilia, and of being "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France". So I'm more or less some kind of devil. And of course, no need to provide a link "Source : trust me bro". So I don't really understand what you expect. Your claim is delusional.

Putting references from The Times or the BBC is not the same as correctly using references from these media. And that's the whole point of your edits here. An other contributor has already mentionned that your edits were problematic, and always needed to be checked. I explained that I agreed with him, and I have even provided quotes from these articles in order to underline the most problematic parts[89]. You don't listen, you don't correct the mistakes, and you start an ANI. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that accusing other editors of saying that you have a mental disorder when they say that you are pursuing an obsession and then writing "Your claim is delusional" might not be a wise idea? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Your only answer to a non-native speaker is a lexical/grammatical comment ? Great. But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of my message.

Delfield has accused me of making an apologia for pedophilia, and of being "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France". I'm not OK with that. So I need clear references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO: Focusing in on two interactions

The above contains a huge amount of material -- free clue: you get better results at ANI if you are concise: fewer words, more diffs -- so I am going to focus on two interactions:

"Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"

"Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[90]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)"

So, let's look at this comment that supposedly supports XIIIfromTOKYO's assertion that Delfield is guilty of "harrassment[sic] and playing the mental health game":

"To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. --Delfield (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"

XIIIfromTOKYO is clearly editing from a position of bad faith, telling lies about Delfield and hoping that nobody will check and see that in the diff provided Delfield pretty much said the exact opposite of what XIIIfromTOKYO claims they said.

So is this an isolated incident? To avoid any possibility of cherry picking, let me address the claim that was directly above this one when I edited it (please stop adding new sections!):

"As a matter of fact, I have already mentionned[sic] in a previous ANI that Delfield has already altered one of my message[sic] to alter its meaning[91]. [...] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)"

Wow. If true, that would be a good example of Delfield misbehaving. Editing another person's comments that they posted with their signature would be completely out of line.

But the diff[92] doesn't contain an edit from Delfield at all, much less an edit where Delfield altered one of XIIIfromTOKYO's posts. Instead it is a post from XIIIfromTOKYO where they say "I have edited Delfield's previous message" -- once again the exact opposite of what is claimed.

I have seen enough. I call for an indefinite block of XIIIfromTOKYO until they demonstrate that they understand that the above pattern of behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Please note that I am not making any claim one way or the other regarding Delfield or anyone else. If anyone other than XIIIfromTOKYO wants me to look into that, please provide diffs demonstrating the behavior you are talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's execute XIIIfromTOKYO, and explain that nothing that he can say will be heard off. @Guy Macon: what a nice way to introduce yourself and your way of thinking .

Thank you for your comment, let me explain that again to you.

1. My original message was "You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. (...)"[93] (12 September 2020, 13:42)
2. Delfield then added that to the ANI "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him"". As you can see the half of the sentence has been removed, including all of the objects of the sentence. The meaning of my sentence was altered, and nothing was left to indicate that a cut has been done. Most of the time in academia "(...)" is used for that purpose. And the quote was presented as an honest representation of my comment. As you might know personal attacks are not allowed on Wiki. Delfield cut my quote to let other people think that I was attacking. In the original quote, anyone can see that Delfield is ressorting to personnal attacks ; I'm explaining why comment on grammar or edit count are not acceptable.
3. When I saw the alteration of my quote in the ANI, I put the full version. I clearly explained why Delfield's cut was misleading, and warn him "Delfield, you are not allowed to change my messages, or to cut them in a way that could alter their meanings. "[94].
4. Delfield ignore my warning, and altered again my quote [95].

So yes, the (my) orignal quote was altered (by Delfield) to remove the relevant parts. When I put back the relevant parts of the quote, warning Delfield about doing that again... well that's exactly what happened. So Delfield knew that it was altering my message, and yet, choose to do so. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between changing another editors comments (forbidden; see WP: TPOC) and quoting them (allowed). If you feel that someone misquoted you, you are free to respond saying so. You are not allowed to edit other people's comments. If you reply to this comment by indicating that you have read WP:TPOC, understand that what you did was wrong, and commit to following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, you might escape an indefinite block. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong to edit someone else's comments, you will be demonstrating the Law of Holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In point 3/diff [252], above, XIIIfromTOKYO edited another editor's comment to change its meaning. That is totally unacceptable; see WP:TPO - "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" (emphasis in the original). Narky Blert (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You have already claimed that you wanted to ban me, and that nothing that I would say would make any impact. My comment was in no way an answer. It was an detailled explanation of how my own words have been misquoted by Delfield, and who I had to rectify them. That's was not for you, that was for anyone who would put any trust to your claim.

If you want an answer, strike your comment about my message not being important, and your accusation of me "telling lies about Delfield and hoping that nobody will check". My detailled explanation shows that your comment was, at best, without solid ground;

Respect goes both ways. You have since your first message here displayed a very high level of violence (can it be higher than claiming that you wish to exterminate an other long time contributor ?). So it's up to you to make the first step and apologize.

The name of the page is Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe you should let admins work. You have already disclosed your agenda, and clearly stated that your goal was to ban me. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Delfield altered my message by removing large chunks ot it. Delfield has clearly altered the meaning of my message by misquoting me. Yet, despite that change of meaning, Delfield claimed that the quote was mine. In lot of places (academia, Wikipedia...) that kind of practice is considered as a forgery (yes, I can use bold caracters also).

The only part of the text that was modified, were words that were falsifely attributed to me. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@XIIIfromTOKYO: - What part of "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" is difficult to understand? Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Let me ask you the same question : What part of "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" is difficult to understand ? The core comment is mine. Delfield provided a quote, that was presented of being mine. You understand ? A quote that was presented as being mine. The text was so altered that it had nothing to do with my core message. That is called a forgery, and that falls also under copyright infringement. So, as I'm the author of the quoted text, I put back my original message (FYI, that's commonly put between "."). I didn't change the meaning of my text, I re-established my text.

And yet, despite all these warning, Delfield made the choice to make a new forgery, and commit a copyright infringement. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break / Requests of admin close

• One wonders when XIII will stop alleging that Delfield is a sock. And here we are, with XIII still arguing that Delfield commits forgeries and copyright infringements (what?). It's time to block for personal attacks, and that is exactly what I'm going to do, pending further discussion here. I propose we let non-involved admins and editors discuss the matter here: Delfield and others, kindly let this run its course. We'll have no more from XIII for 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• This XIII character needs an indefinite block. Between the insane fixation on the word obsession, and the changing of someone else's post, this is someone who just doesn't get it and, it seems, never will. Oh yeah, there's also the talk of being the target of "violence" and "extermination". EEng 08:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm also very close to simply deleting the entire Sciences_Po#Attitude_toward_sexual_violence_and_Duhamel_scandal section, which reads like a bad translation of a trash tabloid. Something like this need extremely high-quality, comprehensive sources, not a cobbling together of scandalous rumors given in WP's voice as if flat fact. EEng 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done.[96] EEng, why do I have the feeling that there is going to be edit warring over this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I'll defer to someone whose Froggish is better than mine, but it's at least some of the sources cited in support of X turn our to simply be paper P reporting that paper Q says that someone's book asserted X. EEng 01:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with EEng: XIII needs an indefinite block. I see zero attempts to understand Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Even when presented with a diff where they violated a policy and a direct quote of the policy they violated, all they do is claim "what I did was allowed because Delfield is Evil". I could not get a simple "OK, I will stop editing other people's signed comments" out of XIII. Instead they keep saying that editing other people's comments is allowed and that they will do it again the next time someone writes something they don't like.

Could an uninvolved admin please evaluate this report, write up a summary, and close it? This has gone on far too long. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I've said elsewhere that I wouldn't post again in this thread unless there was a proposal to !vote on; but I'm breaking my vow. Yes, I do have opinions about the editorial behaviour of some parties both inside and outside the content dispute, but I'm not going to air them unless and until there is something to focus on. Why provide an opportunity for the flinging of apeshit? Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I asked on AN for someone to look at this... Drmies (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone is interested.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thread caught in the Twilight Zone. Do-duh doo-doo, do-duh doo-doo! EEng 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A group of administrators line up to be tested for the new Brazilian variant of ANI flu

Our traditional workflow in these cases is:

1. ANI report filed. Clear community consensus for an indefinite block,
2. Failure to get the attention of an uninvolved admin who can actually impose the block,
3. Disruptive editor gets the ANI Flu, ^{(stops editing until the ANI case is archived)}
4. ...Time passes...,
5. Finally an admin show up and say "no recent disruption, nothing to do here.",
6. Thread gets archived,
7. Disruptive editor resumes being disruptive.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL SOME ADMIN DISPOSE OF THIS? EEng 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I can close it (without reading any of the thread) as "You, stand in the corner. You, stand in the other. You, stand in the corner next door. And I do not want to hear who started it, or there'll be no dinner, okay?" but I doubt that would please anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

After the indefinite block

XIIIfromTokyo immediately proved this unanimous consensus was the right one by obviously unfairly accusing E, Guy Macon and Narky Blert of "racial and/or ethnic slurs" and accusing me of disclosing his identity because he talked to the media: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XIIIfromTOKYO&diff=1009640684&oldid=1009633217 . This is not the first time he invokes racism to explain Wikipedia English decisions towards him ("xenophobic behaviour") This is the kind of behaviour I constantely have had to deal with in talk pages.

--Delfield (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Being blocked can be upsetting, so we usually allow the blocked editor to vent about how unfair it all is for at least a week or so. Several veteran editors and administrators are monitoring that talk page and will take action (typically by asking the blocking admin to revoke talk page access) if the behavior gets too bad or persists too long. I advise you to unwatch the page and move on with your life. You aren't helping. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ok, thank you. I removed everything except useful facts. His page has never been on my watch list, but I understand what you mean. --Delfield (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In the light of XIII's total failure to understand my use of British idiom (complete with helpful Wiktionary link) in this thread, I am even more puzzled as to why they were insistent that I translate into English part of a French citation we were discussing at Talk:University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas#Translation help needed. I am leaning towards the conclusion that they were stirring (Australian and British idiom, not in Wiktionary or even Urban Dictionary (perhaps because it isn't vulgar)).

As far as WP:TPA goes, I understand that removal of editing privileges is supposed to be preventative not punitive, and assume that TP comments are taken into account when judging a WP:UNBLOCK request. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Delfield: actually although there may have been numerous problems with XIIIfromTokyo's editing, they had a point on the "disclosing his identity" bit. You may notice your edit is now gone from the history, based I think on my email to WP:Oversight. I'd suggest you take a read of WP:Outing to avoid such a violation in the future.

But in summary, whatever someone may have voluntarily disclosed somewhere else or to some third party site about their identity cannot be talked about here unless they have disclosed it here, with some very rare exceptions. In other words, unless XIIIFromTokyo had themselves linked to that article, you should not link to it on Wikipedia. (I didn't read the article carefully but if XIIIFromTokyo had already revealed all private details here that were mentioned there, it may be okay to link to it, but I'd still urge caution. This doesn't seem to have been the case though, hence the complaint.)

This also means, you should generally never talk about the results of an external search for an editor's Wikipedia username. To give another example even if not something you did, definitely do not link to a social media profile you feel belongs to an editor which they never themselves have linked to. It doesn't matter if the name matches exactly and the person says on the social media site that they are editor A here.

BTW those rare exceptions where it can be okay to talk about content on external sites even when the editor's affected didn't disclose the info here, only arise with WP:PAID editing cases. And even there great care needs to be taken in what is said and what is linked to. Otherwise, if you have concerns over someone's editing based on something you found outside Wikipedia, you should email it privately to WP:Arbcom or an admin experienced in such matters or someone else appropriate. Since it's far easier to bring a discussion on Wikipedia than to remove something you already posted, unless you're certain and have sufficient experience to be sure it's okay to post something, it's probably better to stick to email.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention and it's maybe mildly relevant here. As our outing page explains, personal information disclosed by an editor even on some other Wikimedia site should be treated with care and it may not be appropriate to discuss here depending on the circumstances. I don't think that line has been crossed here, it's something else to keep in mind. Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for taking the time to explain all of that to me, I totally understand.

@Ritchie333 and Nil Einne: I see that the user page of the user has not been cleared and it is not written clearly that he has been blocked. Isn't it normal practice? I feel this can be very confusing for other users, especially since the user's talk page is very long and it is not clear at all that he has been blocked indefinitively. --Delfield (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Ab615874

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

---

This new editor has been making personal attacks here and here. The editor was warned here that personal attacks are inappropriate.--VViking_TalkEdits 17:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, clearly not here for the right reasons. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violations by Fadewwiki

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

---

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

Prolific month-old account Fadewwiki is persistently violating copyrights on Commons and Wikipedia despite multiple warnings, including a final warning on Commons.

• On 9 February 2021, Fadewwiki was notified by Victor Schmidt on Commons that an image they uploaded was a possible copyright violation.[97]
• On 10 February, they received two more image copyright warnings on Commons.[98]
• On 16 February, at 06:25, I cautioned them on the English-language Wikipedia with {{uw-copyright-new}} for adding machine translations of copyrighted text to Laksam Upazila.[99] They had also violated copyright at four articles they created: Al Amin Institute, Laksam Government Pilot High School, Nawab Faizunnesa & Badrunnesa Amalgamated High School, and Nawab Faizunnesa Government College.
• At 07:00 they replied on my talk page, I was aware of the image copyrights, but text copyright didn't catch my attention ... now I fully understand how to make edits on Wikipedia. One quick question, I usually search for images on Flickr, and if they are free licensed, like public domain or creative commons, can I upload them on Wikipedia and use them on an article?"[100]
• At 07:21 They were reported at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Fadewwiki by commons user Yuraily Lic for image license laundering through Flickr that had been going on for at least a week.
• On 18 February, they were warned on Commons by Yann about another image copyright violation.[101]
• On 25 February, they received a last warning on Commons by Jeff G., "The next time you upload a copyright violation, you will be blocked."[102]
• On 1 March, they again added a machine translated paragraph of a copyrighted source ([103]) to Laksam Upazila.[104]

At a minimum, a block of a week or two is called for to show that there are consequences if they do not control their habit of violating copyright. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wat concerns me.

-EEng

Thanks for the Ping. Wat concerns me the most is this post on commons, where they essentially demonstrate that they are either deliberately Flikrwashing (if it's there flickr acocunt) or don't care about mutally exclusive licenses on the flickr account and the other websites involved (if it's not their flickr acocunt). this article history also looks concerning to read. From my quick view, they seem to be largely copying texts from http://laksam.comilla.gov.bd/ and assume the websites are not under copyright (I haven't been able to locate their Terms of Use, so I have no idea if it is, but since we assume copyrighted anyway, it doesn't matter). When an admin closes this, he or she should probbably also check the linked article's revision history and carry out all nessesary revision deletions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Worldbruce and Victor Schmidt:, I've indeffed the user and will be going through their contributions. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 19:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive new user

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

---

User:GadriBabey has been making clearly disruptive WP:POVPUSH and WP:HOAX edits ever since he started a week ago. Egregiously adding ethnicity and religion over nationality in bios/articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), repeatedly creating a WP:POVFORK article (WP:HOAX for the most part) about a non-existent state, another hoax article about a non-existent nationality, adding that hoax nationality to various articles. Disruptively removing references to India from multiple articles (1, 2, 3) in continuation of their POVPUSH.

Clearly WP:NOTHERE as seen by his unresponsive/dismissive attitude towards multiple warnings on the User Talkpage. Seeing the clearly disruptive and hoax edits in a sanctioned space, an indef is required here. Gotitbro (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Two WP:NOTHERE editors causing absolute pandemonium across numerous articles User:Rudra Choudhary and User:Rajesh121skr

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

---

Hi all, I feel that I have no option but to report two users who are causing numerous issues and creating hoax articles. Unfortunately, Rudra refuses to let the CSD tags stay on the article so it is becoming impossible for an admin to view and delete the articles. The articles in question are all autobiographies created by Rajesh but Rudra is acting as gatekeeper and making sure that none of them get tagged for deletion. Please can someone take a look?

• Rajdeep Bijarniya
• RajdeepBijarniya
• Rajdeep

Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone, I've deleted the spam and salted, and given both accounts short blocks for DE. Haven't examined all their editing to see whether those need to be indefs, or considered the socking question, got to dash. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Upped to indef on review of their contribs to date - entirely disruptive, probably sock or UPE meat. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks! I think I saw them doing something once. SoyokoAnis 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Range block requested

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

---

• 2603:9000:F407:878E:695A:B43C:188C:9A8F/50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please block the above-listed range, or whatever range they might feel is appropriate? Basically, the person behind this range has been adding nonsensical claims to articles for years now, most recently in articles relating to Happy Tree Friends. All the edits on the /50 range are trash and are indicative of their usual behavior: claiming that some random company has bought another company (one recent example) and using it as a basis to make gibberish claims like "Disney is buying Sony" and therefore NBCUniversal owns the band Nirvana. The range I listed above has an edit history going back to September 3, 2020, with zero collateral (though this person's edit history goes back way further back; I've documented some of it here. I realize a range block won't stop the user, but maybe it'll slow them down. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year. El_C 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)}}

@El C: Thank you! Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Maroon 5 band member hoax: Andy Blair

• Maroon 5
• List of Maroon 5 band members
• Andrew Blair
• 2600:8800:106:A500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we get a rangeblock? Somebody from Phoenix has been inserting the name Andy Blair into various articles about the band Maroon 5.[105] There's no such person in the band. I have a very low tolerance for hoaxers. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Looks to be pretty static, so blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Super. I will keep an eye on the range. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

TV6 (Malaysia)

TV6 (Malaysia) is being recreated without any sources repeatedly by few users and IPs, even after it was draftified once, CSD 3 times and a proposed redirect. Requesting create-protection on subject-title. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is to be an official launch next week, and there's sources to back it up, then why can't we have an article for it? Under the assumption it meets notability standards of course. Canterbury Tail talk 13:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are sources existing for the article, why can't it be created? SoyokoAnis 14:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we give this one a little time. As the channel is launching next week, I suggest we give a further week for the article to be bashed into shape, then AfD it if still unrefrenced. In the meantime, I'll notify the relevant WPs of the article's existence and request assistance. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:193.143.239.108

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

---

193.143.239.108 (talk · contribs) is tauntingly wanting to be blocked [106], and has seemingly called people coming to their user talk page "stupid" [107]. This user has blanked material [108][109], and vandalized articles [110][111]; all on 2021 March 4 -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Their wish is my marching orders, or something. El_C 00:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Their every desire is your whim? Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, it seems to be some sort of a weird pattern — see thread directly below! El_C 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Uchar-hadji article. Warring for distorted representation of a source

User:Goddard2000 repeatedly provokes edit warring. There is a source from 1848 saying: "Sala, or Salatavians, ancestors of Kumyk Sala-Uzdens... are considered/supposed to be related to Aukh people." Based on this, user claims repeatedly that Sala Uzdens are Chechen. Explanations on Talk:Uchar-hadji#Not_in_sources talk page that it's original research, and that even this source says Sala-uzdens are Kumyk, can't change his agenda of abusing the article repeatedly. --KrakDuck (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, maybe add some relevant diffs, because, to be honest, I found that article talk page discussion rather difficult to parse. El_C 04:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Sorry for that. Example, I quote the source after I give example how the source is distorted, he says it's all a proof, I argument that what he says is WP:OR, he gives a heap of more original research or links, which contain "proofs" such as DNA tests without any scientific works/articles, or pieces where "Kumyk class Sala-uzden" is repeated again. And the tone is very aggressive, accusing me for being pro-Kumyk. [112]. The problem is that Chechen version is also described in the article in Descent section. He just uses Wikipedia to make a point.--KrakDuck (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, And he continues warring again --KrakDuck (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakDuck, sorry, I still am unable to make sense of this. Perhpas a dispute resolution request, like 3rd opinion or a Request for comment will help get more outside input from editors with some grasp of the subject matter...? El_C 06:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Thanks for protecting. However, FYI, you protected disputed version, with a bunch of original research and falsely presented sources. Pre war version is from 18 October 2020 this one.--KrakDuck (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, I'm approaching this as a content dispute at this time, so I don't get to choose which version to protect, as a matter of policy. Obviously, whomever doesn't engage the article talk page effectively forfeits their position, per WP:COMMUNICATE. Also, just noticed that you have not informed User:Goddard2000 of this discussion, as is required. I will do that for you. El_C 07:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C I see, different from other language Wikipedias then, usually pre-war is protected to prevent recent abuse. Not good also that you couldn't understand how he abused the article, but I guess if you're OK with it, I'll be OK too. Tried to prevent, but not very interested in the topic. And mediation should have been requested by the abuser, not by those who prevent abuse. Let's leave in a poor state then, too much time spent on such an obvious disruption.--KrakDuck (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, your report simply isn't clear enough for me for make immediate sense of (content-wise). Maybe I'll figure it out eventually, maybe not. Who knows. It is what it is. But when it comes to edit warring, that is a matter of some urgency, so I felt decisive action was called for nonetheless. El_C 07:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C The report is simple. Source says "Kumyk (it's an ethnicity) social class Sala-uzden, who have ancestors Sala, who are related to some people/tribe Aukh". Abuser says it means that Sala-uzden are Chechen (an ethnicity too). As a proof he gives a heap of DNA tests of a few individuals and original research, and claims it's all "clear" they are Chechen, and conducts prolonged edit warring without resolving concerns and dispute. And you indulge him in such behaviour. And he will continue doing so. Btw, now I see early talk sections, it seems two editors were blocked for giving the same absurd and warring for it.--KrakDuck (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, anyway, maybe another admin will find it easier to make sense of all this. If so, then they can act as they see fit. Until then, I've recommended to you what you should do in order to get more outside editorial (as opposed to administrative) input into the dispute. And please don't call your opponent an "abuser" until actual abuse has been established. That is inappropriate. El_C 09:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C I established it on an appropriate Talk page clearly. And I edit plenty on another wiki project under another account. But it's a useful experience for me and tells a lot about the quality of articles on English Wikipedia, where apparently admins allow whatever havoc. Good to know, better to stay away from reading and editing here.--KrakDuck (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KrakDuck, please don't ping me again to this thread, it's just more of the same complaints. Not helping. I get it, you want the admin hammer to swing in your favour. But we don't operate this way on the English Wikipedia on the basis of a report that is this terse and this poorly-documented. Also, the article talk page is not the place to demonstrate "abuse." That place would be here, with diffs. In any case, my finding is that you continue to fall short on that front, as well. I, for one, just don't have time to read walls of text on that article talk page. Again, maybe you'd be able to find an admin who will. But it won't be me. El_C 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C It's a wrong conclusion. But you're the admin and can do and impose whatever conclusion you want. Just a friendly advice: if nothing makes sense for you in some simple case with clear diffs, leave it for those who can make sense, otherwise you make it worse and your admin status is devalued. And you may think that it's your hammer required, but in fact it was your adequacy and care for Wikipedia. Now you can be proud that one more article turned into trash and will stay there for years, while there was one who tried to make it better. Good bye.--KrakDuck (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

But I guess you continue to ping nonetheless. I'm sorry, but I'm not that moved by your exaggeration that one-week protection spells the doom of that page "for years." And your you can be proud innuendo is a bit much. There's hundreds of others admins out there. If you're just going to continue to complain, I submit to you that you are not, in fact, advancing your position positively. You still don't get it. As I suggested already above, on my part, I expect you to at least try a 3rd opinion for a case that is proving this opaque to me. You don't want to do that? Fine with me. Want to wait for another admin who may be able to resolve the problem otherwise? Also fine with me. But all the moaning about how much we (and me) suck here at en, I think you've taken that sentiment as far as it is courteous. Your version of an article was protected for a week, that happens on the project as a matter of course. So, maybe brace for it...? On Meta the occurrence is described whimsically in a page called m:Wrong version (WP:WRONGVERSION is a soft redirect). El_C 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by user:CGBoas

I can't remember the last time, if ever, I posted on ANI. But I draw the line at being called a nazi. But that needs to be retracted, and then the edit summary deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we've got another WP:RADAR editor here, they have barely ever spoken to another user on any kind of talk page, and barely use edit summaries, and when they do use them they sometimes use them to insult others. This isn't exactly what we want to see either. @CGBoas: I can see you have been editing in the last few minutes, you need to acknowledge this conversation as opposed to ignoring it if you want to be able to continue to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change and protected it for a while. Deb (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Trendmeister

Trendmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rarely edits. In every series of edits, has been warned against repeatedly removing sourced material, but is aware enough of the rules against 3RR, spacing them out over days. I've already repeated uw-vandal4.

1. 2021-02-14 19:44:20 Trendmeister (This section is about Anna Robinson. This section is not about the CEO of Quaker Oats, John Stuart; please start a new wiki page or separate entry for John Stuart.)
2. 2021-02-19 03:18:51 Trendmeister (→‎Anna Robinson: Anna Robinson was not the CEO of Quaker Oats; a comparison of 2 unlike things does not belong here. This section is about Anna Robinson. This section is not about the CEO of Quaker Oats, John Stuart; please start a new wiki page or separate entry for John Stuart.)
3. 2021-03-02 17:20:49‎ Trendmeister →‎Anna Robinson: NOT A RELEVANT COMPARISON. Anna Robinson was not the CEO of Quaker Oats; a comparison of 2 unlike things does not belong here. This section is about Anna Robinson. This section is not about the CEO of Quaker Oats, John Stuart; please start a new wiki page or separate entry for John Stuart.

Although John Stuart (CEO) already has his own page, this section is about Aunt Jemima#Anna Robinson who was his employee. It is a sourced contrast with the official company statement about her employment, where they incorrectly conflate Anna Robinson with Aunt Jemima#Anna Short Harrington. Trendmeister has repeatedly removed the sourcing.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson , I don't want to get into the content weeds of this, but it just isn't coming together for me (your explanation). Let me see if I understand this. With today's equivalent of $22K a year, Anna Robinson ends up renting rooms to boarders to get by financially. Then, the paragraph ends talking about how the CEO, John Stuart, had a house in this and that town, with the sentence unexpectedly finishing by saying he did not take in boarders. Do you mean in his house/mansion? Like, how can that be, as you say, "an apt comparison"? It doesn't seem apt to me. It seems weird and forced. Possibly, I'm missing something pivotal...? El_C 02:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with El C. I'm not sure why this is ripe for ANI discussion, but if anyone is sanctioned, it would be William Allen Simpson for edits like [113]; I'm not sure if you're trying to make a WP:POINT or just don't understand what "germane" means. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That's right. Though it is actually a matter for ANI, because I'm concerned with both WP:BITE and the lack of article talk page engagement on the matter. I'm seeing aggressive use of a user warning template on WAS' part here. Slapping an (unsigned) {{uw-vandal4}} over this, as their first and only edit to this user's talk page? No, that is straight up misconduct in my books. WAS does not get to dictate (i.e. with removal being deemed vandalism) whether the wikivoice uses the same example as the source it cites (circular?). Nor does he get to treat a content disputant like a vandal —see what vandalism is not— which is a personal attack. El_C 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe to clarify further. What I say directly above has to do with a normal content dispute (Which this isn't). But what myself and power~enwiki are saying ("germane") raises some serious WP:CIR (AGF'ing, but otherwise, indeed, it is WP:POINT) red flags about WAS' editing, which I am admittedly unfamiliar with. El_C 02:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• El_C This isn't supposed to be a content discussion. The problem here is an editor repeatedly removing a reliable source. WP:NPOV is a policy. Editors are required to present all sides, based upon a WP:RS making the argument. Prior to the more recent contrition of Quaker Oaks, they formerly had an official line that the various "Aunt Jemimas" were well compensated (even richly rewarded), and ran advertisements saying so (see earlier sections). In fact, Nancy Green did not have a "lifetime" job (contrary to official statements and advertisements), and died a pauper. Anna Robinson was paraded at very expensive venues in NY, but was in reality poorly paid and had to take in boarders. The CEO inherited his wealth, and did not have to take in boarders in his house/mansion in a very high-end neighborhood (click link). Fairly straightforward. Indeed, the Ann Robinson section could be expanded with other tenement locations (reported from census data by reliable sources) and names of supported children and relatives, but that would seem to be overkill. Trying to keep the comparison and contrast without overwhelming detail. Got a barnstar for my work on this article. (edit conflict)
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a new editor. The repeated 4th warning was because the editor was already at level 4. Seemed better to repeat 4 than to take to ANI immediately. Only level 1 template is signed. Also, not WP:CIRCULAR, the WP:RS is not taking its content from the wikipedia article. The WP:RS preceded the subsection edits (check the dates), and the author is a history professor.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• William Allen Simpson, they are inexperienced, let's not play with semantics. And it's circular because you're saying that the example is presented in the source you're citing when presenting it. That is what was meant. Otherwise, I would have used all-uppercase. Anyway, I don't think you're getting this. I, as an uninvolved admin, have deemed your conduct to have fallen markedly below expectations, with how you behaved regarding this WP:POINTy, editorializing edit of yours. Again, possibly it's a WP:CIR issue, but regardless, there's also the aggressive false invocation of vandalism, which, again, is a personal attack. I'm really expecting the aforementioned to resonate with you. El_C 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have always treated removing or blanking text that is reliably sourced (and removal of the reference itself) as vandalism. Note I'd added the 3rd parameter to the warning template: "Please do not delete relevant information from reliable sources." As to your circular argument, I'm not understanding. How would it be appropriate to add an example that isn't present in the reliable source?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Removing sourced content isn't vandalism by default. It's often just a normal part of the editing process when refining a page. El_C 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @William Allen Simpson: As El C said, that's quite wrong. A lot of removals of sourced content isn't vandalism. If you call something vandalism when it isn't, especially when it's clearly a WP:content dispute, that greatly reduces the ability of other editor's to trust your judgment, and it is also a personal attack. Also remember even if an editor's removals are wrong, it doesn't mean it's vandalism as a lot of editors are confused or misguided about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and genuinely think they're improving an article even if they aren't. One classic example of a failed ANI case is when editors call something vandalism when it clearly isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Mostly veering outside the matter at hand. El_C 04:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You miss my point. I don't care if the CEO of Quaker Oats was black or a Presbyterian or a Mason or a "person who doesn't host lodgers", there needs to be a reason to include this in the Aunt Jemima article that is about Aunt Jemima, not the CEO. (This is still a content dispute that probably should be on the talk page and not ANI, but if WASimpson insists I will discuss it here). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC) No, I'd merely reponded to a direct question. Let's stick to whether or not you personally will enforce sanction for removal of well sourced material, or you require even more warnings and further discussion. William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson, Power~enwiki isn't an admin, so they cannot enforce sanctions. But I can. And you are not making it easy for me. El_C 03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC) @El C: Calm down, you're arguably INVOLVED, and some other admin will sanction WAS if he doesn't give up this argument soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, this is the admin noticeboard, I am an admin. I'm uninvolved, as I have never edited the page before and have only encountered this matter while patrolling this noticeboard. Please don't tell me to calm down. I am perfectly calm. So, if you don't mind taking a step back, maybe... El_C 03:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I apologize if "calm down" was offensive, but you can surely wait for a second or third admin to agree before sanctions are imposed dot dot dot ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) It wasn't offensive, it was just plain false and unhelpful in resolving this. Like with your "arguably INVOLVED" bit (basis?). And I didn't say sanctions were impending, but there's enough WP:IDHT issues here that, yes, makes it difficult for me to conceive of another way to make WAS meaningfully absorb that these various problems are, well, problems. The "arguably INVOLVED" bit isn't helping, either. Hopefully, my note to WAS on their talk page (here) will, though. But to be clear, I'm in no rush to act. El_C 04:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Perhaps I mis-phrased something. The editors that determine a consensus cannot enforce that consensus; I intended to say nothing more. As you are the only admin who has commented so far, it would be inappropriate for you to introduce sanctions now. Nothing more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Sigh. I did not determine consensus, power~enwiki. My take is that these are, ultimately, WP:CIR issues. Now, you are entitled to your view, but the reality is that I am perfectly capable of imposing sanctions singlehandedly as I see fit on whichever ANI report I'm attending to (like the report directly bellow this one, for example). At the event, I'm opting to not to rush to sanctions, but, again, I don't see how it would be "inappropriate" for me to do so with immediate effect if my evaluation of the matter has deemed it warranted. So, again, please, this is not helping. El_C 04:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (over 11 stars) If I am not mistaken, there are not discretionary sanctions on Aunt Jemima, so you do need to wait for consensus. Apart from that, I agree with you, so can you please just wait for someone else to show up and do the needful? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) No, power~enwiki, I do not, as a rule, need to wait for consensus in ANI reports that do not involve DS/GS. That is not a thing. I'm collapsing this exchange. El_C 04:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Fuck your collapsing. Without discretionary sanctions, you do need to wait for consensus. I will either start an ARBCOM case against you or file my own RFA to get my own adminship if you disagree. I will not reply to you or anything else on this thread until at least 2 other admins comment on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, you do whatever you see fit. If you can cite such a rule, then go for it (just linking to DS doesn't count, though). Otherwise, please restrain yourself. You are not helping, still. El_C 04:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I'm not trying to help you, I'm trying to assure William Allen Simpson that site policy will be followed. If you intend to violate site policy, not even 上帝 can help you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Power~enwiki, can you please just stop? Again, you are not helping resolving this outstanding matter at this point with these various retorts. El_C 04:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I just said I'm not trying to help you; your concerns about this or any other topic are best directed to my talk page, not ANI. My opinions on consensus are not governed by you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• NO. I will not "enforce sanctions" for removal of what appears to be non-germane information, but your behavior is bad and you should feel bad. I have experience editing Donald Trump, which is far too long. If you feel this information is germane, you need sourcing supporting that. You are dangerously close to having the community request sanctions against you; the previous issues on Greek place-of-origin categories weren't entirely your fault but if you continue to be disruptive the Eye of Sauron will gaze upon you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Copied personal attack from my Talk:

• I am not an admin, but I can get you banned (or, more likely, some admin will ban you before I get around to it). Your edit-warring is not welcome on this project, please stop doing it. There's no reason to care whether the CEO of Quaker Oats hosted borders in the article on Aunt Jemima; if you feel otherwise please discuss on the talk page, not ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have gotten far more nasty these days.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson: That's not a personal attack; whether you know it or not you are in danger of being sanctioned. As I have already said I cannot do so myself, but this looks really bad for you right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"I can get you banned" is not a warning. It's a temper tantrum. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, "Your behaviour is similar to that of previous editors who have been banned". Is that a warning? If not, please substitute something that you consider a warning. I would like to warn William Allen Simpson. I feel their editing behaviour and history is likely to lead to a block if it continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, it is not clear why you think El C was wp:involved, or why he would need a consensus before they can warn or block WA Simpson if they believe that they are making personal attacks or otherwise editing disruptively. Threatening to take them to ArbCom over this to get their admin status removed is way over the top, and make your chances of becoming an admin yourself in the near future quite unlikely, as you seem to misunderstand too many policies here. Fram (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure where the idea that there needs to be DS/GS for admins to be able to take appropriate action against an editor's misbehaviour. A key point of ANI is they they don't, plenty of cases here are closed with admin action with little or no community discussion. Indeed sometimes admins don't even know about the thread when taking action. And many ACDS (not GS obviously) cases don't make it here since they're at that noticeboard. DS and GS do allow admins to impose stuff like interaction bans, topic bans, 1RR restrictions, etc which would normally require community consensus. But blocks, including partial blocks don't require community consensus beforehand. They can of course be overturned with an appropriate appeal based on the judgment of an admin, whereas cbans can't and DS/GS blocks are more complicated to appeal. It's also generally accepted for admins to be take action more readily in DS/GS areas or to have a lower threshold for misbehaviour, but that doesn't mean we require consensus to block editors outside those areas. Wikipedia would fall apart if we did. I'm also not seeing what makes El C involved. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, User:William Allen Simpson, I already commented on your misuse of the term vandalism above. But there's another obvious problem with your editing here which maybe partly arises from the mischaracterisation but whatever, it's still a problem. The last edit to Talk:Aunt Jemima [114] was by you which would be great except that it's from 10 February and a comment on something other than the current area of dispute. Someone needs to start a discussion over this rather than both of you just continually edit warring (remember it takes two!) and it might as well be you. It's not generally helpful to get into arguments over who should go first in cases like these, as it often isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

i am grateful to everyone here for the spirited debate and discussion. the fact is, for me, editing wiki is intimidating, especially after this experience. for one i have no background as a web programmer and it seems one almost needs to have some coding skills. in addition it seems one also needs deep knowledge of wiki's editing rules/standards/exceptions and all the associated tags etc., and i have none of that. what i was proposing in my initial edit and my follow up edits, was very simple: this bit about John Stuart taking in or not taking in borders is clearly and unquestionably extraneous. if the author intends to make some broader point then there must be better ways than merely depositing a few words at the end of a sentence and hoping readers can infer/intuit it. this should be (and to the best of my knowledge still is) a page dedicated to the factual history of Aunt Jemima, and not a paged intended to offer up personal opinions and editorials. at this point i wont attempt any further edits. however this doesn't mean i think this bit (about John Stuart taking in borders) should remain part of the Aunt Jemima page. whether this information was sourced correctly or not is irrelevant to whether the content itself belongs here. again thank you to all who have participated in this discussion.Trendmeister (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by Lisamoonsun

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

---

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

Replaced "Persian" with "Turkish" in the Layla and Majnun article four times [115] [116] [117] [118]

Replaced "Iran" with "Azerbaijan" in Uzun Hasan [119]

Bizarre ethno-nationalistic battleground comments such as these (can be found in the diffs);

"Historyofİran.I complained to the police about falsifying history. We will meet in court soon.You Persians will never be able to Persianize South Azerbaijan.We are turk"

"Nizami Ganjavi was never Persian. At that time, he wrote in Persian because the official language was Persian. But this does not make him an ethnic Persian. The people of southern Azerbaijan are Turks. It would be good if the Persians understood this."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Report to Happyrunner605

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

---

Hello! A user recently created an account and I believe it's used to make unconstructive edits to Ivers and Robert Ivers. I believe a 3 day block is necessary so they can learn Wikipedia's policies. SoyokoAnis 16:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Which user account and which edit diffs? Not everyone has the time/energy to do investigations from scratch. Shushugah (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Happyrunner605 (talk · contribs) user is WP:NOTHERE. Deleting a biography to replace it with a non notable, adding same to multiple other articles. Ought to be a simple AIV report with indefinite block, but nobody is watching AIV.... 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely They've been blocked indefinitely Sandstein per WP:LEGALTHREATS, and clearly WP:NOTHERE Shushugah (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, I did not block Happyrunner605, but I have now done so on account of their vandalism. Sandstein 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

HUGE Backlog at AIV

Just reported an IP to AIV and there is a massive backlog at least 30 deep at AIV. It needs some admin attention yesterday. It would be greatly appreciated on behalf of all who have reported. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:29 on March 3, 2021 (UTC)

• You're welcome! :) You can thank Nosebagbear for dragging me in today. --Izno (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Izno and Nosebagbear: I do thank you both! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10 on March 5, 2021 (UTC)

Challenging rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal

• 2607:FEA8:BD43:6400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BD41:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BE20:1F90:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BE20:898:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:BE20:14C4:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I have been chasing a long-term abuse case involving hoaxing and vandalism from multiple Ottawa IPs. Typical vandalism is substituting actresses for musicians on an album,[120] or fabricating a sax player on Thomas Dolby's first album (which has no sax at all.)[121]

This person was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/67.210.165.248 and Special:Contributions/174.114.162.149, blocked for three months as Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BE20:14C4:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BE20:898:0:0:0:0/64, and blocked twice as Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BE20:1F90::/64. I would love to know if we can devise a larger rangeblock to stop this nonsense without too much collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• The overarching range is 2607:fea8:bd43:6400::/38 which is pretty wide, and also seems to have a fair bit of collateral (~67,108,864 /64 ranges and is fairly active). If you split the first two, and last three /64s, then you get 2607:fea8:bd43:6400::/46 and 2607:fea8:be20:1f90::/51 which both seem to reduce the collateral significantly (and are much less active) which might just be feasible. Jack Frost (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• The last three haven't been active since last year, though, so probably not worth doing anything there at the moment. Yeah, tricky one. I can construct one that would hit the previous one used (BD41) and the current one (BD43) without any problem - but we don't know what they're likely to move to next or in which range - those two addresses are in a /46 but is it simply two addresses in a bigger range? For the time being, I've blocked the active one for a month (at least when they reapear they'll give us some more clues) and semi-protected the Dolby album as it appears to be the main and long-running target. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, that should cover the current trouble. If they pop up in a new range I'll report back. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP hopper

I've been weeding their edits out for a while, and the ip user in question hasn't seemed to stop at all. They mainly focus on editing hate and anti-hate groups, adding false information and changing ip's over time. Here are some of the articles they've edited:

• Hate Group
• Life After Hate
• Traditional Britain Group
• Christiian Piccolinni
• Clark Martel
• Political Correctness

Eridian314 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected any page that was not already protected. IP is using multiple subnets to blocking won't help much. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Pl. monitor/watchlist article Aurat March for a week

Greetings to Admins,

Aurat March are 'women's rights' protests March taking place on 8th of March each year in Pakistan. This year I am expecting increased chances of spamming and vandalism or subversion to article Aurat March. As far as possible I won't recommend blocking of article since the same thing might block anon women too from doing experiential editing. Rather I am requesting help in monitor/watchlist article Aurat March for a week or so. Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting reversion at Railway Police (Bangladesh)

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

---

Which I can not do, since Wiki's fine censors interpret my attempts as vandalism, and have blocked me from restoring the properly sourced version. Also, there's a fair amount of copyright violation content added by the WP:COI account. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

...and have blocked me from restoring the properly sourced version. So, you're self-incriminating yourself for block evasion? Or are you claiming that an edit filter has stopped you from performing an edit? If the latter, you need to report to WP:EF/FP, but consider carefully our policies before doing so. Insinuating that we are "censoring" you will not help your cause. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Rather than misinterpret my report as some nefarious confession, or an accusation of censorship, have a look at the article in question. What happens is that an IP is automatically blocked from making a reversion of a massive block of content, because the action is interpreted as vandalism. Multiple administrators can vouch for my history and credibility, though this can also be inferred by looking at my talk page. To return to my point: A COI account has added a mass of unsourced content, lists of non notable persons and copyright violation. I'm asking that someone revert the unencyclopedic content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

...Which JJMC89 has done. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not care what the article says; I am giving recommendations based only on what this report says. If you truly believe you were constructive, then go to WP:EF/FP. Or don't, because it's already done. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And I don't care for your help. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine then. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(New attempt to answer this thread) What happens is that an IP is automatically blocked from making a reversion of a massive block of content, because the action is interpreted as vandalism. This is undoubtedly an edit filter, correct? This would've been indicated by a message being shown to you as an error message. Then this issue should've been reported to WP:EF/FP, not here (unless there's other issues which require immediate attention). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this look like the edit you attempted to make? And was this the message you received? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

No Nazis

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

---

At Romani people DacicusLiberus seems to perform WP:TE, using WP:BATTLEGROUND and raising suspicions of WP:NONAZIS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll go to sleep, an IP from another country seems to handle DacicusLiberus's edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

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

---

BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BunnyyHop has a long history of POV pushing sections. On the previous ANI he was warned if he keeps adding POV sections, action would be taken against him. He has not stopped. He has tried add a random paragraph quote in Wikipedia's voice, I reverted these edits as they were disruptive. At which point he accused me of being on a "anti-communist crusade" completely unrelated to the article, assuming bad faith, and attempting to derail the conversation and making useful discussion impossible. BunnyyHop also has prior disruption on the article Slavery, removing sections he doesn't like and tagging them as minor to avoid it being reviewed. BunnyyHop does so here and here. This is not BunnyyHop's first time of trying to derail conversations with accusations of bad faith, as shown by his talk page. Des Vallee (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [122]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.

I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:

I think this individuals contributions,[123] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).

They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.

They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).

I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)

A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
  The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [124] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [125] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [126] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [127] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.

I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.

This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.

Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.

I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [128], [129],[130],[131],[132],[133]) and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [134] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BunnyyHop hasn't stopped making POV pushing edits since last time, as well as him now, doubling down at pushing his POV even harder. Des Vallee (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

Just because you feel you know Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean you do, trying to override consensus by saying "I am right and this a break in policy therefor I can ignore consensus" without understanding guidelines or consensus one bit isn't going to work

bold and italic added by me

Well, what did I do this time? A simple [[ ]] edit, with a little note to the previous edit diff, where I affirmed:

+ [[]]; furthermore, local consensus shouldn't overwrite Wikipedia's guidelines, local consensus shouldn't violate WP:NOR nor WP:V

Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BunnyyHop: I decided to make a proper comment after taking a break from this. This ANI report came only five days after the closure of the previous one. The three diffs provided by Des Vallee when opening this report include one Talk page comment I made on 2 February, and two edits I made on 26 October and 26 December of last year, before the previous ANI report was even started. Then Des Vallee posted an additional three diffs: Two edits I made on 24 December of last year and one warning I received on 1 December. In other words, the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an "anti-communist crusade." I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to "continued POV pushing".

After that, other editors have essentially repeated the exact same accusations made in the previous ANI report, based largely on my previous edit history from before the last report. I wish to emphasize again that it has been less than a week since the closure of that report. In that time, I have only made 24 article mainspace edits, and 12 of them have been small edits of 50 characters or less. It is true that I am involved in several long-running content disputes, and I have continued to engage with those disputes since the last ANI report. Note that I've had 47 Talk space edits as compared to the 24 in mainspace since the ANI report. I am mostly just trying to resolve the disputes that I was already involved in.

These other editors continuously accuse me of "POV pushing" for what I consider to be simple engagement in content disputes. All I want is to resolve the several content disputes that I have already been involved in for some time, and then move on. But it seems that my very act of engaging in those disputes is considered "POV pushing".

I have discussed every edit (in fact, one of the accusations against me is that I discuss too much). I would like to ask my accusers what, in their opinion, it would be necessary for me to do in order to engage in our content disputes without it being POV pushing. It seems to me that their only request is that I simply stop disputing the content they prefer, with nothing else being considered good enough. I think that is self-evidently unreasonable.

I would also ask everyone reading this to consider the dates on the diffs used to accuse me. I can't go back into the past and undo edits I made in October or December. But for the future, as I said, I wish only to resolve the content disputes I am already involved in and then move on. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [135]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [136] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.

I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):

On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»

In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»

In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»

The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»

Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop

Offtopic CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [[137]]. To me it's pretty obvious when you look at his edits. To copy/paste what I wrote below: Thank you t. In regards to [[138]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[139]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[140]]. Or this [[141]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine". It seems that Timothy's thing is getting onto pages about early 20th century communism, push original research, report those who call him on his sources. Stix1776 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion.Stix1776 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [142] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: BH's POV WP:BLUDGEON continues at Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, ignoring responses, repeating the same arguments, this entire thread is a timesink.  // Timothy :: talk  12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [143],[144] on the same page where they did it before: [145], [146],[147],[148],[149]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([150]), ([151]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

• If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.

Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [152], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.

The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([153] [154] [155] [156]).

There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.

So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.

So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova   T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been paying more attention to these disputes on the linked pages and they are indeed content disputes and not behaviour issues as the OP projects. Agree with TFD that this complaint is again a badly written piece. Perhaps they should try out Rosguill's ANI reform proposal for the next complaint. Vikram Vincent 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is Bunnyyhop still engaged in their usual tendentious behavior about Mao Zedong, casting asperions on other editors saying their source evaluation was just their own POV while defending fringe sources and material. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [157] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [158], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just going over the diffs that have been presented, this is reasonably sourced and attributed; this is removing a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that had gone completely uncited for months; and this (regarding this edit) seems like a reasonable dispute over sources and WP:DUE weight. That isn't to say that Bunnyyhop is necessarily right in each case, just that these are patently obviously legitimate content disputes, not something that could reasonably be used to justify sanctions. Perhaps Bunnyyhop could be more cautious about assuming good faith, to be sure, but it's a bit silly to raise that objection while simultaniously making accusations of bad faith over a content dispute; and I'm not seeing a lot of presumption of good faith extended towards Bunnyyhop in the talk history of that page, either. Is this earlier comment really indicative of someone who has WP:CLEANHANDS when it comes to assuming good faith in this dispute? --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose BunnyHop is systematically deleting unsourced claims and POV claims that are poorly sourced. These are commendable actions, not reason for sanctions. He/she should probably stop marking these are minor changes, but they should be allowed to keep up the good job. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Further !votes are in the following subsections and should be counted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Having reviewed this, appears to be a content dispute, not a behavioural issue requiring sanctions. Wouldn't mind a two-week cool-down IBAN between the two users, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• This became a mess, again. I agree with opposers above that this is a content dispute. I think a temporary IBAN between BunnyyHop and Des Vallee is the best way forward here. pandakekok9 (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin evaluation and close

• I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.

Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.

Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no such equivalency here from the 'sides'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This again? User makes questionable edits, we get a bunch of people who seemingly have similar political views defend them for making POV-pushing edits about those views, etc (My hands aren't clean here either, I !voted in the previous ANI). This has turned into a mess. I have to agree with Neonorange here, this is going to waste more time and turn into another sprawling thread in which it's going to be hard to find a bunch of neutral admins that have the time to read through everything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. TimothyBlue summed it up well: "this individual[']s contributions show they are here to push a personal and pos[i]tive viewpoint of anything related to Marxis[m]–Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about" this topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  PS: I say this even partially agreeing [159] with BunnyHop that at some of the article(s) in question, we would do better to distinguish between chattel slavery and other forms of forced labor. Being correct about one thing doesn't make BH's general approach to WP productive/collaborative and neutrally encyclopedic. There's just way too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:WINNING and WP:CIVILPOV approach being brought by BH. I don't feel that it's improved in the interim; see, e.g., the entire Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour thread (permalink).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Continue to Support topic ban: related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed and admins should consider a NOTHERE site ban.

More recent examples of POV pushing and editing against consensus

• Removal of content they do not like, against talk page consensus: [160], [161]. See talk page here Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour
• They want to remove GULAG, China and North Korea from examples of modern slavery (see talk page plus their edits), but added a section on US prisons [162]
• They have repeatedly been rebuffed in their attempts to push their POV at Slavery, now there is this Talk:Slavery#Draft RfC, an attempt to dismantle an entire article simply because they want to remove the above negative information about communism.
• Using AfD to delete content against their POV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red fascism
• Inserting content wihtout due weight to push their POV [163]
• Removing the title historian from Anne Applebaum (a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, with three major works on this area of Soviet history) - a BLP violation: [164]
• Using extermely biased primary sources to push POV [165]
• Misleading edit summaries to add maintenance tags for material that doesn't fit their POV [166]

I think the example of adding the United States to examples of Modern Slavery, while removing North Korea, China and the GULAG shows this editor will not stop pushing their POV in articles related to communism.

The evidence in this ANI and the previous ANI, should be enough for admins to end this DE POV pushing with a topic ban for articles related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed and consider a NOTHERE ban based on there edit history.  // Timothy :: talk  17:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Bunnyyhop's statement: I believe this report is skewed, and my defend follows:

Slavery article

TimothyBlue's diffs are presented anachronically. I'll provide correctly timed diffs to not mislead anyone. On 19 February, I replied diff to Zloyvolsheb's response on 17 February, diff and asked Timothy to mediate a RfC to solve this dispute. To summarize my present argument: Academic sources clearly present a distinction between slavery and forced labor, as well as the International Labor Organization. However, some such as the Anti-Slavery International - although not academic - refer to forced labor as a form of contemporary slavery. The «History» section of the current Slavery article is Chattel Slavery's per WP:COMMONNAME, so, therefore, unfree labor cannot be included here but rather in unfree labor and «contemporary slavery». If we decide to include forced labor in the Slavery article, as proposed by Timothy, then we also have to include the history of Bonded labor, Forced migrant labor, Sex slavery, Forced marriage and child marriage, Child labour, Debt bondage, Wage slavery, and so on, which is absurd per Wikipedia guidelines. The current Slavery#Contemporary slavery could include a summary of forced labor (state-enforced and through the market), without creating subsections. This is my argument, and I don't recall it being addressed by those who refuse to move the content. diff Timothy replied that and went further in detail that «Slavery is a broad term;», ignoring what I and Zloyvolsheb pointed out previously while looking for a more neutral, objective approach. Ironically, the sole reply from those who reject any change in the source gathering section I opened did NOT include a single source. However, I decided to introduce a section on the United States penal labor system diff on 20 February, as well as other three edits, to introduce a Gulag scholar and add proper attribution.

This prompted a response from Crossroads on 05:31 23 February diff, asserting that «expert sources ([...]) need to be clear that this is slavery, specifically», removing this newly inserted section about unfree labor in the US, using exactly (!!!) the point of my argument. He also removed diff the neutrality-section template, whilst accusing someone of "filibustering" and that "Not needed per talk page", although he NEVER participated, something I realized afterward.

Responding to this, I removed on 16:08 of the same day the other two sections that did NOT mention slavery in any way, per Crossroads, diff.

I removed on 16:11 diff redundant blockquotes, which violated WP:DUE and whose main point was already summarized without the need for blockquotes. I replaced the sourceless estimations of deaths with the proper estimation per the GULAG article on 16:33, diff, and added a source-needed template to a source-less phrase.

Ironically, Timothy reverted on 17:04 diff those edits (including the ones adding sources), but did NOT revert all of it - only to Crossroad's, which is truly inconsistent - I used Crossroads' rationale, yet only MY edits were reverted. The edit summary was «Rv editing against talk page consensus to push POV», although this has NOT been discussed on the talk page, and probably won't be as Timothy decided to revert it and report it here instead of writing a proper response on the talk page.

AfD

A true concern - a WP:POVFORK - which was correctly and cordially argued against by two other editors, which I agree. Unfortunately, your response diff added nothing to the discussion, as it consisted mostly of NOT assuming good faith and personal attacks, commenting on the contributor instead of the content - which also applies to the current reply I'm commenting.

The rest

The rest is simply based on WP:PA and not WP:AGF, based on blatant exaggerations and misinterpretations, as well as cherry-picking parts of diffs. For instance, on Applebaum - the Pulitzer Prize is a prize for journalists, not historians, hence the replacement. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and historian would be better, but to say this is a WP:BLP violation is ridiculous. Such is the result of not WP:AGF.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF is specifically not a shield against criticism, especially at ANI where behavioral problems are dealt with. Your addition to Slavery was clearly WP:POINT. It was a bunch of non-expert media sources like Vox and The Guardian, and some that are blatantly political like the "World Socialist Web Site". [167] The other recent evidence above from TimothyBlue is serious too. You should have reformed after barely escaping the last ANI without sanctions, but you've continued the same behavior. That is why a topic ban is necessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Civility is needed inside and outside of ANI. So, the "problem" has now changed to the sources I used? I gathered that text as well as the sources from the main article, but they're easily checkable. I'm asking you to be objective, don't use weasel words such as "some that are blatantly political", when in reality it's just one. The WSWS quotes the ILO, which takes a 2-second search to verify: and %241.15&f=false here. It should be replaced, but I don't concur this justifies a "topic ban". --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• BH's comment above about why they added content about the US prison system, shows the time wasting game playing they are engaged in. This was not done to improve the article but to be pointy and serve their own purpose. Adding content they think is inappropriate, but doing so to serve another purpose is DE.  // Timothy :: talk  09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Although those who defend keeping the history of forced labor in the chattel slavery's history section do not really present any reasonable argument to hold it, and usually resort to other methods such as this ANI report and creating a false image of consensus, the article still presents the history of unfree labor in chattel slavery's section. I want to move it to their respective articles, but as it is, forced labor goes there. I'm surprised those who held the position that forced labor should be in the history section of that article are contradicting their position in this ANI now that I decided to expand it to include the United States, the country with the biggest prison population. In my opinion, this serves to show how unsolid the opinion of those who want to keep the history unfree labor in the section about the history of Chattel Slavery is. None of those who have recently defended a position opposite to mine participated in the source gathering section I opened on the 10th of February, only Timothy - which did NOT gather a single source. It seems as if Timothy is avoiding this «time-wasting game» by using ANI as a shield, evading making a proper argument to back their point. Timothy's reply that slavery is a broad term ignores that, A: The great majority of WP:RELIABLE sources MAKE a clear distinction between forced labor and slavery; B: The history section in that article is referent to chattel slavery; C: Penal labour, unfree labour, labour camps and contemporary slavery (the latter being a term used mostly by non-academic organizations such as the Anti-Slavery International) already have their own articles; D: If a term has multiple meanings, it should be WP:DAB; E: If we were to accept Timothy's argument that "slavery is a broad term" plenty of articles would have to be merged into that one, not just unfree labour (a clearly distinct term);

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Chattel slavery is its own section, appropriately separate from the modern slavery section; no one has suggested doing what is claimed above. Based on BH's comments above about Wikipedia articles and trees, I think WP:CIR is a factor that should be considered, BH should not be attempting to restructure articles. I've started working on a child article for the chattel slavery summary section and others editors are working on the article; it will take work and time, but hopefully this will be submitted to GA review, but if BH is allowed to continue, including along the lines of what they suggest above, it will never be stable enough.  // Timothy :: talk  20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is directed at chattel slavery, hence the redirect. Slavery is used, per WP:COMMONNAME, referring to chattel slavery. This I failed to consider, as well as this: I have actually not seen a single WP:RELIABLE source saying forced labor is a form of slavery. I gathered a total of 6 reliable sources on this, and none support this conclusion. The source you uphold as justificative of this, Anne Applebaum, is WP:FRINGE, as a Gulag scholar disregards her introduction (where she makes such comparison - between the Gulag and slave camps), as well as all others which do NOT make such equation - between the Gulag and slave labor, and more importantly, between penal labor and slavery. It's hard to grasp what your argument is because you simply do not cite any sources. Also, I have NEVER been notified of any attempt to split the article (which would be my previous position regarding any splits, before considering WP:COMMONNAME). --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

diff: As it stands, Timothy reverted an obvious move from History (of Chattel Slavery) to Contemporary slavery without presenting any argument, solely "no consensus". --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To summarize my argument: I believe sections about forced/penal labor which do NOT get labeled as slavery by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that is, WP:RELIABLE sources should be removed from the slavery article per WP:OR, and if there's any minority view on the subject (as is the case with Anne Applebaum and the Gulag - which I don't know if it's considered WP:FRINGE) it should be included with WP:DUE weight in the contemporary slavery section, which is a summary-styled section on the cases of Chattel Slavery over at Contemporary slavery, without the need for a summary-styled topic. As it stands, penal labor camps are included in the history section about Chattel slavery summary-styled, which is completely WP:UNDUE and based on the WP:OR that these two clearly distinct terms - slavery (chattel slavery) and forced labor are equal. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Among others things, the above comment is another example from BH of why Wikipedia has WP:CIR. If admins come to a consensus that my editing is unconstructive in this area, let me know and I will step back from the subject; for now I'm going back to working on the article, the chattel slavery article, and the outline and bibliography I'm creating for the topic.  // Timothy :: talk  23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your avoidance to discuss the point of the subject and the resort to guidelines such as WP:CIR without developing it any further bothers me. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't bother you, because this is not the place to discuss content -- that's article talk pages -- it's the place to discuss behavior, specifically your behavior in blatantly pushing a pro-Communist PoV. If Bunnyyhop is going to be a productive editor, I think it has to be outside of his PoV subject area, so I think a topic ban from Marxism, communism, and socialism, broadly construed, as proposed above is a good idea. It's also time to stop them from WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion with walls of text and constant replies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved discussion material to Talk:Slavery#Clarification, and we'll see how to it goes now. I don't see how trying to strip blatant (imo) WP:OR based on editors' opinions amounts to pro-Communist POV pushing. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• BH continues to edit war against consensus, claiming consensus for their changes which does not exist, removing content and moving content to inappropriate sections. Other editors @My very best wishes, Crossroads, Horse Eye's Back, and Des Vallee: and I believe Levivich have objected to this but they continue. See [168], [169], [170], [171]. There comment on the talk page [172] is another attempt at justifying their POV pushing (as well as completely dishonest) and an example of why a NOTHERE CIR block is needed.  // Timothy :: talk  22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Looking further, I think @SMcCandlish and Beyond My Ken: also object to this change by BH and another editor {u|Arccosecant}} has now rv'd the change, which by my count makes eight objecting editors.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• TimothyBlue's BRD misuse and reverting solely due to no consensus: 1 2

I used the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences by Elsevier, a prestiged encyclopedia 1 2 3 4 (2001 & 2015), to include «[...] and various states in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World during the [[Cold War]» in the lead, to which Timothy reverted with an (absurd) edit summary: «POV edit unsupported by secondary sources. discuss on talk page and gain consensus».

I removed a sentence that had a (fake) source, that is, not backed by the source included - as everyone can verify by clicking the Google Books link I included in the edit summary, and it was reverted due to «Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources. Discuss on talk with secondary sources per BRD».

In this word spaghetti and probable gaslighting (ironically, this is where WP:CIR applies), it's comic that the latter one mentions exactly the reason of the removal as a justification to revert: unsupported by its source. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: Encyclopedias are not secondary sources and other editors have objected to your POV edit. There is no consensus and BRD is appropriate. You boldly added content, I reverted it based on no consensus and weight, and started a discussion on the talk page per BRD.  // Timothy :: talk  03:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue:, I find this an interesting example. In the diff shown, BunnyyHop added that the term "communist states" included countries in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World. You reverted him with an edit summary calling that a "POV edit unsupported by secondary sources". While I agree that Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources, it is also a fact that Yugoslavia and Cuba (both labelled as "communist states") were official members of the Non-Aligned Movement. (In fact, as the article on the Non-Aligned Movement states, it was founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.) So obviously there were communist states in the Non-Aligned Movement and in the Third World. So I don't think it made sense for you to revert, but also you labelled this a "POV edit" - what do you see as POV about it? The only explanation you're providing at the talk page is that BunnyyHop is "POV-pushing" [173]. Is that not a false accusation? How does that not look aggressive and completely uncalled-for? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that Cuba was non-aligned is laughable, (start with the Cuban Missle Crisis and go from there). Yugoslavia relations with the Soviet Union and other communist states varied, but they were clearly aligned with the communist bloc for most of their history. They joined the NAM to access western aid.

If a consensus emerges that I am incorrect, I wills self revert per BRD. // Timothy :: talk  04:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Right, but there is a difference between being "non-aligned" and being in the "Non-Aligned Movement"; a country may be non-aligned and in the Non-Aligned Movement (Yugoslavia) or aligned and in the Non-Aligned Movement (Cuba). Looks like a content dispute. IMHO, there was no reason to revert with that edit summary. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm unsure why you tried to close this thread. Everyone is being scrutinized here, both the reporters and the defenders.

I believe Timothy's reply above is a good example of the conflation of editors' opinion and action going on on these reverts. The fact that this encyclopedia is WP:SCHOLARSHIP and therefore WP:RELIABLE is completely ignored, and Timothy bases himself on a non-existent Wiki rule that encyclopedias should not be used. In fact, it's the opposite - in contentious topics it «may be helpful in evaluating due weight». These replies, both here and on the talk page, are WP:FORUM-styled responses. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To BunnyyHop Your POV editing has not stopped, you are only here for advocacy. I am retired from Wikipedia, however your actions most recently proves this. Most recently you have removed cited material on the article Slavery and stated having a criticisms section is "undue," and remove sections of Anti-authoritarian left. The section you are attempting to gaslight into being "neutral" is text copy pasted from the Encyclopedia of Social sciences the direct wording being "The success of the Bolshevik comrades and Russian independence from exploitative monetary systems," a cherry picked source from a pro-Stalinist, you also trying to gaslight in defense of your actions stating "The revolution requires Tthe liquidation of the hostile classes." BunnyyHop's complete bludgeoning of text into claiming this is neutral is beyond me, and just demonstrates he will do anything to defend his actions, no matter how wrong they be. Des Vallee (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Since "retiring" (after an article ban for edit warring) you've been reverting to hide ANI discussion that I have specifically asked to not hat [174]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb Great case, to make personal attacks to me, really helps you in defending BunnyyHop to his dying breaths. A couple things, it's not a topic ban it's a single page what you are saying is objectively wrong. You told in an edit summary an excellent method of delivery, and you are the one who is adamant about this, three other editors have reverted you. Des Vallee (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out that you were blocked from an article, just a few days ago, for edit warring, is not a "personal attack" on you. And no, "three other editors" have not reverted me. May I suggest that editors who are involved leave it to the uninvolved admins to determine what is or isn't relevant? What was the point of announcing "retirement" if you're going to continue to participate? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tally of discussion so far (not an admin)

This is note a vote, but because the discussions itself was becoming long, I decided to at least summarize where people stand so far. Feel free to correct below if I made any mistakes, or remove/add your name accordingly.

Support TBAN for BunnyHop

• Crossroads
• My very best wishes
• Des Vallee, the ANI reporter
• TimothyBlue
• JPxG per WP:NOTHERE
• KIENGIR supports any sanction majority supports
• SMcCandlish
• Beyond My Ken per WP:BLUDGEON behaviour amongst other
• Shushugah Support TBAN. I initially agreed this was a content dispute, however WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and some time to WP:COOL off would do good for this project.

Oppose TBAN for BunnyHop

• buidhe per standard content dispute
• Zloyvolsheb, supports TBAN for Des Vallee, TimothyBlue instead
• Nixinova
• The_Four_Deuces
• Vincentvikram
• Aquillion
• Dimadick

For full clarity, I am not an admin. Shushugah (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer: Shushugah does not appear to have !voted above; this here is their !vote and should be counted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue: WP:BOOMERANG?

Nothing to see here. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Relating to the above discussion. At Communist state: [175] BunnyyHop removes "The socio-economic nature of communist states, especially that of the Soviet Union as the first prominent example of a communist state, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production" which cited Sandle, Mark (1999). A Short History of Soviet Socialism. London: UCL Press. pp. 265–266. Edit summary "https://books.google.com/books?id=T_aNAgAAQBAJ pp. 265-266 do NOT mention any of this" [176] TimothyBlue restores the same text and citation to Mark Sandle. Edit summary: "Undid revision 1009137963 by BunnyyHop (talk) Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources. Discuss on talk with secondary sources per BRD" I was able to locate the book online at the Internet Archive. Link: [177]. There is indeed nothing on pages 265-266 that would support this content. We see an editor falsely accused of "POV-pushing" for removing falsely-sourced text and the accuser restores a misrepresented citation. I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC) You're not even discussing the right page numbers here. And proposing this for one edit is preposterous. Admins should weigh this obvious vendetta when evaluating your !vote above. Crossroads -talk- 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I am discussing the right pages, actually. (Page numbered 265 begins with "By the mid-1970s, the practice of popular participation and over-sight...") There's no vendetta; I don't think I've interacted with Timothy prior to February 2021. I wish him and Des Vallee all the best. I am just appalled by what's going on here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) When I wrote my reply your post said pages 255-256. Oh, and I obviously oppose this ridiculous proposal. Crossroads -talk- 05:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) It might be worth mentioning just for the record that although Timothy never edited this article before, my edits were reverted two hours later. --BunnyyHop (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Zloyvolsheb This is obviously an attempt for retaliation, see WP:BATTLEGROUND, attempting to retaliate against other editors is never a good idea. Moreover TimothyBlue is an excellent contributor who has contributed excellently to Wikipedia, especially to soviet articles. This is simply retaliatory nonsense. Des Vallee (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Diffs vs. insinuations. Please stop. I can't remember interacting with you or TimothyBlue prior to this ANI thread, so I have no need to "retaliate" over any supposed personal grudge. Please look at WP:CLEANHANDS: "Make sure your hands are clean: You're looking for an administrator who wants to do justice, but to receive justice you must have been just." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Could all three of you please WP:DROPTHESTICK. All three of you had a chance to present differing evidence and make your points. Adding more comments at this point doesn't aid the discussion, but instead makes it more difficult to read. Let uninvolved editors come to a community decision now. Shushugah (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC) It's on page 202, last paragraph. Levivich harass/hound 17:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @Levivich: Yes, that does refer to the "Stalinist system" as possibly "a variant of state capitalism, state socialism, bureaucratic collectivism" etc. If Timothy had reviewed this text, he should have explained and provided an updated citation. Instead he reverted, accused his opponent of "POV pushing" and restored the same citation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC) While I agree the content shouldn't have been restored without verifying the page number first, I also think the content should not have been removed in the first place solely because of an inaccurate page number in the citation. Nor should this have been brought to ANI. Three wrongs don't make a right, although three lefts do. (And three leftists make a communist state.) Levivich harass/hound 18:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC) No, three leftists make three leftist political parties and five splinter parties, one of which becomes fascist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Only Reply: This is petty retaliation posted after I mentioned I would be in the hospital with limited ability to respond for a week [178], which Z acknowledged [179] and then curiously removed [180] before posting this. I believe this was brought here by Z knowing I'd have a hard time replying, and removed their acknowledgement so they could deny knowing I'd have a hard time replying (I am) and this boomerang would distract from the real issue - BH's editing. I might be a cranky old man, but I am not a problem editor in anyway; BH has only ~1,400 edits (majority in talk/project): this ANI, the previous ANI, plus the talk page discussions show BH has been very problematic and a NOTHERE timesink. I should have updated the page number. In the edit summary, I cite BRD, then started a discussion on the talk page. What I did was proper. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, almost all related to communism, communist states, and human rights. A quick look at my contribs will show I edit in this area every day and I revert edits in this area all the time. I'm going to see BH's problematic edits; I ignore most of them.  // Timothy :: talk  04:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC) "This is petty retaliation posted after I mentioned I would be in the hospital with limited ability to respond for a week, which Z acknowledged and then curiously removed before posting this" You know what? This is personal, unnecessary, and completely illustrative of your bad faith. You even found that I "curiously removed" (!) a friendly remark I moved a paragraph up. That's what I find curious. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I hope Timothy gets better soon and he should ignore this until he's well recovered because this is not important. It looks like Timothy misread that diff as a removal of text instead of moving text, but that's understandable if he's editing while hospitalized. What I find curious is this: On Feb 28 Timothy posts just an fyi, I'll be in medical treatment next week with poor internet access, so I might not reply quickly after this morning. [181]. The next day, March 1, Zloyvolsheb replies Good luck with your treatment. [182]. Then five hours later, Zloyvolsheb posts this boomerang proposal at ANI (I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG) [183], based on a diff from two days prior (Feb 27) [184]. Levivich harass/hound 05:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @Levivich: A few points: 1. I took "I might not reply quickly after this morning" as meaning I will reply, but not very quickly. (If I have no internet access, I'll say I will have no internet access and may not reply next week, not that my reply might be slow.) 2. Timothy did not say that he would be "hospitalized" - he said he would be "in medical treatment" after that morning. [185] Are these synonymous in the English language? If so, I wasn't aware. I posted the diff in this section as soon as I found it at the article, which was the same morning [186]. (Given the possibility of differences in time zones, my morning may have been his evening - that I really don't know for sure.) 3. I can't assume that ANI would wait indefinitely. If I believe that Editor A is trying to unfairly go after Editor B at ANI and has clearly been disruptive themselves, I want to make that clear at ANI as quickly as possible, as I don't want to wait until Editor B has been treated in an unfair way. And so, I wished Timothy well at 1:42, found the aforementioned diffs around 6:03 and, after thinking through the considerations above, reproduced those diffs here at 6:42. I did so assuming that uninvolved participants could look at those diffs objectively, even if for some reason Timothy couldn't participate. (Though, as I was expecting, he did participate.) And yet again, Timothy attempts to argue about other people's intentions. His evidence of my malevolence in this "retaliation" is that I wished him well. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Reply: Zloyvolsheb I striked my inaccurate comment above. You did not remove your well wishes as I thought. While some of my comment stands, the part about you removing your well wishes was completely incorrect. I apologize, and frankly am a bit ashamed I made the accusation about your kind comment without making absolutely sure I was correct. btw thank you and Levivich both for your kind words about my health, things are rough but I will get through WP is a helpful distraction, even if this is unpleasant.  // Timothy :: talk  17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I promised not to make more comments here, sorry for the extreme rare exception in exceptional times. First of all I wish you much health and earliest remedy, on the other hand, it was completely rude to open a boomerang section on you just after you announced you might be missing, and even thrilling after a goodwish (nota bene). I don't like what's going on here :( (Pulling out now for good, indeed accusing you with boomerang is completely ridiculous)(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)) @TimothyBlue: Thank you for apologizing. I sincerely wish you the best. This isn't a blood sport. The point of my "boomerang" was to draw attention to everyone's conduct to prevent a one-sided "justice", but my hope is that this ANI report is promptly closed and everyone returns to editing without penalties for anyone. In the end, this is a content dispute, and not more than that. If we stay focused on the good of the project and remain considerate of others' points of view, no one will "win" but all shall be well. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) That's a whole bunch of bullshit. The point of your boomerang proposal was not to draw attention to everyone's conduct, just Timothy's, and it was not your hope yesterday that this ANI report be closed promptly without sanctions; rather quite the opposite, as you delayed its closing by opening up another request for sanctions. You still haven't really addressed the part where you opened an ANI thread against someone at a time you knew they would be unavailable because they are receiving medical treatment. The only proper response for you here is: "Sorry, that was a bad move on my part", followed by striking the entirety of your report. Levivich harass/hound 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose boomerang - For the record, I see absolutely no justification for a boomerang block for TimothyBlue and would suggest that this section be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken:: I disagree with suggestion of closing off the section, but I also did not propose a block or tban here to be voted on. The point is to request an evaluation of the behavior of all participants by the closing admin. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Baloney. You were floating a trial balloon for a boomerang block, and it's been shot down. No one has supported you, so there's no need for this section to remain open. Stop Wikilawyering, it's not making you look good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC) We can return to what I said. Are you implying there is no need for that evaluation? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC) This section SHOULD stay open as it's analogous to the bad behavior I was initially accused of - and Timothy has become one of the most fervent pushers for my block, going as far as opening an ArbCom request while this ANI is opened. Furthermore, the type of response given in the edit summary, which does NOT match AT ALL with content removal - "Fringe POV edit, lacks weight and unsupported by secondary sources" - is also curious, as the content might've NOT even been looked at as it should, and bad faith was assumed right away. Timothy should acknowledge his mistake, apologize, and move on. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC) *Comment: This boomerang is nonsense and retaliation, created as a distraction from real issues with BH; admins should act accordingly. Anyone can look at my contributions, experienced editors know I'm a good editor. The real issue here is BH's editing and it needs to be seriously looked as by experienced editors (including this thread, the previous ANI and its closing comments, and talk pages mentioned). If this is closed without action, BH will be emboldened to continue (BH ignored @Drmies and Sandstein: comments in the last close), and we'll all be back for a third round. Also note BH has a new section on their userpage for "Expand - C/E - Translate" - this prospect alone is a very bad omen for what will come if this is not addressed; we'll be back discussing if their "translations" are accurate or are POV translations, which will make these two root canals look like a day at the beach. Consider this all has been done by BH with less than 1500 edits in a short period of time. BH needs a topic ban from articles related to communism/socialism/Marxism broadly construed (including communist states, parties, etc).  // Timothy :: talk  07:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion

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

---

There was an earlier attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen to delete over 150 articles concerning Naval Cross recipients. This bundled AfD was closed as "procedural keep" because "too many articles here to evaluate in a single discussion". User:Mztourist has since been redirect-merging these articles "boldy", in effect deleting the standalone article without discussion or notification of involved parties. Examples (search on "Bold Move").

A WP:BOLD edit should not be "reckless". A WP:MERGE should be discussed first if controversial. Mztourist knows these articles might be saved with proper research, he knows the Naval Cross set are controversial. For example he participated in the John C. England AfD which was was saved with new sources and expansion (then promoted to DYK). There are editors who are actively working to save these articles, Mztourist knows this first-hand from many other AfDs. Rather than using AfD or Merge proposals, he rapidly and recklessly merged without notification, research or discussion.

It has caused disruption as we now may need to revert every BOLD edit which is over 300, 1 each for source and target article. Although WP:BOLD allows for reversion, given the scope and acrimonious nature of dealing with Mztourist, seeking admin attention to this case which is starting to spiral into a larger problem touching a lot of articles. -- GreenC 19:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole course of conduct – the AFDs and Mergers,that is – is out of process and disruptive. It needs to be stopped. It needs to be reversed. And sanctions are in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have closed a few of the AfDs recently so I looked at this. Could you point to some examples that are problematic? I looked through the first eight on the bundled AfD list and saw that the title of this section appears to be misleading as I found

• Two that Mztourist hasn't touched (probably because they've got a number of sources) - so they haven't been merged
• Three that were merged after their own individual AfDs were closed as such ("so they're not "without discussion")
• Three redirected by Mztourist that were almost completely unsourced except to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (i.e they'd almost certainly be redirected or merged at AfD - but I presume these are the ones you're talking about)

Are there any that don't fall into these categories, i.e. where the merger could be described as disruptive? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Examples (search on "Bold Move"). There were about 150 merged in the past few days. Articles often show up at AfD in bad shape and exit in better condition, you can't prejudge the outcome of an AfD (see the John C. England example above). -- GreenC 23:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

GreenC - OK, I looked at the first six.

• Samuel Stockton Miles - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and a weblink which is a 404.
• Riley Franklin McConnell - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
• Richard S. Bull - no inline sources, a book given as a reference but no page numbers etc.
• Harold John Mack - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
• Lance Edward Massey - three inline sources 1) A description of a battle at Midway in which he is mentioned (and a photo of him) 2) A listing for the Veteran's Hal of Fame 3) A listing for his Navy Cross. This one is more debatable, though I would have suggested to Mztourist that if they believe it was not notable to send it to AfD rather than BOLDly merging it. It wuld not be a problem to restore this one with an edit summary saying such.
• Alfred Wolf (sailor) - not sourced to anything except the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I would say that unless I've chosen an unrepresentative sample, there's probably not a major issue here. The ones that have reasonable inline citations and thus may be notable can be reverted (we have bold/revert/discuss for a reason). I appreciate what you say about AfD, but it is logical that the others almost certainly should be improved before they're restored as they'd certainly fail an AfD in their current state purely for sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We have been able improve articles.
They are doing by indirection (literally) that which they could not do through AFD.
This is a purge,
Disguised as a merge.
You may not see that as disruptive. I do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, let's look at it. WP:BIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Now, if we've got a biography where the only source is a dictionary which has an entry about the ship that is named after then, that bar clearly isn't being reached. So, yes, I certainly don't see merging the ones which are not sufficiently sourced as disruptive, because in their current state they don't pass GNG so that is technically the correct thing to do, and if they were to go through their own AfD at the moment they would almost certainly end up merged or redirected anyway. So when you say that "They are doing by indirection that which they could not do through AFD" Well, they could do it by AfD, simply by nominating the individual articles for AfD. Logically, the correct approach here is to look at fixing the articles that aren't sufficiently sourced, and if that is possible then restoring them to stand-alone articles when they're done. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That presumes the fact that they cannot be fixed. AFD shows that this half-assed AFDs do not stand up. WP:Before should apply. Process should apply. WP:Consensus should apply. The end does not justify the means. This is disenfranchising the editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't presume that at all - it's merely saying they aren't compliant with WP:BIO at the moment. So merging the ones with insufficient sources to support a biography in their current state is correct process. Also, surely on the ones that have been through their own individual AfDs and been kept, merged or deleted then consensus has applied, has it not? As I said to GreenC above, there would be absolutely no problem in reverting Mztourist's merges where the sourcing is debatable (i.e. Lance Edward Massey), but the ones that are simply copied from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (or have been through an AfD that ended in Merge) should clearly not be until they are made compliant. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the rush? And why hundreds of articles all in a mass? This is to stifle content improvement and studied comment and debate. In fact, a lot of these went through the massed rushed AFD and were kept. This is a change of name and tactics deliberately intended to get to a particular result. Sleight of hand. If you don't believe me, take a look at User:Mztourist's talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I know some of them were kept. But a lot were merged as well, notably the ones that were only sourced to the Dictionary. I don't see how it stifles content improvement, though; the history of the article is still there for anyone that wants to improve the article to a compliant state. Whilst I appreciate that the volume of articles being merged here is large, one could argue - as Mztourist clearly does - that there are lot of articles in a similar state and it would be illogical to only deal with some of them. Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We have demonstrated repeatedly many of these articles are fit for inclusion if you do the research. They should be going through AfD and given a fair hearing. Your saying if additional sources can be found they might be restored. Fair enough but Indy Beetle raises the bar (below) saying they also need to be notable for something besides having a ship named for them. That is crazy. There is no consensus to make certain articles immune from the AfD process if other editors believe the articles are sourced sufficiently. -- GreenC 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have said, neither you nor Mztourist have advocated the article be deleted as opposed to merged. Why would AFD be in order? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: In case you were not aware, a recent RfC established that AfD is an appropriate venue to propose blank-and-redirects, and a 2015 discussion established that it is acceptable to propose mergers redirects at AfD (without advocating deletion). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (corrected KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

My understanding is there's consensus these articles should be redirects when the only source is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. It would be disruptive to AFD them, but boldly redirecting is encouraged; if other sources are found feel free to revert the redirect. You can't complain that AFD is unreasonable because only a merge is requested, and then turn around and complain that a merge happened without an AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Per this discussion, if Mztourist is only conducting redirects/merges for ship namesakes as we only know about these people in relation to the ships, they have the consensus to do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, Power~enwiki and Indy beetle thank you for your reasoned input. I believe that I have been following the correct procedure here, specifically the consensus that has been established across a number of recent AFDs of U.S. Navy ship namesakes. Rather than clogging up AFD with 150+ near identical thinly-sourced articles I BOLDLY merged the namesake content (often only 3 to 10 sentences) to the ship and created a Redirect, which is easily reversible if a User finds that the person does have SIGCOV in multiple RS. There were a few cases like Lance Edward Massey where there was a lot more detail, but because it was so thinly sourced I proceeded with the Merge, but I see that User:Kges1901 reversed this with the edit summary: "Rv redirect, midway squadron commander played an important role in a major battle and covered in all histories of it", a very WP:SOLDIER justification, but they are free to do so if they add SIGCOV in multiple RS of him, otherwise I will AFD it. There were also a few where the person met a presumption of SOLDIER and I didn't touch those despite SOLDIER's imminent deprecation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc​. This complaint is just a continuation in another forum of this original AFD: [[187]] and the stance taken by User:7&6=thirteen and GreenC, including personal attacks and abuse against me and Lettler, a couple of examples here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#John C. England and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rees (airman). It seems that they are still unwilling to accept that many of the ship namesakes were being deleted or redirected at AFD despite claims of an abuse of procedure: [188] and want to prevent any progress being made in line with consensus. In fact I would argue that 7&6=thirteen and GreenC are abusing process by using this complaint to overturn consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

While we’re talking, let me offer you some free advice; Talk less, smile more, don't let them know what you're against or what you're for 1776 power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I participated in a number of these AfDs [189] and they were overwhelmingly merge/redirect. They have a clear consensus to merge or redirect without creating endless AfDs. I agree with Black Kite assessment, so I won't repeat it. There is also a clear consensus that having a ship named after you is not enough to establish notability in the absense of SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Merging or redirecting an article does not delete it, the article history is still there and it can be improved without any problems if someone can find sources. Mztourist is doing good work.  // Timothy :: talk  04:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't know what to make of this. The sheer numbers, window of time, the previous issues about this. Why do these editors have such a need to remove this content? Sure you could say whatever reason, but that would apply to all kinds of garbage floating around WP. Thousands of pages of literal garbage. So why the constan drive to remove military BLPs ? Are all these pages being carefully vetted beforehand? Have you considered just picking one, and trying to build it up instead? (like User:7&6=thirteen & John C. England?) I know other's editors besides Mztourist are involved, but this big push here is his doing, so maybe he can enlighten us? And then there's the mass-AfD train wreck mentioned above, it said 150 pages, but it's actually 224, you can see them all here;

AfD list

(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen) Herbert R. Amey, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William B. Ault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)' John Drayton Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Remi A. Balduck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Woodrow Wilson Barr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Horace A. Bass Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harry F. Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gus George Bebas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert A. Belet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stanley G. Benner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) J. Douglas Blackwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John S. Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rogers Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John R. Borum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Boyd Brazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert E. Brister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ronald A. Burdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John A. Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Herbert A. Calcaterra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George M. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kendall Carl Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Louis J. Carpellotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paul H. Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Finnic Cates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hubert Paul Chatelain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold Jensen Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Howard Franklin Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alvin C. Cockrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Emerson Conklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Edward Connolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andrew F. Cook Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dallas H. Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bunyan Randolph Cooner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harry L. Corl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Russell M. Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John R. Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William W. Creamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frederick Cushing Cross Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mark Hanna Crouter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Damon M. Cummings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward C. Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hugh Spencer Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frederick Curtice Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hector de Zayas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alex M. Diachenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Joseph Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Trose Emmett Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marion William Dufilho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kenneth W. Durant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James E. Earheart Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hilan Ebert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bert C. Edmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ray K. Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold John Ellison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arthur V. Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John C. England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Clarence Lee Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milo Evarts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John T. Eversole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George I. Falgout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph W. Finch Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rodney Shelton Foss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Douglas Harold Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Myles C. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neldon Theo French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andrew Jackson Gandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oswald J. Gaynier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene F. George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Joseph Gilligan Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Walter S. Gorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Francis Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John P. Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene A. Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Don T. Griswold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stephen W. Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward E. Gyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John William Haas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Roy Orestus Hale Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earle B. Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Delbert W. Halsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Henry R. Hamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William T. Hanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Albert T. Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Patrick H. Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Raymon W. Herndon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Heyliger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ernest Lenard Hilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William M. Hobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Randolph M. Holder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ralph Hollis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Mack Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Curtis W. Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edwin Alfred Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Martin Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert K. Huntington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edwin William Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arnold J. Isbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard Alonzo Jaccard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eugene Morland Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward B. Kinzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John J. Kirwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Charles Kleinsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stanley F. Kline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milton L. Knudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James E. Kyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert M. La Prade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Henry Lansing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Everett F. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marcel LeHardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Lawrence Leopold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milton Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William R. Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arthur E. Loeser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harry James Lowe Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George K. MacKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Maurice Joseph Manuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Roy Joseph Marchand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hunter Marshall III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alvin Lee Marts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lance Edward Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Claude Maze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald Roy McAnn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Herbert Hugo Menges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward Micka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samuel Stockton Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jack Miller (USMC officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lloyd Jones Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oliver Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fred Kenneth Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samuel N. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ulvert M. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Walter Harold Mosley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kenneth Hart Muir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chester Thomas O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph R. Odum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earl Kenneth Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carl A. Osberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harvey Emerson Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Albert O'Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James C. Owens Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thaddeus Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Floyd B. Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William J. Pattison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Milton F. Pavlic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Ellison Pennewill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Lee Pettit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Philip Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sherwood Picking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Reeves Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Minor Butler Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oswald A. Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malcolm Lewis Pratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marvin Lee Ramsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Julius A. Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Martin H. Ray Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Paul J. Register (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Beverly W. Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ralph M. Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Riddle Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Clark Franklin Rinehart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Q. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jack C. Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) David John Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Walter Rolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Severin Louis Rombach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard M. Rowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Seymour D. Ruchamkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jesse Rutherford Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thomas Wright Rudderow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald S. Runels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neal Anderson Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) James M. Scribner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Frank Seiverling Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edward Robert Sellstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold D. Shannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Francis Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Max Silverstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frank O. Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald H. Spangler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald B. Steinaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Max Clifford Stormes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard Wayne Suesens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Shelton B. Sutton Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gust J. Swenning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lyman Knute Swenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Charles Arthur Tabberer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lawrence Coburn Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harold Chester Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Leland Evan Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lloyd Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Garfield Thomas Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Woodrow R. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Leonard W. Thornhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ryland Dillard Tisdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Maynard W. Tollberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) London Lewis Traw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Henry W. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Uhlmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samuel Underhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John J. Van Buren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph Williams Vance Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Norman Francis Vandivier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bertram S. Varian Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Patrick Joseph Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Merrit Cecil Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Walter Carl Wann Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Charles R. Ware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Andrew Kenneth Waterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frederick T. Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carl W. Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William Wolfe Wileman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thomas Mack Wilhoite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kenneth Martin Willett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Leon Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) LeRay Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Irving Wiltsie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John David Wingfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jack William Wintle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alfred Wolf (sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Donald W. Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jeff Davis Woodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eldon P. Wyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) William J. Yokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So, yeah... I'd just like to know why? (And I'm also curious about the community response) - wolf 05:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The first link I clicked (at random) was Harry F. Bauer, which was merged per consensus at AFD. Improving the encyclopedia doesn't become a bad thing when it is done at scale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it's better for the reader if these titles are redirected to the articles about the ships and the reader reads about the namesake there, rather than on a stand-alone page. (In the cases where the sourcing isn't there, as per BK's explanations above.) That's why I'd redirect them, I don't want to speak for Mz. The notion that redirecting a page is somehow taking something away from the encyclopedia, removing information, disenfranchising editors, etc., ... all of that is just silly. It's nothing of the sort. It's just curation of a collection. It's a normal process. Merging is a normal editorial process, including bold merging. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild I have explained my reasoning above. As I assume with many other Users once I find something that catches my attention I pursue it until it is finished and it wouldn't make sense to merge just some and not others. Milhist is my main area of interest so the "Thousands of pages of literal garbage" on other areas on WP aren't my concern. The "mass-AfD train wreck" as you refer to it, was the starting point and after a consensus was established at a number of AFDs on which pages would be retained and which merged and redirected, I went through all those pages and applied Merge and Redirect to all similar pages. As usual there's a lot of complaining that articles can be improved, but that's highly unlikely for most of them and Page History exists for each of them so nothing has been lost or erased if someone finds sources. Nothing has been removed, just moved. Meanwhile far from being the destructive vandal/troll that several Users wish to paint me as, I have improved every ship page with namesake details and often provided additional links. Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(break)

For those not already involved, it may be illustrative to read the discussions about these mergers that occurred on the ARS anti-deletion noticeboard : Harry Bauer, George Campbell, etc.

As a point of interest, this discussion has been mentioned on the talk page for that noticeboard : Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Massive_attack ApLundell (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• These stubs are being merged/redirected, not deleted. The content is still there in the history (and on the merge page) and it can easily be improved by any editor at any time.  // Timothy :: talk  05:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the examples Black Kite has checked are representative, and I see no particular reason why they are not, the action here is in line with the consensus of discussions at WT:MILHIST, especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they are representative, I looked thrugh a few more last night as well. One thing I'd say, regardless of the fact that we should shoudn't have poorly sourced biographies, is what serves our readers the best? I would say that presenting them with a good article about the ship, which includes some information about the person who it was named after, is better than having the information split across two articles, one of which is just some text copied from a dictionary. Of course if there are good sources about the person enabling us to write a good biography, then that's great. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why does the ARS and its members feel the need to to use such emotive language? The only effect it will have is heighten, rather than lessen, the Dramaz. (Evidence: on WT:ARS it's referred to as a massive attack, and here a member describes it as a purge). This is pretty poor. ——Serial 11:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been my experience with ARS since its founding. The entire point of ARS is extreme inclusionism, and a rather vitriolic response towards any deletion proposal. Its members seem to have a mindset that all articles deserve to remain on Wikipedia, regardless of status, because they "could" be improved at some nebulous time in the future. Therefore, any deletion is akin to heresy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the merger seems to fit well with the Reasons at WP:Merge - 2: Overlap: the naming of the ship is explained by reference to the article on the sailor but by the time a suitable summary of the sailor is in the ship article, the only further (notable? discuss) content to read on the sailor page is bare biographical detail (3 :"Short text"). The general consensus among a set of editors following the original large scale AfD discussion was that many of the names lacked suitable sourcing to meet GNG and were unlikely to do so. For some it seems the only reason there is anything written on them is because a ship was named after them; the USN had many ships it was presumaby going to name after other heroes but never built eg the cancelled 206 further John C. Butler-class destroyer escorts. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @GreenC: Please see WP:PAGEDECIDE. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mztourist you said; "As usual there's a lot of complaining..." and; "Meanwhile far from being the destructive vandal/troll that several Users wish to paint me as...". That, along with this ANI, would seem to indicate that some at least find these "merges" to be controversial, that you knew that beforehand and carried on anyway. WP:MERGE states that such merges should first be proposed and discussed and discussed. Some might characterize your actions as an 'end run' around the process, and that might explain some of the backlash and vitriol you're experiencing. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 15:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thewolfchild I was simply pointing to the overdramatic and often uncivil language being used by User:7&6=thirteen and User:GreenC in starting this ANI, in the previous AFDs and at ARS, something that other Users have also commented on. I really don't appreciate your characterisation of my behaviour here as an "end run" nor that I am somehow to blame for their incivility. As I have said above, it is very clear that this ANI is just the latest attempt by them to undo a result they don't like. I certainly don't regard you as impartial either. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. So, that's zero answers and lotsa rudeness... I think we're done here. - wolf 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes we are done here, as is evident by the comments above the complaint has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merging in this situation seems entirely reasonable to me. If anyone wants to source a proper biography, then a redirect can be converted into a stand-alone article. Unclear why this at ANI in the first place. But the "Massive Attack" reference was good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merging seems perfectly reasonable in most of these cases. Looking at the Bauer AFD in particular, I am thoroughly underwhelmed by both the keep !votes in the AFD - a WP:VAGUEWAVE to GNG without identifying additional sources, questionable interpretations of WP:SIGCOV (of the sources present in the article at the end of the AFD, only the citation and the single paragraph in DANFS are really about the subject, with only sparse mentions in the others), and claims that having a ship named after you meets WP:ANYBIO which appears to run against the consensus of that point. The ARS notice also includes the statement As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. which is flat-out misleading, as the previous one was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK nomination, with very little discussion of the other ones. Given that the close of the previous group nomination was with no prejudice against individual renomination, the insinuations that renominating one that was not discussed at the TRAINWRECK nomination is wrong because of the group nomination being closed as a keep on procedural grounds are ridiculous. I also find the repeated accusations of trolling being thrown around at WP:ARS to be problematic, and all those using that term should remember that calling a good faith editor a troll can be construed as a personal attack. I don't think this content should be deleted, but merging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when most of these are of rather dubious notability. Let's focus on the content, and stop the accusations of trolling. It's not a sin to merge content when the content is of dubious stand-alone notability. I see no reason why this ANI thread should be kept open. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with K.e.coffman that the merging was reasonable. I don't see the issue with being bold and merging, especially after the vast majority of the previous AfDs in this area supported merging ship's namesakes to the ship article when the referencing is poor and shows no signs of improved sourcing over the course of 10+ years (and frankly WP:BEFORE would rarely turn up any new references or WP:SIGCOV). I also agree with Hog Farm that this ANI should be closed and, quite frankly, the bad faith and trolling accusations (including going as far to equate the nominations to the Attack on Pearl Harbor) have probably been the largest breach of any sort of policy and that's not even that big of a transgression. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's fair of filers to want to save some of the articles. If they can scrounge up the sources to establish their independent notability, they can simply undo the redirect and fill out the article. Nothing is preventing them from doing that. From a behavioral standpoint, Mztourist's actions were in keeping with consensus, and were not made in an effort to subvert the community. Mztourist was not doing this to "troll" anyone. I don't think a boomerang is warranted (though the troll accusations should stop), but I do think this should be closed without action taken against Mztourist. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with many others that this is a good example of why deleting and redirecting an article are very different outcomes at least for editors. If members of the ARS or whatever feel some of these articles can be saved, they're welcome to do so by finding the sources and improving the articles. It's very easy from a technical standpoint and they don't anyone else's permission or involvement. Either way the net result is an improvement for readers. For articles where this doesn't happen they get redirected to an article with info which helps them see these people in context. For articles where it does, they actually see useful articles. Further a persistent claim is that the ARS often only does source dumps where plenty of sources are posted on an AFD but then no one ever improves the article. This would be a great case where they can prove the opposite, by improving these articles with the sources they find. The fact these are happening so fast also seems to be largely a positive. Rather than ARS having to hunt through months of an editors contribs to find these, or the editor needing to make a list of each one, the ARS can just look through that small portion of contrib history to find the articles they feel they can save. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

In light of the overwhelming support for my BOLD Merge and Redirects and given that the two complainants seem to have withdrawn from this discussion I request that this ANI should be closed with an endorsement of my actions per consensus and ideally a warning to User:7&6=thirteen for personal attacks. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I deny the accusation. Nothing to see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, not since the last time anyway (August last year, for the interested). So, there's plenty to see where you were roundly criticised by your peers, including admins, for personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavoir ([190], [191]). Here we are again: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. ——Serial 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, certainly looks like an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered if someone would raise that previous ANI. During it, there was a call for sanctions against 7&6=thirteen for persistent BATTLEGROUND issues - I opposed it at the time and what I said then is still relevant I think

"If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions which they generally lost"") If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't. Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation."

And this is the point - we are all trying to improve Wikipedia here, but we have different ways of going about it. Where there are disagreements, they need to discussed calmly, not by throwing insults about. I note this issue is happening at the ARS page as well. As I say, I opposed sanctions last time, but I would probably not do so in the future if this casting of aspersions continues; indeed, I would expect that any admin could deal with it through the normal warning and blocking procedure. You do not get to call people who are editing within our policies "disruptive" or "trolls", and call for sanctions against them for no reason, so that needs to stop - now. And yes, this should be closed now with a note that consensus is that the merges were the correct thing to do; having commented a few times I will not do it myself. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: close of complaint against Mztourist as unfounded with a note that consensus is that the merges were properly done.

Support a warning about civility at AfD for 7&6=thirteen with a mention of the previous ANI. We all have bad moments we wish we could take back, but this is a pattern.

Strongly Support starting a discussion about reforming AfD discussions, and addressing problems and concerns, as well as how to improve all aspects of article curation. (this is not the proper place for that conversation; Ritchie333 sorry I haven't followed up on the previous discussion about this with you).

 // Timothy :: talk  21:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support As I was pinged, I'll lob my 2c into the discussion. A couple of weeks ago, I was feeling somewhat badgered by Mztourist over an AfD I closed, without being aware of the wider context that's displayed in this thread, and in retrospect the lack of communication and talking past each other led to a deterioration. Ultimately things sorted themselves out at the subsequent DRV and AFIAK the matter is resolved.

The wider problem I have with the ARS, and have done for some time, is they don't seem to do as much "article rescue" as I would like. I'm all for people improving articles and picking out hard to find sources in order to prove to the community at large we shouldn't delete something (prime example). However, if I think an article is unsuitable and unsalvagable, I will nominate it for deletion or otherwise argue that we shouldn't have it. From my observations, the ARS seems to be more geared towards voting "keep" without actually doing the legwork to improve the article (which I feel is a pyrrhic victory if the article is kept) and badgering those with different views. This needs to stop. It's why I don't associate myself with the ARS, despite sharing many of the views that the group was originally based on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Indeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Seen a few now that were rescued and abandoned. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support — The "massive attack" reference [192] is nothing new [193]. In October (months after the last ANI linked above), I posted to ARS's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Attacking AFD nominators on the ARS page) about previous comments (there was no response), including yet another "massive attack" reference [194] and this comment about a closer. It's got to stop. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support closure - There's nothing really actionable here, IMO. Although I do support warning ARS to stop hounding good-faith AFD nominations. It's not a "massive attack" to merge or AFD questionably-notable articles in a responsible way. I'm still in somewhat a state of shock to see ARS compare an AFD to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. And I've seen several spots there lately where users who nominate articles for deletion get accused of trolling, which is borderline personal attack. Let's all move on, stop the name calling, and keep it in the top three segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. And let's close this AFD soon, as I don't think anything productive is going to come from much more discussion of this matter in this setting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning for the OP, User:7&6=thirteen. The Aug 2020 discussion did not result in sanctions (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Proposal:_Topic_ban), which was appropriate at the time, but the lessons do not appear to have been learned. A formal warning in this situation is needed to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding: I've not noticed this comment before: Troll. Go do likewise, and sin no more., with edit summary "troll". It may be time for a Tban from ARS and AfD, as the editor in question does not seem to be able to participate in related discussions w/o resorting to personal attacks. And that was after the 2020 ANI thread that discussed similar behavioural concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

power~enwiki User:K.e.coffman Nobody has "refuse[d] to abide by consensus". And apparently the consensus is that they can redirect (and hopefully merge) all the Navy Cross/Ship named sailors to the ships, depending on the level of referencing. But the merger is without prejudice to recreating the deleted articles. If that's the rule, we all will live by it.

Disclosure of prior AFDs ought to be done, not suppressed. In the prior context of the deletions, this was an understandable concern.

I did not initiate this discussion at ANI.

And the deliberate 'participation' of some editors at WP:ARS discussions, when they do not ever actually propose rescue of articles, is trolling behavior. My references were to the behavior, and it is what it is.

Defending the many articles at AFD's (see Tom Rees (RFC officer) for example) is not a "personal attack". Indeed, that article was taken through DYK, and MZTourist considers that to be an insult to him. It was a consequence of the article's improvement. Period. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I misspoke. It pertained to other articles, I thought. But I can't find the diff. So I retract what I said. I apologize for my confusion. 13:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I get annoyed on the (very rare) occasions an article I wrote is put up for AfD (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall), but crucially I will always look back and think and think "yes, I shouldn't have said that". However, no good can come of insulting people who file the AfD; either they did in good faith, in which case responding in kind is never acceptable, or they did it in bad faith, in which case you shouldn't feed the troll. Either way, it's not on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've stricken "the OP" part, but I'm still supportive of a TBan for User:7&6=thirteen. Alternatively, a reviewing admin could perhaps issue a short block, for the continued defense of the "troll" insult in re: Mztourist, as in: And the deliberate 'participation' of some editors at WP:ARS discussions (...) is trolling behavior. Editors do not get to decide who participates in discussions and ARS is not (or at least should not be) a walled garden, for like-minded contributors only. Editors outside of this in-group are not "trolls". --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I improve articles, and I provide a rationale. When we discover sources (whether they are cited in the article or not), and folks question notability, the fair response is "No compliance with WP:Before. That is not a personal anything -- it relates to whether the article should be deleted. And it is not an "insult." Indeed, the AFD at Tom Rees (RFC officer) proves the point. Why was there an AFD proposed? You tell me? Speaking of disregarding the state of the article, its sources, and possible additional sourcing. Or disregard of consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been on the other side of the fence, though. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Arden (actress), which I filed in good faith and quickly closed when sources were pointed out. There was no name calling, and nobody got dragged off to the WP:Dramaboard. I don't know why the Tom Rees AfD was proposed, but I have to assume whoever did it was doing so for a legitimate reason. The ideal opportunity is to try and explain how various notability criteria work politely and get them round to your way of thinking. If you whack them over the head as being trolls (whether directly or implied) they'll probably just want to defend themselves. Which is kind of how we've ended up here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

While its true that User:7&6=thirteen didn't start this ANI, presumably the previous case against them made them reluctant, they jumped right in when someone else started it, demanding sanctions against me. They apparently withdrew from the discussion (as did the nom) when it became clear the consensus was overwhelmingly against them and now have reentered the discussion once their own behaviour was called into question. Despite grudgingly accepting the consensus, its clear from the comments above that 7&6=thirteen continues with his/her battleground mentality, particularly this: Tom Rees was DYK in 2014, it came to AFD on 16 February 2021. Its 2014 DYK obviously wasn't a result of improvements after the 2021 AFD. How could I be insulted by a 7 year old DYK? Mztourist (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"No compliance with BEFORE" is not a fair response. It's literally assuming bad faith, and it's not on. Just because one editor found a source doesn't mean other editors didn't look. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

They did not look well. If the sources were there, a poorly executed search is no search at all. There are levels of searches; and we all have different competence and perhaps places to look. Some have access through the Wikipedia library. And indeed, when the article already had the sources and they were ignored, this says a lot. Every article potentially can be justified by WP:GNG. Sorry that you are offended, but not sorry that I raise the question. That you take it personally is regrettable; and when one nominates more than a hundred articles for deletion at a stroke, there is a reason to raise it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources are not ignored. What happens is AFD noms don't think those sources qualify as GNG sources. But if there is a source, any source, you accuse the nom of failing to perform a before search. You don't even account for the possibility that they just disagree with you about quality of sources. Obviously this warning is not going to change anything because you are outright saying sorry-not-sorry. So I support tban since you're refusing to change how you communicate. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You can disagree. I do not impugn their motives. And neither should you presume on mine. When the AFD is decided, it is decided. There is room for disagreement, and you certainly are entitled to state your position at the AFD. And yes, there can be questions about quality of sources – and disagreement. So what? But stifling the speech of those who disagree is wrong. And that is true whichever way it cuts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're running around calling people "troll" for disagreeing with you. "Stifling the speech of those who disagree" is what you're doing, by attacking them. Calling them a troll. Accusing them of not doing a before search. Saying another editor's hard work is a "massive attack" or a "purge", etc. etc. The problem is that you are uncivil towards those you disagree with, and you appear to think it's OK. I don't see you striking any past comments anywhere. Including in this thread. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not impugn their motives. Yes, you do. You did right in this thread: "They are doing by indirection (literally) that which they could not do through AFD. This is a purge, Disguised as a merge." and "This is to stifle content improvement and studied comment and debate. In fact, a lot of these went through the massed rushed AFD and were kept. This is a change of name and tactics deliberately intended to get to a particular result. Sleight of hand. If you don't believe me, take a look at User:Mztourist's talk page." Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the above responses show 7&6=thirteen refusal to WP:LISTEN; maybe a simple warning is not going to help. The statement "Every article potentially can be justified by WP:GNG" is telling about a lot of the comments from ARS members, they will come up with any mention at all of a subject and spam refs to attempt to justify keeping an article and completely ignore whether it meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and pretend like WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not exist. This is illustrated well in the AfD discussions about the merged articles. Any excuse will due to attempt to derail an AfD, such as claiming a proceedural close of a group nom is a keep is a reason to oppose a follow up individual nom ([195], [196], [197] + many others).

A few indivduals have also made PROD almost useless with baseless dePRODing, which is negatively impacting AfD.

Taken as a whole, it is disruptive.  // Timothy :: talk  20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was not saying that every article should result in a Keep. Only that WP:GNG is implicated. And WP:Before is too; it is not just a statement that you should see if there are sources, but also look at alternatives to deletion. I am not here to cast aspersions or engage in "combat". I have no vested interest in outcomes. I here what you are saying, and will try to avoid conflicts. I improve the articles (see for example Tadeusz Arentowicz] which was not deleted and went on to be on the main page as a DYK), and the additions stand or fall on their merit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said above User:7&6=thirteen continues with their battleground mentality. They have made incorrect statements and cast aspersions on my motivations in relation to Tom Rees. As demonstrated above they will not change their behaviour without sanctions. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have apologized, clarified and disengages. The move from mass deletions to mass redirects was unprecedented, so far as I know. It frustrated in a very effective manner the idea of improving and rescuing the articles. You folks say that was alright. I understand your concerns. See here. I am not an unresolved problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment: 7&6=thirteen reiterates his non-apology 'apology' with: Give it a rest; disengage. I have. [198]. Likewise, not the best comment from GreenC, the OP: Suggest you both go your separate ways and not escalate further. [199], given that GreenC "escalated" the matter by starting an ANI against the editor whom this comment is directed at. Something is really rotten with ARS where such comments, while this ANI is in progress, fly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with User:K.e.coffman. 7&6=thirteen has not apologized for the numerous personal attacks on me, only for the mistaken accusations regarding Tom Rees above and mistakenly editing my comments at ARS: [200] and even that apology was tempered by 7&6=thirteen later revising it to add: [201] "So much for WP:AGF" as if I was somehow to blame. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Sanction

Its obvious we need to so something about 7&6=thirteen's approach to engaging with otber editors and I'd like to try something addressing that before we have to consider the more draconian prospect of a tban from deletion discussions.

How about User 7&6=thirteen is subject to a restriction prohibing personal attacks. Commenting negatively about other editors or speculating on their motivations is expressly prohibited by this restriction. They are also expressly warned that using inappropriately emotive language to describle actions or consequences of other editors' actions may also be a violation of this prohibition at the discretion of a reviewing admin or consensus at an admin noticeboard. Failure to comply with the terms of this restriction will be met with incrementally increasing blocks.

Thoughts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - "using inappropriately emotive language to describe actions or consequences of other editors' actions" is somewhat subjective to applied in a sanction. The personal attacks is the problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Spartaz: a Tban from ARS & AfD may be a more effective sanction, being direct and specific. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that framing. Intothatdarkness 15:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Anything less than a Tban from ARS & AFD is likely to be ineffective. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You want to TBAN someone from a project they have helped with for years now? Even though you are the one going down there arguing with everyone nonstop, posting your ridiculous insulting accusations of canvassing all over the place. [202] Dream Focus 07:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and if you read above you will see that I'm not the only User with these concerns. Meanwhile your description of me "arguing with everyone nonstop, posting your ridiculous insulting accusations of canvassing all over the place" is itself a personal attack. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose If you have a list of diffs showing specific problems, by all means post them. Rather vague here. Dream Focus 07:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not very "obvious" to me. I see no personal attacks in the above thread, and I see no diffs here; what I see is see someone who had an AN/I thread made about them proposing the OP is tbanned from the dispute they were both a part of. That's the opposite of convincing. jp×g 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The user being discussed regarding sanctions isn't the OP who started the AN/I. And the person who proposed the sanctions isn't the subject of the AN/I to begin with. Intothatdarkness 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Bruh moment. I think I was looking at the wrong section (read Mztourist's endorsement of the TBAN as a proposal). Struck that part, but the rest of the comment stands; I don't see 7&6=thirteen making personal attacks and there are no diffs provided here. jp×g 00:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

      You're kidding? This thread starts at #User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion and contains many diffs, and surely calling someone a troll, comparing their editing to Pearl Harbor, and accusing them of sleight of hand and bad faith motives, are all personal attacks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

      I concur, they are personal attacks. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose User:7&6=thirteen's inclusionism is occasionally annoying, but there isn't a case for any sanctions here. Personal attacks are generally forbidden to any editor; no case is presented for a separate prohibition on this specific editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• 7&6Thirteen's pattern of behavior is pretty consistent. It's just a question of whether or not the behavior is inappropriate.

Besides the accusations of trolling, Pearl Harbor joke[203], etc, discussed repeatedly in the thread above, the behavior that people are finding irritating is a set of some stock techniques 7&6Thirteen uses over and over again in deletion debates, so difs are easy to find.

• Accuse the proposer of incompetence. [204][205][206][207]
• Insist that the nomination is "No compliance with WP:BEFORE", which is also an accusation of incompetence, or at the very least, a discussion of the proposer's behavior, and not the article itself. [208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216]

• Imply that individuals or a nebulous "usual crew" of deletionists is out to delete stuff maliciously [217][218][219][220][221]

• And just generally accuse editors of not acting in good faith. [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] A zillion copies of this 'matter of housekeeping'

They seem to not really believe that it's possible for two people to both look at the same sources and genuinely come to different conclusions about notability.

(I dunno if there are more egregious examples, I think the ones I linked are pretty typical. They're the examples I could spot quickly, anyway.) ApLundell (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum

• I do admit to enjoying this (particularly with the added irony of people complaining about Boris Johnson's suitability as a politician even 12 years ago). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

False accusations of copivio

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

---

At Gyeogam Yurok, User: Elinruby repeatedly adds a tag asserting This article is a rough translation from another language. It may have been generated by a computer or by a translator without dual competence. I tried to discuss this claim on the talk page, but User: Elingyry has repeatedly implied bad faith and copyvio, even saying I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate. Translation of what has never been specified, despite several requests. Such charges of intellectual dishonesty should either be substantiated by serious and detailed evidence or be quashed. The first part of the choice is only rhetoric, since this article was written from scratch. Pldx1 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any questions. This is a boomerang IMHO. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

At Talk: Gyeogam Yurok, User: Elinruby is trying to muddy the waters. But by saying I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate cannot be taken as a statement about how to split infinitives. It is a clear assertion of intellectual dishonesty. Since User: Elinruby is unable to substantiate such an assertion, this assertion must be rescinded.Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Since I've got nothing to do for a few minutes, I gave this a look. I don't see any evidence that the version first flagged as "rough translation" is indeed a machine translation of the Korean WP article; it does seem to be a newly formulated, condensed version. Nor is/was the English bad enough to merit a characterization as a "rough translation without dual competence" . So I don't think that tag is merited, and I'd take it off. On the other hand, the article did start out functionally unsourced, is still using several dodgy sources, and clearly was in need of the improvements Elinruby has already added. So I'd suggest that Pldx1 stop fighting tooth and claw against justified maintenance tags (in particular, "just go do it yourself" is never an argument against such) and avoid talk page hostility. That isn't getting the article improved. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

At no time did I specifically say it was machine translation, but if it is not, (I am saying now) it was written by someone at a low-intermediate level of English proficiency, for which we also use the {{rough translation}} template, a term of art described at WP:Pages_needing_translation_into_English. It may not be quite bad enough to justify the template any more, but I have been steadily chipping away at its problems, and this is not a scarlet letter of shame, you know. It merely puts the article on a translation maintenance list.

I am not certain why this editor insists that standard wikipedia procedure is an affront against his or her good name. I have tried more than once to explain that that translation from one wiki to another is not a copyright violation, but does require the use of the {{translated page}} template to provide attribution and preserve the licensing on this material. Please see the edit window at Talk: Liberation of France for Mathglot (talk · contribs)'s correct use of the template to document the article creation. Note that *that* article is a translation even though a significant fraction of the article is written in English by monolingual English speakers, because it is interwoven with translated snippets from French wiki articles and English wiki articles previously translated from French. Four editors are collaborating on it.

If any part of any article is translated, the translated template is required. If the translation improves on the original, so much the better, as this is what Help: Translation suggests, but this does not make it *not* a translation.

The original editor has misunderstood several policies and views maintenance tagging as a personal insult. They then remove it because they disagree, for example, with John B123 (talk · contribs)'s tags about references, which he or she called "a succession of weasel words".

At the most pragmatic level, the simplest way to resolve this dispute is for Pldx1 (talk · contribs) to deign to answer questions about the text of the article. I will do my best to address the issues that it definitely does have. I am a native English speaker with a large vocabulary in multiple languages who has been doing exactly this on Wikipedia for more than a decade. I fix bad translations, among other things. I have no secret agenda to humiliate the editor as they seem to think, and if it is fresh and original writing, fine, then would the editor please explain as I have asked what the word "styled" is doing in the article. Since the editor is complaining about tagging rather that addressing it, I described what I was guessing it to mean, and asked for confirmation, only to be told that I was very imaginative and hopefully I had a reference for that. I replied, ok, if that is wrong, please explain, and was met with stony silence.

This type of page ownership is not uncommon in bad translation and is best dealt with by asking specific questions about what is meant by specific phrases that do not make sense in English. This is how Operation Car Wash was translated: one word at a time. I believe *that* translation came here also, because I was disturbing the stable version, supposedly, even though a politician named Cuñha was several times referred to as "wedge". As in cheese.

We can do a deep dive into the structural parallels between the Korean (Google Translate version) and the English article as it stands. If we must get forensic. The fact is, it is translatedn. This is an expert opinion not an accusation and if the editor were not so angry and defensive we need not have been here on the drama boards or even have had the templates so frantically being disputed. I am happy to take the remaining {{what} off the article if the editor will only explain to me who that person is. I have already removed one what, and two reliable source templates, after determining that the sources were books and therefore giving them the benefit of the doubt on reliability. The templates are there in the hope of attracting another Korean-speaking editor to help with these issues, since this one apparently cannot or will not see them.

I would like to point out that this editor's behaviour is not constructive, nor is accusing me of racism when in fact I spend a big chunk of my wikitime promoting and improving a diversity of narratives, most of which, including this one, I find at the Community portal's Task Center. The article is still largely uncategorized because I did not get an answer when I asked on the article talk page if "Joseon poet" was an accurate description, because there is no category for "Joseon scholar".

If we seriously are going to litigate this, I would ask Elmidae (talk · contribs) to look over not only the article's recent talk page, but also this editor's message on my talk page and my message on theirs. I believe the examples above may somewhat clarify them situation. I am not hell-bent on calling this rough translation, but if the goal is to avoid that appellation then the article needs to be something that the target demographic of en.wikipedia can read. Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Even if this article was a translation of the Korean, it wouldn't be a copyvio so this complaint starts off poorly. I would suggest the complainant looks at his own behaviour before making accusations about others. --John B123 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This "complaint" started by quoting I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you spontaneously produced a text whose first two sections are identical to the results of Google Translate 2021-02-26. Since User:Elinruby wants to discuss about constructive behavior, there is also while I do not read Korean and Google translate has issues with it, it does well enough for me to see that the lede section and the section about the author, at least are word for word. or very close 2021-02-24. And there is a triple down here We can do a deep dive into the structural parallels between the Korean (Google Translate version) and the English article as it stands. If we must get forensic. The fact is, it is translatedn. This is an expert opinion. Here are the forensics. May I add that I don't believe that the keyboard of a person in a constructive mood would have spontaneously produced such a series of aspersions. To be rescinded. Pldx1 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want a side by side comparison of the two articles to demonstrate why it is a translation I would be happy to accommodate you but I am involved with a big messy article that is a lot more interesting than reasoning with --- I don't know what to call it -- a fundamental insistence on taking offence? This article was also manually listed at PNT so your entire temper tantrum is mind-bogglingly irrelevant. If you want your world to be one in which you aren't edited, I don't know what to tell you. There are clear English problems. There are reference questions. What is the relationship between the Korean Academy and the Royal Library, please? What are prophetic intents? Who is this person who published the book recently? It *needs* an edit. Oh and tell me more about the reliable source about Nine Prophesies, seems a trifle fringe. I guess it could be a Newsweek or Atlantic, but you just refuse to discuss reliability of the source because the sentence it supports seems self-evident to you. I guess. Call it a copyedit if you want, geez. But it's listed at PNT. And if it was written from your deep knowledge of the subject or something, please please please tell me what that word "styled" is doing there, since you said it wasn't what I thought. Elinruby (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh man. Shorter version of my inestimable 2 cents: article possibly over-tagged, Pldx1 taking excessive offense about it. The former isn't ideal but will eventually lead to a better article. The latter does no good whatsoever. Translating does not imply copyvio, and ANI is not here to force people to apologize about trivialities. This section is now three times as long as the article. Stop litigating. How about closing this discussion? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually feel like I should get an apology. But I am sure that will not happen and there is a lot of integration happening at Liberation of France on which I would prefer to spend my time. I said something early on about a boomerang, which would actually be warranted, IMHO, but afaik there aren't any other editors working in Korean so this editor is valuable, pricky and huffy as they are. Elinruby (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• How to close this thread? Very simple. This thread is not about how to split infinitives, nor about how to type [S-T-Y-L-E enter] in the search box, nor about tag-driving or whatever else. This thread is about the repetitive assertion (see the diffs) that this article has been stolen somewhere. Pretending to be too busy to answer the simple question: where is this "somewhere" is not an escape route. If you have found the time to cast these aspersions, take the time and try to prove them... or rescind them (explicitly, not in some obscure corner of the Prime Number Theorem page). Pldx1 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Ad Hominem Attacks by User:AngstLil

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

---

Hello! Please help me with Ad Hominem issues here on WP. User @AngstLil: has been repeatedly calling me derogatory names such as "idiot" and "prick" in his edit summaries at Populorum progressio and Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 2. Please deal with this disruptive user. WP is no longer safe and free because of his continuous bullying of me through his edit summaries, and then reverting them even if my edits were constructive. He calls me names, and is a violation of the, I suppose, non-Ad Hominem rule. Red Flavor (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be easier for administrators to assess this if you provided diffs for the edits you think constitute ad hominems. (Since you did not give AngstLil a {{ANI-notice}} on their talk page, I have notified them.) jp×g 00:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like in Special:History/Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 2, AngstLil does indeed, during a revert war, call RedFlavor a "prick", and calls them an "idiot" in this edit to Special:History/Populorum progressio. jp×g 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The user had not had any sort of warning from what I can see, so I issued one. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Red Flavor, you called AngstLil a prick as well here. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Here's what you guys think. First of all, when I open the wikipedia page Ninoy Aquino International Airport, I have noticed that User:Red Flavor, added some of aircraft pictures. I directly go to User talk: AngstLil if I can remove some of aircraft pictures, as it is no needed to add, he said yes. So, I removed it especially Mactan-Cebu International Airport, General Santos International Airport and Butuan Airport. As I came back one day, User:Red Flavor adding it back.. I also try to explain why it's not edit, he/she also added back. When I was to message him User talk:Red Flavor, he also said to me "you double standard prick". It hurt my feeling also. I was able to User talk:Andrewgprout on "Complain of adding or removed pictures of Airlines?". I also remember yesterday when User:Red Flavor called me and User:AngstLil team tagging. We're not team tagging. And also I don't want to Wikipedia:sockpuppetry. So, please bear with me. Because User:Red Flavor founded 7 days ago. Hope you understand me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner2002 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and disruptive editing by Ddum5347

Since their account creation in August last year, Ddum5347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has extensively edited animal (mostly bird and mammal) related articles. While some of their edits are constructive, a large proportion of them are controversial, and are not considered improvements by other editors. Examples of this include mass renaming animal articles from species names to supposed common names, as well as mass additions/removals of taxa from "list of [animals] of [country]" articles without any kind of discussion. Most edits lack edit summaries. When their edits are opposed by other editors they do not attempt to engage in dialogue to try to reach concensus, but instead engage in edit warring to impose their preferred view, for which they have been blocked several times. Ddum has made no attempt to engage with the issues other editors have had with their behaviour and warnings on their talkpage are ignored and periodically blanked (see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). Ignoring the blankings, Ddum has received over two dozen notices for problematic edits and edit warring over the less than the year the account has existed. I and many other editors of animal related articles find their editing disruptive and their behavior not compatible with the collaborative nature of encyclopedic editing. Ddum was blocked for 1 week for edit warring, which was then extended to two weeks for block evasion for editing while logged out. Since they have come back they have resumed their disruptive behaviour, including reverting edits they were previously edit warring over before they were blocked, ([227] [228]). See these threads at WikiProject Animals (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#Ddum5347's_disruptive_edits) and Wikiproject Birds (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_72#Questions_about_"list_of_birds"_articles) for previous discussions surrounding Ddum's conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging relevant users @Pvmoutside: @Craigthebirder: @William Harris: @FunkMonk: @JurassicClassic767: @SilverTiger12: @MeegsC: @Faendalimas:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm, DDum has caused several recurring issues. I only really pay attention to felid taxa and breed articles, so I am not as involved as the other editors, but I have had to deal with them added OR or removed cited information. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

These are the WP:ORs in Lynx: on 1 Feb and on 21 Feb; then they added 2 refs, neither of which supports the argument. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ORs in Asiatic lion: on 4 Dec, on 5 Dec with a noteworthy edit summary, on 6 Dec; see also Talk:Asiatic_lion#No_lion_in_Afghanistan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Ddum's edit warring, another thing that bugs me is his lack of edit summaries, for example, in a recent edit of his at Guadeloupe Amazon, he removed a category without explaining why, so then I assumed it was one of his "bad edits", so to speak, and reverted it, but then afterwards he had to revert my edit just to explain why he removed the category, so yeah, that's annoying. And we could continue with other of his edits and mostly see disruptive ones, as mentioned above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The editor has ascribed to a scientific reliable source something it did not state in order to have their own way here. The edit summary was correct but the edit's impact was not. Such behaviour is unacceptable. William Harris (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

While edit warring is unacceptable, I do recall a discussion or two about using common names for articles - it's what WP prescribes, after all, and I would actually support doing so because I have searched for common names of plants, trees, birds, etc. and cannot find them. I'm of the mind that not finding articles is a significant problem. Most readers are simply not going to search using the scientific name. Beyond that, I have nothing more to add. Atsme 💬 📧 21:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In any case, it would need discussion to change it wholesale. But yeah, I've also ended up in problematic situations with the editor, and they don't seem to change their behaviour at all, so I'm not sure what else, if anything, can be done... FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was mostly making observations with this as I mostly edit on another wiki, hoewever, once he was blocked and it appears from a local CU that he attempted to avoid the block by socking I determined the line had been crossed and supported the ANI. That is essentialy the limit of my involvement, however I am grateful for the ping. Considering a willingness to sock has been demonstrated to avoid a one week bock, among his other issues as pointed out by others from my perspective this is not a simple case. Short of an indefinite ban a very clear message is going to be needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some form of WP:TBAN on all animal-related articles may be appropriate. William Harris (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

May as well just siteban him, then, since his only interest seems to be animal related articles. I'd much rather get him talking; he's clearly editing in good faith. That being said, a block for disruption (in the form of being unresponsive to talk page requests) might be the only way to get him talking at this point. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Please repeat all of the things you wish for me to change behaviour-wise. I need to know what to do if I am to continue editing. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Just go to the edit history of your talk page and look at all of the notices you have blanked rather than responding to. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the next step, then? I'm ready to discuss this. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: The easiest one is WP:BRD. If an edit you have made is reverted, don't simply revert the reversion, but either move on or discuss the edit on the talk page of the article to attempt to gain concensus for the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I will cooperate from now on. I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

it is good to see you wiling to cooperate. One piece of advice I wil give you. A report was made on your talk page in refererence to you creating a second account to avoid your block, wether CUs or Sysops here wish to act on this I cannot say, I do not hold these positions on this wiki, I do on others. This is not the way to deal with being blocked, you can appeal the block and communicate, deal with the issue. It may lead to you being unblocked if the admins are saticfied. However, never avoid a block by making another account this is known as socking and can lead to an indefinite block. Just do not do this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the subject editor might like to explain (a) the lack of an edit summary, and (b) the lack of a supporting reference, for this edit here after making the comments above. William Harris (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, “I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored.” Question for @Ddum5347: what will you do if you open a talk page discussion and someone posts an objection to what you want to do and you don’t agree with that objection? (Back in October/November they were edit-warring a change into United Kingdom - this is happening not just on animal articles - despite being reverted by multiple editors. Eventually they did open a talk page thread but carried on with the edit warring after doing so. In fact, they didn’t even wait for a reply.) DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

For the edit on African golden wolf, I added felid competitors it shares its range with. I will add sources soon. And for the UK edits, that was when I edit warred without thinking. I'm not going to be doing that anymore. Consensus is needed. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Ddum. I hope you follow through. I see that an editor disputes the references you added to African golden wolf and reverted you. I’ll be interested to see how your follow through plays out there. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Great to read Ddum will be cooperating....proof is in the pudding now...i left a note on his/her talk page. I mentioned there he/she will also be on a short leash from many of us.... Pvmoutside (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has experienced Ddum's edit-warring first-hand, I have been watching this situation unfold for some time, and I am not confident that he fully understands the BRD process, even now. Several months ago, at List of mammals of South Australia, Ddum replaced "extinct in South Australia" with the contentious term "extirpated". Along with a couple of other editors, I raised the issue on his talk page - he briefly responded, but then blanked the page. The same issue occurred later on the Thylacine article, and this time he did take limited part in the talk page discussion (see Talk:Thylacine#Extirpated). He had been provided with three definitions from reputable dictionaries (as well as another from Wiktionary), but his response was, in my view, very underwhelming.

Due to Ddum being blocked for a period, I had until now refrained from reverting his changes to List of mammals of South Australia - back in December, he had reverted my restoration of the pre-edit-war status quo, with his edit summary including, "...Take this to the talk page". At the time, he didn't, which was a misuse of the BRD process because, as the editor making the contentious edits, the onus was on him to demonstrate that this was an improvement to the article.

As a test of Ddum's willingness to adhere to his commitment to cooperate, earlier today I restored the pre-edit-war status quo to List of mammals of South Australia, and opened the discussion on the article's talk page. Five hours later, Ddum reverted my edit, after adding this comment to the article's talk page, including the same, in my view, inadequate reference he had provided to the Thylacine discussion.

Although Ddum now appears to be more willing to engage in discussions with other editors, I fear that his propensity to engage in edit wars is undiminished. Bahudhara (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have states numerous times, this term is often used in biological articles, and is synonymous with local extinction. I don't know why you are so against using it, but it does not imply human causation of a population's extinction. The ref I provided is merely one instance of it being used [229], [230]. Also, you mindlessly reverted my edits, even though I added species that were not even on the list beforehand, and improved the article overall. My intent is to not edit-war, but to improve articles, and your aversion to the term has made you revert the article to its previous state several times. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"My intent is not to edit war" -- you must prove that by not edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, but this user's insistence has made it very difficult. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And at least one of the species that Ddum added to the list - feral water buffalo - doesn't even exist in South Australia! (If he'd bothered to read the ref he supplied, he would have seen that they exist only in the Top End of the Northern Territory.) I'll need to check the others he added. Bahudhara (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The bat species I added are native to the state. You didn't even address the rest of the things I said but alright then. Ddum5347 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ddum, I think it would be a good idea if you slowed your editing down. Your edits over the last few hours are giving the appearance of only partially getting it on edit warring. Our exchange at the talk page of African golden wolf tells me you don’t really get WP:SYNTH. It would be to your advantage to read over and really get familiar with policies like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW before going any further. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, “partially” getting it may be overstating it in your favour, looking at your 170+ edits (and what’s being posted to your talk page) over the 36 hours since you said this. You’re going too fast to take on board what’s being said to you. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Concur that you need to slow down. Also, stop changing phrasing just because you prefer a different version, especially in the lede of an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My current concerns: they are still editing at about 100 mph and continue to make needless changes to grammar and phrasing. When I asked them to stop doing this on their talk page, they accused me of berating them. Seriously, DDum, please slow down and stop the grammar and phrasing changes- if it isn't broken, don't fix it, because oftimes, your changes aren't an improvement on what was already there. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of Wikipedia's grammar and phrasing could do with adjustments, but I am not looking at any particular editors or edits. There exists the hazard that in re-jigging grammar it then becomes exactly how the original source wrote it, and then the section is blanked by one of our diligent copyright-patrollers, never to be restored. One needs to proceed with caution. William Harris (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass reverts

• Hippeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hippeus has a habit of mass reverting edits I have made on this article. He has done it here. [231] He has also done it in the past. [[232]]; [233]; [234]; [235]. As you can imagine, it is disheartening and impossible to make constructive improvements to an article when they are deleted without distinction, particularly when 1RR limits the amount of change one can make. Jontel (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jontel has a habit of edit-warring against consensus, for was sanctioned before, on the Atzmon article. He has been removing reliable sources, and has prefixed reliable sources, diff, with: "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively...", all the while adding extensive content from Atzmon's website. His response has been amazing:

" Almost all the other sources are not reliable or bitterly hostile, which affects their reporting. I do not think I am downplaying antisemitism. It is mentioned dozens of times in the article. The commentators were all Jewish. While this would normally not be relevant, it is relevant here where the discussion is around differing views of Jewish identity."

So according to Jontel, reputable media and scholars are "bitterly hostile". And "Jewish". In the recent bout he has been reintroducing content that was rejected by consensus last May-July.

Jontel has been warned this month by User:Nomoskedasticity for vandalism on David Miller (sociologist) and by warned by User:Pigsonthewing for original research on Emma Barnett. Jontel running to ANI after a single challenge of his edits is quite an escalation. Jontel is unable to edit these topics neutrally. --Hippeus (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring against consensus; rather Hippeus took it upon himself last year to revert repeatedly all changes en masse without consultation with anyone. Recently, other editors and I (mainly me) on Gilad Atzmon have been working to make the article more balanced instead of it being a highly critical near attack page. Again, Hippeus, who has not been involved recently, came in and reversed all the changes without justification. He should bring up content issues on the Talk page, but has failed to do so. Obviously, one does not include all reliable sources just because they are there if there is repetition. My description of the commentators was non-judgemental, relevant and accurate: Hippeus is perfectly at liberty to edit it or raise it on the Talk page. As the subject was what Atzmon said, using material from his website illustrated the issues and is permitted under WP:SELFPUB. I don't know why Hippeus should think it surprising that commentators take a strong view; it is in the nature of the subject. I did not vandalize David Miller (sociologist) and have asked User:Nomoskedasticity what change caused concern and not yet received a reply. I do not think I used original research on Barnett; I was quoting from the sources. This is all a diversion from the main point. How can anyone and why should anyone work to improve articles on Wikipedia when editors like Hippeus can descend at any time and reverse large amounts of consensual changes with mass reverts lacking any justification? This breaks all the rules of editors working together. Jontel (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Jontel's rewrite of the article. In May 2020 there was a clear consensus that Jontel's edits were tendentious, with User:RolandR, User:Drsmoo, User:Tritomex, User:Bobfrombrockley, and myself all agreeing against these changes. My actions were with in consensus. Jontel is breaking 1RR. I think this recent comment by User:SlimVirgin on Jontel's editing:

You're making edits in at least two articles about how many people did or didn't die, and you're edit-warring to retain a certain Holocaust-denial aspect.

on a the page of Nicholas Kollerstrom and some other page is relevant. Using self-published material by Holocaust deniers is an unacceptable standard of source use, and Jontel has clear issues on the wider topic.--Hippeus (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Attack page" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not suprising views of Atzmon are polarised given that its essentially an extension of WP:ARBPIA. Jontel, what's your justification for removing mentions of holocaust denial? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes pending discussion on the talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What mentions of Holocaust denial are you referring to? Jontel (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It was this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=1009286750&oldid=1009281937.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Jontel from WP:ARBPIA, with an WP:ARBEE one also remaining a likely outcome. Needless to say, logged WP:ACDS action. El_C 22:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page on Gilad Atzmon contains only few recent comments by either Jontel, or Hippeus. ANI reports should not occur before trying engaging in a discussion. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:TheLionHasSeen

User:TheLionHasSeen has made a particularly harmful comment against a user here: Talk:Texas#History section too specific. The comment claimed a user is pushing a "WP:Agenda of White supremacy as evidenced by their contribution history, targeting anything that goes against racial viewpoints of theirs, in particular". He then provided evidence that in no way backs this egregious claim. He attacked this user to silence them and interfere the discussion process in a talk page and appears to be attempting to dig up something on me, as said here, "Please investigate further Iamreallygoodatcheckers." This conduct is very inappropriate and his response was not to remove his comment or give a strong apology, but to continue to try and prove his point with more evidence that also fails to prove the user was a white supremacist. This conduct directly damages the discussion process in a talk page by quite literally scaring users that they will be labeled with a term as damaging as "white supremacy" if they were to contribute to a discussion. I'm not sure what should be done in this situation, but at the very least the user needs to be given a firm warning, which I have tried to do. Clear violation of WP:No personal attacks. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, but are we not currently still discussing this on the discussion page? If one can reason with me, with citations and philosophy, I am willing to act on good faith. I did not seek to attack them, nor to silence them, but made the statement that it appeared to be an agenda being pushed, with behavioral evidence among other things. I have neither dug up anything upon you, and neither made reference to you. I was instructing you to further investigate the other contributor and their contributions to Wikipedia. This is all now appearing to be either a trolling of me, or very poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Might I further add, this began with starting dialogue on reaching consensus with the article, and I as a contributor to that article had every right to participate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your right that it was a misunderstanding that you were trying to find something on me, I apologize for saying that now. But none of that changes you comments, which is the concern here, about the other user. Yes the discussion is still going on in the talk page, but attacking someone like that is not appropriate or helpful to that discussion. You can't just be going around saying someone is pushing an agenda of white supremacy when the evidence is not clear, like in this case. You have every right to participate like me or anyone else does in that discussion, and I want you to participate, but you attacked someone and I'm you worried may attack me or another user.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to forgo the contents of what was previously written, so here is what was better off written before the edit conflict here: Pardon me, but in response, this character was alleged in good faith and the term appear to refers to the allegation, upon participating in behavioral contributions pertaining to the anti-thesis of white supremacy with several articles related to the Horn of Africa by other non-related contributors (and again, notice the anti-thesis of it, where they attempt to utilize similar behaviors of two polar opposites). Further responding, I have provided extended contribution history pertaining to them, and per WP:blue, I am quite sure in 2021 character traits may be obvious with anyone's contribution history. In my personal instance I am termed a "historical and citation geek with dabs of philosophical intent" by several peers after reviewing my contributions here on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, continuing, I did not seek to attack them, nor silence them. I have also neither "dug up" any information on you, nor made reference to doing such; I have no time to investigate the wiki contributions of someone that does not warrant such a need (I participate often in sockpuppet investigations as a reporter and watchdog for Horn of Africa related articles, which is why in detail, and that was apparently volunteered upon me through consistent vandalism on such articles). Reading the discussion, I made no intent of seeking out any information you whatsoever, so that is a great and dangerous accusation of highest intent personally, and makes it seem as if one is a stalker, and that is horrible in my personal opinion. You were merely instructed to further investigate the other contributor through their contributions to this online encyclopedia. I fear this is now an instance of trolling or poor communication, moreso poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Now, that such rewritten defense has been published, it is quite alright as life is full of misunderstanding. Please refer to my revised comment which was intended to be published before the edit conflict, as I utilized WP:blue as a further defense of the commentary, in addition to the very detailed basis pertaining to claiming their appearance of an agenda being pushed. Thank you, and why personally attack you or others, or even them when there is no basis to do so? I have dealt with an issue similar to this I believe. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify I have apologized for saying he was trying to find something on me, I apologized above. I'm not claiming that he's stalking me or anything of that nature. My concern is with his unwarranted attack on a different user as I have stated above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, understand again, I have not verbatim said the contributor was a white supremacist but had the appearance of one, which has been the argument this whole time. I believe you are reading with emotion into my text written here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You believing that user has an appearance of white supremacy was not at all relevant to the discussion in that talk page. Under, WP:No personal attacks your not supposed to use someones political beliefs, even if there not mainstream, to invalidate their argument. Technically, even though white supremacy is disliked by you and me and many others it doesn't invalidate someone from editing Wikipedia. But thats all beyond the point because that user hasn't added anything condoning white supremacy and your speculation is wrong. Also I'm not aware of that user committing any policy violation. If you weren't trying to belittle them and silence their opinion, then why did you feel it was appropriate to ever bring that up? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be upon discerning the apparent motives through contribution history, I would argue, respectfully. I am not intending to invalidate their argument, but their contribution history as espoused within detail on that article's talk page appears to do it for them, fellow Wikipedian. Please reread the context of what has been explained several times before as well, before asking such a question in that manner, and making accusations of silencing them. They appear to have gotten tired of Wikipedia before I ever involved myself - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If I have yet to respond, I am sleeping. It is past midnight here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"User:TheLionHasSeen has made a particularly harmful comment against a user" The user in question is User:NorfolkIsland123, but neither of you bothered to inform him/her that the conversation concerns them. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would have thought it virtually impossible with their claim of quitting Wikipedia for its accused liberal bias of non-factual information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have not directly left a comment on NorfolkIsland123's talk page. I have pinged their name at least once on the Texas talk page, but I think they should be notified of this discusssion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry that I didn't see the message earlier. I have been really busy and haven't been too active on Wikipedia recently. The comment about me being a white supremacist was very hurtful and disappointing. In this day and age, it seems like people who have opposite political biases use extreme descriptions to describe people who disagree with them. I am not white supmreacist and find anyone who believes in any nonsense that includes one group being superior to another group of people because of the color of skin, their creed, their ethnicity, etc. very sickening. An apology would be nice. Thank you. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Genocides in history (before World War I)

Various POV-driven IPs and accounts are causing large-scale disruption to the sensitive article Genocides in history (before World War I). Where they are either unilaterally removing Genocides from the list (such as the Armenian Genocide) against WP:CONSENSUS, or are trying to add non-genocides to the list (such as the Batak massacre) even though there is no academic consensus to call it as such. Attention is urgently needed. I already have filled request [236] for a temporary full page protection here at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but it is taking too long. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See my protection summary. But why are you asking for full protection? That generally involves legit content disputes, and is largely employed to curtail edit warring among established users, more often than not, ones who enjoy EC user right access (i.e. thereby often rendering WP:ECP meaningless). But these are all IPs, so semi is really the only option here. Just for future reference. El_C 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for good recordkeeping, refactoring my note at RfPP (diff) before it falls into the depths of the abyss: As mentioned at ANI, this page isn't a candidate for full protection at this time, but due to its sensitive nature, will need to be watched closely, indefinitely (I'm predicting an indef semi in its future). Its import is such that disruption (advocacy) needs to be curtailed especially swiftly and decisively. El_C 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) El_C 15:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: actually, the article saw disruption by both IPs and registered editors (of whom the one got blocked by Ymblanter for 72 hours). Had it been just IPs doing the disruption, a semi-protection would have made the most sense otherwise. However, I am still happy and won't ask for Full Protection anymore, because I am content that your strict warning [237] will be heeled and everyone will approach the sensitive article with more caution the next time. Thank you very much and my apologies in advance for having to come both here and to the Page Protection noticeboard, I did because of its very sensitive nature. Also I find myself absolutely endorsing your statement. Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize, indeed, this is a legit RfPP-to-ANI refactor. Noting of there having been two disruptive autoconfirmed accounts (both indeffed) and 5 disruptive IPs (page created 22 January 2021‎). Anyway, the point is that, per WP:ECP: [Only] [w]here semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption. The rare exception to that would be with the extra discretion afforded by DS/GS. For sure, glad I could help! El_C 15:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I note that one reverter in that article is User: Cengizsogutlu, who I have already partial blocked from Operation Claw-Eagle 2 for POV edit-warring and who is currently edit warring on Turkish Land Forces... perhaps a topic ban may be incoming? Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I just had to revert now [238] the editor from inserting fantasy claims into the article's infobox, according which the Turkish Land Forces were founded... 2.000 years ago. I have looked anywhere in Wikipedia but I wouldnt find any rules in Wikipedia permitting the use of Infoboxes for WP:PROPAGANDA purposes citing WP:PRIMARY sources. The common practice in Wikipedia is to cite only factual information into infoboxes (a good example of this are the: Greek Armed Forces article infobox, which is carefully avoiding fantasy claims). If a temporary topic ban is what can help editors understand that unhelpful edits aren't the way to go, then I support it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Same claim for the date of founding is in the Turkish Armed Forces article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• See User talk:Cengizsogutlu#New partial blocks (diff — in the likely case it is removed). As noted there, indeed, as far as mild measures go, this probably counts as a last chance saloon before we go the TBAN route. El_C 17:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is irrelevant, not like the previous one I just reverted once and I get the warning.This is not fair, I wrote the reason next to it when i revert.I did not disrespect or exaggerate anybody. I stated the correct official source if you look at logo of Turkish Land Forces you will see founded 209 BC and also on their official site and even on every insignia about genocides i re added/ reverted Batak massacre You claim that it is not a holocaust/genocide, but in the article it is stated that it is an obvious genocide. And that's why I reverted... I don't want you to reverse the blocking, just the warnings are unnecessary 3-4 times I'll pay more attention from now on, but if discussion is prohibited then remove the talk page as well.. Kindly regards Cengizsogutlu (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, Batak massacre is not described as a genocide (and "holocaust," really?). Your comment inspires little confidence otherwise, as well. We're probably treating you in too lax a manner, is my strong impression. El_C 17:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Black Kite: - sorry for the ping here but I wanted to inform you that Cengizsogutlu isn't counted in the new consensus formed in the talk page of the Turkish Land Forces. The consensus is to alleviate the editorial concerns by following Wikipedia's rules and common practices, which is to avoid anachronistic, exaggerated date of founding claims (propaganda) from being given more WP:DUE promince by placing it on the article's Lead section or the Infobox. The contentious date is still mentioned (just for the sake of compromise with the other editorial side) on History section and I believe that's fair and as far as it can get considering it is unsupported by any serious academic scholars and the source cited is WP:PRIMARY. The Talk Page consensus diff can be read here: [239]. Let me know if I missed something. Good day everyone! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident, sorry for the belated response. I've just given Cengizsogutlu an ARBKURDS DS alert in light of their latest edit earlier today (diff). This is not looking promising, I'm sorry to say. El_C 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? Half of the texts on that page were written by me. You don't have to waste time to block me If you want, block me completely. If you are going to leave a follow-up note on everything, this place is no different than a chicken coop. No need to constantly find flaws and prevent banning policy.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Also chek this page of Iran Islamic Republic of Iran Army I'm not the only one doing this perhaps..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What about this?Russian Armed Forces 16. Century?Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, it doesn't matter that half of the texts on that page were written by [you] — please see WP:OWN— what matters is that you revert a lot, but use article talk pages seldom. That's a problem, which I'm trying to make you cognizant of. El_C 06:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems Cengizsogutlu is interested in the Iranian Army's article given that they are pointing to it containing in its infobox a propagandistic claim that the Islamic army was founded 3.000 years ago, yet I do not see the editor actually trying to be useful by fixing it instead of arguing here. Their toxic attitude and edit warring behavior aren't useful. I would advice that they change course before it is too late. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Agenthercules14

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

---

• Agenthercules14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Agenthercules14 continues to make similar edits across multiple articles despite being reverted by multiple editors. I should point out that their edits are not really vandalism, however, they continue to restore their edits, despite explanations given for why they are being reverted. On top of that, they are not using the edit summary and are not responding on their talk page to explain their edits.

I have tried reaching out to this editor on their talk page, but they have clearly ignored it. They have also ignored the edit summaries explaining why they were being reverted. I warned them that they would be reported if they continued to make their edits without any explanation. They ignored this and continued to make the same edits, still without explanation.

Based on their editing history, this is a newer editor, or at the very least, a new account, as it is only about two months old. However, I feel it should be noted that they have previously been reported for similar disruptive editing.

Example of recent actions at article, WWE New Year's Revolution:

• I made this edit to clean up the article some and bring it closer to MOS standards.
• Agenthercules14 made this edit without an edit summary, reverting what I had done to the infobox, despite my explanation in my previous edit summary.
• I reverted him, again explaining the issue.
• Agenthercules14 reverted, again with no explanation.
• I reverted, asking them to please stop ignoring the edit summaries.
• Agenthercules14 continued to ignore the edit summary and reverted again.
• Another editor reverted them.
• Agenthercules14, still not explaining himself, reverted again.
• The other editor reverted them again.
• Agenthercules14 reverted, again no edit summary.
• I reverted them, explaining that I warned them about their continued reverts.
• Agenthercules14 ignored that and reverted again.
• I reverted and am now here making this report.

Similar actions have been done by Agenthercules14 on similar pages where myself and the other editor mentioned have continuously had to revert Agenthercules14. --JDC808 ♫ 09:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

The editor Prunexor (talk · contribs · logs) is making serious personal attacks against me:

• Listen, man. Are you freaking out there just because I spoke badly of your sacred "socialism", then do Tag Team with 2 socialist users and keep putting pressure on me in a cowardly way, why is this all? FREAKED OUT? Are you crazy or what? What kind of childish little behavior, did you see? If you think you own Wikipedia, do you think you are a superstar because it appeared in the newspaper, "Heitor C. Jorge"? Dude, you need to disconnect from this world and go and breathe a new air. You're crazy, you don't respect anything and nobody. I am older than you; I work every day and I don’t waste my life thinking that I’m some kind of avenging superhero who’s going to change the world through Wikipedia, no. You will talk to your parents instead of attacking strangers on the internet, you freak. (translated from Portuguese)

• You are a born loser, go there and use your little junk power that nobody cares about. (translated from Portuguese)

• STOP CHILDHOOD, Chronus. You are just another nobody with God's syndrome. You freaked out, you're going to take Rivotril, you nut. Respect others. (translated from Portuguese)

• But first of all, run over to your mom and dad and let them know that you are in a state of continuous dementia and think you are important for using Wikipedia, you will die being an irrelevant maniac. (translated from Portuguese)

This "editor" has previously been alerted by other users, such as Ashleyyoursmile, Moxy and Lennart97, but he preferred to become more and more aggressive instead of following the rules of the project. Chronus (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A few of us have tried to communicate with this editor to no avail. Realizing today that perhaps they don't speak English. That said I would normally try to explain the problem edits to a new editor ... but seeing the translation of the only replies we've gotten from this person....they are clearly not the type of editor we need here.Moxy- 02:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Prunexor for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They do speak English, for the record; just see the latest section at Talk:Brazil. They've made it abundantly clear there that they are unable to edit collaboratively; any editor who disagrees with their political POV is labelled a "radical Marxist socialist". While still behaving semi-civilly at that talk page, it seems they didn't feel the need to hold back when writing in Portuguese. This well-deserved block will probably be seen as proof that Wikipedia is a grand socialist conspiracy... Lennart97 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense of course, it's an open secret that WP is controlled by the Illuminati. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Boyonahill – COI editor unwilling to abide by Wiki policies

Hi. On 3 March, Boyonahill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s unsourced additions were reverted by multiple editors at Alex Glasgow: [240], [241], [242].

After the second revert, they posted to @NoahDavid771:'s Talk page: [243], indicating they had been editing the article for a while and claiming to be son of the article's subject. I assume they have previously edited as GlasgowDan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted to their Talk page explaining why they'd been reverted. They did not respond.

Instead, they continued with their unsourced additions which I reverted: [244], [245]. One of their edit summaries included multiple violations of WP:NPA: "distruptive editing and vindictive and not in the line of being welcoming to new members....what is this to you? it means nothing you pedant. go and do something useful you are petty minded".

I again posted to their Talk page with explanations and suggestions how to handle their COI. They replied on my Talk page with further abuse and stated their intent to start socking if they were to be blocked: [246]. At this point, I think a block is in order. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boyonahill, you have to stop. I understand that for you the memory of your father overrides your knowledge of what Wikipedia is and how it works, but you have to stop. Please consider this a final warning for inserting unverified content, for edit warring over that content, for personal attacks. You must understand that the Wikipedia editors you are fighting with want the article to be as good and fair as possible, but within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. And you have to operate within those as well. So please, no more of this. Why don't you go figure out what kind of sourcing you can bring to the article, and discuss it with the editors on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your empathetic message to Boyonahill is commendable and I really hope it helps them to understand. Unfortunately, they have been making further unsourced additions since you wrote here. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:TheriusRooney: WP:RADAR, WP:OR, Copyvios, no edit summaries, etc.

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

---

TheriusRooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A quick glance at their talk page shows an editor who is trying to fly under the radar. Further looking through the page will show numerous copyvio issues, articles being made WP:TOOSOON and sent to draftspace only to rot and be deleted (7 total edits in draftspace), and a general unwillingness to WP:COMMUNICATE. Going through contribs reveals numerous additions of original research (often of the trivial kind)[247], inappropriate page moves [248], and generally unhelpful edits (here's a manual revert of 9 of TheriusRooney's edits.

In 10 years of editing, they have made a total of 13 edits to UserTalkspace and 8 edits to Wikipediaspace including this gem from May 2019. Furthermore, I have noticed a distinct lack of edit summaries. I think it's clear at this point that the user doesn't want to communicate, make whatever edits they want, and leave us to clean the mess. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Babel userboxes here imply this user may not be particularly comfortable with English. ("en-3" is a hell of a range.) Do they have any cross-project work on idwiki? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently they do indeed have 2042 edits on idwiki, but again, the same patterns arise in that 0 of those edits are in User Talk and none at quick glance have edit summaries. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like they're WP:NOTLISTENING, as they're still making OR trivial edits [249], rather than communicating on this ANI. I've only come across this editor a few times, but it does seem like these sort of edits are a pattern- I came across this ANI as I was going to warn the user about unsourced, OR trivial edits, and then found there was this thread for it. Editors who don't communicate and have lots of problems tend to be a net negative to Wikipedia- we had a similar case for a football/soccer editor a few weeks back (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#User refusing to talk or collaborate), which resulted in a block until they agree to talk and collaborate with people. I think similar would be justified here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. They are a clear net-negative to the project, in my opinion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They should have been blocked a long time ago. I have corrected that oversight. I will also refer this user to WP:CCI - I have seen this behavior many times before, and every time there are more copyvios. MER-C 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

POS78

• POS78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long history of moving articles without any form of discussion, let alone WP:CONSENSUS. I've tried to explain to him a zillion times that he just can't do that, yet that hasn't stopped him. Can a admin please do something about this?

Some examples:

[250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not intend to sabotage, I just think there could be a better title in the articles, Well, I try not to repeat it And I use Wikipedia:Requested moves POS78 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What you think is a better title is irrelevant, we have a rule called WP:COMMON NAME. You've already said this before [257]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia encourages being WP:BOLD including with non controversial page moves. I don't have an opinion re the specifics, but I do think after being notified about it, it would be good for POS78 to make an effort and post on talk page, before making a move in the future. If after a week there's no objection, or clear consensus, then make the move? Shushugah (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I promise you this will not happen again And I do not transmit an article without consensus Unless the title is completely wrong, Is that enough for you? POS78 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like POS78 has apologized and promised that the issues will not continue. If they do, please don't hesitate to let me know on my user talk page and I'll be happy to look into it further. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Btw @Oshwah: could you please move Miral castle back to its original name Château de Miral? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the beginning of February he has created over 500 new articles. That's quite a lot! It's hard to verify all of them especially when the citations added a lot of the time I have found don't work. I don't know about other people but this feels excessive! Kinda disturbing in a way. Govvy (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the articles created are lists in which the text of the entries in the list are copied and pasted from existing articles without giving attribution, for example List of caves in Jamaica. --John B123 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation/ potential sock

Hi All, Wmax sopra has been making unconstructive edits and has claimed to be me on LGBT rights in South Korea. Their edit summary states: "Hello, I'm Archives908. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks." Furthermore, this user has made identical edits as the blocked account User:JDQUD1 due to the same pattern of WP:SOAPBOX on the talk pages of Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, LGBT rights in Europe‎, among others. I have left two warnings on their new talk page, but I believe this user is not here to genuinely build this encyclopedia. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for block evasion. El_C 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applied to LGBT rights in Europe‎ and LGBT rights in South Korea, noting obcious WP:ARBGG facets, but otherwise an un-logged action. El_C 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Phantom Hoover blanket reverts all helpful edits, most of which were encyclopedic, and attempts to gaslight.

I recently revamped the page List of space flight simulation games to meet our guidelines better. I removed redlinks, I removed primary sources, obvious promotions, spam, and content that had been long tagged as unsourced. I also linked to other notable articles, condensed the article to flow better and added subsections, and also did numerous typographical and syntax corrections (such as adding italics to titles, for consistencies sake. I removed duplicates and also updated the article due to many cancelled games not being indicated as such, and also updating games from years ago that were in the works, and were cancelled, or released. Here is my first edit: [258] and here is my last: [259].

User:Phantom Hoover did a blanket revert of all of my edits and then used gaslighting in their summary "Re-add enormous section of the article, listing space combat games, which was apparently deleted accidentally.") Clearly they could have rede my edit summary and seen my motives, instead they decided to issue a disruptive blanket reversion that added all of that back, and they did not attempt to improve the article after that. Not only that, but there were numerous helpful edits by @Jnnnnn: ([260]) and @Sundhaug92: ([261]) that were reverted and disregarded by the user. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/997960415 may be the issue. A vandal blanked a section and it was never noticed. Numerous edits were made and then the revert of the vandal happened. A little editing and everyone's work can be restored. Phantom Hoover should have been more careful but maybe not an intentional gaslighting 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Chalk it up to a mixup, I guess...? El_C 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be really careful about misusing the colloquial-but-meaningful verb "to gaslight". This isn't what it means. No person B appears to have been trying to make any person A believe that person A is too mentally ill to be able to trust person A's own perceptions of reality. Person B was possibly doing their best just to WP:AGF: "this might not have been what someone meant to do". If there is an ongoing history of bad relations between person A and person B, then that's a whole 'nother story, but I'm not aware of any such history here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul

KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul is obviously looking to create pages for themselves as seen on their talk page. No diffs are really needed right now. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think they want to create pages, they seem to want the opposite, to remove an article about themselves. It has been PRODded. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

For sake of writing this here, the user has the same writing style and behavior as MommaBaker60, who also claims to be Kokumo. - GoatLordServant^{(Talk - Contribs)} 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) To expand on that they want an article if they are the only one that can edit it(which we don't do). They don't want "privileged white men" editing about them. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

She's very quick to call everything we say harassment, racist, misogyny, transphobic, and so forth. Sadly, it's still evident that they haven't read any of the policies we have presented. - GoatLordServant^{(Talk - Contribs)} 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, exactly! The first message on my talk page is evidence. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the place for this observation, but there's something odd about the article at the moment. It looks like it's conflating two people into one subject - from a quick poke around the Scottish Poetry Library website and a couple of publishers' sites, I don't think that the Scottish poet Fadeke Kokumo Rocks, who was born in Cowdenbeath, is the same as the writer from Chicago that most of the article's about. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the comments on SoyokoAnis's talkpage from them fall foul of WP:NPA and demonstrate to me that they're not here to engage and edit collaboratively, only to try and own an article about themselves. Everything I've seen has been by Wikipedia policy from people, and it's not okay to call people racist misogynists when they disagree with you, and when you don't understand how Wikipedia works properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302, is a permenate block okay? It's also sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoyokoAnis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it sockpuppetry per se. The user announced that the new account was replacing the original account. (Their intent was improper, but there's nothing socky about the behavior.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sports vandal

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

---

Can we please get a WP:NOTHERE block for Vrayar? Almost every single one of this user's edits were minor vandalism and have been reverted: Special:Contributions/Vrayar SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m just editing for fun SportingFlyer. Then I let Wikipedia revert it to the way it was. Don’t need to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrayar (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. As I note in your block log, "just editing for fun" doesn't cut it. You're fucking around, making work for other people, and haven't agreed to stop, so I've blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think that is a defining example of WP:NOTHERE... --Jack Frost (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Bullying by Vaselineeeeeeee

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

---

This user is bullying other people like in this edit. Block please! I am who i wanna be (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Morales Garcia, who has a long history of edit warring over these topics. This user should probably be added to the sockpuppet list! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Boomarangaroony. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Block please! Don't mind if I do! El_C 01:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 88.230.170.179 and 88.230.175.118

The IPs repeatedly make edits to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) without making any effort to resolve content dispute:

Old IP: [262] [263] [264] [265] [266]

New IP: [267] [268] [269] [270]

A source was added but the user continues making the same edit after being warned on both IPs and is unwilling to discuss the changes. Soapwort (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I warned 88.230.170.179 (talk · contribs) who has recently been edit warring. 88.230.175.118 (talk · contribs) last edited on 21 February 2021 and can be ignored for the moment. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive reversions by Mr. Matté

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

---

This user came to my attention after reverting my addition to Maine State Route 395, claiming that it was a "test edit". How is that a test edit? He also claimed that there were no sources for my edit, despite them being plainly visible on MaineDOT's website. How is this an acceptable behavior? Pelham87 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I do suggest you try to resolve the issue on your own or at dispute resolution before bringing it to ANI, though, unless you already did that. 4D4850 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87, it is quite common in certain circumstances for a reviewer to reinstate a redirect if an article isn't ready for article space. I see that Mr. Matté left a note on your talk page commenting on the article, and explaining why he felt it wasn't ready to be published. I suggest that you engage with him and talk through the issues - you haven't provided evidence of a chronic or urgent behavioural issue that needs admin intervention. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@GirthSummit why are you deleting people’s comments? Pelham87 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87 Because they were off-topic - this noticeboard deals with conduct issues, it's not the place to discuss content issues. That said, the second comment was focussed on contentconduct, so I'll leave that in place.

Now, here's a question for you: you reinstated your edit here, without addressing the issue that Mr. Matté raised with it, which is that it does not support the changes that you made to the article (which it clearly does not). Why did you do that, rather than discussing the issue? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the sources were easy to find, and if he wants them so badly he can add them to the article himself. Be the person to bell the cat. Pelham87 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87, I don't know what bell the cat means. Are you seriously saying that you think it's OK to make substantial changes to articles without providing a source, and that it's OK to reinstate those changes when someone reverts you? (Hint: read WP:BOOMERANG before responding.) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, to bell the cat means to just do it and don’t argue, like what you are doing here. Anyway, I am not violating WP:3RR, and BRD is happening here. Pelham87 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Um actually, bell the cat means to propose that someone else do a difficult and dangerous task. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pelham87, the onus is on you to provide the source when someone disputes your change, not on them to go and find it for you. You don't need to breach 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, that's just the bright-line point at which you will almost certainly be blocked. The D part of BRD should come before the reinstatement. I suggest that you either find a source to support the changes you made, or self-revert. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Pelham87 for disruptive editing (see the history of this page). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, there's a familiarity here with Wikipedia policies and noticeboards that's not normally found in accounts less than a week old. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, the same thought had crossed my mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I don't know the master but is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime a possibility? (Feel free to delete this per WP:DENY.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, honest answer is I don't know. I'm not familiar with that particular puppeteer, I can't rule anything in or out, but would obviously be happy for anyone with concrete suspicions to raise an SPI report with details for review. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've saved anyone the paperwork, and added an ILT CU block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Zzuuzz, and a tilt of the hat towards Nil Einne. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

And indeed, a CU link was found: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Morales Garcia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Efe Alt

Efe Alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• As you can see by his/her edits, he/she is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

They have now created WBQE-LP, a failed redirect to itself. It is already tagged for speedy deletion, but it seems that Efe Alt lacks the necessary skills to edit here: of the 5 articles they created, 3 are already deleted, the above one will soon be deleted, and [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American television stations available in the Caribbean the fifth is at AfD] and heading for deletion. And Template:American stations in Caribbean TV is also up for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Walled garden around Mika Simmons

• Mika Simmons
• Gynaecological Cancer Fund
• Lady Garden Campaign

A trio of promotional pieces. Alabama73 (talk · contribs) has been persistent in adding promotional and poorly sourced content, and claims to be Ms. Simmons [271]. The account has a long term WP:COI interest here, [272]. All the articles were created by different WP:SPAs, so it may be worth doing a sock check--my money is on all being connected to Alabama73, or at least to one another. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've indeffed Alabama73 from editing the Mika Simmons article as this editor claims to be the subject of the article. Editing by Alabama 73 at the other two articles has not been investigated, but it may be that a similar sanction is needed there. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at Simmons' biography now. A major problem is that there is citable information, but a lot of it is in the Daily Mail. I need to go and dig through the editor history more thoroughly, but as far as I can tell, the basic story is Simmons thought she should have a WP biography and paid somebody to do it - of course we all know that's a silly thing to do, but if you've got no expertise in writing WP articles, it's the sort of mistake you can make. As for the article block, that's probably the right decision but I would just caution everyone to take things easy and not go on the "COI Editor! Spam! Spam! Spam! Get Rid!" rampage just yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've had a look at the article and was going to drop a note on her talk page to ask if she had a WP:RS for the elusive "chosen as one of 40 inspirational women to front L’Oréal Lancôme's powerful women campaign" which seems too precise to be a total fantasy but is untraceable except to connected sources or wiki mirrors. But I find she has already been indef blocked, while this ANI was open. PamD 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PamD, She hasn't been indeffed everywhere, just from editing Mika Simmons. So she should be able to still communicate; although I think she hasn't picked up on what talk pages are yet, and today went to the AFC help desk to get assistance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Ah, Thanks. I think I read that but didn't register it - first time I've seen an article-specific block like that. PamD 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's apparent that Ms. Simmons is still under the impression that Wikipedia is a venue for promotion of herself and her charity work [273] (By the way, I'd check that post to PamD's page to make sure there's no copyright violation therein; I'm seeing a lot of identical content at [274], though I don't know which came first). When that's the misapprehension, every removal of inappropriate content and each warning against its restoration are viewed as personal attacks. The decision to remove her from autobiographical involvement is justified, as is greater attention to the satellite articles. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• My thanks also to El_C for rev/deleting all the copyright violation edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• For sure, IP. Good catch. I've also pointed out these issues to the user/subject: User_talk:Alabama73#Possible_copyright_breaches_at_Mika_Simmons_and_elsewhere. Thanks again — best IP, ever! Though I'm admittedly biased about that due to compliment monster. El_C 18:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• What struck me, El_C, was the similarity--if not in scale, then intent--to Michael Harris (producer) and the killer whale articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• IP, RE: whales — gotta nuke somethin'. Also, speaking of which, again, I ask: am I Sea Captain now? (diff). El_C 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Different user: KillerWhaleGuy

Hello Sea Captain? KillerWhaleGuy here, with apologies if I may not have seen or responded to much of the discussion about my first foray into Wikipedia editing, which obviously has not gone well. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, I've used Wikipedia for years and some of these articles for as long and yet I've never tried to edit. I have clearly made many mistakes. But as I've expressly assured the Wikipedia folks, I have absolutely no association with the subjects or previous editors. I just want the proper story told, as it is known to us here in the Pacific Northwest. Our newspapers and television news documented the Luna and Springer stories on an almost daily basis, and all of those orca articles have been preserved by government and non-government organizations. If not with active links, then they are easily retrievable. And as a new editor I've relied on a book documenting all of these events, which won Fortune Magazine's "Best Nature Non-Fiction" award, "OPERATION ORCA: Springer, Luna and the Struggle to Save West Coast Killer Whales." Its references and other news reports of the two years of Luna's life and his increased interactions with humans are absolutely critical to his life story. Its omission is glaring. Again, my apologies for fumbling through this first experience editing on Wikipedia, but I believe in the platform and hope to contribute regularly. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, my opinion as regards any similarities between some of these articles is that I have slso noticed that there are some similarities, and that would not surprise me. Perhaps that is because the same author/s produced the Springer (orca) and Luna (killer whale) pages? That would be a reasonable expectation as both of those orca efforts overlapped with the same Seattle people involved, including Michael Harris, Fred Felleman, and Jeff Foster. My guess might be someone involved with the charity orgs OrcaLab in BC or Orca Conservancy in Seattle at that time, almost twenty years ago? I am aware of the groups and have supported their efforts, as a guy who loves killer whales!! But I know Orca Conservancy especially used to be all over the news here in the Pacific Northwest during these orca rescues and that could've prompted any one to author articles. I think as long as they followed Wikipedia rules it seems the only important thing is that their contributions are properly cited to reliable sources. Upon reading Springer, it appears they are properly cited and reliable. With few exceptions, Springer also seems to be written in an objective, neutral way. Thanks again for this discussion and I'll keep checking in for responses. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KillerWhaleGuy, you write on your talk page about the Orca Conservancy, an organization that I have donated to over the years and have followed closely, as a person who loves orcas. Now, I'm not sure that counts as a conflict of interest (likely), but regardless, the problem is that your editing do come across as advocacy, which, indeed, those pages seem to have have sustained a lot of over the years. So, that remains a problem, I'm afraid. El_C 04:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and response. Following closely a charitable organization should not disqualify me for conflict of interest, no more than an author following closely any subject he/she edits would disqualify. My read of the rules is that it does not constitute COI. But in full transparency I wanted to respond to the question put to me. And to be clear -- I am NOT currently a member of Orca Conservancy, and my support for the group has only been in the form of volunteering for events in the past. It has been at least 10 years since I have done that. The fact is, I followed closely every group and government agency involved in these orca rescues here in the Pacific Northwest, including the media reports on Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, both negative and positive. The COI here if any appears to be someone associated with the primary subjects of the article now and to promote their commercial documentaries, as each edit that includes reliably cited material noting their non-permitted interaction (called "controversial" by the LA Times but described as "stewardship" by the editors/authors) continues to be removed from this article. My intent on this article is not to take sides on the matter, but certainly to not allow an editor or editors associated with this important article diminish the critical role of others and elevate themselves. IF I CONTINUE TO BE BLOCKED from editing this article and anything you call "whale-esque," I will need have a clearer reason why that is the case. Outside of some form issues, which I admit and will correct, I am not outside the rules. PLEASE UN-LOCK THESE ARTICLES and allow me an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia, as I've been trying to do. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

HELLO ALL... This is KillerWhaleGuy, a new editor to Wikipedia, and YES, I have in fact been attempting to communicate on the labyrinth of fora associated with Wikipedia. The content I have added and in some case restored are and were absolutely verifiable and cited to reliable sources. On the other hand, the substantial current content attributed to Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, with the resulting product looking like a promotion for their films. And YES, as I've admitted, I mistakenly listed all of my edits as "minor" and have been advised on avoiding that for future contributions. It will not happen again. But I certainly plan on continuing my contributions to the Luna (killer whale) article and any related pages that may have been improperly edited. This is not a matter of conduct, but learning the protocols. And again, to be expressly clear, I have no association with the subjects or previous editors on these pages, with the possible exception of perhaps using the same common server with a previous editor here at a very large, public business (I do not own) in Seattle, which provides free WiFi to scores of customers, clients and tenants every day. I am simply a Washington resident who has followed orca stories in this region for decades, particularly the rescue attempts of the orcas Springer and Luna, led by local groups and individuals like Jeff Foster, Michael Harris, Fred Felleman, Paul Spong, OrcaLab and Orca Conservancy. Those who followed the Luna story also know that several publications at the time, including the Los Angeles Times and the award-winning book OPERATION ORCA (Harbour Press), included notable criticisms of Parfit and Chisholm's interactions with Luna, which they documented and made into their film. The Times called it a "controversial proposal" to become Luna's "Human Pod," and a top scientist expressed deep concerns about potential harm they would cause. And yet, that content continues to be removed by an editor without explanation. We in the Pacific Northwest take our orca stories very seriously, and so this article will continue to see changes. I will continue to get better up to speed on the rules of the Wikipedia Community and contribute to this and other articles. And I will do a better job of communicating when I do. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

KillerWhaleGuy, honestly, I think it's better that you restrict yourself to article talk pages and edit requests for any and all affected pages, at least for the time being, until we figure out what's what. El_C 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)]]

I would respectively ask that no restrictions be placed on my editing, and that you don't "nuke the whales." Wikipedia needs to have neutral and unabridged articles on these stories. After the blocks are lifted from my editing, if I fail to follow style, protocols or rules of the Community, then block me permanently. But I promise you I won't. I've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks. I will look for your decision here on this Notice Board. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

KillerWhaleGuy, that's a noble sentiment, but again, you gotta nuke somethin'! Anyway, the restrictions have already been imposed, including the partial blocks, whose duration I've set not to expire. But, as mentioned on your talk page, if another uninvolved admin sees it different, we can certainly look into maybe adjusting these, possibly even lifting them outright. To reiterate, I don't think that's likely to happen, but am more than happy to give it more time, just in case, before concluding this portion of the report. El_C 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As a refresher to any passing admins who don't know why a partial block was imposed, per previous threads at ANI: this is KWG's edit history: [275]. It was comprised of two interests, the addition of copyright violation content to Luna (killer whale), and the restoration of unsourced and promotional content at Michael Harris (producer). I detailed in two previous reports that both articles have a history of related promotional edits, and don't think this ought to be continuously re-litigated. The restriction to talk pages is more than generous; the thread here is further evidence of a single purpose of advocacy. As with previous edits to these articles, the abiding impression is that someone--or multiple someones-- associated with Mr. Harris are involved. But no matter; WP:COI doesn't necessarily need to be proven. The activity speaks for itself. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2C2B:FB39:A295:F543 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:193.143.239.108

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

---

193.143.239.108 (talk · contribs) is tauntingly wanting to be blocked [276], and has seemingly called people coming to their user talk page "stupid" [277]. This user has blanked material [278][279], and vandalized articles [280][281]; all on 2021 March 4 -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Their wish is my marching orders, or something. El_C 00:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Their every desire is your whim? Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, it seems to be some sort of a weird pattern — see thread directly below! El_C 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

InvestigativeNews

Told to take this here from WP:AIV; thought it was obvious spam. User:InvestigativeNews is spamming nonsense, possibly legal threats (although it is impossible to tell), across various talk pages. See Special:Contributions/InvestigativeNews. I am inexperienced, so if more detail is necessary, can provide. Urve (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they want to add information about a lawsuit, not make legal threats, at least from what I see. The trouble is that the lawsuit does not seem to be covered in RS. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I read their messages as entirely just raising awareness for the lawsuit to random people, not trying to get inclusion somewhere. Mea culpa. As for legal threats, I didn't think they were, but AIV admin said it's possible so just wanted to include it if possible. Possibly shared by many people based on "we" on their talk. Urve (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with 331dot. They're not making legal threats. However it does look like a single purpose account and has failed to heed recommendations on WP:NPOV/WP:RS. Not to mention a WP:BLP violation, to name people involved in a lawsuit with no news/secondary coverage. For that reason alone, worth blocking imho, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SUSPECT Shushugah (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, that username is dodgy to say the least. Deb (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for the username currently, however I do have concerns with their editing as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

12 O'Clock Boyz doesn't even seem like it should exist, the only sources are to the US Copyright Office. ValarianB (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My thought also. I've AFDed it. Executive summaries of the lawsuits mentioned in the AFD can be found at User talk:InvestigativeNews, above my {{Afd notice}}. Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to question if this user is here to build an encyclopedia. See this recent edit to the AFD: here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Four keep !votes in one AFD might be considered excessive. Especially with the tone of that last one. Narky Blert (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that the user created a new account, User:Matt at InvestigativeNews, rather than waiting for a rename. They are claiming to work as a journalist, but have not actually declared their COI or if they are a paid editor. Plus their comment Please do not disturb this Contributor with trivial matters does not inspire confidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe this should be looked at.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee

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

---

For the past 4 months me and this user have been engaging in some adversarial altercations. While you can recall retrospect by checking our talk page in Vito Rizzuto. And others. Where I continuously was editing and removing terms incurring violations of MOSCONTEXTBOI. Yesterday I edited Nicolo Rizzuto's page. And a new user Simsmacked with no new edits supported my side of the bargain. Considering the enmity between us. The user made false accusations against me and reported me for Sockpuppetry. Which turned out to be false. I left Vito Rizzuto's page and after 4 months got on Nicolo Rizzuto. And you can check my edits. Under which guidelines I operated. While the other user just kept on editing on basis of his perception. I believe this bad blood is going too far. And considering my inferior stature. I'd rather an administrator take this into his hands.Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying by Vaselineeeeeeee and archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327#Concerning behaviour. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jack Morales Garcia, what is it that you're actually asking for here? You were implicated in an SPI, which clearly had merit because it caught a whole bunch of socks. Your account was not found to be part of the socking, but there was obviously something funny going on, and I'm sure Vaselineeeeeeee raised the report in good faith. He hasn't reverted you at Nicolo Rizzuto, or at any of the other articles you've edited in the last few days, so I'm not clear on what is it that you're actually reporting here, or what it is you want to happen. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can't keep up, keep trying to tag and fix the report and notify, etc. But yes, what Girth said, what exactly is the complaint here? What is going on that is beyond the capacity of you to handle and requires an admin get involved? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unless I'm misreading the outcome of that SPI, two socks of Jack Morales Garcia were confirmed by the checkuser (Simsmackerel and Simon Niclas Miller), in addition to the separate group of unrelated socks. Number 57 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Number 57, correct, I just reviewed it and blocked the OP for two weeks, and the socks indefinitely. Jack Morales Garcia if you do something like that again, your next block will likely be indefinite. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Apologies for the itchy head moment Floquenbeam - on a cursory look, I saw that a bunch of socks had been blocked, but not the OP, so assumed they hadn't been socking. On closer inspection (i.e. actually reading it), I saw that they were confirmed and just awaiting administration, which I've now done. Sorry for the goof, it's been a long day of teaching kids over Zoom, I should get away from the screen. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Long-term ownership of an article by User:McKhan

I am having an extraordinary amount of difficulty with User:McKhan at Al-Ahbash and the article's talk page. This is a long-standing issue, beginning with his edits to the article in 2005, and the user is extremely resistant to any edits that may portray the Al-Ahbash in a light more favorable than he deems acceptable. He does not assume good faith, constantly casts aspersions, and assumes ownership of the page. He also does not demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia content policies despite being an editor since 2005. He has previously used a sockpuppet (User:AmandaParker) to exert control over the article over a 6-year time span. The locus of our dispute was primarily a statement that, in my perspective, contradicted an assertion made in a journal article with a number of primary sources and other sources that providing only circumstantial evidence against the fact asserted by the journal article.

For context, here are some previous comments in other discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding McKhan and the Al-Ahbash page.

From a 2012 conversation regarding the article: There are a serious issue with two of the people who edit this article, one at least is a spa. Since at least 28 September 2008‎ user:AmandaParker has done nothing but revert any additions to the article, and that appears to be her only contribution to Wikipedia. The other user:McKhan appears no better, all he does on this article is revert. It is simply impossible to advance the article past a stub due to these two users ownership of it. I am proposing a topic ban on both users from the article so it can actually be improved upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC) This is a content issue that likely belongs at WP:DRN but one thing that did jump out and bite me was this talk page thread which runs counter to the concepts of WP:BOLD, "anyone can edit" and WP:OWN. With some exceptions, nobody should have to ask permission before editing an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC) From another 2012 conversation: user:McKhan is a single purpose account who for years used sockpuppets and IP's to edit war on articles relating to the Al-Ahbash group. Since 3 May 2007 he used socks and IP's to edit war to his preferred version on Abdullah al-Harari. Since 25 August 2005‎ he did the same on the Al-Ahbash article. He is violently opposed to them as can be seen with this comment he made after being blocked for one week for sockpuppetry[282] He is back from his block and is flooding the Al-Ahbash talk page with wallsotext[283], his attitude towards this group are venomous to say the least. I am quite sure the term "Habashies" is derogatory. This editor needs to be topic banned from any article dealing with Al-Ahbash given his attitude towards them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC) From a 2013 conversation: i think its time McKhan (talk · contribs) gets an article ban..he has over 8 years of reversions on the ahbash article..before i appeared on the page it was a stub containing 3 lines due to his constant edit warring with other users..he removed RS material by using socks and ip's and only recently got caught because i put the article under spotlight..this has gone on for too long..i inserted a material today that was well referenced and he reverted it claiming that it is outdated…he then went to the talk page and included unreliable sources to back his claims..he is also a spa and only reverts edits from this article. its quite obvious he has deep hatred for the group which is evident by looking at the talk page archives Baboon43 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

McKhan's tone changed after he realized that not all the content I was adding to the article portrayed the Al-Ahbash favorably (in particular, edits I made to the article on March 2 2021). Given his focus on personalizing the discussion in the first place, however, there was only limited progress on the substance of the policy-based arguments. He then considered it his place to decide when the discussion should conclude:

• I think we have discussed enough...
• I think we have made a very good progress and reached to a compromise. Let's not ruin it by pushing it any further

He then blows up here stating that I believe that he and the clerics are idiots, that I am "bullying" him, and implies that I am denigrating scholars by calling them clerics.

Finally, despite our ongoing discussion, he refuses to allow any sort of template on the article noting the dispute because he has decided that we've already "discussed enough":

• Removing the frivilous npov-section tagging. See the talk page.
• Firviolous tagging and indulging into edit warring.
• ...do not indulge into claiming the ownership of the article, edit-warring and frivolous tagging nor assume that you are the only one who knows Wikipedia guidelines...

Because I restored the NPOV tag, he also decides that I am owning the page and issues a warning on my talk page. Snuish2 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

--

It is important to note that the topic of Al-Ahbash is very contentious and controversial and the pages, Al-Ahbash and Abdullah_al-Harari, have been a target of sock-puppeteering, POV pushing by various IDs and rotating IPs for years.

Why the Al-Ahbash keep coming back to Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia? It is not about respect for Wikipedia, Al-Azhar, Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah, mainstream Sunni Muslims or academic integrity. It is basically all about marketing.

They keep coming back to the the Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia because these are the pages which shows up on most of the search results on Google, Yahoo and other major search engines. Thus, it is very important for the Al-Ahbash to keep all good, positive and sanitized information being posted about themselves and their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari on Wikipedia in order to make sure that they are able to keep their current adherents as well as recruit potential adherents.

That's where having the "affiliation" with Al-Azhar or using the banner of "Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah" becomes handy and important because Al-Azhar being one of the oldest Sunni Institution and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah being the majority of the World Muslims being Sunnis can really be good for marketing and to buy the clout and legitimacy. Otherwise, the Al-Ahbash couldn't care less about Al-Azhar or Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah or the mainstream Sunni Muslims.

Don't believe me? Please, read this excerpt from Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context:

At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion.

Notes

• [1]. Olivier Roy, L’Islam mondialisé (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2002), 127.
• [2]. Michael Gilsenan, Saint and Sufi in Modern Egypt: an Essay in the Sociology of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).

Source: Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context

What I described above is just the tip of the iceberg.

For the past many years, their target has been the following sentence

"The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." Their main focus being ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in Al-Ahbash's books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash.

The common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity. Hence the following questions:

• Why would a rector of Al-Azhar (in September 2016) support a Fatwa which goes against the Habashis?
• Why would Al-Azhar let Egyptian authorities arrest the Al-Ahbash men if they had "affiliation" with the Al-Ahbash and they agreed to the preaching of Al-Ahbash?
• Why would Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa (also from Al-Azhar) issue a Fatwa against the Al-Ahbash in which he "described the group as "deviant" and said it sought to "corrupt the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslim Ummah. Moreover, they are paid agents to the enemies of Islam."?

Following is a list of some of the previous editors who have edited Al-Ahbash

• Shawwal (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• AbeEll (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• KevinAbdulqader (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• Socialistmark (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
• Samsparky (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

With reference to this, this and this, I have no doubt on my mind that the individual with rotating IPs is Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as this ID came straight to that very sentence, tagged it and removed the sources arbitrarily.

Sample diffs - Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Starting February 28, 2021

• 15:37, March 4, 2021 diff − Al-Ahbash moved content to "political positions." Added NPOV tag to section of remaining concern -- see talk page for details.
• 22:37, March 3, 2021 diff -‎ Al-Ahbash "heretical" seems to occur less often.
• 21:14, March 3, 2021 diff -‎ Al-Ahbash ‎moved "North America" section to religious beliefs since it has not been described as controversial. Inserted direct quote from "From madness to eternity" instead of relying on description.
• 09:31, March 2, 2021 diff − Al-Ahbash ‎This sentence is not at all supported by the source, which states: "The complex structure of Shaykh Habashi's belief system blends elements of Sunni and Shii theology with Sufi spiritualism"
• 21:59, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash ‎{{original research|section}} "claim denied by Al-Azhar" and Germany section seem to be original research, if not other claims.
• 12:13, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash removed self-published sources and primary sources not meeting WP:RS criteria.
• 11:50, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash

Rotating IPs

• 2601:243:2200:60E:B1EC:F03A:76FB:7965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:2200:60E:4555:795D:C8F5:5DEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:2200:60E:393E:CD8B:E48A:7E4D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:903:3F5B:C40C:2837:ED73:51F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:903:3F5B:1D28:70B2:3ED9:B79E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following are the reasons:

• First, the person behind rotating IPs showed up as soon as the RfC closed after years of discussions and sock-puppeteering. See @EdJohnston:'s response.

• Then the person behind rotating IPs moved the sentence from lead to Controversy.

• Then the person behind rotating IPs removed it from Abdullah_al-Harari.

• Now the person behind rotating IPs back with an ID (After waiting for 4 months.) to get the second part of the sentence, "...a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." removed and simply keep ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in Al-Ahbash's books used in their The Islamic Education School (TIES), elementary schools, established by the Association of Charitable Projects (AICP) which uses other names, all fronts of the Al-Ahbash, and other material to "prove" that there is an "affiliation" between Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash.

• Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) picked up exactly from the place where the person behind rotating IPs left (or did he?) and has been laser-focused on the very same sentence.

• Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't seem to be a novice Wikipedia user. He has been around Wikipedia for a while now hence @EdJohnston:'s response.

• Please feel welcome to compare the tone, arguments, style and verbiage of the person with rotating IPs and Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Talk:Al-Ahbash for further reference.

With reference to an extensive discussions on the Talk Page of Al-Ahbash, first with the person behind rotating IPs and then with Snuish2, just like in the past, I have been fully involved in the discussions despite having an RfC about the existing sources. As we reached to a compromise (At least, that's what I thought.) from

"The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar."

to

"According to Kabha and Erlich, the AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."

Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suddenly became stuck on "According to Kabha and Erlich."He wants to remove it along with a WP:RS

Yawar, Athar Ahmed (2020). From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World. London, United Kingdom: UCL (University College London). p. 166. Retrieved March 2, 2021. (Refers to the fatwās against the Ahbash from a range of scholars, including Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt (fatwā dated 1999), and Ahmad Umar Hashim, the president of Al-Azhar University (2001).)

by hook or crook, and absolutely insists on only having

"The AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."

And he has all sort of explanations and interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines to throw in for that, which is really absurd and reminds me of the very same behavior which I have faced for years by various sock-puppets, IDs and rotating IPs.

I will let @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:, @Cunard: and @EdJohnston: chime in and let the admins see through this. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 12:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is ironic that McKhan has frequently leveled accusations of "canvassing," and yet here on this page he's pinged four other editors. That strikes me as very similar to his accusations of anyone that disagrees with him as being agenda-driven. With regards to the user accounts he's listed above, a cursory review would reveal that my editing and writing styles are significantly different than all of them and that User:Samsparky is still in good standing. With regard to the IP's, none of which were the subjects of any adverse administrative actions, McKhan's discussion on Talk:Al-Ahbash seemed to rest on the assumption that he is entitled to know my IP address or that it is not permissible for an unregistered user to register an account. As a result of his persistent accusations on the article's talk page, I suggested multiple times that he take his accusations to the appropriate venue. Snuish2 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2, that is not canvassing. Those are editors and/or admins in good standing who share many hundred of thousands of edits between themselves, while you are an WP:SPA who is engaged in advocacy, who joined in Nov but still not reached the EC user right — not that there's anything wrong with that (not getting to 500 edits in that time), but I'm comforted by the knowledge that the indef WP:ECP I've applied to the page will still work to restrict you, at least for now. El_C 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: McKhan chose those editors based on their opinions of his edits. That would be canvassing. The crux of the issue is not only users who have advocated on behalf of the Al-Ahbash, but on a single user who has dominated the article, persistently allowing edits unfavorable to the subject without much scrutiny while quickly reverting any edits that do not align with his point of view. Your resolution misses the mark. I have no relationship with the Al-Ahbash and, in fact, have done no favors to them as a result of my edits, which is obvious if you look at the introduction of the article. Your characterization of my edits as "advocacy" is patently incorrect. Snuish2 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2, you're free to argue that, but as an uninvolved admin, that doesn't align with what I'm seeing. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? I think that's unlikely to happen, but who knows. In any case, I stand by my action. El_C 15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I certainly don't want to beat this to death, but I invite you to compare the introduction of the article before I arrived and in its current state if you have already not done so. That is not what advocacy looks like. I do not expect other admins to review this lengthy AN/I post and don't see any avenues for appeal, so I'm pretty sure you're the end of the line here. Snuish2 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2, yes, that may well be so. But whitewashing is also advocacy. It doesn't need to be about adding content that reflects positively on the subject, because removing or softening content that is critical of it is basically the same thing. El_C 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Point granted, I completely agree that could be construed as advocacy. Though I don't concede that there is any "whitewash" occurring here—the statement that McKhan was controverting is unequivocally stated as a fact in a journal article and was made to appear false with primary sources or sources that didn't actually contradict the journal article—but I am willing to return to this discussion after I reach the necessary number of edits. Snuish2 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. McKhan, looks like I've applied extended confirmed protection to this page once before back in 2017. Clearly, the incessant advocacy isn't going away any time soon, so hopefully, that will take care of the crux of the problem. El_C 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, I am glad that you were able to see through this. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

+1 El C, I'm glad you were willing to read through the above - that's a multi-pitch wall of text right there. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

PA

this edit summary [[284]] needs to be struck, and a very severe warning isued.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And just saw this [[285]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And this [[286]], I think now a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it's a sock of an LTA, the account is now globally locked. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I have never encountered "globally locked" before, so was not sure what is was. But the PA's are sill in the edit summery. which was my main issue. All their edits shousl be struck.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I've done a bit of tidying up. Global locks are performed by stewards to prevent cross-wiki abuse, they prevent the user logging into the account. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Having twice been collateral damage in global IP blocks (one by a steward who didn't respond to an email; one by a steward whose email was closed), I trust can be forgiven for wondering whether the stewards' procedures are always as surgically precise as might be desired. Narky Blert (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Large-scale unsourced "Muslims" category additions

84.238.156.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding "Muslims" categories to BLPs without any mentions of a religious belief. A block and a rollback of the changes is necessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I previously brought up the same issue in December 2020 for 79.100.19.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [287]. Nobody responded and most of their BLP violations are still live. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Russian Vandal-Sockpuppet Admin KansasBear and Каракорум

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

---

Kansas Bear User ID 2731577 and his other account Каракорум User ID 34432312 are Russian Sockpuppet and spy and delete the "Ottoman victory Ottoman captured Chyhyryn" and the 15 sources and evidence from 1676-1681 Russo-Turkish War. Ottoman captured Chyhyryn and won the (last) 1678 Campaign. Russia lost Chyhyryn. They write always Indecisive or Disputed They don't know even how to cite the course of the war and takes any battle for result although in the end of this book what they cite, is written for result Ottoman Victory because the war location was captured.

He must look at final at last page number 172 and not any page battle for result

For further reading

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Russo-Turkish-wars

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CH%5CChyhyryncampaigns1677hD78.htm

Notes

1. ^ Despite the loss of Chyhyryn the war aims of greatest importance to Moscow were therefore achieved. Khan Murat Girei was compelled to negotiate at Bakhchisarai a twenty-year armistice with Muscovy formally acknowledging Kiev and the Left Bank as Muscovite possessions. Murat Girei played a crucial role in subsequently inducing Sultan Mehmet IV to ratify these same terms. For Mehmet IV and Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa the destruction of Chyhyryn was thereby rendered a Pyrrhic victory. Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, (Routledge, 2007), 172.

2. ^ In the decades preceding the Ottomans’ attempted siege of Vienna in 1683 Ottoman armies had successfully prosecuted single-front wars in Hungary (the sieges of Varad [Oradea] in 1660 and Uyvar [N. Zamky] in 1663), Crete (the siege of Candia [Heraklion] between 1667 and 1669], Poland (the siege of Kamanice [Kamanetz-Podolsk] in 1672 and Russia (the siege of Çehrin [Chyhyryn] in 1678). Rhoads Murphy, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, (UCL Press 1999), 9.

3. [^] Given Romodanovskii’s insistence the year before on the strategic necessity of holding Chyhyryn, this had the appearance of a major defeat, and it led many Ukrainians to blame Romodanovskii for incompetence or even treason. Actually Moscow had issued Romodanovskii secret orders to do everything to avoid battle with the Turks, to seek peace talks with them and to be prepared to sacrifice Chyhyryn rather than his army so as not to leave Kiev and the left bank under-defended. Chyhyryn was of greater importance to Samoilovich than to Moscow, which placed higher priority on defending Kiev and the left bank. The Russo-Turkish war of 1676–81 is usually seen as a stalemate or even as a Russian defeat because Chyhyryn had to be destroyed and the right bank was thereby lost to the Turks and Iurii Khmel’nyts’kyi

Sources

• Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, Routledge, 2007.
• Rhoads Murphey Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, UCL Press 1999.
• Brian Davies, Empire and Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
• Maureen Perrie "The Cambridge History of Russia from early Rus to 1689", Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• History of the Ottoman Turks,1288-1918, The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868.
• Davies, B. ‘The Second Chigirin Campaign (1678): Late Muscovite Power in Transition,’ in The Military and Society in Russia, 1450–1917, ed E. Lohr and M. Poe (Leiden 2002)
• Dimitrie Cantemir, History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire Volume IIIJ. J., and P. Knapton., 1734.
• Geschichte des Osmanischen Reich 1840.
• Danishmend, Kronoloji, Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972.
• C. Heywood, Kara Mustafa Paşa, In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Leiden, 1954-2004.
• John Paxton and John Traynor, Leaders of Russia and the Soviet Union, Taylor & Francis Books Inc, 2004.
• Hasan Karaköse, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Merzifon Vakfı, Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001.
• Blochet, Catalogue, Suppl., Paris,1909.
• The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenHorde55 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Give mine regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenHorde55 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected. A quick look seems like some boomerang blocks are incoming but I'm about to be AFK for a while so I'll let the next admin deal with those. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• @GoldenHorde55:, I suggest you hold off on tweaking your report. You started off with "Kansas Bear User ID 2731577 and his other account Каракорум User ID 34432312 are Russian Sockpuppet and spy", which is so stupid on its face that no one is going to bother reading beyond the first sentence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  A Russian Vandal Sockpuppet Admin? Sorry, totally implausible - "sockpuppet" has the wrong number of syllables for making a proper trochee pattern - try "Russian Vandal Socking Admin". ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Support boomerang block: DE, BATTLEGROUND [288], SPA, NOTHERE [289].  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24 will make it more clear what is going on. All accounts that are still unblocked pass the duck test. I'm not an SPI regular, but I'll block them in a few minutes if someone else with an SPI-script that makes it easier doesn't do it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

• Shirley, Floquenbeam, you mean "if no one else with an SPI-script that makes it easier does it first". Apparently they no longer teach symbolic logic in the schools, and this is the result. Shocking. EEng 19:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: I only went to a state school, while I think you went to one of them rich/fancy/snooty ones, but... doesn't your fix suffer from the same problem? "No one else with an SPI-script" (emphasis mine) should be just "no one with an SPI-script", no? What's the name of that Law that says any post correcting someone else's grammar is guaranteed to have a grammar error in it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  for posterity: Muphry's law. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  (Sneer if you must but at least I didn't go to Yale.) A better link is WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. Meanwhile, the else underlines our faith that your native shrewdness, that innate cunning which is the delight of your friends, would surely prevent you from using a script to do the job, and then pointlessly doing it all over again. EEng 00:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkarcher with a COI removed POV tag without discussion

User:Bkarcher with a COI has removed tags of multiple issues about COI and POV from UBF [290]. It had the tags and was still in disputes. But he removed the tags without any discussions and consensus. It is a violation of Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. And also he disrupted the talk page removing old talks about the disputes, here [291] and moving some talks into my talk page without any discussions and consensus, here [292]. He added a section to the talk page after I pointed out the violation, here [293]. I don't want to have edit wars so asked him to put it back and discuss to have consensus but he refused it. Dlee612 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this by good chance. DLee612 is one of an endless stream of SPAs with obvious COI editing at University_Bible_Fellowship and its talkpage. I was one of a small number of people who keep an eye on the page and revert the tedious whitewashing, but I've been too busy recently to keep up with it. Bkarcher's editing has always been fine. The page would certainly benefit from more eyes. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, it is very interesting. I only informed to User:Bkarcher talk page but you just stumbled across this by good chance less than a day? What a coincidence! You are claiming that "DLee612 is one of an endless stream of SPAs". What are your bases to say I am one of SPAs? How come you speak conclusively? As I already talked to you in the article's talk page, I am here to contribute to the Wikipedia with my professional knowledge and experience. I am doing my best on my free time. University Bible Fellowship is one of them and I declared my COI. You are saying his editing has always been fine. Let me ask you

• Is it fine for him with a COI to remove NPOV dispute tags without any discussions and consensus?
• Is it fine for him with a COI to remove old talks without any discussions and consensus?
• Is it fine for him with a COI to move talks from the article's talk page to my talk page without asking and any consensus?

Are you showing support for such violation? Do you think his dogmatic behaviour is fine? We have a very simple solution which is just revert them and discuss to have consensus. In order to avoid editing war, I asked him several times to put it back but he refused and ignored. This editing behaviour is not fine. Dlee612 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Deceased user

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

---

I believe I have come across the recent obituary of a fairly prolific editor. Would someone with email turned on be willing to give a second opinion, just to be sure? --- Possibly (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, I'll be at my laptop for the next little bit, so go for it. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

sent, thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

well, we both agreed that the obituary matches the user. If anyone knows what to do with that info, ping me. --- Possibly (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Would this happen to be an editor who hasn't been around the 'pedia for a month? GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Absent for last ten weeks or so. I think I will just post his username to the in memoriam page. RIP.--- Possibly (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:DWG has a guide for WP:RIP. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thanks, I just read that. Now I'm not sure what is appropriate.--- Possibly (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz and Johnuniq:, you appear to be active atm. Any suggestions? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Is there an on-wiki self-disclosure that links the user name to the real-life name of the person in the obituary? If not, my guess is that nothing that links them should be posted—for example, any comments should not link to the obituary and should not name the individual. I would look for people who are experienced at editing WP:RIP and ask them, possibly at WT:Deceased Wikipedians (WP:RIP says to ask there). FYI, editing your comment like this does not ping the target (me). You have to add a new comment with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: No ping even if I delete my existing sig and re-add the ~~~~? That's what I did here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That diff did not generate a ping. That is because it looked like an edit as far as the software is concerned. Some editors tweak their comments several times and the software tries to avoid re-pinging people just because a comment was edited. The new signature simply looks like an edit of the old signature and does not count. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, WP:OUTING is clearly intended to be read in the context of the living rather than the dead, but if an editor has not abrogated their right to privacy in life, then here absolutely no reason for us to do so in death. And if a reliable source does so after death, that puts the onus of doing so onto the source rather than onto us. So, as with much else here, if a RS hasn't made the link, neither do we.
  Although why we would want to add anything to that page other than a deletion tag is perhaps less fathomable...  :) ——Serial 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  AFAIK, we've generally allowed people to be tagged as deceased based on confirmation of family and friends who've contacted us. This includes friendships developed from Wikipedia but which have continued off-site. And I'm fairly sure some people have been linked to obituaries even though the person has never commented on their name, when these have been provided by family or maybe friends who've agreed for them to be linked here. (When it comes to friends, I think it's generally the case that they contact family and ask them rather than just deciding for themselves. These aren't simply contacts out of the blue of course, as normally either the friend is in contact with the family because they've found out their friend is deceased, or sometimes family comes into contact with the friend because they're trying to contact the person and the family now have control over their phone, email etc. There are exceptions of course e.g. where someone is estranged or at least distant from all family and it's friends who are handling their affairs.) If the person did not give clear instructions on how such matters should be handled, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let those who knew them decide, after all that's how a lot of other stuff is handled albeit with various laws and courts able to help when there are disputes. But if it's simply a case where someone has found the obituary of someone else they're sure is a Wikipedian, that does seem more problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Possibly If you're confident, you may want to let stewards know so they can lock the account. CUPIDICAE💕 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If anyone at the admin or higher level wants the account name, email me. Otherwise I think the discussion here shows it is best left alone. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A steward emailed me and I gave them the info, so this can be closed now. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Diwakarjha987

Diwakarjha987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an almost exclusively disruptive pattern of editing. They have been altered to discretionary sanctions in the topic areas of IPA and BLP, warned multiple times for a variety of reasons, including personal attacks, edit warring and removal of sourced material, as well as blocked once for their conduct. None of this has led to any changes in their behavior, in their latest edits they removed the word "allegedly" from an article on a murder, contrary to the cited reference and in the absense of any conviction. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Something's gotta give. El_C 03:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll maybe clarify that, though this involves the IPA topic area, this is a normal admin action, not an AE one. The disruption —which is egregious, especially, BLP-wise— simply isn't nuanced enough to bother invoking WP:ACDS at this time. El_C 04:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• They have been altered – While in the past I've toyed with the idea of lobotomizing editors [294], I think we should draw the line at, er, altering them. EEng 05:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@EEng, is the implication of this that the sexual organs are more important than the brain? Gotta have your priorities straight... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

the sexual organs are more important than the brain? – Apparently. We all know people who operate having the former but not the latter. EEng 05:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@EEng, 😲 did I lobotomise someone by mistake? Oops! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Captain El Classico

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

---

• Captain El Classico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is a new editor, 2 weeks old with 56 edits, every single one of which has been reverted by a number of different editors. [295] Some of the edits were copyright violations, [296],[297] some were poorly sourced, [298] some were undiscussed major changes, over which they edit warred [299] and were blocked, [300] and attempted to reinsert after their block was over. (On Commons, they uploaded a historical photograph, putatively of Maria Schicklgruber as their "own work", without providing a source. [301])

They do not respond to warnings left on their talk page,[302] nor do they alter their editing behavior as a result.

Their focus is on Nazis and Nazism, which are all articles which receive a lot of vandalism and PoV editing. They require close watching by numerous editors in order to preserve their value. The last thing that's needed on these articles is a good-faith but incompetent editor making poor alterations and edit-warring over them.

It's quite early in this editor's Wikipedia career, but so far they have not shown themselves to be a competent and productive contributor. They may well turn into one as they mature (I have the impression, which of course could be wrong, that the editor is young), but for the protection of the encyclopedia in the meantime, I believe a temporary topic ban from Nazis and Nazism is justified, perhaps for 6 months. This will give Captain El Classico a chance to show their worth to the community by editing in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction: Not all of Captain El Classico's edits to Martin Adolf Bormann have been reverted. I have also left a detailed comment on CEC's talk page explaining the problems with their editing and urging them to post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support taking some kind of action, I but I'm not sure a topic ban goes far enough. Their additions/changes have been very low quality, and for the most part don't comply with our minimum requirements for sourcing or for neutral wording or for compliance with copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Any ideas about an alternate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, am I Sea Captain now? El_C 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Like— Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• @BMK: I don't foresee Captain El Classico succeeding here at all; there's too many issues. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• So, you're thinking indef block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately yes.— Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be fair, I've left a message on CEC's talk page letting them know that an indef block is under discussion and, again, urging them to come here and make their thoughts known. I'm not at all sure that doing so will do any good, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don't think that a new editor who has never found their way to an article talk page or their own user talk page will ever abide by a topic ban, they most likely won't even see the notice that a topic ban has been imposed. I think this is just another editor who wants to do their editing without interacting with anyone else here. Those folks can edit successfully for years as long as they have mastered the policies and guidelines and don't edit war or get into conflicts with other editors. That isn't the case here. I'm not sure I'd block indefinitely but a longer block is in order. And I'd like to commend BMK for taking the time to explain to the editor on their talk page what the problems are. I just wish they'd take a few minutes and read all of the warnings on their talk page so we could know whether they understand that there are serious problems here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped editing, from about the time I filed this report. My feeling is that we won't see any more edits from this account, but, unfortunately, I don't think that necessarily means that the editor is finished editing here. It seems quite possible to me that they have, or will, simply move to another account and continue editing. If they do so, and their edits are in the same subject area (Nazis and Nazism), they'll undoubtedly be recognized fairly quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If they remerge and follow the same disruptive pattern of editing under this account, definitely, action will need to be taken with an indef block, being the only option. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, CEC has indeed re-emerged with the addition of unsourced information to Braunau am Inn. [303]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Their failure to communicate may be due to them using a mobile platform - as you see in their edit tags, and it is a known problem for mobile users that communication is basically impossible [304] - and for whatever reason, the foundation does not see fit to patch this rather severe UI oversight IMO. I see they have already been blocked once - does the block notice for mobile devices show up prominently with messages to check out their talk page? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have e-mailed CEC, giving the URL for this discussion, and the one for my notice on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• So, no reaction from Captain El Classico to my e-mails, and they're editing again -- and the quality of the edits is as poor as before. Therefore, I will make a proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:Captain El Classico

• Since WP:Competence is required, and WP:Communication is required as well, and since Captain El Classico has shown that they don't understand how information needs to be added and sourced to Wikipedia, and since they have not responded to numerous comments on their talk page, via e-mail, and on this page, I propose that they be indefinitely blocked until such time as they begin to communicate with other editors, and show that they understand Wikipedia's policies and requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Looking at their history for two seconds shows everything about this account screams NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  11:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely until Captain El Classico demonstrates that they are willing to communicate with other editors and to make constructive edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Regarding wrong nomination of Kevin Eze (entrepreneur)

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

---

A new User:Cuoxo with only having around 169 edits is nominating notable pages of entrepreneurs without checking any of the sources. Like, If you will check in Kevin page there are 8 sources so far and from all good websites. He is clearly notable. I suggest admins undo the nomination made by Cuoxo. Dinktods (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is free to nominate an article for a deletion discussion provided they follow policy and provide a reasonable nomination. Unlike Cuoxo's nomination of the article in question, your comments here are completely out of line and unreasonable and I suggest you drop it. CUPIDICAE💕 15:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So, Who are you now? Are you Cuoxos Advocate or something? I will wait for only the admins' comments here. Until then, you can see the references on Kevin's page he is clearly notable from every aspect, and also I will advise you to make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Dinktods (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Eze (entrepreneur) as speedy delete, per Prax. Also, Dinktods, I, too, advise you to drop it, because it looks suspect on your part, which is to say spammy. El_C 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Further legal threats from editor already blocked for legal threats

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

---

Wikigeek2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for undisclosed paid editing following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Legal threat from editor with COI, which includes various legal threats they have also made. They have made this post on their talk page threatening the blocking admin (User:EvergreenFir) with legal action stating I am trying to help E/F by advising s/he will be in court to defend this, plus two other mentions of court proceedings in a related unblock request here. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request for that rather clear legal threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also revoked talk page access per the unambiguous WP:NLT. If this individual (office?) wishes to categorically rescind their legal action (proposed or otherwise) so that the block may be lifted, they can do so through WP:UTRS. El_C 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

IP 93.153.87.247 disruptive editing

Long-term disruptive WP:SOAPBOXING going back to 2015 from 93.153.87.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in topics covered by WP:ARBGG and now WP:ARBBLP. Not posting actual diff(s) of BLP vios here for privacy reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 23:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA by Safi1919

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

---

Safi1919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Changed (sourced) Persian to Afghan [305]

My edits were historically accurate and true. This page was contained false information about. Ghazni is province of Afghanistan and Bayhaqi is an Afghan not Iranian. Why would revert this true information? Are an Iranian agent and spreading Iranian propaganda?

Sure you can report me and I can report for spreading Iranian propaganda.

Did Iran existed at that time? Afghan people always existed, and we Afghans have always been aware of dirty Iranian propaganda and falsehood. Iran is the biggest spreader of terrorism, shiaism, and falsehood in world. It won't work on Afghans. I will gladly report as an agent of Iran as well.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Proud Cow worshipper Manas Bose & Harrassment

Proud Cow worshipper Manas Bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not much to state, can we get a block here? Appears to be throwaway account created for harassment purposes. See related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manasbose. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear me, yes. Thank you, Tayi Arajakate. Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen, a new one has popped up and they are impersonating me this time. See Tayi Arajakate public account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), can you take care of it? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Weist

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

---

An article that I have been working on helping, has been repeatedly targeted by User:Praxidicae - that article is not unambiguously promotional, because it cites all sources, which all meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia:NACTOR. Michael G. Weist III

Additionally, in terms of notability, he is the subject of a Hulu documentary, Jawline that won Sundance Film Festival. A quick google search clearly shows this. As i started to dig around and get started with helping this article, I see that User:Praxidicae has done nothing to help the article, but simply "delete." Narwhal90 (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "that article is not unambiguously promotional, because it cites all sources" indicates you don't understand what "unambiguously promotional" means. And I'm going to have to warn you for that "repeatedly targeted" comment, which shows a lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• OMG Narwhal90, are you still trying to promote that, eh, movie star? Onlookers, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashlynnrobertson361/Archive. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies In any case, user requested that more sources were added, so that was added after their request. I apologize, I did assume good faith - was just trying to make a point. Forgive me! Regardless, this surely meets the WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia:NACTOR requirements, yet, here we are! Would you mind helping me get this resolved? Rather than deleting the article, user could've simply edited anything out. I'd be happy to make any edits!! Narwhal90 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:STALK behavior by User:Nableezy

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

---

Following a disagreement at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, User:Nableezy immediately reverted or partially undid my edits at two other unrelated pages.[306][307].

The user denied it when I raised the issue with them, so clearly they won't fess up. It is obvious what happened here: Nableezy returned to their computer, saw I pinged them in a talk page discussion, responded there, and then their very next two edits were to revert my following two edits at two other pages. Whether or not these pages may or may not have been on their watchlist is irrelevant; this user made no other edits in the interim and immediately set out to undo my edits at multiple pages. Edit histories at both pages show Nableezy has not edited either page in weeks or months. Maybe I'm underestimating the odds that Nableezy just happened to follow the same links I did, in the same sequence and the same exact time frame, but I generally don't believe in coincidences or purchase lottery tickets.

There are a lot of issues that I could bring up over the past two weeks from my interactions with this editor, but I will limit it to asking that this editor be reminded to refrain the urge to WP:STALK my edits at multiple pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Um, my first edit to Israeli settlement was in 2009. Im apparently the 12th most active editor on that article. My first edit to Israeli checkpoint was in 2018. I saw too bad edits back to back in my watchlist. I reverted them. Thats how watchlists work. I dont exactly understand how my editing articles that Ive been active on for years and years and years can be "stalking". Those two edits were back to back in my watchlist, and I dealt with them in that order. Maybe dont make a series of crappy edits in a row? nableezy - 00:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikieditor19920, just because you say it is "irrelevant" does not make it so. Nableezy has made edits to those two pages before you even joined Wikipedia, so they don't need to follow your contributions to pages they've never been. And there is no IBAN to compel them not to challenge your edits, including through reversions. El_C 00:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And I very much did not see a ping from Wikieditor. Ive actually muted that editor as they dont seem to understand that when I am active on a talk page I have it in my watchlist and dont need to be pinged every time they feel the urge to respond to me. Maybe it just is he doesnt get what a watchlist is? nableezy - 00:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, No editor has the right to follow another and repeatedly revert or undo their edits or contributions absent a compelling reason to do so. A content disagreement is not such a reason. And perhaps "irrelevant" is the wrong word, but Nableezy's claims of using a watchlist should be utterly unpersuasive to any reasonable observer as a counter that he did not look at my contributions log, immediately visit the pages I made changes to, and promptly revert them. The timing and sequence of his edits are the evidence. The issue is not 1) that Nableezy is interacting with me or 2) that Nableezy has challenged any of my edits. The issue is that Nableezy is violating WP:WIKIHOUND, which states: Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, it's 2 edits. I, for one, am just not seeing how that can possibly count as HOUNDING. El_C 00:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Editors 1 (E1) and 2 (E2) have a disagreement at Page A. E1 moves over to Page B and makes a few changes, which were not clear vandalism. E1 then edits Page C and makes other changes that are not clear vandalism. E2 reverts E1 at Page A, then immediately follows E1 to Pages B and C and reverts them there as well. That is WP:HOUNDING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikieditor19920, it is not HOUNDING. Other disputes do not immunize yourself (or vice versa, Nableezy, from pages that are on your watchlist) against Nableezy still being entitled to disagree with your significant changes to the lead sections of both of these key ARBPIA articles. Articles which, again, they've been editing for years (as mentioned, before you even joined Wikipedia). El_C 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as WP:WIKIHOUND, it is irrelevant whether my changes were significant or not or how long I've been editing Wikipedia. The only reason that would hold any water is if I were going around intentionally vandalizing pages, which I certainly am not. And throwing around seniority is not a defense for bullying behavior either. Editors should strive to avoid even the appearance of hounding, and the diffs I cited clearly show intentional hounding. The fact that it stemmed from a disagreement is an indication of why this user is monitoring my edits, and which is not a justifiable reason to do so. It's not an "immunization" for me from being reverted. I appreciate, at the very least, that you said "vice-versa." I certainly do not intend to follow Nableezy to every page they edit, and if I did I expect similar concerns would be raised. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, honestly, it's starting to come across as a bit of WP:BLUDGEON'ing on your part at this point. Again, you have no proof that they followed you, specifically, as opposed to them simply having encountered your edits to those two pages on their watchlist, as they do, in fact, claim they have. And you asserting otherwise comes across as an WP:ASPERSION. El_C 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, you are wrong, and you have been told as much by an administrator. No one else is going to come by here and support the absurd notion that an editor reverting two (TWO!!!) of your edits to articles they have a long history of editing is "hounding" you. It's simply not going to play, and you'd be best advised to drop the matter before it leads to a WP:BOOMERANG block for disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I agree with El_C and Beyond My Ken. I do not know what your watchlist looks like, but mine is enormous and includes every article I have ever edited since 2009. I scan the recent entries several (or many) times a day, and when I see something even slightly fishy, I check it out. You are advancing a losing argument and you should drop it and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor, you included me in a stalking comment here. I am quite active in IP area and also have a lot of articles on my watch list whereas you edit occasionally in the area, returning in December last after an absence to the Palestinian enclaves article and then more recently to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Your style is rather forceful, edits made are almost always likely to give rise to reversion/discussion and I could just as well have made the edits made by Nableezy myself. If you want to continue editing in the IP area then you should expect a robust response to controversial edits across a range of articles.Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing The consensus here is that I've misunderstood Nableezy's intent and overreacted. I'll accept that, apologize, and express a willingness to move forward w/ Nableezy wherever our paths cross in the future (currently seems to be the case at a few more articles, hopefully the end result is a net improvement to all). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Ucfberrada

Reporting for repeated WP:Personal attacks by User:Ucfberrada. Initially it started with insinuations of "racism and bigotry" here and here, then it devolved into allegations of "Denying her Moroccan nationality and calling her Canadian rather than Moroccan-Canadian when all sources say she is Moroccan and this only based on your personal opinion and that without bringing a single source to the table testifies to a colonialist way of thinking and is an appalling example of cultural appropriation with as a sole goal the pursuit of supremacism by promoting developed Western countries and belittling less developed Arab countries" as posted here, all the way to blatant attacks on me for being the most bad-faith person they have ever seen and presumed inability to "read sources" here. They have been warned by me here and was notified by @Cyphoidbomb: in the user's talk page here. But they retorted with allegations of bad faith and called be a liar here justifying their actions as being an effect of "loosing patience". Now they attack again calling me a color-blind, of bad faith and "advises" me that I should not be in Wikipedia. Exact sentence → "Unless for you truth no longer exists and you adhere to Donald Trump’s point of view that everything is up for interpretation since we are now in a post-truth world?", "I regret to inform you that Wikipedia no longer has a purpose and I therefore don’t understand what you are still doing here. If everything points to something being white and every single source describes that thing as being white but you keep saying that for you it is black, I’m sorry but either you are colour-blind or you are of bad faith". As well as took a jibe at Cyphoidbomb's perceived "ethnocentrism" adn "residence in India", exact text → "as You claim that Nora Fatehi is noted for her work in India, not Morocco. But that, my friend, is called ethnocentrism. Where you are, India maybe, you can say that she is known for her Indian work". Almost every post of theirs was laced with some form of attack. With WP:UNCIVIL behaviour like this, they need to take time off Wikipedia IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 13:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock

A few weeks ago, an IP contacted an editor off-wiki, making threats against them and their family following a dispute.[308] The IPs they were using (93.143.83.30 (talk · contribs), 93.143.81.30 (talk · contribs) and 93.143.70.241 (talk · contribs) were blocked by myself and Drmies. They have since reappeared, using IPs 93.142.144.188 (talk · contribs), 93.142.155.169 (talk · contribs) and 93.142.139.21 (talk · contribs) amongst others. Is it possible for a rangeblock to be issued to cover these addresses? Cheers, Number 57 11:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: 93.142.128.0/19 and 93.143.64.0/19 will do the job. 93.143.64.0/19 is already blocked by Drmies for six months and the most recent IP used in the other range 93.142.144.188 has been blocked by GiantSnowman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, please see if you want to place that rangeblock on 93.142.128.0/19. It seems to be all soccer, and all from the same uncollegial, rude, uncollaborative editor--as far as I'm concerned we block it, but you're the soccer expert. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: - that range looks spot on. GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the same range was blocked last year for "personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy" (I guess this amongst others). Given the recent, rather extreme behaviour, plus a track record of stuff like this and anti-semitic abuse (some of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia), which dates back to 2009, I would suggest a ban is in order for this IP editor. Number 57 19:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, absolutely vile - support ban for this editor. GiantSnowman 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support ban per nom Shushugah (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ew, that’s....ugly. Support ban. Block on sight, we don’t need such vileness on the wiki. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Highly disruptive edit warring by Connorguy99

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

---

Connorguy99 was blocked by Izno (kindly, I might add) after they made 32 reverts of several editors at List of EastEnders characters. 32 reverts to any article is disruptive. Connor was warned, acknowledged it and is now going after any editor who dare touch the article or talk page and badgering them endlessly. They do not appear to understand that they were disruptive and insist that anyone who reports them, reverts them or otherwise doesn't go to bat for them is "disgusting and biased." Despite multiple attempts by multiple people to explain this to the editor, they just don't get it and won't leave it alone. I am proposing this be turned into a longer full block based on their continued disruptive behavior. CUPIDICAE💕 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I see Cullen328 blocked while I was writing this but I think it's still worth discussing as this disruption took place across several articles. I could care less about the subject matter but I think that the excessive edit warring needs to end and the editor doesn't appear to understand (or is unwilling) that this type of behavior is disruptive and damaging and ask that this be left open to discuss what further actions or sanctions may be needed once their 72 hour block is up. CUPIDICAE💕 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have already warned them that if they carry on when they are unblocked, there will be further sanctions. I note that their talkpage contains edit-warring warnings going back to 2018, so clearly they aren't on a learning curve here. Perhaps they will take heed, perhaps not. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite their last response to me and others leads me to believe this will not be their last block...I'm quite curious to know what bias they're accusing me of though. CUPIDICAE💕 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked Connorguy99 for 72 hours for disruptive editing, and the editor is hereby warned that a longer block will be the result of a return to disruption and/or edit warring. If there is support for a longer block, so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Update As hostilities continued, I removed TPA. Feel free to undo if I acted in error. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

First set of blocks, so 72 hours is suitable. Perhaps, they will gain a better perspective. I think we can hope for the best and deal with what comes when it comes. They really need to read the WP:GAB. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have to say my original inclinations are with Cupidicae - 72 hours for what's happened is much lower than we usually see. Still, since other admins have indicated they want to go with a slower escalating route, I'm inclined to think that either Connor will blow-up shortly after return, in which case that's simple enough, or otherwise improve. I guess we'll see Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Regarding Userfication and Impersonation.

Hello Admins. Can any admin look into these two requests:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hello,_Few_questions.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Impersonation

Warm Regards.

Abhayesports (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment); this is associated with two sockfarms, Hums4r and Sardar Nadir Ali, – Anjumaafi from the same sockfarm tried to impersonate me. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile:,"this is associated with two sockfarms" what do you mean dude? And why are you spamming the same everywhere? We've already had this discussion at the investigation venue. And even if you want to canvass against me you should rather write This person is suspected to be associated with two sock farms and an investigation is going on, you're clearly violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF by targeting me directly without any proper evidence everywhere and you're giving out the final judgement while as there's an investigation going on. Idk what makes you do this, but I'd ask you to stop spamming false information. Abhayesports (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, per WP:DUCK, what are you expecting people to think when you, a supposedly brand new user, choose to head straight to Zeyan Shafiq, an individual on whom this sockfarm has repeatedly tried to create an article? It's highly unlikely that said sockfarm would have done anything without approval or payment from your employer (Stalwart Esports), and therefore, the description of "associated with" is certainly correct, even if you wish to wikilawyer about whether or not you yourself were directly partook in the socking. See also WP:MEATPUPPET. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Preservedmoose

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

An attempt to have a calm, constructive discussion with Preservedmoose resulted randomly in a barrage of attacks by the latter towards me. Mind you, he is yet to show proof for ANY of these accusations, heavily violating WP:ASPERSIONS and whatnot;

Your name is History of Iran...perhaps I should accuse you of violating these protocols, considering you go through numerous pages on Wikipedia and selectively add/control what information fits your prerogative. Yes--a journalist from Daily Sabah is supporting a nationalist Armenian perspective. None of the sources that I provided are from Armenians. One is Turkish,one is from the UK government. One is from the EU. You are not the king of Wikipedia.

You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. Your name is HistoryOfIran, your main interest is ancient Iranian history, and you edit articles to minimize certain other cultures at the expense of a Pro-Iranian narrative (such as this one).

Well, no, they are. You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. I'm using that as an example of you being selective and loose with your criticisms--precisely what you are accusing me of.

You initially accused me, with no explanation, of pushing an agenda for providing reliable, non-Armenian sources that suggest an Armenian presence/influence in Commagene. You're repeatedly pushing a pro-Iranian narrative here and on other articles (for example, the Orontid dynasty) at the expense of sources mentioning Armenians and other groups and then you repeatedly accuse and threaten people who add these sources.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran has a history of removing reliable sources. User could not provide rational for why sources were removed, despite repeated requests on Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orontid_dynasty#Uncertain_origins_of_Orontids_needs_to_be_addressed (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [309] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:

1. Removed seven WP:RS sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation.[310]
2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[311] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[312]

Looking at the evidence, it appears that user:Preservedmoose is persistently trying to "fix" what he doesn't like to see. Given that he tries to put news outlets and other non-WP:RS material[313][314] on par with academic scholars in order to push a pro-Armenian irredentist narrative, and even bluntly removes material written by academics specialized in the history of the region, I truly wonder if he's actually here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

On 2 May 2020, user:Biainili posted on his talk page what articles need "improvement", asking Preservedmoose to do these "improvements". Specifically mentioning Kingdom of Commagene and Tigran the Great(These parts especially: "Mother: Alan princess[2]", "Religion: Zoroastrianism[3]").

On 15 April 2020‎, user:Biainili removed Zoroastrian and references from Tigran the Great, oddly Preservedmoose on 30 January 2021, removes Zoroastrian and references from Tigran the Great. Proxy editing? Even more telling is the talk page discussion that Preservedmoose seems to have missed completely!

User:Biainili also goes into detail about Urartu. Guess who has been editing Urartu? Pinging C.Fred, who warned Biainili of proxy editing and El C who also warned against proxy editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Kansas Bear, but I'm afraid I'm unable to draw an immediate connection between the two users, though this is only at a glance. El_C 18:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. I'm for a block of Preserved Moose, and possibly a sockpuppet investigation if Biainili continues to act like preserved moose. Overall though, at least a month long block of preserved moose for personal attacks in the form of/and accusations of POV, where the community determines there isn't POV. 4D4850 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4850, I've seen you 'disclose' that you're not an administrator a few times on this board. No worries; there's no need to do that. Everyone is invited to contribute, express their opinion, as well as propose (or oppose) what they think are appropriate actions to deal with problematic editing on this board. This is the "Administrators' Noticeboard", but it exists so that members of the community can get the attention of admins as well as the wider community, and seek administrator intervention on behalf of the project. With very few exceptions, at the end of the day, it's the community itself that decides what's appropriate and acceptable, including whether administrator actions are themselves appropriate. Yes, admins can [often] act unilaterally and impose sanctions using their best discretion, but they're ultimately just editors themselves, but who are also entrusted (by the community) with certain tools to protect the project, and help keep Wikipedia ticking. So like I said, you don't need to announce your non-admin status when posting a comment (everyone can see your user rights as well, if they wish; I don't think anyone will be confused as to whether you're an admin). Just letting you know. :) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Ok, I just want people to know that I'm not one of the people provided with admin powers. I know I don't need to, but I also don't want people to confuse me with an admin up front due to throwing policy around (typically, I find personal attacks by the reported or the OP, and support blocks of the personal attacker.) I just think it's something people should know. Sorry if it clutters up ANI. 4D4850 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Preservedmoose clearly has a pro-Armenian agenda, and is resorting to personal attacks rather than rational arguments. Perhaps his/her recent edits require scrutiny. I am not certain whether HistoryOfIran is right in emphasizing the Iranian influence on Commagene, but he/she is at least attempting to seek a resolution through the talk page. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban/block proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to Armenia and Iran for Preservedmoose. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to support a block as well as the persistent violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA are simply unacceptable. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support block It's warranted by the behavior. ~ HAL333 18:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, evidence presented indicates proxy editing for banned editor Biainili.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support ban, not block - Preservedmoose's use of ad hominem in discussions is reason enough to be kept away from sensitive topics for some time, but I didn't spot anything that warrants a total block from editing (assuming that there isn't a sockpuppeting issue). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban as per the above evidences.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle and justification of a massacre

Hello. Paradise Chronicle have engaged in denialism and justification of a massacre in Gara. As seen in the article's talk page, the user had justified the killings of 13 unarmed Turkish and Iraqi citizens with comments like The PKK offered to let them free if only anyone would come pick them multiple times, and an event in which Turkey refused to negotiate and engaged in armed conflict by itself. Even going further, he then denied PKK's involvement, going with the designated terrorist organisation's claims of them getting killed by the "Turkish bombardment", despite the autopsy reports, and statements by an independent human rights organisation that has ties to the Kurdish movements saying that the victims were shot; the U.S. also blamed PKK for the massacre. Throughout the discussion, I've tried to assume good faith, and urged the user to achieve consensus for his/her edits. He had also engaged in disruptive editing as seen here, and called Bloomberg's statement Turkish POV. Paradise Chronicle has been around for two years now, the user isn't new to Wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle is also well engaged in articles within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan. He has been warned of disruptive editing. He also had received warnings and sanctions in the past (1, 2), and is aware of the discretionary sanctions. I view the user's edit and behavioural pattern as worrying, and therefore have to ask for action. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have two concerns which I suspect are also those of Paradise Chronicle. Firstly, why isn't this article simply a POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2? And secondly, why are we using Turkish sources, many of which are inherently unreliable, to source claims in Wikipdia's voice? Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm also thinking to merge these articles. Also, we're not using Turkish sources, where did you got that? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The article uses the pro-government Sabah seven times, for example. However even where Western sources are used, they often say "Turkey says that...", and this isn't being made clear. This was the same problem that we had with the Claw Eagle 2 article. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm well aware that the Daily Sabah is pro-government, that's why I've omitted it from controversial issues. Sabah is mostly cited for reactions to the massacre by domestic figures and foreign countries; ref [14] is for the phrase Turkish sources reported. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Two points of reference: first, noting that Paradise Chronicle has been warned by the Arbitration Committee in the topic area (ARBKURDS#Paradise_Chronicle_warned), so this may be actionable. But it may also be a non-actionable content dispute. I'm unable to tell at this time which it is. 2nd, Solavirum was recently indefinitely topic banned (by me: AE report) from WP:ARBAA2, so this topic area may be a problematic spillover that's also actionable against them, as well. Again, not sure at this time about that, either. El_C 13:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, justifying the massacre of civilians and unarmed policemen is wrong; such behavior is not toleratable, and the editor has no source to back up his/her claims either. He is well aware of denying the massacre and then blaming Turkey; he constantly pushes that rhetoric. I don't know why isn't this an actionable report. It is already stated by a human rights organisation that PKK's claims were very likely to be untrue. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, because I'm not familiar with any of the pertinent details right now, I can offer no meaningful follow up at this time. El_C 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Do any sources (other than Erdogan propaganda) call it the "Gara Massacre" or a "massacre" at all? Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, most Turkey-based sources, including independent and opposition ones (like CNN, Cumhuriyet 1, Cumhuriyet 2, ODA TV, T24) refer to it as massacre. You don't have to use the Erdogan propaganda on me, I'm well acquainted with the nature of Turkish media and the existing guidelines of Wikipedia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps CNN_Türk#Controversies would be of interest...? Otherwise, I don't think I've ever heard of any of these other sources. El_C 14:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, that's interesting.

• Didn't knew CNN Türk had faced such stuff, so I'll avoid it from now on.
• I'm surprised you haven't heard of Cumhuriyet, its in opposition to AKP and had exposed Turkish intelligence service's ties with Islamists in Syria, and got Can Dündar on board. Even the wiki article lead says It has been described as "the most important independent public interest newspaper in contemporary Turkey".
• OdaTV is independent and got tensions from the government in the past.
• T24 also is on government radar, per the article's History section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just above you wrote we're not using Turkish sources, where did you got that? But all your sources are Turkish. Do they even use the word "massacre" in their own voice? Please quote. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Levivich, I was referring to the body of the article, not the naming. You can't simply just relate something to everything about the article. Anyways, here are the quotes: AKP's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who attended his party's Rize Provincial Congress, was on the congress agenda after his speech about the Gara Massacre, in which 13 soldiers and police were killed (Cumhuriyet); What did the U.s.'s "deep" establishment write after the Gara massacre? (Oda TV). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

      Solavirum So it looks to me like you're using Turkish sources to push Turkish propaganda that Operation Claw-Eagle 2 was a "massacre", including expanding the POV fork Gara massacre, and when another editor pushed back on that, you've opened this ANI accusing them of denying or justifying a massacre. Tell me why I'm wrong: show me non-Turkish sources that support anything you said in your opening post here (mainly, that this was a "massacre", as opposed to how, for instance, The New York Times describes it, "President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed the United States and opposition Kurdish politicians in an effort to deflect responsibility for a failed rescue operation.", or as another example, your claim here that those killed included civilians, as opposed to military, intelligence, and state police personnel). [315]). Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I, too, would take the US' paper of record over Turkish sources as a top-tier 3rd-party source. I'll also note that extending Solavirum's ARBAA2 topic ban to also encompass the ARBKURDS topic area (due to obvious potential POV-spillover issues) is certainly an option that is on the table. El_C 16:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

For those interested, last week I left some sources at Operation Claw-Eagle 2#Further reading, mainly to demonstrate that there are plenty of top-international-journalism-RS that can be used for that topic, and no Turkish media is really necessary (at least not for wikivoice statements). (Also, the NYT piece is already used as a source in that article, along with other good RSes.) I did this because there was a lot of POVish editing back and forth. It seemed to subside. Now I realize maybe that was only because the article was forked.

The fork should be CSDed #3, or if it isn't blatant enough for that, I'm happy to AFD it (there is nothing to merge AFAICS because there is nothing properly sourced in the fork).

As for Solavirum, ARBKURDS TBAN at least, but that would be the second TBAN inside of a month, and this is like—what? the fifth? sixth? noticeboard report in the last... maybe six months? That I've noticed anyway. I'm concerned whether Solavirum can edit in line with policies anywhere. Accusing PC of denying a massacre is basically a personal attack in this context. This is like somebody starting another article about the US Civil War called the War of Northern Aggression and then claiming that an editor objecting to that is "denying or justifying Northern aggression". Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Solavirum, I get that there may be the expectation for me to be knowledgeable about the in-and-outs of every country of note (sorry to disappoint), but I actually am not too familiar with the particulars of Turkish opposition politics and/or opposition press (beyond some of the salient attributes). Which isn't the point. What is the point is that these opposition writers/editors may need to compromise here and there, even if only to show the coalition-minded folks that they are not merely contrarians, which could manifest in a number of ways (including bowing to certain broad national sentiments). Beyond that, they and their loved ones also have to live in Turkey (even those writing from overseas are likely to have loved ones living in Turkey), so that also could manifest in a number of ways. Just as a general point, irrespective of whatever is the factual veracity of this particular matter. El_C 15:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, those are your own interpretations and are beyond Wikipedia's scope. I mean, seriously, how are those assumed scenarios related here? In any case, there's a consensus in the Western media that Cumhuriyet is a trusted source, it was even recognised by Reporters Without Borders. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's BirGün calling it a massacre too. So, clearly, this isn't Erdoğan propaganda. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum, this notwithstanding, I, myself, still am unsure about the factual veracity of this or that, per this or that Turkish source (opposition or otherwise). Possibly, it's an WP:RSN/WP:RSP matter worth pursuing...? Also, whether my "general point" is valid or to what extent it may be, I still consider it a totally legit point to make. You asserting that it is "beyond Wikipedia's scope" does not make it so. If there are potentially unresolved reliability (WP:BURDEN) issues, they ought to be examined in their own right, ones which I will comment on as I see fit, even if you, yourself, may view such comments as too speculative. I am well-able to self-censor when the moment calls for it. El_C 15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, we can move the issue concerning that it should be called a massacre or not to the noticeboard. The issue in this report was diverted to a different place in any case. Whether or not you call it a massacre, execution, attack, or killings, the report is about Paradise pushing the POV of a terrorist organisation and constantly engaging in denialism. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Solavirum, I'm getting the sense from your description directly above as well as also per Levivich above that, that additional sanctions may, in fact, be due here for you, rather than anyone else. El_C 16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C I would suggest that "pushing the POV of a terorist organisation" and "justifying the killing of unarmed civilians" in this thread alone (neither of which I can see that Paradise Chronicle has actually done) is definitely not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, right, and moreover, it points to more of the same, which is especially disconcerting with the ARBAA2 topic ban still being a recent thing. El_C 22:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Responding to Boomerang: Levivich, no. What you wrote there was completely wrong. The article itself wasn't created by me, nor I chose the headline. My work here was to expand the article. Furthermore, "Operation Claw-Eagle 2" can only be included in the background of the article, as the main issue was the mass execution. When another editor pushed back on that, you've opened this ANI accusing them of denying or justifying a massacre, no? It seems like you haven't check the discussion on the article's talk page. Paradise claims that the victims died in Turkish bombardment, and weren't killed by PKK. If you want sources for PKK's action, I can provide them. I really don't care if you call it a massacre, killing, or attack. The denial of PKK's actions is why I opened this report. Or as another example, your claim here that those killed included civilians, as opposed to military, intelligence, and state police personnel, yet again, I didn't do that. Among the victims were policemen, military servicemen, and civilians, including an Iraqi. I never claimed that civilians only were massacred. My concern is the name of the article, but the justification provided by Paradise, that being Turkey didn't negotiated. This is like saying that the Jews had it coming in the 1940s because they didn't left Germany before. El_C, the United States State Department had stated that PKK bore the responsibility for the attack. For you latest comment, I'm really disappointed to see that you're fully okay with someone on wiki, without providing any reliable sources, engaging in such acts. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum, I'd appreciate if you were to refrain from drawing any analogies between this and The Holocaust. I consider that, at the very least, to be an inappropriate hyperbole. El_C 17:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum, please provide an English-language source that says, in its own voice, that the PKK killed those hostages. I could be wrong, but I do not believe such a source exists.

You may not have created this article, but you are the primary author. The more I dig, the worse it gets:

• When I read Talk:Gara massacre, I see you (Solavirum) in a WP:1AM situation.
• You added references to Anadolu Agency (aa.com.tr), one of the official Erdogan propaganda outlets [316].
• When someone added an {{or}} tag [317], you removed it a minute later without fixing the problem [318].
• Amazingly, you restored "It was the deadliest attack by PKK in recent years." with the edit summary "Bloomberg says that it is the deadliest attack if confirmed, which is already confirmed" [319], which is one of the most blatant confession of WP:SYNTH I've ever seen.
• In another example of SYNTH, you changed an attributed statement ("but according to the Turkish authorities, they only found dead bodies") to a statement in wikivoice ("but found that the PKK militants had executed thirteen civilians held captive") [320].
• What's worse about the one above is "thirteen civilians", which is contradicting all sources (like the NYT above), which say 13 military and police personnel. (Some sources say three intelligence officers were included.)

I haven't fully reviewed the article or all edits yet, but I've seen enough that I have tagged the article and will now send it to AFD. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, there you go. There's also confirmation by an independent human rights organisation in the same article.

• Anadolu Agency isn't deprecated. I've used Anadolu to reference statements by foreign ministries, seems like you've omitted that fact.
• Again, you're wrong and making premature assumptions. That {{or}} issue was with the motive of the attack provided in the infobox, which I solved.
• What a nice way to claim original research when I've provided several sources saying that PKK did it.
• The victims included six civilians, the others were military and police personnel ([321]). The NYT article you've cited several times is premature. Firstly, there were no autopsy reports then. And interestingly enough, many Western sources don't even have a consensus on the role of the victims. Reuters say 13 kidnapped Turks, including military and police personnel. This doesn't mean that every single one of them was working for the country's security services.

In virtually every single comment of yours, you have either provided premature or wrong assumptions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that Middle East Eye is an WP:RS, those two articles you linked to do not say the PKK killed the hostages; they say that Turkey says the PKK killed the hostages, and that the PKK says Turkey killed the hostages. Same with "six civilians" (I guess we're down from 13 now?): that's what Turkey says, that's not what MEE is saying in its own voice. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The creator of Gara massacre, Pivox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was at ANI in June 2017 about a related PKK-Turkish matter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#How should I handle this situation?, and seemed to have more or less stopped editing then, until 2020. Someone with goggles might want to look at their deleted edits and creations. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing much in their deleted contribs, apart from a big edit-war over them trying to move Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) to "PKK-Turkish conflict". Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here comes my defense, if it is needed. I have not justified a massacre. I have just seen that most sources refer (like Guardian, Bloomberg, NYT, Reuters) to Turkish reports and others are Turkish media articles and then to present it as a fact that the PKK is to blame for an execution or an "attack" on Turkish reports is just not NPOV. Also, as to my account there is no independent autopsy report available so far. Reuters refers to Turkish military and Governmental sources when mentioning the victims and reports the autopsy is being done in Malatya, Turkey.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note The article is now at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gara massacre). The creator, User:Pivox has posted a strange rant there, and is also canvassing Turkish Wikipedia for editors to come over to enwiki and comment [322]. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated AE block of Solavirum

User_talk:Solavirum#AE_block

Note that I have blocked Solavirum for 2 weeks for a topic ban violation that happened about a week ago, but was just reported to me now. As I note on their talk page and in the log, I've left them the ability to continue editing project pages, so that they can still keep contributing to this discussion. But, otherwise, for all intents and purposes, the block should be viewed as sitewide. I have no additional comment at the moment. El_C 04:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar article at AfD

Before their ARBAA2 topic ban, Solavirum created Agdaban massacre which has a large number of similarities to the Gara massacre page. Both are based on events that clearly happened, but which completely lack third-party sources attesting to them being massacres. The only source at Agdaban massacre which isn't self-evidently unreliable is a BBC Azeri piece, which looks highly suspect to me – perhaps a more extreme case of the issues at CNN Turk which El_C points out above? I figured I'd draw it to the attention of editors here given the common features and editor. Jr8825 • Talk 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:NONAZIS

AP295 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have the userpage blog (discussion). We have the robust defense of antisemitism. We have the belief that article talk-pages are a debating society, coupled with a complete failure to work collaboratively with anyone (1, 2, 3). We have repeated edit-warring when they don't get their way (see talk page history). We have, as far as I can tell, 0 actual improvements made to any Wikipedia article. This user is a time-sink who is not here to improve the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake, the article is mortifying. It's not even close to conforming with WP:BLP. No, his offhanded comment does not make him an anti-semite. Criticizing Jewish culture does not make him an anti-semite either, notwithstanding the ADL's hair-trigger accusations of anti-semitism. If his work is illegitimate, then it should be possible to inform the reader as such without ad hominem attacks. AP295 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you trolling? CUPIDICAE💕 17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

tfw someone argues that telling an interviewer "Jews are gonna destroy America as a white country" is a mere offhanded comment and not prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You should see the subjects twitter feed. It's not even subtle. CUPIDICAE💕 18:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• You want I should WP:U5 user page? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It really doesn't fit that criteria. He was using the page for Wikipedia related opining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say its pretty WP:POLEMIC. CUPIDICAE💕 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Royal Treatment (film)

This IP address 2001:8F8:1829:452F:D86F:2672:CCAE:9B0B is continuously vandalizing the article mentioned above. Could somebody please block or warn this person? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hitcher vs. Candyman, I have semiprotected the article for one week, which prevents the vandal from attacking the article from another IP address. IP accounts rarely pay attention to warnings, but you can warn them if you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding thread at COI

Hello, regarding this thread at COIN, RandomCanadian has requested admin help regarding previous deleted versions of a user's sandbox. Pinging Tanim17 as they are the creator of the sandbox. Firestar464 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Usman Ali Zahoor spamming autobiographies

Usman Ali Zahoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Draft:Hafiz Usman Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:H.Usman Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

H.Usman Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

H Usman Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is spamming article space and draft space with multiple copies of their autobiography.

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hafiz_Usman_Ali.jpg . (There is nothing wrong with the Commons file as such. The spamming is a violation of English Wikipedia policies.)

A block for not being here constructively seems in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the pages in article space have been tagged for A7 and the pages in draft space have been nominated for MFD, but ANI is a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Usman Ali Zahoor indefinitely. Every one of their edits has been self-promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and anti-Armenian edits by Hallucigenia kun

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

---

Hallucigenia kun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replaced "Armenian Highlands" with "Eastern Anatolian Highland"

Removed mention of Armenia, Replaced "Armenian Highlands" with "Eastern Anatolian Highlands", replaced "Mount Ararat" with the Turkish spelling of Mount Agri in the infobox and lead

Removed various mentions of Armenia

[323] [324] [325] Removed mention of Armenia thrice

Changed "self-declared Republic of Artsakh" to "former self-declared Republic of Artsakh", as if the Armenian state had ceased to exist.

Replaced the normal English spelling of the name "Yogurt" with Turkish "Yoğurt", removed the Armenian spelling in the article, replaced "Greek" with "Turkish"

Removed the Greek spelling of Alexandretta (which is literally the name of the article), kept the Turkish spelling

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

81.99.175.183 again

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

---

• 81.99.175.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003 in British television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I first noticed this IP in Recent changes when filtering by tag "mw-removed-redirect" overwriting some redirects with mostly plot and no sources (examples at Casino (Malcolm in the Middle)). I've brought their repeated edits to 2003 in British television here as this IP has persistently added the same non-notable event without sources. This IP also makes no effort to discuss when contested. See also this IP's block log; they have been blocked before for similar behavior and no effort to discuss. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

EEng's talk page size

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

---

"I can see your talk page from here"

I realise that by starting this thread:

• ... I am causing drama
• ... I am inviting jokes about the talk page being visible from space
• ... a number of editors will wonder if I have more important things to do, such as writing an encyclopedia

Nevertheless, User talk:EEng is so big (almost 1 million characters) and archived so infrequently, that it has become unusable. It hangs on my desktop browser and crashes on my iPhone, giving repeated "This page reloaded because a problem occurred" errors. I do have a genuine reason to use his talk, such as asking questions about various areas of the MOS, as I consider him to be something of a subject expert, and if he doesn't know there are plenty of talk page stalkers that will know the answer.

I can't see EEng ever increasing the archiving frequency of his talk voluntarily, and I suspect any admin asking him nicely will get custard pies thrown at them. Nevertheless, I would like this to happen simply for usability reasons. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment re: accessibility issues: Extremely long talk pages such as this are miserable for visually impaired editors (whether they use a screen reader, or extreme magnification software). I think there is an accessibility issue with excessively and unnecessarily long talk pages.  // Timothy :: talk  12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually watching the race between DGG and EEng with great anticipation — 328:329 in EEng's favour, at the moment. Anyway, I can't see how we can force someone to archive their talk page on an individual basis (either of them). Updating the policy is probably the way to go, or if it's an issue, raise the matter with them directly. To that: I can't see EEng ever increasing the archiving frequency of his talk voluntarily, and I suspect any admin asking him nicely will get custard pies thrown at them — to the best of my recollection, a couple of years back, I actually did ask EEng (by way of a gentle nudge) to archive their talk page, which he did, down to double digits. Full disclosure, I've also reached the 300 club earlier this summer (diff), but when I (proudly) told EEng about it, he wasn't as impressed as I hoped he'd be, which made me sad. El_C 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can award EEng a major award for "Largest Irregularly-Archived User Talk Page"? (conditions of acceptance include archiving their talk page) Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng's talk page as seen sideways from space

• A man's talk page is his castle (or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Or in this case, his dungeon? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boo, no Moat? El_C 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, but the dungeon does have a dragon. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• .Mine does! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What flavor custard pie are we talking here? Banana or coconut? --WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lemon meringu or bust! El_C 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, you're thinking of Carmen Miranda?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I Can See Your House from Here (John Scofield and Pat Metheny album) reminds of of the time I personally met John Scofield, which was amazing! But I won't tell the full story here for fear that Serial Number 54129 will ban me from the noticeboard for good...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 14:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Has EEng ever refused to archive his page when asked? If not, I don't really see the need for an ANI thread.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if "refused" is the right word, but in 2015, this request was ignored and in 2017 and 2018, this and this thread devolved into japes and tomfoolery. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

But on the other hand [326] --> [327] and [328], so apparently a gentle nudge can work. What I continue to find astounding is the focus on the size of a page's text, when it's images that are almost the entire determinant of load times -- a dozen modest-sized images are bigger than all of the text put together.

Now, as it happens I'll be traveling for the next few days, but after I'm settled in next week I'll make a half-hearted token effort that should get you off my back for a while. If I forget please give a reminder. EEng 16:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll keep good care of your pictures while you're gone. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect the answer would be something like "Here we go again with the nannying of user pages. Jesus, find something useful to do." Woodroar (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Might find this query interesting: top 500 longest user talk pages. (Thanks to Firefly for help with that). Both EEng and DGG's user talk pages have killed my browser at various points in time (which isn't to say every time, but I'd just ping elsewhere rather than leave a message there at this point), but they aren't even in the top 100 (granted, some are archives and other such subpages). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Folks, please archive appropriately! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So, you guys are complaining? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, they should maybe remove one or two of their MediaWiki messages...-- P-K3 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK - "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. " So there's nothing that can be done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's talking more about the choice between setting up archiving verses just deleting threads you've read. Plus, WP:TPG states "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has numerous resolved or stale discussions". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from clarifying policy, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with your original point, Ritchie. It's a pain to have a massive talkpage (or userpage come to think of it) for no apparent benefit. I'm guessing if you were WP:BOLD and did the archive yourself, it would be reverted. As a side note, I do like the irony that a signature should have a link to a talkpage, but your talkpage doesn't have to be accessible due to size limits, with editors being blocked in the past for not conforming with the former! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} — Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 10 March 2021

Getting on my soapbox for moment, I've long felt that this project should enact a different approach to archiving talk pages. I'm recalling my own personal experience, which is now a dim memory. It didn't take long to get the hang of editing articles. It was quite sometime before I ventured into the concept of templates. I needed to begin archiving my talk page well before I had acquire the skills to set it up myself. Thankfully, I'm in a community where others helped, and someone help me set up my talk page archiving which I don't think I've touched since. I'm vaguely aware that there are several bots that can do this and I don't have a full understanding of the differences nor do I care to learn them. I am appreciative that we have editors who are intensely interested in those technical aspects, but I see archiving as a housekeeping effort that ought to be automatic. A very common post at the helpdesk or Teahouse is how to archive tar pages. I don't think users should ever have to ask. (Are your old checks archived by the software you use for your bank? Of course. Did you have to manually set that feature up yourself? Of course not, and it is mind-boggling to think that that would ever be necessary.)

I do not suggest that every new editor should have archiving of the talk page turned on automatically. I think that would generate a little bit of overhead for each one and multiplied by literally millions of users who might only have a couple of entries on the talk page it's not worth it. My suggestion is that they a bot could monitor new editor's talk pages and when may exceed some minimum number of entries, a bot should automatically add the code to create the archives. This code should have parameters so that knowledgeable users who have good reason to have control over the frequency can modify them, but I can't think of a legitimate reason why we would ever allow a user to say archiving is not permitted. I'm open to the possibility that there is such an argument but I can't think of a rationale that makes up for the headaches that large unarchived talk pages create.

I know this is the wrong forum—I ought to be proposing this at VPI, but may be while we are talking about this I could get some feedback on whether it's even worth proposing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, you want to post to his talk page to ask him a favor, and the best way to achieve that is starting an ANI thread about him, to force him to do something? Seems unlikely to result in a favor-granting mood; at least it would be for me. I don't think talking to EEng beforehand should have been considered optional. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Like. And, I mean, which top-tier musical performer goes to hang out with concert goers after a show? Just goes to show that John Scofield is a super-nice guy! El_C 16:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Threesie did ask on his Talk and I think he's awaiting a reply. So he obviously favours a "two-pronged" approach. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Solutions — Friends, let's not dwell on the problem, let's focus on brainstorming some productive solutions. A few ideas to get us started:

1. Partially block E from his user talk page so the rest of us can archive it while he watches helplessly; we can unblock him one day per week to respond to posts; I suggest Tuesdays
2. Steal E's user talk page (move it without a redirect), then split it up into several smaller pages, and offer to return one section for each article E improves to GA
3. Code Legobot to delete the 300th thread on E's talk page

Anyone else have ideas they'd like to share? And if anyone tries any of these, we'll ask you about it next week, on Wait Wait... Don't Block Me! Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• The only serious solution I see is to ping him to an alternate talk page, like your own, article talk, or WP/MOS page. Nothing will be accomplished here. My desktop browser hangs as well, so there is no way my screenreader can load it either, so since I'm denied access to his talk page due to the size of it, alternate solutions are my only choice to communicate with this editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and the dozens of other editors with longer pages. Page length (for screen readers) and size (for loading) are both legitimate concerns, yet no one ever starts the RFC at WP:TPG. (In all seriousness, that's the solution to this problem. An RfC.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC? As I said above, the guidelines already say to avoid going over 75K. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of those things where the rule is so stupid nobody complies with it. 75k is a stupidly-low number. Your talk page is 120k. The page we're on right now is 640k, and that seems accessible enough. E's is 990k, and there are ~100 user talk pages longer than that. The 75k probably should change to 500k or 750k, and it should be applied to all pages in all namespaces, and perhaps some thought given to giving the rule some teeth. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, since I have been mentioned, I have had as many positive notes about the material on my talk page as complaints. I've shortened it somewhat, and will shorten it some more , and, like EEG, I intend to remove images, but I intend to continue using it as a place to show the current status of my views on a number of important issues, including some about which I am frequently quoted. . (I do have subject talk-pages also, but that's an older system that never worked well--what is on them is either obsolete or a duplicate). I find it much more unhelpful that other people don't keep their recent work so easily available. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Restoration of honorific prefixes in articles of deceased public figures (like politicians)

Dunno if this is the right venue for this complaint, but I'd like to report IP user 120.29.77.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for re-adding honorific prefixes in articles where they aren't applicable despite having been warned in the talk page and reverted several times by other editors. This has been his only (and recent) activity since joining the website. Nincompoopian (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• It would help if you would give specific examples so we don't have to pour through all his contribs and guess which you object to. Honorific prefixes are part of the template, although they should be sourced like any other content. If they don't belong at all, then yes, but it would help to give us a list of some. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. I discovered that this IP is another sock puppet of a banned registered user. I've filed a sockpuppet report to the admins instead. Feel free to archive this one. Thanks. Nincompoopian (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Avedji

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

---

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

1. "POV pushing by an Iranian nationalist"[329]
2. "Referring to him as an Iranian nationalist is not abusive or derogatory. If it quacks like a duck..."[330]
3. Tried to add the same content on four occassions:[331]
4. Has made 12 edits in total[332]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user "Avedji" is not here to build this encyclopedia.
For the record; there's a massive surge in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on this article by drive-by accounts, sleepers, IPs and sockpuppets. In addition to overal harassment on Wikipedia targeting User:HistoryofIran. Pinging El C as he's aware of this. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mass attack at List of mental disorders

I figure this may get more rapid attention here than page protection noticeboard. The vandalism appears to be just today. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Already done. Great, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

New target: List of neurological conditions and disorders. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both pages protected by Zzuuzz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrmister371

Mrmister371 (a new account created today) has a habit of either altering the vocal octave range of artists, which ignores the citations within the article,[333][334][335][336][337][338] or adding unsourced vocal ranges to other articles.[339][340][341][342] (Note, these are not exhaustive examples: there are many more in his edit history). I think they might be good faith edits, but he unfortunately isn't responding to talk page messages. He's received several warnings, but I also tried to be clearer. Nothing's getting through, unfortunately, and he's persisting. — Czello 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Indef block. Any communication from this user would have been helpful. Open to unblock iff the user shows an understanding of WP:RS and WP:V. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

New User:11Anonymous1122 and disruptive editing

11Anonymous1122 (talk · contribs) has been trying to remove cited and referenced text and insert poorly supported claims in Suhungmung ([343], [344], [345], [346])and Borpatrogohain ([347], [348], [349]). It is possible that these edits also constitute WP:EDITWAR. They have been pointed to using WP:RS and following WP:RULES (here) and the response has been a list of social media links [350]. I am requesting intervention to deal with this disruption. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give 11Anonymous1122 a final warning, since on his talkpage he seems to at least realize he'll need to change his editing patterns. If it continues after that, a block would be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: thank you, this sounds very reasonable. Chaipau (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to article ban Cambial Yellowing from United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020

• Support, to end their effective ownership of the article and tendentious editing through countless edit wars / breaking of the 3RR, misappropriations of wikipedia policy they clearly understand, referring to sources which don't back their increasingly absurd arguments (they hope you don't have the time to read through), rarely conceding obvious facts to ensure discussion only ends when every other editor gives up, regularly filing reports on other's behaviour which they don't adhere to themselves... for the purpose of including as much negative material and skewing the language of the article to make the act it describes appear to have a greater imposition than reality.146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This evidence-less (zero diffs) post, that jumps straight to an WP:ABAN for some reason, seems like a non-starter. Probably should be summarily closed. El_C 20:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi El_C, I will appreciate your eyes on this. Have been trying to implement CaptainEek's proposed version of this section made during moderation, as the discussion has gone dormant due to lack of engagement. The verbatim version of that proposal, and attempts to reword in various ways to address what IP says are their concerns and incorporate IP's contributions into the lead, have been met with blanket reversions to their own interpretation of the primary source. The post here is I think an attempt at "revenge" after their behaviour was reported at 3RR. Cambial foliage❧ 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The link reported at 3RR Cambial Yellowing would like to bring your attention to would be a good place to look before making your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the current discussion on the article talk page is a typical example of the editor's style of never reaching consensus through arguments that are patently false to anyone who cares to investigate[[351]] .146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, both of you violated 3RR, IP, so for you to only mention CY's violation but omit your own — that isn't a great look. It also doesn't look promising for your position that everyone else seems to disagree with your changes, yet you keep edit warring to insert the addition back. That is disruptive editing, in my view. So, please aim at observing WP:ONUS, because, right now, you're doing the very opposite. El_C 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have a tool which can show how many times Cambial Yellowing has inserted/reverted the text "and to restrict" into the article; having read the last few comments in the talk section, it should be very apparent why I've decided to start this process.

I have encouraged you to visit the link that Cambial Yellowing provided which is their report against me. I do not hide from my own actions, I hope you have the time to visit the page and also to investigate the context of which this all occurred.146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I do have such a tool, IP: my eyes! El_C 02:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I had been trying to moderate the discussion, but a variety of factors hampered my effectiveness. Several of the contributors were either banned or simply gave up, and then the IP came in and starting causing trouble. I think some combo of full protection, or blocking, is in order. Through a significant amount of discussion, I think the version I proposed in my moderation (and which is substantially implemented in the current version of the page) is the consensus version, and the IP is warring against it for reasons that are beyond my comprehension. To be fair, Cambial was also warring with the IP, which is disappointing. Though I think Cambial's version is the consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of progress on CaptainEek's moderation (edit: which I did attempt to contribute to in the absence of editors who became frustrated, I've also attempted to contact CaptainEek directly), it was Cambial Yellowing who then presumed the outcome and edited the introduction to include again "and to restrict" which is the issue I've been attempting to solve on the talk page since then. I won't rehash the discussion there; for anyone who has a bit of time to understand the subject, the facts speak for themselves and I'm now arguing against something which makes no logical sense at all. I appreciate this is a technical matter and Cambial Yellowing has a veneer of integrity but I am confident you would then understand why I'm spending any effort on this.146.198.108.170 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

After I first implemented a slightly modified version (because of a technical legal sense of the word "prescribes" which could lead to confusion), IP reverted to an arbitrary earlier version taken from the middle of extensive disruption. I then implemented the exact version proposed by CaptainEek and linked to the proposal in edit summary. Recent changes on my part have not been reversions, but attempts to rephrase to address what IP says is their concern (that it implies a separate and unmentioned section of the act, though I struggle to perceive this interpretation), and to incorporate their text into the lead in npov (which is done in the current version). I admit that attempts to work through WP:EDITCON when it became obvious they were simply reverting anything regardless of the content was seriously unwise. Cambial foliage❧ 21:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was and remain neutral on the precise wording of the sentence in question and my efforts on the article reflect that. All I was and am seeking is for the article not to start with a sentence which is easily misinterpreted and inaccurate. I am stunned by how difficult doing so has become.146.198.108.170 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure I understand the point of you saying that. Obviously, both camps (are you solitary in your own?) consider their approach to better reflect policy imperative. But, again, the point is that, for you, representing the contesting version, to observe WP:ONUS (linked a 2nd time).

If resolution on the article talk page hits an impasse there, there are dispute resolution requests (like launching a Request for comment) that can bring further outside input to the dispute to resolve it once and for all — though it sounds like this was already attempted, but you still remain steadfast against the prevailing consensus. Possibly, I've missed something as I have not reviewed any of the details at this time. This is just my general impression (only). El_C 02:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I made my previous point in the context of edit warring, I have no preferred text to bulldoze. I make this plea as a solitary individual, other editors facing this treadmill have left wikipedia as a result. I would strongly encourage you to review the details, the current impasse on the talk page is a matter of defying truth and logic in a manner that I can only describe as malicious; placed against the history of the editor in question, it's yet another example of concerted pattern where a veil of appearing to adhere to policy at a casual glance is far more like tendentious editing when held up to scrutiny.146.198.108.170 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• El_C I know this is boring. IP user is now canvassing editors who have never contributed to the page, presumably in the belief they will be sympathetic to IP's POV. Cambial foliage❧ 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that it is canvassing (or presumptive), but for the time being, I'll keep the breadcrumbs in my pocket. El_C 20:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at the latest entries on the [talk page], you won't even need to research the subject (although I encourage you to, in order to understand how deep this goes) to see the shark being jumped by Cambial Yellowing; the current argument they're making is the equivalent of claiming that black is white, while screaming indignation at someone pointing out the obvious facts.146.198.108.170 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, to be clear, I'm unlikely to do that. Sounds boring and, erm, taxing, too. Volunteering my time any further to this doesn't really appeal to me. El_C 21:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it and it would be helpful, if before forming an opinion, you would to lend the favour of judging the case on its merits.146.198.108.170 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, I haven't formed an opinion, except for, as I said from the very beginning, that as far as ban requests go, this one is especially poorly-documented (zero diff evidence). Beyond that, I've offered some general advise and recommendations, but, otherwise, am just not that interested in looking into this further at this time. El_C 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I read through the talk page discussion. Twice. And marveled at Cambial Yellowing's patience. Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? even where they just seriously contradicted themselves based on false claims?146.198.108.170 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, really. ANI is not for adjudicating content disputes; the specifics of the disagreement on the lead don't matter here. ANI is for conduct. Setting aside the edit warring on the article which you both engaged in, what I see on the talk page is CY trying really hard to figure out what your precise objection is. I do believe that you think that you're communicating your issues with the content clearly, but I can't figure out them out from that talk page discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible impersonation of deceased Wikipedian

Hello, I came across Sbuogakrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the user creation log. A couple of suspicious things here:

1. The account's first edit is an RFA for NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs). Its only other edit as of this writing is a notification of the RFA at North's user talk page. Note: I don't suspect NorthBySouthBaranof of any wrongdoing at this time.
2. The account's signature says "KevanGormen", which last I checked (admittedly several years ago) is not a violation in and of itself since it links to the correct user page and user talk page.
3. I noted that "KevanGormen" is suspiciously similar to Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs), a deceased Wikipedian that seems to have been well-respected in some circles (I never interacted with him AFAIK), which got me wondering if this is a case of impersonation.

Can some folks look into this? I find it highly unlikely that Sbuogakrmn is a truly new user. I smell a sock but I don't know who the master would be. TIA. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear impersonation/vandalism. I blanked/db-tagged the page and the sock should be blocked/CUed. Likely that whoever's doing it is CU-aware and the lead will go nowhere, but worth a try. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: @NorthBySouthBaranof: Yeah it's a perennial LTA obsessed with impersonating Kevin Gorman. I've blocked them, Total weirdo behavior. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I first met Kevin Gorman at a conference on Wikipedia in Higher Education in Boston in 2011, even though we were both Northern Californians. He was a thin, intense UC Berkeley student interested in mushrooms, philosophy and gender equity. He had obvious physical health problems that may have affected his mental health as he sometimes showed signs of stress when I interacted with him at edit-a-thons in Berkeley and San Francisco. He was totally devoted to Wikipedia and contributed some great content but was also drawn into various ugly gender related disputes. And then he died way too young of the health conditions I had perceived years earlier. I met some of his family members after his death at the Wikimedia North America conference in San Diego in 2016. Five years later, there is a vile troll who obsessively engages in reprehensible socking behavior to besmirch his memory and mock him in death. A truly sick puppy. Revert and deny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Any chance of an edit filter to stop any attempts to post using various re-spellings of "Kevin Gorman"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There was another attack by this sad person using the moniker Jaekg65364. I am reminded of words of wisdom by Antandrus: "While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane. A little compassion can help, although one's initial impulse is to strike back. Don't. It's a sign of strength not to retaliate, and a peaceful response may actually do some good." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wise words, though still ban them on sight, and preferably poke a CU if you haven't seen one around. I see some unfortunate names used when it comes to this particular troll. It's worth mentioning the name which should be used for the troll, if any, and that's User:Jaredgk2008. Just Jared will also do. As for the filter, we do have filter(s) dedicated to Jaredgk2008. We could maybe work them some more, but some of it is frankly a bit difficult to filter, which is why there's all the obscure characters. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)