Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084

WP:FOLLOWING by User talk:49.180.171.190

The editing record shows that the ip user is following my edits across multiple pages and systematically reverting them. Details in the edit summaries indicate that the user has intimate knowledge of the encyclopedia’s policies and is most likely operating either other registered, sockpuppet accounts or along an ip range. Administrator intervention would be greatly welcomed.Estnot (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week for harassment (WP:HOUNDING), though you are pretty new yourself, Estnot seeing as you joined on Sept 2. I didn't understand the basis for you claiming this person is operating either other registered, sockpuppet accounts or along an ip range. I also upgraded the protection (my own) from pc to one year semi for Meng Wanzhou, not because of this dispute so much, though. El_C 13:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C I made those comments on the basis of similar edits from other ip addresses on the relevant articles and also, as I pointed out, details in the user’s edit summaries which indicate he is most likely not a new user. (Like his citation of wp:blp in reverting my edits on the Meng Wenzhou page which is a policy that I did not even know even existed until now.)

on a separate note I am unsure how to proceed as this is my first time encountering this type of situation. Am I allowed to revert those hounding edits? I feel like I can and should but there might be a risk that I might unnecessarily escalate things especially if the user gets off the unblock list and decides to edit war on those pages. would it might be better if you reverted those edits? Estnot (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Estnot, what I'm saying is that if all the IPs are of that range, then that would not be a basis. Sorry, I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of the material to do anything else right now. Unless there are pressing WP:BLP concerns, in which case, please spell those out. Even though these were hounding edits, please don't revert them for that reason alone (i.e. without citing an explanation tied to the contested content itself). About the future: just report any further hounding from that IP to admins again, which will carry more severe action. El_C 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Estnot as an aside, I noticed you do like to use reverts a lot, could you please bear in mind the suggestions in WP:ONLYREVERT when you do in the future? I'm not saying any particular revert you have made was inappropriate, but reverting good-faith edits entirely is often not the right course of action, and may lead to more hostility, at the very least be gentle when doing so. JeffUK (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gihan Jayaweera and promotional work at Wiki

Articles Chandimal Jayasinghe, CameraLK, Piumi Hansamali were hardly secure place in Wikipedia. However, they looks like paid work or advertisement or POV, and many deleted articles (please see the log) were part of this work! You may notice how this user hardly talked keep the articles and invite other users to keep what he started. (Eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piumi Hansamali, help). I request wiki community to intervene and delete those POV articles which is promotion, not encylopedia. I have some photos which he poses with those figures. I am not going to publish since it is personal. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Extremely unethical comments about myself and my wiki edits. He is saying that theyare promotional. Definitely wrong. I am a Wikipedian for more than 8 years now. It is my love to contribute to Wiki and keep it flying high. Nothing promotional. This person is re-admitting my works to delete. May be a personal conflict or anger with myself and my work. Piumi, Chandimal and Cameralk works have been inspected by other proud Wikipedians and admins. That is why they are in the mainspace. This newly registered user has a personal rift I guess. Also, if you have any photos, post them. He is lying. Purely incorrect. I dont have any personal link with those persons. GihanJayaweera^TALK 17:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse a longstanding editor of promotional, paid, and POV editing, you're definitely going to have to provide diffs. The help diff you provided is certainly WP:CANVASSING, but this seems more like a matter for AfD to me. Curbon7 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

check here is one of WP:CANVASSINGs. There are more if you check here during january 2021, you could see →‎Piumi Hansamali article requests. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

see the log --JusticeForce101 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Really you have some kind of anger on me. Why I am saying like that, because that incident happened way back in January. Also, after that canvassing or whatever, those user told me not to do like that. So I accepted that and finally Piumi's article got deleted. But, the article was accepted again to mainspace by admins. Not by me. So why you are keep telling me that, I did many canvassing. It was over and dusted. You are uprooting previous faults against me. That means, you have something on me. I am not the one that included them again to mainspace. You better ask that one from those accepted ADMINs...This is clearly insulting me and my work. check this one. One admin informed me about that canvassing. After that message from him, I did not made canvassing. If you say so, then tell me. GihanJayaweera^TALK 13:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment. It does seem AntanO warned Gihan Jayaweera about Canvassing, and he stopped while letting the mainspace article be deleted. I guess there was another copy in Jayaweera's userspace which got moved to draftspace and finally accepted in July by Theroadislong.
While it was a year ago, I do think it is important to point out that Gihan Jayaweera originally voted to delete the article in 2020. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Two requests regarding Emigré55

First request: WP:IBAN between myself and him

Hi! Over the past few weeks the interactions between him and I have been of contentious, personal, and aggressive character so I am seeking an IBAN. Another possibility that might be suitable here is a topic ban for both of us. I cordially invite JBchrch to pitch in, they have been invaluable in mediating between us two and helped me realized when I had crossed the line when interacting with Emigre55. I know you wanted to avoid an IBAN but I just want to forget about Emigre and be done with this.

On my side

I have been disrespectful to him in multiple cases:

• diff here with my apology diff here
• diff here with my apology diff here
• possibly here
• diff here

On his side

He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:

• removing better source tags without providing a better source, refusing to seek consensus,

The following diffs refer to either his general conduct in the talk page or main page of the Article on Eric Zemmour, which should be taken into context when dealing on this matter. Aggresive wikilawyering: Perhaps this characterization is not the most accurate for all the diffs and another way of qualifying the disruptiveness (as I see it) of his edits listed below, but I leave that up to others to comment.

• See here, here, here, where bringing the issue to the talk page would have been the best move, here, unnecessarily detailing WP policies, here, here, here

WP:Hounding:

• Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Éric_Zemmour#Request_for_comment_on_the_description_of_Eric_Zemmour's_ideology I am claiming hounding here as the only way I can see him finding this link is by watching my contributions. Note his wording "I noticed ..." here. If I am wrong on this point, I will quickly retract this accusation.

Second request:

I don't have a specific request, I just would like for editors reading my submission here to take into account other instances of his disruptive editing to either other users or other pages. Munci,Hemiauchenia feel free to contribute if you see it necessary. Other ANI-related discussions in the past: October of last year, October of last year, this month, August last year, September last year, Discussion in his appeal to the block given to him mentioned in previous diffs, July of this year.

Final comment:

I might have not followed the WP procedure for creating this page discussing the incident, in that case I apologize in advance as my only previous experience in ANI was with this unresolved incident (which I think got resolved after I asked for the relevant pages to be semi-protected). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

As to the first request:

1/ On accusation: “He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:

• removing better source tags without providing a better source, (...) “''

Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, where it can also be seen that I announce it in the commentary of the diff ("→‎International relations: see following sentence and ref"), I have provided 3 citations and a source immediately after this revert, here.

• (...) refusing to seek consensus",

Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, I have not refused to seek consensus:

I have first answered her question, and stated, as precisely as I could, the reasons why I thought/think that there is “undue weight” in the § in discussions.

Furthermore, I have then, with the last sentence of my edit, asked a question: “Please, explain if you see another way to improve neutrality and also undue weight of the whole section relative to the whole article”. Question which remained unanswered by Santacruz. She then only answered: “Well, I disagree Emigré55".

It appears to me that, by only answering then that she disagreed, and not answering my questions and/or suggestions on how to reduce undue weight, she decided to leave the debate on that particular point, which was hence closed “de facto” by her without the search of a further consensus on her side.

2/ On accusation of “Aggressive wikilawyering":

• I have always tried to explain precisely what I understand from the rules, citing them and mentioning what and how is pertinent to the case or the point in discussion. E.g., here, and here again:

Particularly on « undue weight », « So, rephrasing my question could be: What to do to correct the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements" of the first sub section, which is presently given an "undue weight", because of them ? », I do not understand why this can be qualified as «aggressive wikilawyering», having patiently rephrased my question and further asked how to make the article better in her opinion, following the rule as explained. Here again, I also received no answer to my question.

I have also never been «aggressive» , no example is even given on this point.

3/ On WP:HOUNDING:

I have never "joined discussions on multiple pages or topics (she) may have edit(ed) or multiple debates where (she) contribute(d), to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Since September, I ONLY contribute to the Eric Zemmour article, which can be easily verified.

Furthermore, the rule states that "the contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases".

In my opinion, the first request is hence based on accusations against me lacking all merits.

Reading WP:HOUNDING, I noticed that it also states that "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor."--Emigré55 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As to the second request:

• WP:NPA states here: « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
  
• Also, I do not understand what is the request, with several diff given “to be characterised” or assessed by others, what appears to me, for lack of a better word, as “cherry-picking”, or approaching this practice.
  
• If a request is not characterised, I think that this “claim” should be dismissed, as being unduly brought.

Emigré55 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As to the Final Comment:

Finally, I would like to add that I have introduced the sections on Zemmour's political ideas at the end of September, somewhat reorganised them, waiting for others to bring input, which did not happen. I started then, slowly, carefully, to improve and substantiate them, as they should be more important than controversies, as was and still is the case now in this article.

Since September, on an article which was/still is to a large extent (before I started patiently editing it) heavily biased, breaching neutrality as well as balance and BLP rules, not to mention lack of content on the real substance of his political and economic ideas, I have contributed 261 edits, 57,4% of all edits, or 31,4% of the article by added text.

Becoming, to my surprise, the first contributor to this article.

By contrast, A.C.Santacruz appears to have made 3 edits, and appears to rank n°36 among all 266 editors.

See statistics of the article, here:

Top 10 by edits:

Emigré55 · 261 (57.4%)
ActiveContributor2020 · 45 (9.9%)
Hemiauchenia · 36 (7.9%)
Philip Cross · 24 (5.3%)
JBchrch · 20 (4.4%)
Steve Smith · 18 (4%)
Causteau · 16 (3.5%)
MB · 15 (3.3%)
Munci · 11 (2.4%)
Xiaopo · 9 (2%)

Top 10 by added text (approximate):

Emigré55 · 45,979 (31.4%)
BrownHairedGirl · 37,083 (25.3%)
Xiaopo · 27,324 (18.7%)
ActiveContributor2020 · 10,791 (7.4%)
Munci · 7,033 (4.8%)
Steve Smith · 6,899 (4.7%)
Malaria28 · 5,513 (3.8%)
Hemiauchenia · 2,246 (1.5%)
Causteau · 1,852 (1.3%)
JBchrch · 1,656 (1.1%)

--Emigré55 (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to Emigré55's retorts

1. Disruptive also means to disregard other editors' explanations for their edits, such as you did here. On refusing to build consensus, such is your endless arguing ad nauseam that other editors have told you to stop WP:BLUDGEON.

2. On wikilawyering, i especially refer to the section describing it as "brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution". You frequently wave the name of NPOV around to back your own claims while forgetting that we are all biased and thus need consensus to find the best way to show information on this project. In the discussion I linked about Zemmour's trials section, I proposed here to change the section from a he said/she said type structure to a chronological one in order to encourage less bias. You not only disagreed, but then disregarded my proposed solution. I realized that anything short of exactly whatever you were asking (perfect partiality suiting your bias) would not be enough for you and just left the discussion. You were, in my opinion, not suggesting solutions as much as brandishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE to shut down other editors in the discussion from proposing solutions and finding common ground.

3. You justify your watching my contribution log as being useful to "dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases". However, what dispute resolution or arbitration case are you referring to where you needed to gather evidence on my actions? Why was it necessary for you to complain against me asking for a neutral editor to judge the discussion?

4. Why are you trying to use statistics on the contribution of the article here? What does that have to do with anything? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You presented your arguments in your initial 2requests/complaint. I presented then mine in response to your accusations, which, as I have shown with diffs, have no merit in my opinion.

I think there are enough arguments for an admin to make a decision, if needed.

You seem to further want to argue, with this "response" to my previous statement. I don’t think it is necessary to further argue here:

• Either on your side as you just did above, because you seem to be willing to extend the dispute to new grounds, thus escalating the dispute you started before.
• Or on my side, although I would have precise arguments to answer you, because I do not wish to fuel such escalation.

I will therefore not answer you, unless an admin finds it useful and/or asks me to do so.

Thank you for your understanding.--Emigré55 (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, it's inappropriate for you to link to editorial processes on the article talk page in a footnote! Those are only intended for sources and/or explanatory notes about the content. El_C 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's inappropriate to invoke that RfC for anything, seeing as it's still ongoing. You need to wait till it concludes before consensus or lack thereof can be asserted in connection to it. El_C 15:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed this. Your edit summary says: Edited page based on closed RfC (diff) — but it hasn't been closed. Okay, now I'm confused. El_C 15:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C See [1] and subsequent [2]. JBchrch talk 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Eep. El_C 16:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that since no one had talked in the RfC in 3 days, and with it being open for over a week with only one editor disagreeing w consensus on far-right it was safe enough for me to close, my bad on that. JBchrch instructed me on how to do it properly and I thus filed the closure request. I'll take into account in the future not to link talk pages on efns. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. As A._C._Santacruz noted, I sort of attempted to moderate the disputes between the two editors. I have ostensibly failed, but that's beyond the point. In my view, there's nothing here that reaches the intensity required for administrative action. As Arb Dennis Brown recently said at WP:AE "some heat is expected in contentious areas, and is tolerated by the community". Both editors just need to take a chill pill, and either drop the WP:STICK in relation to the disputes they are involved in, or seek WP:DR. They should both be trouted upside the head for their agressive demeanor over the last week and their consistent failure to de-escalate (maybe A._C._Santacruz should be trouted a second time for this ANI request), given some Tylenol, and sent on their way. JBchrch talk 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  JBchrch, Dennis Brown is not an arbitrator. El_C 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks El_C. Calling every admin an arb is my way of networking with the admins. JBchrch talk 17:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Appears unnecessary. Granted, I've only taken a cursory look, but if you were rude, but have the good sense to apologize, and the other party doesn't want a iban, and both have been rude to each other.... then go do something different for a while. I'm not trying to be overly simplistic, but maybe that should be tried first. Wikipedia has no deadline. We will get by if you don't edit in that area for a time. You have the power, use it. I say this because I do not like ibans, and my history of using the admin bit has been filled with TOPIC bans and extended mutual blocks instead, refusing to support ibans in virtually all circumstances. As an admin, my goal isn't "justice", it's about finding a solution that benefits everyone, not just you two. There are plenty of other areas that can benefit from your efforts, just go do something else for a while, will you guys? Chill out, and figure out how to get along, because an iban isn't something I'm likely to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• JBchrch, El_C, Dennis Brown After seeing this was going nowhere and I had removed the relevant pages from my watchlist I took some time off to reflect on my and Emigre's actions and wrote a humorous essay on it. I added a section based on the insanely long ARS thread above. I'm still somewhat wilded out by him watchlisting my contributions (or however he found out about my closure request), but I don't see any action happening there and I'd much rather focus my time and stress on fixing the article on the First Carlist War in my sandbox. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Seems like a heated content dispute, which could have easily been resolved at the talk page if either user just took a moment to cool down. As an aside, I seriously believe something needs to be done with the essay project at this point. Even if they're labelled "humorous", I find it quite derisive of our entire volunteer experience – and counter-intuitive to our policies – that someone can passive aggressively vent their frustrations at another user in that manner. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from proposer

Admins feel free to close without action. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User Wtyuy WP:NOTHERE

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

Account's edit history consists of politically motivated section blanking [3][4], unexplained content removal [5][6][7] and the requisite nasty comment about CNN [8]. They're only here to disrupt. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. clpo13_(talk) 06:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Myanmar National Airlines

This IP user User:103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) has been seriously disruptive edit behavior at the page of Myanmar National Airlines with this contributions are all unsourced [9]. I tried to warn this IP but it also get repeatedly adding an unsourced edits. I hope this IP user will ban for like 1 day and the Myanmar National Airlines will also be protected. Thank you! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 2 weeks along with a warning that if they continue after the block they'll be blocked completely from the Myanmar National Airlines article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User Zedzedz123 Making legal Threats

User Zedzedz123 has made legal threats with their edit summary here and here, he was warned here and still the another threat.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that sort of language seems intended to have a chilling effect, but I'm not sure those comments quite cross the line into direct legal threats. I've asked that they make stop doing that though, and make a statement to the effect that they do not intend to pursue any such action themselves.

As ever, this isn't the place to discuss content, but what the hell: I'm not sure that the content and source belong in a BLP. The text you reinstated was 'He is one of several top military officers implicated in the $2.1 billion arms scam involving the former National Security Adviser...'. What the source actually says that an estate he owns was raided. There's a bit more coverage of it here, which suggest that he was earmarked for investigation, and I assume the raid was part of that, but I'm not seeing anything to say that charges were ever brought, or any evidence presented that would 'implicate' him in the scandal. Certainly, he seems still to be active in public life in Nigeria, so I'm guessing there was never a prosecution. A better phrasing might be something along the lines of '...an estate owned by him was raided as part of investigations into...', but if there is no source suggesting that charges were ever brought, one might make the argument that any mention of it is undue. Something to thrash out on talk, without any legal threats, of course. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hdepayns

User:Hdepayns has made persistent copyright violations and made an attempted disclosure of others' personal information. - since deleted.

On 28 October, Hdepayns uploaded and added a copyrighted image to Donhead Preparatory School. That day, Hdepayns was warned and the image deleted. As per the user's commons talk page.

Much later that day, 12 hours later, Hdepayns added text from the website of Donhead Preparatory School to the article. The next day, admin deleted and warned that those who persist in copyright violations must be blocked. This is on User talk:Hdepayns.

On 3 November, Hdepayns uploaded a Google Street View image onto Collingham College. The next day, it was deleted and Hdepayns was warned again. Again, it's on the talk pages.

The user responded by an attempted outing, since deleted by oversight, and after this outing was deleted, Hdepayns threatened Wikipedia sanctions on User talk:Hdepayns and my talk page.

Efforts (on the talk page) were made by myself and admin not to bite the newcomer after the first and second copyright violations respectively. However after the third copyvio, and now the latest message, and to deter the continuation of this and get to something less disruptive, can Hdepayns be put on timeout or something? Cardofk (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. WP:CIR (or otherwise WP:PACT) -driven WP:COPYVIO and WP:OUTING — a bad mix. El_C 10:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you El_C for acting so quickly on this. It was just a relief to see it resolved. However, sorry, but a sockpuppet User:MajorTom52 has just appeared and uploaded the same copyvio photo from before: File:17QueensGatePlace.png. Cardofk (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I blocked from ground control and sprotected the page. El_C 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Love the Bowie reference, cheers! Cardofk (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Both now CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Potential sock creation of article

• Jean-François Ott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elijahgraham26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Valentina Bussi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP created an article on Simple Wikipedia about the person above (simple:Jean-François Ott) which Elijahgraham26 contributed to and uploaded a portrait of the person, adding it to that article. They had been blocked about 6 months earlier on this Wikipedia for promotion and suspected sockpuppetry. And just recently, Valentina Bussi created the article above on this Wikipedia after contributing to the simple Wikipedia article 3 months earlier. You can see that the article is both an exact copy of the simple Wikpiedia one and also originally doesn't have a proper title; the now-proper title had been previously deleted as G11 and later G12. There may have been some rampant interwiki sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 12:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sockness can't be proven, but editor is blocked for UPE (and I CU-blocked a clearly related account). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have have a few issues but I put them as 2 issues.

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts

 – –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Issue one: I was improving the page below with reliable sources from another link from Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(given_name)

My edits were reverted. I changed it back and wrote on the article’s talk page. They reverted it back and added a link on the article’s talk page. that only support me. I then reverted it back but improved what it said with links from reliable sources on the article’s talk page as the one Wikipedia guide said. They did not look and came to my talk page to give me a warning about original research and nothing I put was original research. It was real facts. I think my links were overlooked. They did not talk to me or even trying to discuss this. This was almost 3 reverts in 24 hours from them. It was 3 in like 48 hours. I think this matter needs to be looked into.

My solution: Maybe you can look at the page and maybe lock it. Maybe look into that user which can be found on that page and my talk page. It has stop now because I have not reverted it back. I am now asking on those animated shows for information and looking into Wikipedia articles for guidance. Can I remove the unnecessary and misused warning from my page?

Issue 2: I approached someone I have talked to in the past for advice but the conversation went to a personal attack on me. They even brought in past editors I had arguments with in the conversation which was unwarranted and bizarre but they did that about me and their misunderstanding on those topics and nothing to do with why I came to them. Now they are deleting anything I post to standing up to the false accusations they are telling. I tried to do what is best for Wikipedia and tried to follow the guides. There is so much it is overwhelming. I am a new user. I just don’t like it when I follow the guidelines on reliable sources and editors telling me different but when I showed them I am wrong and it is turned into a person attack insulting me. I would restore my comment because it is not only to them and it is standing you for myself but it would be only removed again.

My solution: Maybe this user needs to be looked into which can be found in my contributions and they did make an edit to the link above. I am already avoiding this user because they were trying to intimidated me and insult me instead of having a real conversation with me. I just wished they would leave my comment that stands up for myself there instead of removing it. Which brings me to my next question. I have looked but found nothing on the subject. Can I remove my topic thread I started on that users page? It is not a topic thread to improve Wikipedia as I hoped but just a thread to bash me on for standing up what I believe in and my good reliable edits from following Wikipedia guidelines. I feel uncomfortable with it being there and especially if I can’t defend my self to the attacks. They may not did anything to violate the person attacks policy but they are close. I feel threatened and feel personally attacked over me asking for guidance. This user instead of saying they shared their opinion and i can go here if I want to fight it, they wanted to insult me and criticize all my past actions in the wrong interpretation. I feel uncomfortable on Wikipedia. FedualJapan (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@FedualJapan: This is mostly a content dispute. I'll explain more on the article's talk page. However, JesseRafe, try to maybe be less WP:BITE-y?[10][11] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I notified this user for you as is required. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:JesseRafe has shown FeudalJapan as much good faith as they deserve. I note in FJ's compliant here they singularly fail to mention how they basically trolled Drmies—to the extent that FJ was effectively dismissed from Drmies' talk. Provoking this from one of the mildest mannered admins we have is certainly an achievement, and one that FJ is doubtless leery of publicizing here. Boomerang may apply. ——Serial 15:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  User:MJL Thank you for looking into the first matter. I wished User:JesseRafe would had talked to me about this more on the talk page of the article as Wikipedia has requested. It would had made things better. There needs to be good faith on here. About the matter with Drmies I didn’t troll Drmies. If anything they trolled me. I was trying to have a real conversation while they only could personally attack me and bring in others to attack me which had no reason to be there. I tried sharing what I have been using from Wikipedia but they could only blame, criticize, and insult me. Now when I stand up to the bullying Drmies removes the comment. I have NOT trying to provoke anything just standing up to personal attacks on me. I only went to them in seeking advice but it was handled wrong. It needed to be about the subject not attacks on me. I will only state the truth and I am sorry there are lies being told to you. There really needs to be more good faith here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedualJapan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  So, on the one hand, you're calling editors liars and trolls, but on the other hand, there needs to be more good faith? An interesting approach. ——Serial 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, well, then this really might just be a WP:CIR issue and WP:IDHT. I didn't see that talk discussion.
  A lot of editorial time seems to have been spent on this user. I have explained one last time what FJ needs to do in order to add a character to the list. If FJ follows that advice and stops trying to add the Maya's from Sailor Moon, then I have at least some hope.
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a well regarded policy, and FedualJapan needs to understand that if they want to continue editing here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  That seems an excellent summary of the situation... ——Serial 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:MJL I had already did some of that about 24 hours and will continue to go forward. I am editing in good faith and proactive. Yesterday, I took the right actions and not adding them back unless they are added to Wikipedia. I already posted the on talk page and I wished I received a reply like yours instead. I went to someone with more experience to ask but I wished I went to you or someone like you instead because you actually explained it. Thank you. Also, I have not talk to this other editor called Serial at all but to the warning they issue me. I have not called anyone lairs or trolls. I will reread the comments but I felt bullied and just stood up for myself. If I remember correctly I only asked and I said there are lies which is not calling them lairs. I only used trolled because Serial said I was trolling Drmies but I feel it is the other way around and I feel my words are twisted around. I am easily to get along with but I will defend myself when mistreated. Can you issue the same warning to Serial as he gave me? He did assume bad faith with me with his first reply in saying I was trolling Drmies when I wasn’t. I went to Drmies for advice but it stop being about advice. I wanted a real conversation with Drmies. And I feel Serial continues to do by his actions. I am trying to solve issues not be disruptive. His warning to me: “Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at (link to here), you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Thank you so much if he said I trolled Drmies that is assuming I am here to harm rather to improve. I was not trolling. I am sorry they have that view. I am not here to troll, harass, or to be disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedualJapan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

JustANameInUse repeated block evasion

JustANameInUse who was indef blocked on Wikipedia returns to Wikipedia every 5 or 6 months after his blocks expire. He is now using the IP [12]. His agenda is to always push a POV related to the carnivore diet, saturated fat, Atkins diet and now Ancel Keys. One of the last IPs he was blocked on was in July [13]. The same user also has a history of leaving homophobic comments [14]

If you check the history of the Atkins diet talk-page you can see his disruption in the past [15]. This user uses the IP range 93.141 and always leaves long edit summaries. There is no doubt it is him. He has been reported several times to this board in the past.

Previous discussions at ANI about his user and his IPs [16] and [17], there have been others about his disruption. The consensus has been to block his IPs per WP:EVADE. CaptainEek who has blocked this users IPs before said he will extend the block if any new ones are found. Can an admin please extend the block on his latest IP 93.141.114.41? Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Honest-Critique adding non-WP:RS/WP:FRINGE, edit warring and insults, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith.

User:Honest-Critique (their personal Talk page here: [[18]]) initially removed sourced information from the Ashkenazi Jews page and changed a direct quote from a scientific source (initially here [[19]]) seemingly to fit their personal opinion regarding the topic. I explained that it was a quote from the study and quoted it for them in an edit note. They then added material to the article from a non-expert with a fringe position to two places in the article. I reverted them with explanations in the edit notes (one of them here: [[20]]). They then reverted me, reinstating their additions, this time with several edit messages containing extremely personal comments with insulting accusations and assumptions of bad faith.

Here they reinstated their material, having ignored my explanations, and simply accused me of having removed it because it hurt me (writing: "That's the genetic study, like it or not (and be Ashkenazi or not - which the various studies doubt), u r not entitled to remove sources because they "hurt" u.") [[21]]

Here in another edit note accused me of having "an obsession with falsehoods" with other personal comments, wroting: "Let's take a DNA test together, and see who between us is a direct descendant of the Ashkenazim? I bet that's the only way ur obsession with falsehoods will end." [[22]]

And another inappropriate and unsulting comment here: [[23]]

I reverted them again, again explaining my reasons were based on policies, asked them not to make accusations and personal attacks, and warned that I would report them if they continued to edit war. But given, their extremely inapropriate an personal comments and disregard for policy, it seems likely that they will continue, as they do not seem to be willing to discuss or be responsive to explanations.

I believe that this is the same person as a user who recently made similar POV edits (and also edit warred) on the Hebrew-language Wikipedia and was blocked, here [[24]], and whose name (which is in English there also) is the same as that of the present user ("Honest-Critique"). On the Hebrew Wikipedia, this user edit warred on the Ashkenazi Jews page while making innapropriately personal and uncivil comments in the edit notes (as can be seen using Google Translate. It translates automatically on some mobile devices). The user's name, as mentioned, is in English not Hebrew, and seems to be the same user as the subject of this report. See [[25]] And here [[26]]

(This user also reminds me of IP users who have made edits to this page in the past, pushing a similar POV and then resorting to flippant personal attacks when engaged with, challenged, or reverted and I suspect they may be the same person as well.) Here is the Ashkenazi Jews page's edit history for referrence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ashkenazi_Jews

Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Warned and indef partial blocked from Ashkenazi Jews. OMG, I hate mobile diffs so much! Anyway, Skllagyook, maybe worth having the regulars at WP:RSN or possibly WP:FTN review those sources...? I'm afraid this isn't an area with which I am especially familiar. The shenanigans at .he (whose links I overlooked on the first read) do not inspire confidence unfortunately that this is heading anywhere but a sitewide indef. El_C 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user as a sock of Wolfman12405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The behavior fits, and I believe the block at he.wiki was for that reason, and that the use of Wolfman1245 was a typo (there is no user named Wolfman1245).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Zamuel2000m

Zamuel2000m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems that Zamuel2000m user is on mission to Azerbaijanify articles rather than improve them here in Wikipedia. This is obviously not constructive and screams WP:NOTHERE. I did already report him/her back in August but to no avail [27]. Some examples;

23 August 2021 - Why is it not written Shaki Khanate in Azerbaijani Turkic

23 August 2021 - Added 'Azerbaijani' without a source

23 August 2021 - Added 'Azerbaijani' without a source

28 August 2021 - Aq qoyunlu and qara qoyunlu are Azerbaijani Turks

5 November 2021 - He is not persian but Azeri turkic

5 November 2021 - this dynasty is of Azeri origin

5 November 2021 - The army language and the dynastic language of the Safavid dynasty were Turkic (Azerbaijani), but why was it not specified?

Blocked indef. Fairly routine ethno-national fare. El_C 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Problematic editing from Chinese account

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

---

I recently encountered a Chinese account by the name of 羊瑞克, which has made questionable edits. The first questionable edit made was to the List of massacres in China article, which the user edited to remove mention of the 1959 Tibetan uprising without explanation. The second questionable edit was made to the Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party article, which the user edited to seemingly whitewash the CCP's Stance on Chinese traditions by changing The CCP is historically notorious for attempting to destroy aspects of Chinese culture, mainly folk Confucianism in the form of Four Olds under Mao. to The CCP was accused of attempting to destroy aspects of Chinese culture, mainly folk Confucianism in the form of Four Olds under Mao., again without explanation. The third and fourth questionable edits made were to the International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, which the user edited to remove any mention of the Taiwanese response to the attack, once again without explanation. This looks like a pro-CCP account attempting to whitewash and even entirely remove certain information about China and Taiwan. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE indef. Maybe a bit Stale, but might as well nip this in the bud. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for taking care of it! X-Editor (talk) 01:21, 6 November 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:BeingRealMan

• User: BeingRealMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Article 1: Dharmendra
• Article 2: Dharmendra filmography
• File 1: File:Dharam Ji Handsome image in the world.jpeg
• File 2: File:Dharmendra only true hero in indian cinema.jpeg

On Dharmendra, BeingRealMan has been repeatedly inserting that the article subject was "the most handsome man in the world" over a twenty year period in the 20th century. These edits have been occurring since at least October 31 (1, 2, 3). In addition, the user has uploaded several pictures of the Indian actor without providing a source or license for the materials (File 1 and File 2). The individual had been warned multiple times about this.

The individual has also been adding the unsourced and unlicensed images to Dharmendra filmography, as well as unsourced text material praising Dharmendra's works. I don't think this is a clear case of WP:AIV at this point, so I'm taking it here, but I believe that some preventative action could be taken to help protect Wikipedia from future fancruft would be a good thing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by IP 86.27.177.114

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

1. Added an extensive list of non-Pashtun kings of the Ghurid dynasty to the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties in order to press them as Pashtuns. No edit summary/source.[28]
2. Re-added the same extensive list. No source. Edit summary: "Ghurid dynasty is not Tajik or Persian khar". With "khar" being the Persian word for donkey.[29]]
3. Swapped a map at the Hotak dynasty page that had been created through WP:CON[30] with a map that shows supposedly greater territorial extent of a historically Pashtun Empire. No proper explanation, nor (counter)source against the original map, nor consensus.[31]
4. Tried to reinstate the same map by reverting an editor. No edit summary/explanation nor source.[32]
5. Tried to change, at the History of Iran page, the sentence "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC." into "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations which majority of it was looted from other countries"[33] Edit summary: "content". No source.

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this IP is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I looked at the history of both articles and this case could be block evasion and long-term POV-pushing. Disabling anonymous editing for 86.27.177.114 (if it's a shared/dynamic address) and semi-protection would be helpful. Mann Mann (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Ethno-national nonsense about sums it up. El_C 15:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

JusticeForce101

JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs) remove edits. See here. I invite to talk, but he sensor my edits. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean another user, not JusticeForce101 (yourself), but please read WP:BRD if you make a change that multiple other editors disagree with; you should discuss it on the talk page. Rather than throwing around words like 'censorship', you should try to find a consensus with the other editors JeffUK (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm actually going to throw around a boomerang here. JusticeForce101 can I ask under what accounts you've edited before as your editing patterns suggest some familiarity with Wikipedia procedures? I find it odd that they found ANI on their 9th edit. It seems to me like JusticeForce101 is an SPA who is acting in bad faith towards other users. They keep trying to add them same content in repeatedly, and appear to be nominating articles in bad faith. They have started two active sections on this board right now, and it all seems connected. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

JeffUK, I changed. I try to talk. but people just ignore and they do what they like to keep in wikipedia. User:Canterbury Tail do you want me to guess on me or the issues that i rose? Why don't to look at those articles and issues in neutral point of view? --JusticeForce101 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet you just tried to push your edit again in violation of WP:BLP policies, pushing a WP:POV to create "criticism" by dragging guilt by association to the limit. - UmdP 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Adammoore1982

Adammoore1982 is a COI Wikipedia:Single-purpose account who used this platform for 11 years to edit articles related to the Hillsong Church, and most of the edits are focused around defending the church's reputation. 119.193.23.15 (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

IP 119, why did you try to alter the IP address in your above post, per this? Also, as required by the big red notice at the top of this page, you should have notified Adammoore1982 of this thread. I’ve done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Can you block the IP? I think this is some class of trolling, along with, as you point out, personation of another IP. ——Serial 10:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not an admin. I noticed when posting the ANI notice that User:Damien Linnane had left a similar COI query with Adammoore1982 so it may be a legitimate issue. I don’t know. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Apologies! How soon can you stand? ——Serial 10:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, about then… DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 You are old enough for this platform and yet you have mistaken him as an admin? My man is losing some brain cells. 119.193.23.15 (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

did you really just attempt to take a shot at Serial Number 54129? well, apparently the joke is on you. Celestina007 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

119.193.23.15 (re-)blocked as a proxy. Incidentally, the IP they tried to imitate has previously been CheckUser blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't understand what's going on with whoever is running the IP address that started this thread, but irrespective of that, yes, the complaint itself is very valid. Adammoore1982 is a SPA who for 11 years has solely edited articles related to Hillsong, and often violates guidelines in doing so. As early as 2012, he was making false statements to defend Hillsong, such as with this edit: [34] In this edit, Adammoore1982 removes a source that confirms Hillsong paid their staff with grant money, then instead claims they did not. He then falsely states there is proof they did not pay their staff with grant money in a letter hosted on the Hillsong webpage, but if you read the letter he cited, it makes no such claims. As per his talk page, he has been warned about adding unreferenced info to a Hillsong-related article in 2013, and warned again in 2016 for removing content from the Hillsong page without explanation. I'm sure if you go through his edits manually, you will find many more instances of this behaviour, and if requested I would be happy to do so myself if there isn't enough evidence already to take any form of action. As per the comment I left on his talk page, I wasn't going to escalate this myself, but now that it has been by someone else (and a third-party has also pinged me here) I feel like I should comment. Also on websites outside Wikipedia I've also uncovered strong evidence Adammoore1982 has a conflict of interest with Hillsong Church (if that wasn't obvious already from his editing history), though I'm hesitant to post that information here as it's my understanding it would constitute as WP:OUTING. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Such evidence is very easy to find. Narky Blert (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Adammoore1982 from editing Hillsong Church for one year. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr. Punk Pirate

User is constantly making disruptive edits at Don't Change; edit violates WP:SONGCOVER which was also done previously by anonymous IPs (which I am inclined to believe were used by the same user) which prompted the page to be put into semi-protection. Still doing so after protection was enabled and responded with vulgar language when their edit was reverted.[35][36][37] Magatta (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, quite vile. I'd suggest an immediate indef block and RevDel for these extreme attacks. Jusdafax (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked initially for 31 hours to stop the comments; managing reverts now. Happy to see a longer block if needed, including indef, but I'll look into that shortly - or someone else can make it as required. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor has made contributions for some time and I don't think one dust-up should lead to an indefinite block. I think that requires a pattern of misconduct that I don't see. Let's see if this block changes his approach before levying an indefinite block on an editor. Everyone should be allowed to have one bad night. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I checked for prior good edits, and while these comments were definitely warranting a block, their editing has been sensible in the past with no prior blocks, so I'm happy with the 31 hours. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• May I suggest a deeper look? For example, this still-existing edit summary which in my view also merits a RevDel? And as OP Magatta points out, several other highly similar IP edits were made, the origin and nature of which have yet to be addressed. I submit that an indef block will require an unblock request that indicates Punk Pirate fully understands the issues, renounces these disgusting accusatory actions against other editors, and makes clear that they, Punk Pirate, will not repeat them, before they are brought back into the community. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

My thanks for the speedy RevDel, and as a preventive measure I'd suggest a block on the IP. To return to the question of strikingly similar edits, the first was made by User:MrAnderson5 on October 30, followed by five different IP editors making the same or highly similar edits in the next four days, the latest being the IP just RevDeled. Since the same type of wording attack was made by Mr. Punk Pirate, it seems likely that this editor is using tactics of a questionable type. Jusdafax (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be correct on your reading, but to be safe I'll go on the principal of enough rope - I'll keep an eye on the relevant pages for a few days and see if things start up again. If they get a message this time around it would be nice, if not I'll have to go for indef. - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I see the IP, whose egregious and identical attack was also deleted, remains unblocked and not even warned, despite his edit being RevDeled. Given the highly similar edits to Mr. Punk Pirate's by one account and five IP's, would you be okay with a case being filed at WP:SPI? In my view this matter warrants further action. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet / IP hopper engaging in disruptive edits

Artaxius58 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ArtaXerxes58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mihrdat21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

As for proof of the sockpuppetry, please see [38]. 46.2.90.73 is obviously the same person, as they attempted to reinstate the edit of one of the other IPs [39] [40].

Majority of this persons edits have been disruptive or simply not an improvement, and as a result have been reverted. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I hope this will be taken seriously, here are some examples;

Changed Turks and Türkler to 'T*rks' and 'T*rkler' Adding * in the name of a ethnic group is something you do on the internet when you want to be xenophobic or hostile towards a certain ethnic group. Or memeing for that matter.

Randomly replaced the map of the infobox with a worse one and removed its caption, no edit summary whatsoever¨

Replaced the English map of the article with a Spanish one, no edit summary

Added unsourced flag in the infobox, no edit summary and then proceeded to edit war

Randomly added Armenia as part of this rulers dominion, even though he never ruled it. Again no edit summary

Replaced Iranian with Talysh. No edit summary

Removed Iranian

Altered sourced quote, replacing a dynasty with another

[41] [42] Messed up the infobox of the article with two of his different accounts

Replaced formatted cited citations in a GA article with a bunch of non-formatted random citations, proceeded to edit war on his different accounts

[43] [44] Attempted to add unsourced flag twice in one of his accounts, no edit summary. Attempted to do the same on another account, once again no edit summary [45]

Randomly removed useful link, no edit summary

Removed the symbols shown in the infobox, replacing them with a fictional flag. No edit summary

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

All blocked, indef or one month respectively. If they return, might be good to compile a protection request list of the most affected pages. El_C 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting this User talk:110.148.184.127

Within revoking talk page access (TPA) and may caused of Phonk.

Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages. Doing so is an acknowledgement that they have read the warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

AFD WAR with Ten Pound Hammer

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 user:TenPoundHammer removed my AFD from the article Vito Trause and closed it. I added it again after I left a message on his talk page and nominated again this article for deletion . TenPound Hammer needs to be disciplined. I am waiting for him to be disciplined and then it can be nominated again. No need for AFD war. Thanks Bobbybob2021 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looking over the situation, I endorse the closure of the first AfD by TenPoundHammer as a speedy keep. No actions necessary against Ten Pound Hammer. I invite Bobbybob2021 to let this issue go and move on to find another area of the project to contribute to. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Make that a 3rd admin endorsing along with C.Fred above and Muboshgu at the AfD. Bobbybob2021, please stop. Your present lack of competence (which is required) in this matter constitutes disruptive editing. El_C 02:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I did say "regular keep", but I'm not against a speedy keep either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • **type Vito Trause in on google and see how he only comes up as his obituary two times on the first page and Wikipedia. Plus a local news thing he does not meet you GNG. However, I support leaving him on here as he is a veteran. Just as a memorial. Bobbybob2021 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Considering the age of the person and the fact they fought in World War II, Google not pulling up sources for him is completely and utterly understandable (much of it's likely going to be in print media, not online). And not being on the front page of search results doesn't disqualify a source from being used if it's reliable all the same. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • He does not have any great metals any of the 400k killed in Ww2 would have those metals. So I doubt he much coverage if any at all at the time. Bobbybob2021 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Every single one of Bobbybob2021's 11 edits so far has been related to the deletion of Vito Trause. Their first interaction with TenPoundHammer was to call their close "incompetent". Some kind of WP:BOOMERANG might be in order. Isabelle ^🔔 02:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  If they don't deserve a boomerang for being an obvious bad-faith SPA, then they at least deserve one for mis-spelling "lose" in a comment accusing someone else of incompetence. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I edit with my IP address in good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybob2021 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    Fair enough. Considering that most here seem to endorse the close, there is nothing more to be done. Take El_C's warning in earnest and consider this matter resolved. In the future, consider politely discussing with the closer why you disagree with them, and, if they refuse from withdrawing it, go to WP:DRV (also, don't forget to WP:SIGN). Isabelle ^🔔 03:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Bobbybob21 - "You gotta be sh-ting me". -- GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would have done it all with my iP addresss it did not let me create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybob2021 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Vito was from metro nyc. He is not in any normal publication of the area, Bobbybob2021 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A significant number of the citations used (more than enough to pass GNG, for what it's worth) are from the New Jersey area he was from (The Passaic Herald-News, Bergen Record, Asbury Park News). How are those not "normal publications"? There genuinely does not seem to be any clear policy grounds for deletion here and I would suggest dropping the stick. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang bans on Bobbybob2021

OP is an account that seems to have one purpose: to delete the Vito Trause article. The editor has engaged in tendentious editing in this regard, made personal attacks, and has otherwise shown that they are unable to be productive in this area. A set of boomerang sanctions seems in order. I propose that the editor be topic banned from Vito Trause and topic banned from deletion, broadly construed, indefinitely. Additionally, I propose that they be given a two-month one-way interaction ban prohibiting the editor from interacting with TenPoundHammer, so as to stop personal attacks against TenPoundHammer in the near future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I believe that this is more narrowly tailored than an indef block (the editor hasn't been disrupting other areas of the project) and, if the editor has been editing mostly on IPs until now, then we need to have an enforceable mechanism for any future sanctions relating to block/ban evasion. A community ban can be appealed to the community at a later date should the editor prove that they are here to build an encyclopedia, which they could do by continuing to make productive edits from their account. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as target. The user got extremely aggressive out of nowhere, automatically assuming bad faith in my closure of an AFD. Other editors have already determined my actions to be in good faith, and Bobbybob2021's actions suggest nothing but a tendentious attempt to get their way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The OP has been indeffed by Bbb23. Nothing more to see here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 7 November 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.

It has not stopped me! IP editing still works! I think you guys are being unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4B00:2F40:CDDF:90CB:DFA9:1F7E (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know you're evading your block & can't be trusted. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for future reference this account was  Confirmed as a sockpuppet of Rrmmll22. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrmmll22. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:178.221.117.185 continually WP:EGG'ing links

IP editor 178.221.117.185 (talk · contribs) keeps on adding easteregg links to articles on historical European biographies including linking parts of names to image files [46] [47] [48] [49] and linking parts of names to articles that are not biographies [50] [51] [52]. Ignores talk.

By edit style editor seems to also be IPs 93.86.199.202 (talk · contribs), 93.86.158.38 (talk · contribs), 93.86.144.120 (talk · contribs), 93.87.163.221 (talk · contribs). Last IP seems to have been continually warned and blocked. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, block issued. I tried to see if there was a real account for this longterm disruptor (whose hobby is nobility--pretty sad, IMO), but was unable to identify one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Philip Cross and his topic ban

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

---

The editor Philip Cross is indefinitely banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Yet he has admitted to making 184 edits to the David Miller page, all of which appears to be after his ban was implemented. The article is strongly related to contemporary British Politics because of the following reasons:

Miller held the position of Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, and was recently dismissed from this post, and before that the Labour Party. This was due to pressure from UK parliamentarians and organisations with close ties to Israel for his work attempting to expose Zionist power structures (a political ideology). This is a major political event, widely covered by political journalists in mainstream political publications and media. It has significant consequences for freedom of speech, and is part of the sustained purge of anti-Zionists from positions of political influence in the UK. Zionism is a political ideology.

I have discussed this with Philip Cross on his user page and the David Miller talk page, and asked him to refrain from editing the main article. However, he seems content to keep editing the page because in his own words, he hasn't had any warnings from administrators despite 184 edits.

However, WP:BMB states

'If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction.'

Philip Cross is a highly experience editor who will be fully aware of these rules, but has continued to breach them even after my request to stop editing the David Miller page.

--Andromedean (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Meh, even within "broadly construed" so far as I'm aware the Miller controversy was about academic freedom of expression and concerned such issues as global antisemitism and the role of the UN. As for "attempting to expose Zionist power structures" - such concepts speaks more of a problem with the poster here than with Philip Cross. (Full disclosure: I wouldn't normally comment on such a topic but notice this at ANI and am aware of the Miller controversy because my wife got listed[53] in Miller's "Powerbase"). Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

For reference, the diff for the currently applicable ARCA is here. Reading the article, it mentions subjects like: Israel, Palestine, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, allegations of political censorship, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, et cetera. These seem to me like not only political subjects, but highly contentious ones. jp×g 09:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the page, it is not obvious to me that this page falls into what is meant by broadly construed. This person was a philsophy professor, and while sometimes things they say are used in politics that doesn't mean that their page on a whole is covered by the topic ban. This doesn't mean that there aren't parts of the page that would be covered by the ban, but we need a dif of them editing that specific portion. --76.113.153.79 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Miller was a Professor of Political Sociology and almost every portion of that BLP is drenched with contemporary British politics. This editing is a clear violation of the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As an example, this edit is about two UK NGOs being accused of Islamist connections. Hard to see how that’s not “post-1978 British politics”. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Miller is also caught up with the ongoing Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, it's very difficult to see how any editing of his article isn't "politics broadly construed". not quite being ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

What initially raised my concern wasn't a technical infringement, but the removal of quotes from several letters, and a lack of reply to my points regarding their reliability (in the David Miller article) detailed above. Additionally, I've searched through Philip Cross' history just for 2 weeks and found these politically related edits.

[Hedges&diff=prev&oldid=1052839774| A change on the 31st October] 'Dore asked [the political journalist Chris] Hedges if Bernie Sanders had rolled over'. This was removed for being a YouTube source. There were also 6 more changes on this topic around that time.

[11 changes] within the topic ban period, on the Editing Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the latest being the 28th October about the Camera Campaign. The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors.

[5 changes] on the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, within the topic ban period, the latest being on the 28th October.

[Holocaust Industry&diff=prev&oldid=1051554106| Removal] of a Noam Chomsky quote about the book 'The Holocaust Industry' due to him having 'a dubious record in his field'. --Andromedean (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between being banned from "politics" generally and being banned from "British politics". Philip Cross is banned from the latter and edits to "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" don't seem relevant. I'd say it's pretty clear this is "British politics" just from reading the article and the topic ban applies here to Philip Cross. The diffs linked of Philip Cross' edits about UK NGOs is quite clearly "British politics".

Alexbrn hit on something interesting though about your behaviour. You've mostly edited Wikipedia in the past few years to add information of sometimes questionable sourcing that portray Zionists in a negative light or including information on anti-Semitism in the UK that advances the position that it isn't that bad. You shouldn't interpret a consensus here as taking "your side" in the underlying content dispute. The editors here aren't agreeing with you that David Miller's speech is "exposing Zionist power structures" and that David Miller's position is anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. Given that you've made a point of emphasizing your beliefs about the underlying situation to the AN/I thread I believe this is relevant. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless of motivation, David Miller is certainly well within the area of British Politics post-1978. The only way you could argue it wasnt is if any editing was solely related to his activities prior to 1978. AND if you are doing that, you probably shouldnt be editing the article anyway, as someone can make a good case that the subject of the article is broadly within current politics regardless of their past actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

PC's topic ban should be expanded from post-1978 UK politics to include politics in general, based on items detailed above and a BLP violation that put his talk page on my watchlist:

"The Anti-Defamation League described Escobar as a "anti-Israeli journalist". Escobar was among those attending the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, Iran in Fall 2014 along with others the ADL described as antisemites and Holocaust deniers."

The only reference PC gave for this contentious SYNTH material was a press release whose title was "Iranian Hatefest Promotes Anti-Semitism, Draws Holocaust Deniers and U.S. Anti-Israel Activists." (He was quite unrepentant when I approached him.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We appear to have several violations here, and Philip Cross has been repeatedly editing Richard Desmond today, who is in the news today but very much a figure in post-1978 British politics (broadly construed or otherwise). As such, I've blocked him for a month given that these are quite flagrant violations and he has a previous block for violating the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is why such limited-scope topic bans dont work when it comes to people - as by their nature they span a wide number of years. Either Cross needs to be banned from politics outright (per HouseOfChange) and/or additionally he needs to be banned from BLP's. Richard Desmond for the vast majority of his life is unrelated to British Politics (post 1978 or otherwise) - except for recently the shenanigans involving Jenrick (and then thats more Jenrick's fault). Essentially you put Cross in the position where he has to argue every edit is unrelated to the topic of post-1978 politics (Desmond's property dealings would be, Desmond being upset because he still gets called a Pornographer wouldnt). Either give him clear boundaries or lift the ban (my option is for the former). Anything else is just making more work in the future for other editors to have to deal with. Its disrespectful of their, and Cross' time. Its certainly not going to be healthy for Phillip Cross wellbeing in the long term. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Philipp Cross's edits are for the most part very positive. His opponents, such as the infrequently Andromedean, are far worse than he is, and seek to promote fringe viewpoints. I think the topic ban should be lifted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that there can be any serious dispute that the article of political sociologist David Miller falls within the area of Philips t-ban. I'd like to add that, in addition to the t-ban, Philip was warned to "avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest." Various BLP's & articles were flagged up during the ArbCom case as being problematic in this regard, including numerous members of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Miller is also a member of this small group. I raised this with Philip (along with other concerns about his editing of Miller's article) and you can see how that panned out here. Imo Philips t-ban should be extended to cover politics in general. I also believe it should cover BLP's, bar those of actors/musicians where his contributions are overwhelmingly positive. --DSQ (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just want to note that people sympathetic to (and possibly related to) Miller, including the people from The Grayzone are encouraging people to add comments here, clearly trying to influence things against Cross. It may also have been noted previously, that it's by no means the first time that circle has actively pushed to get Cross banned. (e.g https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/) Øln (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The "Philip Cross" project is one of the main reasons for loss of confidence in Wikipedia. ggatin (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gating (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

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

Users Isabelle Helm and Mikehaas

Regarding disruptive editing and COI violations on Michael Haas (political scientist) article, and Political Film Society (Which Michael Haas founded and runs) User:Mikehaas is obviously named for the person themselves and has edited both articles extensively. User:Isabelle Helm is in the process of repeatedly adding unsourced information to the Michael Haas article. A very very brief search on google shows that Isabelle Helm was Haas' Mother [[54]]. Isabelle Helm has repeatedly re-added content ("Michael Haas is a prolific writer who has ..") [[55]] , word for word, that was previously added by Mikehaas [[56]] (and subsequently removed due to COI concerns) So I think it's an obvious sock-puppet as well.

Both linked article are of dubious notability, I have started the process on a deletion discussion for both.

JeffUK (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Frequent edit conflicts on 'List of Baby Einstein videos'

I'm about at the end of my rope dealing with this user, and am unsure of what to do by this point.

Basically, there's this IP-hopping editor in Michigan editing in the topics of Baby Einstein and U.S. Supreme Court justices and opinions (quite a weird combination, indeed) and they're kind of starting to annoy me, especially with their behavior, which is mainly contradicting the dates on List of Baby Einstein videos sourced to press releases to say that IMDb is more right, which, as I'm sure most editors should know, is editable just like Wikipedia.

They use the following IPs:

2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

2600:6C48:427F:F84E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

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

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

See some diffs here (2601 IPv6), here (2600 IPv6), here (73.144.168.60, haven't reverted this one yet as it may be legitimate), and here (162.82.155.169)

What to do? It's never gotten to the point of 3RR/more than 3 reverts in one day (hence why I reported here instead of AN3), but it's been happening for a while now and it's starting to really get on me, as they keep reinstating the information despite constant reverts and the literal sources cited for the dates saying otherwise. wizzito | say hello! 03:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, looks like 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for disruptive editing for 3 months in July. Maybe another block and a block on all of the other IP addresses this person uses is needed? wizzito | say hello! 03:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have placed List of Baby Einstein videos under pending-changes protection, and on my watchlist. Lectonar (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NOTHERE

Armies of the World is currently spamming users, including User talk:Citation bot with a plea for (... really, I havent got a clue what he wants...). The latest, includes Where is your conscience, man of shame? This is an injustice to Egypt, for the least here. I have warned them, but that only resulted in him spamming my TP. For diffs as evidence, see the entire history of this user. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is quite obviously a sock of The Egyptian army. Cutlass^Ciera 13:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew and Lightburst are STILL being problematic

Dronebogus has withdrawn the complaint (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The topic bans on these users don’t seem to be very effective at preventing disruptive behavior. They’re just moving it to talk pages. Here is Lightburst haranguing Jimbo with a lengthy complaint about recent events that is filled with hyperbole and personal attacks in some kind of appeal to solomon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Process And here’s Andrew bludgeoning everyone with the process over his “banned means banned” indef topic ban (heading courtesy of LB): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Personal_attacks_on_the_Article_Rescue_Squadron And also andrew hounding me with a personal attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&diff=1053845536&oldid=1053844794 Clearly they aren’t learning from existing sanctions. If anything the sanctions are just making them angry and even more disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC) OK: Donebogus has promised to honor WP:NOBAN wrt AD's talk page. Now we can return to address the substantive issue. ——Serial 12:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. It's Dronebogus that won't leave this alone. Girth Summit warned them to "move along" but they have posted 12 times on my talk page since the topic ban. See WP:BAIT, WP:BEAR and WP:Gravedancing. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC) For one I apologized and redacted the offending text on the specific incident you’re referring to, for another two wrongs don’t make a right, and finally the discussion had almost nothing to do with me yet you still decided to slap that topic heading on it in order to make sure everyone knows this is ALL MY FAULT (supposedly) Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I supported Andrew’s TBAN but would suggest that Dronebogus’s concerns are best dealt with by their taking Andrew’s talk page off their watchlist. Their posts to his talk page don’t seem helpful. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I can do that, but is Andrew’s behavior not still problematic? The reason I posted so many times was because Andrew didn’t want to take a hint about the topic ban. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Calling an MfD on a project a 'Personal attack' does rather suggest he is far too emotionally invested in ARS to view either it or his participation in it abstractly. ——Serial 12:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC) And why isn't Andrew Davidson commenting on a deletion discussion a violation of his topic ban from deletion discussions? Specifically, with this edit he calls an editor who has started a deletion discussion of making a PA by starting that very discussion 🤦‍♂️ ——Serial 12:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) My reply above was immediately hatted by Serial, making it appear that I had not commented to point out that it was Dronebogus who was poking me and had been warned by an admin about this. I naturally reverted this suppression of my comment but Dronebogus immediately reinstated the hat. As Serial and Dronebogus are not impartial in this matter, they should not be trying to act as clerks and closers. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I said I was going to stop doing it. What more is there to discuss? You dragging it up means you either want purely punitive action against me or you’re trying to divert the subject. Dronebogus (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Both, probably, but at the least the latter. As the massive thread on AD's talk shows, distraction, diversion and obfuscation have been their SOP for some time. That thread is basically an exercise in envelope pushing, although as I said above, it's been pushed well into Tban territory by now. ——Serial 12:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Dronebogus has now duplicated my second comment so that again it is munged. ANI is too busy and chaotic for this. Can we have an arbcom case please, where there are experienced clerks to keep good order. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC) That was completely accidental. Why are you assuming bad faith with literally everything I do? Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Meh, complaining about the injustice of it all on user talk pages is Wikipedia's traditional post-sanction ritual. Levivich 13:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC) This edit seems like a clear cut topic ban violation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Dronebogus complained that my talk page was too long so I started doing some housekeeping. My usual technique is to consolidate related sections together and update the heading accordingly to make things clear. I introduced a new overall section title for the several sections about this matter. Dronebogus didn't like my first choice of words and so changed it. I did not revert them but left it alone. Another editor then suggested a change and so we have moved on. As this is my own talk page, my understanding is that I own it and so have some special rights in such editorial decisions. I have not banned anyone from my talk page but when there are so many hostile posts, I naturally get to have my own say on them. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC) @Dronebogus: Is this a joke? You created this thread, you created an unsuccessful MfD for the ARS while the last thread was running, and now you have created this thread? You were asked to stop badgering Andrew by an administrator on November 3. Your first diff is to someone complaining on WP:JIMBOTALK saying that they have been treated badly at AN/I; you responded to them yesterday with "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?". The second diff is Andrew mentioning an ANI thread about them on their own talk page, and the third is him accusing you (again on their own talk page) of making personal attacks -- a good way to avoid this would be leave him alone and stop WP:HOUNDING. jp×g 13:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Why is it that Andrew and LB get to get away with whatever but whenever I get mad at them for doing so I get this? Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Two people being topic-banned after a two-week-long AN/I thread doesn't seem like "getting away with anything" to me. jp×g 13:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC) The whole point of this is that they’re getting away with disruptive antics, making the tban seem toothless. Dronebogus (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Have to agree with JPxG. I was hoping that the closer of that previous ARS thread would have some stern words for some of those who contributed to the overall nastiness of that thread (not that I can blame him for not wanting to get into all that). I agreed with AD's tban and a warning for others, but a couple people (including Dronebogus) just went way too hostile throughout (and after). I don't know that there's anything actually to be done here, but I'd recommend unwatching the ARS members' usertalk pages and spending time building/growing something in articlespace. Not because I'm one of the people who believes that's the only worthwhile activity on Wikipedia, but because I think it's important to engage in a variety of activities to have empathy for various groups here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I apologize if I’ve been harsh lately. I’m going to try and avoid this nonsense from now on since, if nothing else, the ban did what it was supposed to do and got most of the drama out of AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think this is worth action. There may be a technical violation in the diff HighInBC links, but I don't think it's an intentional violation, nor would it be good to enforce. Otherwise, what Levivich said about the post-sanction complaining ritual. Suggesting prompt closure and save everyone some time, and perhaps more restraint should be exercised before creating further ANIs on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think it's worth action, either. The OP has said they'll refrain from AD's talkpage. However, I'd strongly suggest to Lightburst, as I note another admin has already done, that they quit posting on Jimbo's talkpage in the manner that they currently are. It is quite noticeable that their complete inability to accept that what they were doing might not have been correct and the community finally ran out of patience with them is quite sobering. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Typically topic bans are strictly enforced, however I am willing to stay my hand in this case since other admins who I respect believe leniency is called for. However Andrew should be aware that it is just that sort of thing that can result in a block under their topic ban. If I see more interactions with the topic I will probably take action. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Please could HighInBC clarify their objection. I archive my talk page manually and much of it is naturally related to past deletion discussions. If I can't do such housekeeping on my talk page then it will naturally continue to be long and rambling. There are also fresh attempts to engage me. For example, there were three pings this morning. For example, one of them is a section elsewhere which mentions me by name, lists my contributions and proposes to comb through them to revisit hundreds of old proposed deletions. This section mentions me by name and is clearly calling me out to revisit old topics. I have not responded to any of this, even though I might have much to contribute. My general understanding of the topic ban is that it mainly concerned new deletion discussions and proposals, not the existing history. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Agree with ProcrastinatingReader and Levivich. This is not worth the thread. As I implied in the now hatted part of the thread, the main protagonists just needs to disengage. There’s no reason for them not to. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I’m going to stop talking about or interacting with Andrew and Lightburst now. It’s clearly beating a dead horse since they have shown no signs of behavioral improvement and don’t need my help burying themselves. Dronebogus (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC) My only request is that Andrew and LB refrain from talking about me or interacting with me as well. Dronebogus (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I've experience in having been under topic-bans. My advice to Andrew Davidson & Lightburst, is that you're going to be under much scrutiny. Stay completely away (in every way) from the topic you're banned from. Don't respond to any questions (including pings) related to said-topic ban. Don't bring the topic up at Jimbo's or any other administrators' or arbitrators' talkpage. When in doubt? walk away. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC) The only evidence of disruption that has been produced is in direct response to the OP's comments and confined entirely to user talk pages. I suggest that Dronebogus withdraw this complaint and re-read WP:DISRUPT, particularly: ... and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. this should be closed with no action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Hey thanks all. Warms my heart to see that one pound of flesh was enough. I am also quite thankful that I did not have to hear about that Wookiee again. You all might consider a boomerang for the following, haranguing and grave dancing. Lightburst (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I SAID I was letting this go, lightburst. Either you didn’t read that or are willfully ignoring it. Dronebogus (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Prolific disruptive editing, warring, and vandalism by MikeParten

This editor, @MikeParten, is prolific in warring, vandalism and disruptive editing practices. Examples include List of Warner Bros. films (2020-2029), List of New Line Cinema films and most of all, Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). He has been reverted and asked to discuss his reasoning by several editors, and to wait for consensus, but never does; nor does he ever provide any explanation or sources. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 16:05, 08 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef. User_talk:MikeParten#Indefinite_block. El_C 17:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Abusing sock

• Usermade (talk · contribs)
• 157.49.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Usermade, another obvious sock of Sweetindian popped up today and abuses me on their talk page and gives random warnings in my talk page.[57] I've reported them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetindian. The problem is the user uses the IP range 157.49.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (I can't go for any lesser range, 90% of the edits from this range are from this user.) to edit almost everyday. This IP range is reported at almost in all the SPI reports.

This is the translation of Usermade response to me at their talk page, [58]

aamanda user:suneye1 paithiyo... poi antha page la report pannu.. admin enna block pannuva... onno 3week tha.. naa dec la swiss poren.. athukku apro wiki editting la full ah vitruve.. athukulla unna kathara vaikanum nu pakre.. transl.  Yes user:suneye1 retard...go report me on that page...admin will block me...just 3 weeks....I'm going to swiss in december...after that I'll stop editing wiki...till that i will make you suffer.

sari summa sollu.. evlo naal palagito.. un ooru enna, evlo salary vangure..? enna vela pakra? transl. Tell me..we've known each other for many days..where do you live, how much do you earn, what is your profession.

This is followed by calling me stupid, retard etc..Can someone block the 157.49.*.* range at least temporarily, the user is using the IP range to each almost everyday and is clearly WP:NOTHERE.- SUN EYE 1 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for the quick block. Can this IP range be also blocked temporarily.- SUN EYE 1 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on the range, except to say that it's really big. I would like to know what User:Canterbury Tail and others, including User:Materialscientist and User:ST47 think. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I haven't given it much thought or investigation, I just saw their edit to ANI here and looked quickly at Usermade's edits and it was blatant that something was going on so went straight for the block button. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

AuzairRaja

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

The user here is a sockpuppet with the edits at Katrina Kaif filmography . Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Neel.arunabh, no evidence? User:ScottishFinnishRadish, do you know what this is about? Drmies (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  On the one hand, I have no idea at all what this is about, I think I just closed some edit requests. On the other hand I generally assume there are a huge amount of socks operating in the Indian television and movies topic area. And on the other hand, tradition! I don't recognize the editing pattern, but of someone was putting the sources from the edit request into the filmography article, I guess I can see why there's some suspicion. I'd like to hear what evidence Neel.arunabh has. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reporting TheOfficialMozz

TheOfficialMozz (talk · contribs)

This editor keep adding unsourced or poorly unsourced in articles after been warned several times at their talk page [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Francis1864 has made a legal threat at WP:Articles for deletion/Augean software; see the last sentence of [64]. It may be considered ambiguous but given the "Please be formally advised", the intent is clearly to scare people. Danstronger (talk) 13:29, 7 November 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.

Adding on to the above

I've viewed the relevant AfD, and since the section was closed by Seddon, the user who was the original subject of this section repeatedly stated that the !votes for delete are "illegal in the USA". The user has also made an not-so-implicit threat to sue under the Americans with Disabilities act, saying that I feel this is grounds for claiming discrimination, and the American disabilities act would provide protection. While I think the legal argument is garbage, this is still a pretty obvious legal threat. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And he makes these arguments while formatting his message in such a way to hamper people using disability-access software. Hyprocrisy is one thing, hypocrisy with pointless legal thuggery is blockworthy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree that User:Francis1864 should just be blocked. Legal threats, self-promotion, and a lack of competence regarding formatting their comments. Mlb96 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

While they may be falling slightly short of violating our NLT policy they are engaging in intimidation to get their way and are certainly being disruptive. I have placed their talk page and the AfD on my watchlist. If they keep up the disruption then I will block them from the AfD until it is over, they have had their say already. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Engaging in intimidation or otherwise trying to invoke a chilling effect should be grounds for a block, full stop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also reverted their edits on the Genealogy software page. Blatant self promotion and their software fails WP:NLIST's inclusion criteria. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. We have several issues including self promotion and attempts at intimidation. But the primary concern here is that in 15 years all(63) of their edits have been to serve their own interests. I don't believe they are here to write an encyclopedia so I am blocking them accordingly. If they can convince any admin that they are here for the benefit of the project rather than their own benefit they can unblock. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&diff=1054248742&oldid=1054204416 - plz fix. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. I was wondering why suddenly I was being blocked from fixing a Google Books link. Cheers, Number 57 23:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

SPA

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 account Brandmaister (talk · contribs) impersonates an established user Brandmeister (talk · contribs), and is engaged in edit warring in Armenia-Azerbaijan related article. Probably a block evading SPA. Grandmaster 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Clpo13. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for swift action. Brandmeister^talk 22:02, 8 November 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.

Septem9th and unexplained removal of content

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 Septem9th is blanking entire alineas without giving any reason, or sometimes only giving an edit summary in Vietnamese.

• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]

When I tried reverting their edits, they immediately reverted it back [72], so I see no point in trying more until they receive some administrator warning to change their ways. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're likely to get a faster response at WP:AIV, for future reference. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism at Cypriot

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.

---

Cypriot is a disambiguation page, but in the past several days, Heytherekshetere and 85.150.12.159 have been consistently editing the article to contain excess content about Cypriot culture/cuisine and Cypriot nationalism, topics that are adequately covered elsewhere (see Cypriot cuisine and Cypriot nationalism). Heythere... has been informed, and then warned twice for disruptive editing; the IP has not been warned, but I suspect this is the same user just logged out. A bit of admin help is required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 10 November 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: K at Trinity College SA is a single-purpose account removing sourced information for their employer.

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, The user K at Trinity College SA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing sourced and reliable information on the page Trinity College, Gawler. Due to their username and my looking at the webpages for that school, I believe that they may be employed by the school. An incident at Trinity College a few months ago involving an alleged systemic racism incident was written about on the school's page by an editor, and since then, K at Trinity College SA has been removing the entire section under reasons such as "false allegations" and "There is no systematic racism at the college. False and misleading". Additionally, IP edits from "2001:8003:AC1E:6500:4BD:419:3549:C0DE" made very similar edits under the reason "Unfactual repporting". This IP address also made an edit with the description "roseworthy update opening new school", in which they blanked the entire systemic racism allegation section and seemed to have attempted to hide this with a misleading edit reason.

As well as this constant removal of information, they have in the past also added information and wording in an advertisement-like manner. In a 2019 edit, they added 9,011 characters with the description "We have updated the page with latest information about the College, expanding and providing more detailed information", the use of "we" clearly showing an affiliation with the school. They have not contributed to any other Wikipedia pages. Rmoostet (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment The article may benefit from a long period of semi-protection. As this wouldn't stop K at... from editing, a PBLOCK from the article would also seem to be in order. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 10 November 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:Qhalidal15 uploading images that may be copyright

I first encountered Qhalidal15 (talk · contribs) when I noticed they were not using edit summaries at all and marking every edit as minor. These are not big issues but he did not respond to me at all. More recently he has been uploading numerous images without attributing a source. Ones like this [73] with a watermark clearly seem copyrighted. I'm asking the wider community to look at his/her behaviour concerning images and a refusal to respond. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

LibStar, that is a watermark but so subtle that I had to zoom in on my smart phone to see it. And even so, I cannot make out the URL. I want to visit that website to see its copyright notices. Do you know its exact origin? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it says Tribunnews.com . Appears to be an Indonesian website. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It does - https://www.tribunnews.com/ I couldn't find the exact image, but this is surely the same event - Agence France-Presse / Romeo Gacad. Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

2600:8804:6600:C4:0:0:0:0/64

• Special:Contributions/2600:8804:6600:C4::/64

An AE report in relation to COVID-19 DS may be an option, but evidence shows clear WP:NOTHERE and battleground behavior. The first edit under this range was to harass RandomCanadian. Their block log shows this editor is somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. More recently I've had to warn them again for failure to focus on the content rather than specific editors and for disruptive editing. Very recently they've vandalized a user essay (pointy vandalism: Special:Diff/1054197900). This is most likely one of the conspiracy theorist LTAs in the COVID-19 area. As is common for IPv6, hopping within a /64 or /48 is constant, it's never clear when they can read warnings. A block is however evidence that they know something was wrong about their editing, and I've made some efforts to point out at previous warnings in their history. Pages where they received warnings include:

• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506
• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC
• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:8C26:74C7:8EAD:C63F
• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:CC9F:4E65:9616:EAB6 (also trying to point at older warnings)
• Very recently, at the talk page of the essay they attacked.

I post here to request a longer block for this /64 range. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Range blocked for two months/ Doug Weller talk 09:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

DinosaursLoveExistence

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

Hi Folks!!. I would like, if possible, that the articles created by User:DinosaursLoveExistence could go through Afc in a similar manner to FloridaArmy's. These article of which there is reams of them have barely any references, often in format that you can't tell what they are, and often only one or two. They are lowest type of junk. I've reviewed several of them in the last hour, some were redirected, other sent to draft, as part of the NPP review process. This is the 2nd editor I see in the last couple of months, and I was planning to post the editor but they have started adding much better references. This article Mike Short is an example. This is a BLP. It has three links, nor refs, the 1st is a companies house profile page, the 2nd is another profile, the 3rd is the front page of some website. I've sure User:DinosaursLoveExistence is more than capable of adding properly formatted reference of the correct type, as they have been here since 2005. Quality must be better than quantity in every instance. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That article clearly needs help from project ARS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Well, if you're interested, you can sign up on their project page; I'm sure they would appreciate the help! jp×g 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking through their ten most-recent page creations (out of 1,000+ total), I agree. Most don't seem to meet notability guidelines and the referencing seems questionable. Levivich 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if a conversation with this editor could be productive? Their talk page is almost entirely template messages, which doesn't help them understand what they did wrong with the articles in question. While many of their articles are low quality, particularly when it comes to sourcing, I don't think they're a lost cause. Mlb96 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that limiting them to AfC might be a good idea in the meantime, though. Mlb96 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

FloridaArmy's creations go to AfC because they often do demonstrate notability, albeit not always on the first attempt, and generally relying on fairly obscure conditions of notability. In contrast, the complaint here is that DinosaursLoveExistence's creations are never or barely ever showing notability. We should first be talking to DinosaursLoveExistence to tell them very clearly that standards are much higher than they were in 2005, and they need to spend much more time on much fewer creations.

I would guess that they simply pick a topic and go for it in writing what they can—this won't work. You need to have a research phase before typing a single word in the edit box where you find all the sources you can and very carefully read the relevant notability policies, and assessments of source reliability (e.g. WP:RSP, or searching for mentions of the source in discussion pages). Only if you are convinced that the topic is notable can you proceed. This has worked for me in my 130+ article creations, but it also has led me to discard maybe 20–50 potential topics as non-starters, because I was surprised to find the sources were simply not there.

(If escalation is needed, limiting DinosaursLoveExistence to AfC will not be the right move, as this would not really change the amount of volunteer time needed to reviewing their creations.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SportsOlympic

This is another editor who doesn't reference articles, User:SportsOlympic. This is an example of one of their articles Viktoriia Yaroshenko. The references are two database generated profile pages, with no secondary sources. The editor complain incessantly when their articles are sent to draft. It would be ideal if both these editors were sent through AFC for six months to upgrade the quality, as its trash. scope_creep^Talk 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is started with "This is another editor who doesn't reference articles", adding one example saying "Here is one example, all his other articles are the same". I don't like you complain about me at ANI, while you never came to my talk page to talk. If you blame someone of something serious, do a bit of research (I asked you before), especially if it could be a false accusation. Your example of Viktoriia Yaroshenko, probably a deliberate choice but not mentioned before, was created by me during a few days I started creating cyclists who competed at the World Championships. Between 23 and 26 October I created about 50 articles on cyclists who participated at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships or UCI Road World Championships.

Cyclists created by SportsOlympic between 23-26 October

• Nikola Sibiak
• Mina Sato (cyclist)
• Riyu Ohta
• Fuko Umekawa
• Yarli Mosquera
• Joanne Rodríguez
• Léna Mettraux
• Devaney Collier
• Erin Attwell
• Sarah Van Dam
• Ngaire Barraclough
• Aksana Salauyeva
• Stella Bail
• Ludmilla Kotchetova
• Viktoriia Yaroshenko
• Luo Yiwei
• Yana Tyshchenko
• Marianis Salazar
• Veronika Jaborníková
• Alla Biletska
• Rinata Sultanova
• Eukene Larrarte
• Patrycja Lorkowska
• Cybèle Schneider
• Fabienne Buri
• Michelle Andres
• Tawakalt Yekeen
• Grace Ayuba
• Mary Samuel
• Ese Ukpeseraye
• Nicole Koller
• Daniela Campos
• Yeny Lorena Colmenares
• Lina Marcela Hernández
• Frances Janse van Rensburg
• Hayley Preen
• Luciana Roland
• Adyam Tesfalem
• Diane Ingabire
• Asma Jan
• Kanza Malik
• Yanina Kuskova
• Rebecca Koerner
• Anne Dorthe Ysland

If you check the list, if's actually hard to find articles without secondary sources, so it looks like you well selected your "example"; but it doesn't show "all other articles are the same".

But nevertheless, all these articles are meeting notability guidelines of WP:NCYCLING under WP:NSPORTS. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review. Draftification during page review is "an alternative to deletion". People meeting the notability guidelines are likely to survive an AFD; so those created articles shoult not be moved to the drafst space.

I already told you that when I came to your talk page in June User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space and the other time last September User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space. Your response last time to that was inappropriate in my opinion, with a personal attack and threat with words like "No, dude. I'm not... ...What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest..". I looks personal, while you never came to me to talk about the problems you have with my articles.

In addition other users didn't agree with you to move my content to draft space (for instance here, and here)

To reply to your request, I created over 2250 articles in the last 1,5 years. And they have all been reviewed by PageReviewers. To save time of the reviewers at AFC it would be better, in my opinion, that you start talking with me; instead of going straight to ANI with only a few sentences of complaints requesting for AFC. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Rude and abrasive behaviour, such as that which SportsOlympics evidences, only ever entrenches disagreements and makes it almost certain that the other editor will not improve their quality of content creation. Referring to another person's hard work as "trash" is disgraceful. Additionally, it is short-sighted to propose that editors be limited to AFC when this will do nothing to reduce the amount of reviewer time that will have to be invested. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

What personal attack exactly? Ok, got you, that was probably a bit out of order. Sorry, that was crass. SportsOlympic, I've spent the last month or two trying to get you to up the quality of your references. You can't even accept maintenance tags. I know you can create great articles, I've seen them, but there is reams of article which have 1 and 2 references, that are barely there. They often don't have the correct website name on them, just the shortened domain name. They're is generally no authors, publishers, page numbers, dates, access dates times, language versions or locations. All it is doing is creating masses amount of work for the future, when those links disappear. Here is an another example, with a link on it: Toros Toranyan. Even domains change. They're a reason that all the guidance asks for a many fields as possible to be filled in, because it's to stop the article aging. It's storing up trouble for the future. In the argument above you stating the review time is problem, but FloridaArmy's draft articles are not much better in terms of quality than they were a years, otherwise they don't get through. The reality that in 5-10 years time, most of these references that SportsOlympic are adding, are going to be dead and invisible. They break every convention of referenced publishing. The review time is nothing compared to amount of work that will be required in the future to fix these profile articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's best to start a new section for SportsOlympic, with a lot of diffs or links to recent creations, the issues with them, and to discussions already had with them on their user talk page. Sadly, there are plenty of issues, see e.g. his latest creation from today, Hubert Sevenich, where two of the three sources are to a Wordpress blog and the third is a statistics database: all three sources have very little information, which is turned into a somewhat fanciful narrative in the article. So yes, there clearly are issues, but it's best to start this section from scratch (and separately) if they are ripe for an ANI discussion. Fram (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You know, this sounds like what Sander.v.Ginkel was doing a few years ago. Creation of many marginally-notable or non-notable athletes. Not saying that the user here is SvG, just noting the similarities. Discussion from 2018. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks folks, @Fram: That is heartening. I'll get information together in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that SportsOlympic is now blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel. Perhaps some massive G5 operation is needed now... Fram (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, came here to note my block. I haven't G5d yet because a) I don't have the time to go through all their creations right now and b) I imagine that there will be some community input regarding both the block and G5s, and I'd rather have the discussion now as opposed to having to circle back later and undelete 2000 articles. I'm happy to go through and do it if it's clear that that is the way forward here. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Last time they were all punted to the Draft space, where interested users could check and see if there was anything worth salvaging; anything not saved got G13'd. That being said, I think if they were the only editor of a page, it can just be deleted outright. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, and I have been looking at these as they were within scope of Slowking4, but they were not carrying his signature edits. Seems I was not paranoid enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, how about that? I guess my spidey-sense was good on this one. Big thanks to Spicy who did the legwork of collecting the diffs. Now that I think about it, obvious sock is obvious. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

SvG/SO/SK4 mess

I see there are at the moment a lot of deletions going on within this mess (@Anthony Bradbury, Materialscientist, Liz, Explicit, Blablubbs, and Spicy:. I decided to compile a list of articles that Sander.v.Ginkel and SportsOlympic have created (and which got deleted) for easier monitoring. Within that there are now quite some blue-linked pages, which, upon careful checking, turn out to be also the original mess:

• Izabella Chiappini - created by SvG, moved to draft and shortly after expanded and moved back by Beatly (a Slowking4 sock) - further expansions by Degasvenus (another Slowking4 sock); rest of edits are practically trivial (for the link between SvG and SK4: "Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge").
• Karin Harmsen-Roosen - created by an SK4 sock (who also created redirect Karin Harmsen), later edited by SO. In an earlier incarnation created by SvG, moved to draft Draft:Karin Harmsen and deleted.
• Ielena Konstantinova - created by SvG, moved to Draft and deleted. Recreated by SK4 as Elena Konstantinova
• Emma Wright - created by SvG, moved to Draft:Emma Wright and deleted, recreated by an SK4 sock and deleted under G5, now recreated by SO (I now deleted that as well).
• Esther Cheboo - created by SvG, moved to Draft:Esther Cheboo, moved back by SK4 sock. No substantial improvements between or after these editors.
• Georgia Tzanakaki - created by SvG, moved to Draft:Georgia Tzanakaki, moved back by SK4 sock. No substantial improvements between or after these editors.
• Gisele Florentino - created by SvG, deleted. Recreated by SK4 sock and further edited by SK4 sock. No substantial improvements between or after these editors.

Many others are very stubby articles (one sentence, one ref), though they seem to be independently (re)created or having been moved back independently from Draft (without further improvements). (this also brings up some likely Slowking4 socks (Leetotherear pops up a couple of times), but they are SPI-stale (and behavioral not completely convincing)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Probable sock- or meat-puppetry at Minneapolis and similar articles

A number of new editors have taken an interest in the Minneapolis article, including User:JesseeV3, User:Gooob, User:Marshens, and User:V3393s. JesseeV3 and Gooob have both deleted the photo montage from the infobox; all four seem to be intent on giving mention of the city's milling history greater prominence in the lead.

Gooob has claimed on the talk page and in a hidden comment to have a consensus, and to have consulted with other editors, but there is no sign of any such discussion anywhere in the user's contributions. This makes me suspect off-wiki coordination with the persons behind the other accounts. Interestingly, V3393s' first edit in this situation was to give a notice to Gooob about unconstructive editing. Subsequently, they posted on the talk page about having gotten a "notification" about it and agreed that the edits were undue weight, but then proceeded to add back in some of Gooob's changes while falsely claiming to be undoing them, and later re-added them again with an incomprehensible edit summary. Another interesting correlation between the two is having made the same edit about a day and a half apart on another article: [74], [75].

Gooob has been more prolific than the other accounts, making largely disruptive edits; deleting infobox images from articles on other municipalities as well as adding unsourced erroneous qualifiers to the leads of others ([76], [77], [78]), in one case falsifying a reference to do so ([79]).

Extended-confirmed protection would help on Minneapolis but that may merely shift the problem elsewhere. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the content itself (yet) but I had the article on my watchlist previously, and the editing is clearly disruptive and there are strong signs of meatpuppetry. --Sable232 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sable232. I have communicated with user:JesseeV3 via email off of Wikipedia that is all. I do not know the other editors you have mentioned. I will stop communicating with him off of wiki and will work to become a constructive editor. Thank you~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooob (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How and why did you come to communicate with another editor off-wiki about edits to this article? BD2412 T 05:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that V3393s has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Jwb23. --Sable232 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also Gooob retired from Wikipedia yesterday. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’d like to make an article but it is black listed (notify me if this isn’t the correct noticeboard

I’d like to make an article about the web series ‘Battle for Dream Island’ but it is blacklisted. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco the Dawg (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was deleted by the community due to not meeting our inclusion criteria.. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the one that is blacklisted, but Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two has been unfinished since January. The draft's creator ChannelSpider is currently an active editor. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BFDI is correctly salted, there's no reliable coverage whatsoever, yet people keep recreating it. I could see an article for the creator, Kary Huang in the future of he gets more coverage, as he has done other notable things like Scale of the Universe Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island is currently salted, and the Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two is clearly just a salt evasion. It should be salted as well if the original salting was the consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, someone is trying really, really hard to get this show on WP. Draft:Battle for Dream Island is salted, as is Battle for Dream Island. Then there's the twice-declined Draft:Battle_for_BFB. Then there's the Draft:Object show, which is clearly just a coatrack for Battle for Dream Island. There are also the drafts Draft:List of BFDI:TPOT episodes, Draft:List of Battle for BFDI episodes, and Draft:List_of_BFDIA_episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbabej (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to nominate BFDITPT or whatever for deletion as salt evasion but it wouldn’t let me for some reason relating to the action being “admins only” or something. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way an admin can salt the above salt evasions? --Kbabej (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Rastakwere dubious articles? Request admins

Hello this user has been creating several dozens of articles based on non-peer reviewed and user generated WP:UGC sources. Many of the articles are claiming that this [[]] source received international media attention, when it's in fact a non-peer reviewed source. I already expressed concern back in July Talk:Grizana massacre but i waited to see if any more reliable sources where coming to the forefront. Since then this user has been on a spree creating several dozens of articles in the same fashion. Special attention to the reaction section, he also uses other sources in conjuction that doesn't specifically mentions the subject or place.

Some of the articles(only a small fraction of the articles created):

Adi Hageray massacre Bisober massacre Grizana massacre 2020 Shire massacre 2021 Shire massacre 2021 Megab massacre

Kindly requesting admins to investigate all articles created by this user, followed by the appropriate measures. Thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Most recent-events articles are based on mainstream media articles, which are typically less reliable in terms of context and balance and checking of method and details than academic research articles. This particular research article (a preprint) appears to have been submitted to Journal of Maps, published by Taylor & Francis, a generally accepted academic publisher, and Nyssen has earlier published 2 articles in Journal of Maps. The peer-review time scale has slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic, but 6-18 months is not unusual, especially for a big article full of many details. There is no particular reason to suspect that this article is not going through the normal peer review process.

I agree that some of Rastakwere's edits need attention by other editors, but I have always found that s/he responds constructively to edits based on Wikipedia policy and with the usual edit summaries or talk page discussions. Boud (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that these articles are all sourced to a single data table in an appendix of that unpublished paper. There is no reason for each row in that table to have its own article. WMSR (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, there is collusion by WMSR and Dawit S Gondaria to do this. Are they running a bot to put labels on articles that I created? Looks like vandalism. How to handle this? A massacre in the US with three people killed has its place on Wikipedia but a massacre of 60 in Ethiopia wouldn't?Rastakwere (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Rastakwere - rest assured I am not "colluding" with anyone, am not running a bot, and am certainly not trying to minimize the tragedies occurring in Ethiopia. Perhaps it is unfair, but the way that notability is established here at Wikipedia is by coverage from independent secondary sources (see WP:EVENT), and these individual events do not reach that threshold of coverage. Again, no doubt these events are horrible, but it is not feasable to have 106 articles based on one data table in an appendix of an unpublished paper. I am glad to continue that discussion at the AfD, but ask that you please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks both here and at that page. WMSR (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Baseless accusations by Rastakwere mind you i could have started an ANI months ago. Instead of improving those articles with reliable sources, Rastakwere created even more dubious articles over the past months and added them on other Horn of Africa related articles, which affects the quality and neutrality of those articles. Examples [[80]], [[81]], [[82]], this is only just a few. I daresay this user appears to have a agenda based on the articles created. Also in addition to more eyes on his articles, i'm proposing if possible a ban on article creation for this user, and a topic ban on everything related to Horn of Africa. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Ali Fadhul

Eyeballs? From my viewpoint, it looks like the intersection of WP:OWN and WP:CIR; the disinterested party might mutter something about WP:EW.Qwirkle (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This basically appears to be a dispute over whether the Daily Monitor is reliable, correct? Why did you bring it here instead of WP:RSN? Mlb96 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion exactly. For whatever reason, Qwirkle decided to interpret my suggestion in bad faith. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing B. P. Acharya

B. P. Acharya [83].
User:Basanthjain, a promotional editor who is almost a SPA for the subject, is repeatedly whitewashing this article, removing properly sourced information. They have made no attempt to engage on the talk page Talk:B. P. Acharya. Has made a vague claim of "removing factually incorrect data" [84] but has not backed this up with any evidence. Warnings [85], [86], [87], [88], [89] and information [90]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme, the edit they have been reverting includes the text "for his involvement in the Emaar township scam". Has this event been proven, and do reliable sources refer to it as a "scam"? If not, this may be a BLP violation. – bradv^🍁 04:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@User:Bradv. The NDTV source states "prime accused in the Emaar township scam". duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There are ample sources on his arrest and the context of the charges, but the latest information on the case that I was able to find was from early 2017, when a stay was in place, and he retired in October 2020. I have reverted the latest removal by Basanthjain and largely rewritten the article with a subsection on the investigation and a bit more on his career (using sources that were already present). Our article on Emaar Properties, the private partner in a public-private development project that gave rise to the charges, may also need some attention; it appears to me to be somewhat effusive. Duffbeerforme started a talk page section; I'm going to post there inviting Basanthjain or others to find references on the disposition of the investigation since 2017, since they may be in Telugu, which I can't read. (I found a Telugu reference hiding in the article's refs under an English title.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Since Basanthjain deleted Yngvadottir's excellent rewrite without discussion, without responding to the concerns on their talk page, and without participating here, I have blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. If Basanthjain would like to help write an encyclopedia, they can discuss their plans to do so at User talk:Basanthjain. – bradv^🍁 04:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Since they did leave a comment on the talk page (unsigned and no source) and are raising a BLP issue, I have posted to their talk imploring them to get us a source. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

CREG7898

CREG7898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor was blocked on Friday for edit warring and failure to communicate. The editor then proceeded to continue the behavior that led to their block, which included two reverts without a valid explanation and zero communication as an attempt to discuss the issue. The editor has reverted 3 different edits of mine, two of which were reverted multiple times. I warned them about this behavior. After being blocked, this editor then proceeded to leave a personal attack and for some reason an assumption of my political beliefs on my talkpage after being topic banned from Odell Beckham Jr., which was the page this all occurred on. Not sure if anything can be done, but it seems this editor is holding some sort of vendetta against me.--Rockchalk717 23:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And the personal attacks have moved to the talkpage of the previously mentioned page.--Rockchalk717 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. What a loser. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Thank you. This editor has been a pain in my you know what for a few days, on top of his strange personal attacks and assumptions about my political views.--Rockchalk717 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

181.165.53.145

181.165.53.145 (talk · contribs) Static IP, single purpose account. All they do is go around adding hlist templates to infoboxes where they're not needed. I (politely) explained on their talk page why the this was unnecessary and not preferable, but they have not responded and just keep on doing it, so I issued warnings instead but they just keep on. IP has never edited in talk space so seems unwilling to engage in discussion about their edits. Pinging @Binksternet: who has also been reverting this IP on the basis of MOS:VAR and has also issued them warnings. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This IP seems to be acting alone, not connected to other IPs. No communication, persistently changing trivial style and layout details against the guideline WP:STYLEVAR which allows the existing style to stand if it is acceptable to MOS. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIR

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.

---

Source has a mention about the budget of movie while the subject is unable to read it. I doubt subject's ability to understand english language. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I thought it was an honest misunderstanding (maybe they didn't recognize the term Crore but User:Leif_Eriksson_VV needs at least a warning if not something more. Repeatedly saying he will block the other editor "If you change those, I will block you. " and "Ok. Thank you for everything. Now it's my turn your IP and A/C be banned forever" [[91]] JeffUK (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone see this? User is repeatedly posting marginal remarks on other user's talk page and clearly shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 12 November 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.

Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty Repeated unsourced statements and links after multiple warning

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 Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty is disruptively removing valid links from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Sooryavanshi as an example. As his talk page shows they have been warned multiple times about adding unsourced information and links, (check his talk page history). And I warned him multiple times but he didn't listening. Please take an immediate response. Block him for 48 hours/week. Leif Eriksson VV (talk 09:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request WP:BOOMERANG per my previous complaints against the user Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CIR. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Also Leif Eriksson tried to disrupt this thread by removing the talk comment above, like this one. I think Leif Eriksson has created this thread as retaliation to WP:CIR thread. Also Leif Eriksson failed to notify the user in the first place after creating this thread. --Stylez995 (talk) 11:42, 12 November 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.

Frequent edits sanitising articles regarding Hong Kong and other Chinese related articles by Sgweirdo

I originally reported this user to AIV, and was told to bring it here. This user has received multiple final warnings, but then just hides his talk page so gets away with disruptive editing everyday. He has a fixation on Hong Kong and other Chinese related articles and frequently removes flags, adds unsourced references, etc.

Example edit diffs:

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Diff 4

Update: Editor blanked the page to hide the notification about this incident report on their talk page.

Editor also makes a lot of edits to hide his disruptive edits and ignores all warnings. Equine-man (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment None of those diffs seem to show 'Removing flags' or 'adding unsourced references' they don't seem particularly troublesome.. 1. was rewording something 2. seems to be a minor formatting change. 3. was removing a sound clip, that was uncaptioned and unexplained. 4. Was, however, an unexplained deletion. You described the edit here [[92]] as 'Vandalism' but I don't think it is necessarily vandalism. I can see where they are coming from, Patten is not the governor of Hong-Kong, nor was he the only one so having his photo on the page is a little odd, they made a change, it was reverted, and you haven't suggested they are edit warring to restore such changes.. Blanking their talk page is their prerogative entirely. JeffUK (talk)

Comment None of the diffs above show a conduct issues or even an obvious content issue (which is not what ANI is for). A number of their edits have been reverted, but none look like overt vandalism to me, rather it is a content disputes, for which we have WP:BRD cycle. I do not see evidence of edit warring, nor attempts at discussions (beyond templating warnings, which by removing they show they've seen them) by multiple parties on either the article talk pages or user pages. Still, Sgweirdo made no attempts to re-add content without consensus. If I am missing any concrete examples, please link them. Reading an ANI complaint shouldn't require us to do the digging for evidence. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The respondent has never been blocked. We should start with a warning, which I have given, and see if he follows advice. If he persists, there may be further warnings or blocks before an indefinite block.Jehochman ^Talk 09:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

• Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Pollster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Impru20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, The Pollster has engaged in a fairly egregious uncollaborative behaviour at Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election. TP made a series of edits that were contested by myself and another user, Jeppiz, who went on to point this fact in the article's talk page. I then reverted the article to the version previous to such edits until a consensus could be reached, as per WP:BRD. From there, TP has gone into an ownership-like behaviour over the article's contents, coupled with tendentious editing and personal attacks on both myself and Jeppiz, with claims such as:

• "You have contributed nothing to this article impru. Go back to Spain"
• "You guys have no clue of the current political situation in Austria and should be more concerned about your own countries"
• "Impru, go back to editing your Spanish articles and leave this article alone !"
• "This article will remain as I edited"
• "Jeppiz, please go back to Sweden and mind your business there"
• "So, once again impru and jeppiz, go back to your own countries and articles and mind your own business and let me do the job here"
• "the article looked horrible BEFORE, but now it looks decent and modernized. Thanks to my edits and updates"

The Pollster is unwilling to come to terms to the fact that their edits are contested, and has gone to reinstate their own preferred version without re-engaging into the discussion (this despite having been warned earlier on to adopt a much calmer demeanor and to stop the edit warring) with this edit summary: "vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation".

So far, consensus-building attempts have utterly failed since this user is basically prohibiting anyone aside of themselves from contesting their edits and seems unwilling to work collaboratively at all. Thus, a solution of another kind is required.

PS. Note that while I was writing this report, TP has made a further comment in the talk page, claiming that "There are not many people editing this page. It’s mostly me (who does the most in making this look modern, while a few others only added the fraudulent RA polls in the past. Then there are you 2 (impru and jeppiz) who only serve as querulants and who do nothing to contribute to this article and only come once a year to complain, without actually being from Austria" and "My version is correct and hopefully a few other members come here to say so". I have added WP:PA to the list of spotted policy violations as a result. Impru20^talk 12:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• This edit, which says in Wikipedia's voice (and in a somewhat informal tone) that Research Affairs is under investigation, with no sourcing, is unacceptable. I'm surprised that there's disagreement about that. Revert-warring to keep it in place, while making aspersions about the nationality of other editors, is unimpressive at best. It may well be that including Research Affairs polling is inappropriate, but this is not how to go about excluding them. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have long contributed to the polling sections of Austrian polls and know what I am doing. I was only advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls, but not Austrian ones where they have no clue what is going on here. Besides, the dubious Research Affairs polls are not removed in my edits - just collapsed and hidden in „old polls“ sections. This is used and done so on the German Wikipedia too without any complaint. Why there should be a massive table of old polling is beyond my comprehension. There should only be visible polling of the last quarter or so, every older poll archived under old collapsed polling. Also, I included a recent poll chart that was missing, using main polling instead of alternative polling incl. MFG. This would be removed if my edits are removed. I advocate that my edits (modernized !) remain in place. --The Pollster (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Firstly, you have no right nor power to unilaterally exclude anyone from editing any article. Arguing that what you did was "advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls" is basically a reiteration of the behavioural issues reported above. If your edits are contested, you must accept that you are not the holder of the universal truth and that you must work collaboratively to reach a compromise. Secondly, you may be well aware and/or more experienced in the knowledge of a country's politics than other users, but that does not waive the verifiability, be bold nor civility policies for you, which btw happen to be three of Wikipedia's five pillars. Thirdly, this discussion is not on the merits of the content added/removed, but on your behaviour. This notwithstanding, it should be mentioned that this issue was already discussed several weeks ago with no final reply on your part, then you waited a couple weeks to game the system by applying your version of how to "remove" or "hide" those polls, despite knowing there was not a consensus for it. You had ample opportunity to press and source the claims for your edits at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, and what you did was to demonstrate that you cannot work collabotively in a Wikipedia as of currently. Impru20^talk 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I have now removed the controversial disclaimer notice, as it is no longer needed (the Research Affairs polls who were faked are hidden in the older polls sections which are collapsed, but still visible for those who want to see them). I also added a source from the official Austria broadcaster ORF about the OGM controversy in the quality criteria on top of the article. Every major concern is now removed and the article is modernized. --The Pollster (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • You still fail to get the point at all. Article content was not the motivator of this thread. Plus, edits like this in which you again insist on the whole "fake poll" issue without any source, while vindicating previous edits that you leave no one to contest, only serve as further evidence of the problem at hand. Impru20^talk
          • I have now included 2 additional (!) sources in the VdMI section on top of the article, which explains how Research Affairs polls were deliberately faked between 2016 and 2021 (emphasis until this year ! - not just their old polls) - therefore making the article even more up to date. I know that this evaluation here is about my controversy about „mind your Spanish or Swedish business“. Ok I apologize, it wasn’t a personal attack, just a reminder to let me edit this article because I know what’s best. And it now looks pretty modernized and reflects all sources needed. --The Pollster (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Yet again, this is not the place for content dispute resolution. Anyway, I checked the edit and the sources and those support the "inadequate metholody" claim (which was there already), not the polls being "faked", which is the claim you insist on both in here and in your edit summaries. They are also no justification for distorting the article the way you did. Using a source to back up a statement that is not contained in the source is original research; further, using a combination of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly backed by any of them is synthesis. I would suggest you to stop touching the article and instead explain yourself on the behavioural concerns raised above and the remedies you are willing to take to address those. So far, with each new edit you only deepen on these issues while keeping raising new ones. I cannot help you any further. Cheers. Impru20^talk 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
              • The Fake Poll accusations are part of my sources/newspaper articles, but if you want a better source it’s here, directly from the investigation act of the Corruption Prosecution Office (whole act, via Falter newspaper): https://www.falter.at/media/downloads/kurz_akt_blacked.pdf I can include this Prosecutors document too as an official source in the poll article. The point is that, as a compromise, I still let the fake polls remain in the article- but collapsed in the old polls sections. That is a really good compromise in my opinion. On the accusations of my behavior to you and the Swede, I already apologized. The case should be clear ... and closed. Article let as it is right now. --The Pollster (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                The Pollster - you can explain to people why you disagree with the edits they want to make, but you need to keep that based on sourcing and the content itself - you can't say 'I know more about this than you, leave it to me, don't edit it'. You've gone way beyond that though: you absolutely, definitely must never tell someone that they can't edit an article because of the country they are from. That is non-negotiable, and it shouldn't need explaining. 'Go back to your country' is a hateful phrase that nobody should ever have to see here. I have no idea who is right with regards to the disagreement about content, but your conduct has been unacceptable. I note a half-hearted apology above - that does not convey to me that appreciate the gravity of how offensive your comments have been. I suggest you try harder. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                • (edit conflict) You still fail to get the point, TP. Your behavioural issues are not solved merely with an empty apology when you keep demonstrating with your unilateral edits and with each new comment that you will be behaving the same now and in the future, over and over again. Also, claiming apology while referring to the other user as "the Swede" shows the emptiness of your apology and how much contempt you have towards those that disagree with you. I'll be letting others opine now. Cheers. Impru20^talk 14:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • I have apologized fully for my comments, if you like it or accept it or not, is up to you. I cannot do more than that. I also do not have any contempt. The thing is that I think the article as it is right now is just fine, all is sourced and as a compromise, even the fake polls are still in the article under the collapsed sections if someone somehow wants to read these results. But there is no need to have a wall of old (sometimes faked) polls in the article. Better to archive them after a quarter and have a good up to date overview of polling and 2 nice charts showing the results in a historically interesting manner.--The Pollster (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                    You have not apologised fully. I'd like to see a statement from you to the effect that you understand that you are in no position to tell someone else not to edit an article, and also that you understand that telling someone to edit an article because of where they are from will result in your account being blocked from editing. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                    • Ok, I apologize to them and I understand that I am in no position to tell someone else not to edit an article, and also that I understand that telling someone to edit an article because of where they are from will result in my account being blocked from editing.--The Pollster (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster, when you parrot back the exact words of an administrator's warning, that can be interpreted as grudging rather than sincere. I truly hope that you were sincere. As an American, I intended to let you know that you would be welcome to contribute regarding American elections and then I took a look at your contributions and discovered that you have edited articles about American elections since at least 2008. To me, it appears quite hypocrital for an Austrian who edits articles about American elections to tell a Swede and a Spaniard that they are not welcome to edit articles about Austrian elections. Let me be crystal clear: editors from any country on earth are completely welcome to edit articles related to any other country on earth, as long as they comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So please never use that tactic again, because it is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for ThePollster

Based on their multiple personal attacks against any user who doesn't share their opinion, as outlined above, I propose that The Pollster be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Whatever positive contribution The Pollster might add is dwarfed by their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, frequent personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN issues. When a user says things like "This article will remain as I edited" [93] or "leave this article alone!" [94], it's the most obvious case of WP:OWN I've seen in over a decade here. And when the same user repeatedly use other users' nationalities to attack them, as in "Go back to Spain" [95], "go back to editing your Spanish articles" [96], "go back to Sweden and mind your business there" [97], "go back to your own countries and articles and mind your own business and let me do the job here" [98], well, once again, I can recall personal rants at this scale. What make it even worse is that the only action that set off this tirade of racist abuse was merely disagreeing with ThePollster on one article. Again, in over a decade here, I never came across a user behaving so badly over so little. I hope the community agrees that WP would be better off without this kind of behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This only recapitulates the evidence already presented above, with a lot of bolding and angry language added for emphasis. The editor has apologized and we should now see whether the apology was sincere by observing their behavior going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it's a summary of the problems mentioned. And yes, I admit I'm a bit angry when a user with whom I never had any interaction launches multiple unprovoked personal attacks on me (and others). What I said about rarely seeing so bad behaviour here in over a decade is not really 'angry', it's a matter of fact. And as others say below, their "apology" does not come across as sincere and does little to acknowledge their behavioral issues.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The issue is that I cannot see it as sincere considering how they have not even acknowledged their own misdeeds, have been performing further unilateral edits in the article with both the talk page discussion and this ANI thread still ongoing in an effort to preserve their own preferred version (not acknowledging that the issue is that such version has no consensus and that no one else has supported their claims), and their apologies here seem more like an excuse to keep on their OWN behaviour, specially when they have shown no effort at easening their grip over that article. I have refrained from reverting them any further out of fear that it would result in even more disruption. That their aspersions were as strong as to judge on others' nationalities only made this worse, but that's a symptom, not the disease. Impru20^talk 18:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support a time-limited block, but not indef (yet) indef block I am sorry about this, but what I have seen in this discussion so far leaves me no other choice. I see an indef as just too much yet, as blocks are not meant as punitive, but I see it as clear that the user has not gotten the point and, if left unchecked, they will just continue with their WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by preventing anyone else to edit that article (or any else within their "influence") against their wishes. To sum the whole situation up: The Pollster was warned several times about their unilateralism, was called several times to abide to WP:BRD and to stop enforcing controversial edits, and their response was to just reiterate their alleged ownership of the article and to cast aspersions on those who disagreed with them. They were required to reach a consensus for their edits (which, as of currently, does not exist), yet they still continued on their egregious behaviour. They were brought here to ANI, where the concerns on their behaviour were brought and the opportunity was given to them to explain themselves and the remedies they would bring to change this situation, and their response has been to, basically, reiterate some of their aspersions while keeping conducting unilateral edits on the article. They then suddenly claimed to "apologize" (with no other action) while continuing to mock Jeppiz as "the Swede", and when a stronger commitment was demanded from them, they limited themselves to parrot back the administrator's words. I am starting to question whether there is a competence issue here, but as of now it is obvious that this user is unable to work collaboratively and has shown a total disregard to some of Wikipedia's most basic principles and guidelines even after being repeteadly warned by a number of users, so a block is due to preserve the article's integrity and to show them that this is not the way to act in WP. Just my two cents. Impru20^talk 18:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Restoring full support for a block after this edit. Defending their edits by accusing another user of "legitimizing corruption and fake polling", as well as the overall formatting of the edit itself (has this been written by a 5-year old?), considering the discussion in here, is outright incompetence at best. Strongly support the application of WP:CIR at the very least. Impru20^talk 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per LV After reading Levivich's comment below, I think we can give TP some WP:ROPE, making it clear than repeating such disruptive behaviour again may lead to an indef block. I've stricken my previous comment and commented this at the proper article and reverted their non-consensuated edits, commending them to engage into civil discussion and achieve consensus the collaborative way (which means accepting a consensus for their edits may not exist as of currently). Indeed, they were lucky they were not blocked outright by a passing admin; nonetheless, the way they behave from now on should be indicative of the sincerity of their actions. Impru20^talk 16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Holding back !oppose as per above

Support time-limited block. Unconvincing apology - i don’t think the user gets it or takes it that seriously. The behaviour is serious and a block may get their attention. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support block. There behavior, as indicated above, has been egregious. Paul August ☎ 00:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Trying to evaluate whether an apology from a stranger is sincere over text is just judging someone for how good of a writer they are. Clearly the comments were way over the top; there's no doubt about that. Pollster is lucky they didn't just get blocked as an ordinary admin action. But at this point, the only thing that matters is whether it stops or is repeated. Stopping with no apology is way better than an apology without stopping. Sincerity doesn't matter, apologies don't matter, "self-reflection" doesn't matter... all that matters is that the disruptive activity stop. Because the offensive comments haven't been repeated since they were called out in this thread, no further sanction is necessary right now to prevent disruption. If, however, they make any other comments like that in the future, they should be indef'd. Levivich 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per LV, particular wrt the last point: that the next offence should probably result in an indef—not because it will be surely a worse offence than this (it might not be), but because if it reoccurs, it will be not just recidivism but compounded by WP:HEAR. As with all our DR processes, the important thing is the resolution, not who gets bollocked or how badly. ——Serial 15:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If we are to believe The Pollster is sincere, the least we'd expect is for them to revert the edits in question. The situation at the moment is that ThePollster can ignore this discussion as they have edit warred to unilaterally impose their own version of the article, disregarding WP:BRD and WP:EW, while abusing others in the process. So if the decision is to give ThePollster a chance to improve their behaviour, surely a self-revert is the first step to take. In the absence of such a self-revert, it's hard to believe ThePollster cares about this discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply to ny own comment: I see Impru restored the consensus version, so the above is a moot point by now. Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And it will soon become apparent whether or not the Pollster is sincere and has got it. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm holding back on my previous oppose while restoring my support to the block after this edit. They are not getting the point on how to address an issue without casting aspersions on others. Accusing me of "legitimizing corruption and fake polling" after I myself came back in support of WP:ROPE for him, followed by a child-like argument on how their version is the best and the previous one was "bad", with the stronger argument for it being the aspersion itself, is just over the top. Impru20^talk 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The line was "The reverts of impru make no sense and legitimize corruption and fake polling, when it shouldn't." I get why you'd have a strong reaction to that, in light of the previous incivility, but I don't think that's actually accusing you of legitimizing corruption and fake polling, but rather saying the edits have that effect (note the use of the pronoun "it" as opposed to "you" or "he/she/they"). I once said that an editor's edit "perpetuated a hoax" and the editor said I was accusing them of perpetuating a hoax, but I wasn't; I was talking about the effect of the edit, not the intent of the editor. It might seem like splitting hairs, but I think we gotta be able to say things like "that edit is misleading" without that being interpreted as "that editor is trying to mislead". We gotta have the freedom to criticize edits without those criticisms being interpreted as criticisms of editors. Levivich 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that "perpetuating" and "legitimizing" are not similar concepts. You can conduct an edit that unwittingly "perpetuates" an hoax (though the hoax nature as such should be proven for such accusation to be true). You cannot conduct an edit that unintentionally "legitimizes" something, as that by itself implies intention, and no evidence was presented as to how the edits in question "legitimized corruption and fake polling". That's WP:ASPERSION. Besides, the issue is not so much on the aspersion itself, but on the fact that TP did cast an aspersion while this ANI was still ongoing, after he was warned by multiple users to be civil and in spite of their previous, egregious behaviour. Still, as both DeCausa and I just discussed on their talk page, we can still asume at best that TP does not have bad faith, but just that they do not have the required competence to work collaboratively in Wikipedia, with each new edit that they conduct pointing out to that conclusion. Impru20^talk 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weakest possible oppose (for the moment). It's a tough call. On the one hand, Pollster's nationalistic WP:OWNERSHIP issues and their belief that they can try to enforce discussion ghettos for Wikipedia's content based on location, national identity, or creed, are beyond merely "inappropriate", and in fact suggest pretty profound issues with regard to WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. This kind of attitude doesn't just demonstrate that the user has made zero effort to understand even the most basic rules that govern discussion in this community, but indeed that they fail completely to understand the most fundamental open knowledge purposes of the project itself, which their approach stands in more or less absolute antithetical contrast to. I'll be honest, with this particular manner of behaviour and outlook, I entertain almost no belief that this editor is likely to conform to a future pattern of behaviour consistent with Wikipedia values of inclusion and open engagement: there's simply too much of a gap between how this user is conducting themselves so far and where they need to be, just in terms of the most baseline acceptable attitude and civility towards other users.

All of that said, as a purely pro-forma matter, I think Cullen is right. Here we have a user who has nominally acknowledged what they have been told about the unacceptability of their conduct. I too have serious doubts about the sincerity of their commitment, given the manner in which they parroted back the statements in question, and I have to admit I think we're going to be right back here shortly for the ultimate indef (unless an admin follows the situation and acts independently at the first sight of failure to follow through on the professed commitment). But the commitment has been made all the same and I think maybe the record is such that AGF pushes use towards at least leaving them this chance to reform their approach here, no matter how dubious we may be that this is going somewhere constructive. But I favour a zero latitude approach to this situation, and wouldn't mind a close that speaks directly to admins in terms of saying any further disruption in the same "go back to X" area should be met with an immediate indef, without the need to pass this by the community at large again. For that matter, I would happily endorse a TBAN from areas of polling and elections, broadly construed, at this present juncture. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For the time being. From what I can see, the user hasn't made any egregious edits since their apology, and I worry that indeffing them before any further violations happen veers too close to being punitive rather than preventative. JellyMan9001 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• You can refer to me as „he“ because I am male. Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and it seems the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version, because they clearly see through the double standard that some are applying on the Austrian polling section vs. other polling sections. For example, they argue that collapsed polls are OK in the 2024 US President election article (where no fake polls are collapsed), while sections with obvious faked material in the Austrian polling article cannot be collapsed ... a really weird double standard. It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. Admins, please restore my modernized version of the article, because of this context. Thanks, --The Pollster (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not an admin, nor am I making any comments on the content dispute. I'm just giving my opinion on the indef proposal. JellyMan9001 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

it seems the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version and It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. This, coupled with his new edit at the article's talk page accusing editors directly (not their edits) of "protecting fake polls and corruption" while still not getting the point of what other uninvolved users care to explain to him (also note that he moved a comment of mine critical of his behaviour out of place against WP:TALKO). This is The Pollster's conclusion of all of this ordeal, assuming no wrongdoing and keeping on their OWN and ASPERSIONs despite being a clear unanimity for condemning his behaviour, and despite no one having supported "his version" (this venue is not for content dispute resolution). The only point of discussion as of currently is whether a block for him is due now or next time around. If this is what he is willing to throw in an ANI thread discussing a block on him, just imagine what he could do once not under scrutiny. Impru20^talk 08:32, 11 November 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.

Filmomusico repeatedly editing others' comments

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

---

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

On November 10, Filmomusico received messages from three different editors about modifying others' talk page comments [99][100][101], including "an admin warning to stop". They received another warning about it the next day after doing it again [102]. Following this warning, they are still continuing to change others' comments, including this edit from their alternate account MollyPollyRolly, where they substitute entirely different words in someone else's post ("editing" → "adding") and make numerous grammatical changes in multiple editors' posts in one fell swoop. This is getting disruptive and I would like them to commit to stopping all of these changes. DanCherek (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I was about to go to sleep, but now I need to stay here and discuss this issue. (Sigh). Ok. First of all, I would like to apologize for any WP:IDHT. Second, I am baffled why a few typos can provoke such an uproar. If you want, I can ask that editor if it will be ok to do so?--Filmomusico (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No, just don't do it. There is no reason to correct other people's talk page comments. It's rude and annoying. – Joe (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Don't you find reverting people like me as annoying? I mean, there are so many other things to do then reverting a user who just fixed a typo. And how is it rude, if I may ask?--Filmomusico (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico, the issue is not an uproar over a few typos. The issue is you taking it upon yourself to copyedit another editor's talk page comments. Please copyedit encyclopedia articles but not the talk page comments of other editors. It comes off as pedantic, supercilious and passive-aggressive. Just don't do that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I will try my best to avoid it. It's tempting, but will try. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Do, or do not. There is no try". -- GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Ok. I would like to apologize again. Can we close the discussion on this note? I need to go to bed and won't respond to any inquiries of yours.--Filmomusico (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Block review 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.

---

After three earlier blocks User:Hatto was indefinitely blocked in April 2008. A few weeks later they created User:Hatto0467 who has been editing steadily since, including the creation of articles. On the 6th of this month they logged into Hatto and redirected Talk:Hatto to Talk:Hatto0467, which gave the blocked account ECP and was noticed in a discussion about ECP. I note that one of the issues with the original account was misuse of the minor edits tickbox - they still seem to have a bit of a problem with this. I've CU blocked them as they are clearly block evading, but I'm not going to lose my cool if someone wants to unblock them although I personally don't like to see block evaders get away with it. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

They've been editing for 13 years without incident? That kind of proves that a block in 2008 was not necessary to prevent disruption. I don't see how a block today is necessary to prevent disruption. Unless Wikipedia is the kind of place where "rules are rules" and if you broke one 13 years ago, you should be blocked today, regardless of how much good you've done in the last 13 years. I don't think that's what blocking policy envisions. Unless they've done something disruptive in the past decade, let's unblock them. Also, editors whose second accounts use the same name as the first account aren't really trying to evade anything. If nobody noticed/cared for 13 years, why notice/care now? Levivich 15:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep him & his sock(s) blocked. I fatefully served my 1-year ban, so why can't he. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If they are contributing usefully to the project now, then why spit in their face for some long-ago transgression? Clearly they aren't causing major disruption sufficient to warrant permastomping. As GoodDay notes above, sometimes long ago mistakes were made in blocking; in that case it should have been permanent. I'd like to see some acknowledgement of the old sin and a pledge to keep on contributing. After all, it's not as if he's flying under the radar now; he has eyes - unwinking, unforgiving eyes - on him. --Pete (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Out of curiosity, how does redirecting the original page piggyback the EC status of the later account? (Although, admittedly, I also don't see the point—the current account presumably has that right already (with >1K edits)).

Regarding the point at hand, I'm tempted to echo Levivich; while I'm usually the first to demand that he editors log into their original accounts, realistically, after 13 years of no-mishaps surely we make an exception...? As for the minor edits thing, I haven't looked closely, but the numbers are pretty clear that Hatto467's minor edits are <20% of their total, compared to his earlier rate of (gulp!) >60%. ——Serial 15:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: how does redirecting the original page piggyback the EC status of the later account? it doesn't. Extended confirmed status is given either when you make your first edit after your reach the threshold, or your first edit after 5 April 2016 (the date EC went live on en.wp) if you reached the threshold before then. The redirection was the first edit made by user:Hatto since 2008, but they made nearly 4000 edits between 2005 and 2008 so they go the status automatically. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I seeee, Thanks Thryduulf: so EC wasn't retroactive when it was introduced, but would kick in on the first edit since then—of which that was the one on the 6th! Check. Thanks for resolving that. A harder question to resolve might be... why?! It seems a curiously pointless action, tbh. ——Serial 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Some might say that redirecting your old account's talk page to your new account is disclosing the earlier account. So after 13 years of editing without being blocked, the editor gets blocked after linking the accounts on-wiki. I wonder what message that sends to block evaders... Levivich 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Levivich, SN, and Canterbury Tail here, there's really not much value in blocking them at this point. And the message, as with most long-after-the-fact cases of block evasion, is "if you keep your nose clean people aren't going to notice". ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't have happened in an ideal world, but it's been 13 years without any issues from the user. Trout them and then unblock as an WP:IAR interpretation. They're productive and blocks shouldn't be punitive. Talk to them on the minor edits thing if we think it's still an issue, but I think the block should be lifted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• 13 years of good behavior certainly merits WP:SO qualification, even if it is a bit unorthodox. I'm okay with the WP:IAR unblocking here. The rules are meant to stop disruption, and clearly this person has made it 13 years without disrupting Wikipedia. I'd say they've proven themselves. If we had caught them right away, perhaps a block would be in order, but Wikipedia stands to gain nothing over keeping them blocked. --Jayron32 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Question is - How many more socks is he operating. I assume they'd be more creatively named. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• He does need to stop using the minor edit tick box so much IMHO. I didn't do a thorough check so don't know about more socks. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ok, I've checked. I see a lot of editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously he's being dishonest with the community. His IP(s) should be blocked, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Is it abusive logged-out editing, or the sort that would normally be handled by a {{uw-login}} or such? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have blocked under these circumstances and I think the user should be unblocked absent additional evidence. I have some questions about the original block from 2008 and I doubt it would withstand review if done today. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, any block placed by Rodhullandemu should probably be vacated on principle, or at least reviewed with a jaundiced eye. ——Serial 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Tbh anytime I read "block from 2008" my initial reaction is "it was probably a bad block". Those were the Old Times, when Titans roamed the encyclopedia, devouring mortals. Levivich 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Their earlier blocks: 02:50, 3 March 2008 DragonflySixtyseven talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 2 days, 48 minutes and 48 seconds (autoblock disabled) (Ignoring warnings on abingdon boys school and related articles) (unblock | change block)

  14:30, 12 March 2007 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (anon. only) (removing replacable fair use tags despite multiple warnins and notices, and gross incivility and personal attacks) (unblock | change block)

  3:11, 29 June 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 8 hours (3rr on Masashi_Tashiro) (unblock | change block)

  @Tamzin:I haven't examined their IP edits carefully, but the problem for me is that there are a lot of them. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• What Levivich and SN54129 said. This is a punishment looking for a reason. Unless anyone has any diffs of any actual disruptive behaviour from, say, the last few years, then unblock as "time very much served" and move on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Of course, unblock. If WP:SOCK becomes the end, not the means, then we've stopped trying to build an encyclopedia, and are just playing Sock Hunting the Video Game(TM). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • • I play that every week I unload the washing machine and dryer. Canterbury Tail talk 19:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The world's most boring MUD. Levivich 18:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    In Q&A sections of newspapers and websites on Mars, a frequent question is "Where do the unfamiliar odd socks in my laundry come from?" Narky Blert (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support Unblock per above. A trout and informal warning (for minor edits) are all that is needed as they can clearly edit constructivel. The block was also placed by an admin who is now banned. dudhhr_Contribs 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is an odd situation. I think an unblock probably is merited, although it seems like there ought to be some closure to the prior indef. Rather than unblock unilaterally, why not suggest that they file a nominal unblock request and then approve it? Someone who is willing to constructively edit Wikipedia should be able to come up with a cursory justification for doing so.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• I think we're now at consensus standards for unblocking, with just some differing on the nature of the warning that should be given alongside. Per "NOTBUREAU" I don't believe we need a "nominal unblock request". However, this is technically a CU block, and I'm not sure whether but I'm not going to lose my cool if someone wants to unblock them is "CU permission for a regular unblock" or "permission for another CU to unblock without further query to the blocking admin". Thus, any CU please process. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Paging Barkeep49 on aisle 5 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can unblock. Please mention minor edits again though, I've already dealt with editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 10 November 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.

Not entirely sure why I was paged specifically and as I am not Batman I make no promises to always turn up at ANI if the signal goes up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just note I think it's a bit concerning to see CU blocks used when there is obvious block evasion just from behaviour (username, in this case). It limits unblocking to CUs and slows down the removal of bad blocks, since not every admin can review them, or at least it seems other admins feel cautious about undoing them (as seen above in Nosebagbear's comment). Also think an admin should show a bit of discretion when the original block apparently being evaded was for improper use of minor edit indicators... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ProcrastinatingReader: I agree, and would go further and say that {{checkuserblock-account}} should never be used in the event of a purely behavioural link between accounts. This is intimated by the template itself: Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively... (my emphasis). Clearly, in cases such as this, technical logs didn't come into it initially. ——Serial 11:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking a sock-master who's claimed his english isn't very good. Very well, then. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Sockmaster" is a little inaccurate don't you think? If an admin looks at the editor's contributions and wants to block them for a substantive reason - disruptive editing, perhaps related to their English ability or something else - then they could do that. But blocking them for being a 'sockmaster' or for 'marking edits as minor' are both obviously bad blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My feelings on sock puppetry are well documented, but essentially I asked for diffs of recent disruptive behaviour (on the grounds that a sock will "revert to type" eventually and do the things that caused them to get blocked in the first place) and there were none forthcoming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I could swear I posted about two hours ago, but something failed. Anyway, what I wrote more or less is that in hindsight I agree it should not have been a CU block - I think it was a desire to be overcautious in checking I was right, but that wasn't necessary. Not my best block but please note that I immediately came here for a block review. Of course the most important thing is the result, which is what I hoped for or better. Hatto has his old username back which he's very happy about, another Admin and ProcrastinatingReader have advise him about minor edits, I've told him he can always contact me and I've shared a good website with him. Because of the name change the CU block doesn't show up in his blocklog. As I assumed Ritchie read the block log I didn't see any point in analyzing the frequency of minor edits - there was no question in my mind of reverting to type (ignoring warnings etc, the reasons for the earlier blocks ), I have no idea why that was mentioned other than his negative feelings . Doug Weller talk 12:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie's disruptive editing

User Echo1Charlie is engaged in disruptive editing and edit-war with multiple editors on multiple pages while giving misunderstood policies as rationale for reversion and large-scale content removal (see 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). The editor also questions reputable RS just because it comes from a certain country (see 1 & 2). The user doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY means (see 1, 2 & 3) or what WP:LONGQUOTE means (see 1 & 2). Calls a print magazine a WP:SPS (see 1 & 2). The user has already been warned for such behavior. Tagging @Satrar and Samee: for more input. --119.157.254.153 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins should also note that this user was also warned here earlier. 119.157.96.86 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The OP is a block evading sock of [[103]] as already described here. He couldn't get his POV on 2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown that's why engaging in this forum shopping. Given this disruption, the article needs ECP protection. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Says someone who routinely engages in meatpuppetry. 119.157.126.39 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie doesn't have to edit via his IP, all his edits are via his user ID :) because all edits I make are reasonable and the reason would be normally provided in the edit summary and the editwar regarding samee and satrar. I'm curious how do you know about the incident regarding samee and satrar? I was trying to find the diff I made in that editwar report , to prove which was a false accusation, but I lost among 2000+ edits I made, I couldn't find it (but will add here later), being an IP how did you know that incident??! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh you mentioned mentioned that here, thanks for doing that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Let's begin with reputable source argument you made -

1. [104] - if you came with your user ID I could've pinged you, I provided the reason in detail here and a Pakistani news paper in India Pakistan matter especially regarding Kashmir is a biased source, violating the policies I mentioned in the talk section. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. WP:PRIMARY is not generally encouraged to cite on articles, especially when it comes to controversial subjects like Kashmir issue it's not acceptable at all (I think so). —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Globalvillagespace - "The reputable print magazine" (are they actually print magazine in the literal sense) - in their about it reads - "Global Village Space (GVS) is an initiative of few friends from Columbia University Alumni Club of Pakistan." - now my question is it a reliable source regarding India - Pakistan issue? Or Kashmir conflict? To me it sounds like a potential WP:SPS —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Regarding your this reply [105] accusing an editor calling him meatpuppet sounds so familiar to me [106] Satrar calling an editor Thewolfchild who put a comment in that report - a meat puppet! Coincidence?!, also calling Satrar and samee here [107] could be a coincidence too right?! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Long quote quote farm - [108] Long quotes were removed but the citations retained including that of Dawn.com at the bottom, also it's a WP:QUOTEFARM - just look at the number of quotes they've put in that singe sentence - starting with "There was also.." to "It was at the centre of..." - that's 5 quotes in a row! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
6. And about the first 5 diffs your provided - I think edit summaries I provided there would speak for me. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• My Observation : It's interesting to note that IP editing is increased on India-Pakistan/Kashmir related articles recently, see here [109], [110], [111] - content of this well cited article was completely removed by an Ip on 4 November 2021 [112] calling WP:OR WP:POV - this incident came to the light only because we discussed the matter on my talk page here. I think these are done by experienced editors, (IP Sock??), I request these articles should be protected from IP editing. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Echo1Charlie, there is no requirement that otherwise reliable sources be completely unbiased. If we eliminated all pro-Indian and pro-Pakistani sources from coverage of the Kashmir dispute, we would have very few sources left to cite. It is the task of productive Wikipedia editors to accurately summarize the full range of reliable sources. So, a pro-India editor should be willing to cite a pro-Pakistan reliable source, if it makes a cogent and relevant point about the conflict. And vice versa. My edits that I am most proud of are to defend articles about people I do not like off-Wikipedia, from edits that violate WP:BLP policy. Every living person deserves that protection, even if I think Person A is a jerk. The same general principal applies to articles about controversial topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point Cullen328, actually we're on the same boat see my arguments here [113] under subtitle Neutrality Issues. I'm against attaching Dawn as an external link [114] as I have stated here its a violation of

1. WP:ELPOV - it reads " avoid providing links... to one point of view"- here the external link provided is that of a Pakistani national daily - the dawn, known to push Pakistani narrative
2. WP:LINKSTOAVOID - it reads - " Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject" - here external link provided is a news link

hence in my opinion news site as an external link can't be allowed. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Also in this article 2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown under reaction section, Pakistani dailies like dawn, pakistantoday etc are cited, I haven't removed them with this judgement! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Interestingly, the consensus early on in the development of 2020 Delhi riots was to cite only third party international sources (especially those with journalist agents in India), rather than Indian sources, because it was such a divisive event that even Indian sources normally considered reliable (including The Hindu I recall) were found to be unreliable for reporting about that event. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear from the discussion above just what you object to, Echo1Charlie. Are you saying only that Dawn (newspaper) is not appropriate as an external link, but that it is otherwise acceptable as reliable source? I want to be sure that I understand you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Dawn is not acceptable as an external link (I can't comment on its reliability though, in general), also in my opinion we need to use user discretion in citing these sources, example here [115] we don't know the accuracy of this information here, hence a neutral source is needed with the Dawn.com ( I think reuters cover these kind of news) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, are you equally opposed to the use of pro-Indian media sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't generally rely on Pro-Indian sources, I mostly cite WP:HINDU, Diplomat.com, Reuters etc on my edits, also if I came across Pro-Indian unreliable sources like -WP:TOI, DNA news, republicworld etc, I remove them and the claim associated with it, if I can't find a reliable source for example see here [[116]], I don't even cite India Today!, also I rarely edit controversial subjects like this but if I do, I do it with non-Indian source, see for example - [117] —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I opined about Dawn as external source on the said article's talkpage [118] but it may have went unnoticed so commenting it again here.

"I disagree as to Dawn (newspaper) pushing Pakistani narrative. It's the most revered newspaper in South Asia and is Pakistan's Newspaper of record. It is often criticized in the country for being against the state narrative, an example of which was Dawn leaks controversy. So you can't really say that it pushes Pakistani narrative, it is rather quite neutral on it." USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh you sure about that USaamo? Let me read one line from the said link [119] which the Ip was trying to add there as an external link -"Security operations against Kashmiri fighters have accelerated" 4th paragraph, calling terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Al-Badr (Jammu and Kashmir) - freedom fighters?? or do you have a different opinion regarding these UN listed terror outfits??! This is the very reason why I object to it's listing as external link! —18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)

PM calling Osama Bin Laden - a martyr [120] and countrymen celebrating Taliban takeover in Afghanistan [121].., I'm not surprised! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well now that's a nationalist attack and is unacceptable here. What if I say that they have elected a murderer of thousands of Muslims as PM of India [122]] and the government party leaders in India want Muslims to be skinned alive for cheering up Pakistan Cricket Team. [123] Should anyone be surprised or it's normal in this regime? USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Echo1Charlie: your comment can easily be interpreted as racist. I suggest you strike it out. @USaamo: please don't engage in this kind of rhetoric.VR _talk 21:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your concern Vice regent, I just quoted BBC news and Washington news, also these are not my opinion, invention or allegation! Also I didn't racial profile them, I didn't mention any religion or country's name, did I? How mentioning news with link be offensive? I don't understand that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to quote Mr Khan from the news link "I will never forget how we Pakistanis were embarrassed when the Americans came into Abbottabad and killed Osama Bin Laden, martyred him," Khan said." - I'm not guilty but those who, worshipping and hailing a terrorist responsible for the death of 2996 innocent lives is guilty. Why should I strike out my comment for that?? Even their Opposition leader criticised him for this remark! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is going downhill fast. After taking a look through, I'm still not entirely clear what administrative action anyone is looking for here, and unless that's forthcoming I'll put this thread out of its misery and suggest everyone here deal with the content dispute through appropriate channels. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Tepkunset

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 apologize if this is not in the right forum, but I have concerns regarding recent edits made by Tepkunset. This editor has gone through dozens of articles removing links. Most of these links are to countries. In all of the instances that I have seen, these countries have not previously been mentioned in the articles and they are relevant to the articles and should be linked. I am willing to assume that the edits are in good faith, and I don't support any sanctions, but I do believe that they should most likely be reverted and that the editor should be asked to cease such4 behavior in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's just applying WP:OLINK. If you have examples where the user is going overboard, please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

[124] This diff from an article about a language spoken in a part of France. Because France is so closely related to the language, it should clearly be linked. He removed the links of some countries but left others behind here, here, and here which in my view is totally nonsensical. In an article entitled "Economy of Botswana," he removed a link to the country of Botswana. [125] In an article entitled "Geography of Kuwait", he removed a link to the country of Kuwait, as well as to neighboring countries, which for obvious reasons are of high importance to the article. [126] Does this meet your definition of going overboard? Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

All of those look reasonable to me as they are all well-known geographical terms. Generally, countries do not need to be wikilinked. I certainly don't see any misbehavior in this area on the part of the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Botswana is not especially well-known. Countries should definitely linked in articles about those countries. It's inconceivable to me to have an article about the geography of Kuwait and not link to the articles about countries that surround it, and most especially to Kuwait itself. When countries are mentioned in passing, true, they generally do not need to be linked. But when discussing something that is relevant and connected specifically to one particular country, it is important to link to it just as it is to anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) Can you identify Botswana on a map of the world? (2) What was its name before it gained independence, and when did it do so? (3) Who was the colonial power, and why did that power take it over? (The reason was unusual, and possibly unique.) Answer those questions, and I might begin to be persuaded that linking Botswana is WP:OVERLINKing. (I sometimes despair at the unnecessary links to countries and cities everyone knows about.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:OL asks "does reading the article you're about to link to help someone understand the article you are linking from?" I would think anyone reading Economy of Botswana already knows enough about Botswana to understand the article. Regardless, I know editors disagree on this but it is clearly a content dispute to be discussed elsewhere. MB 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of such links is not just to identify the country. It also helps the reader go the the main page for the country if they want background. If I were reading the article mentioned, I maight, for example, want a quick way of finding the history of Botswana. I know it's in the Navbox, but how many general readers will realize that? Even for countries like the United States. If I were reading Housing discrimination in the United States, I might quickly want to find some demographics. Thee's not even a Navbox to help. -

I think the principle invovled is that nobody should make wide=reaching edits enforcing MOS [points of style acrosss a very large number of articles without being quite sure of consensus. They're too much work to undo. - DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)``

Hello, thank you for everyone's thoughts on this matter. First a little explanation...Reading and learning about new things is wonderful and very interesting to me and many people. Articles that have many links are often distracting to me and others and take away from the article, I did some research and found the Manual of Style/Linking page and found that country names are listed as the the number one major example/violation of overlinking. I have attempted to clean up many articles and bring them into a more standard and excepted format, some times I run out of time or just miss some of the links but I do try to standardize the entire article. Everyone doing their own little part is what builds these articles into what they are, a great resource for everyone. Also Wikipedia's own research has found that most links are never clicked. I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that someone reading about the geography of Botswana, does not have ability to easily search for other facts and articles about Botswana. That being said, I do see how some links to countries can help the understanding of the reader and I do leave those linked. Alas, not everyone has the same background or viewpoint in these situations. It is my view that unlinking the country of Botswana from an article about things in Botswana does not undermine the readers understanding of Botswana. Also is my behavior really so heinous and intractable that the first step is a topic on this admin/incidents page? "Never use a cannon to kill a mosquito" - Confucius, WP:BITE. @Display name 99, I would happily discuss my edits with you in a civil manner for the purpose of finding common ground on what is best for Wikipedia and the many users and readers, maybe you could reach out to me directly next time? Tepkunset (talk) 16:44, 9 November 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 Wennradio

• Wennradio (talk · contribs)
• Tariq Nasheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wennradio has a coi[127][128], is a spammer ([129] [130][131][132][133][134]...), and a SPA with less than 150 edits over 13 years, attempting to control the content of the BLP article Tariq Nasheed and related topics. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: [135] --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: I'm busy right now but I think this belongs at WP:COIN. I see that your coi links show that Wennradio says they are a representative of Nasheed, who they are indeed spamming. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive train station addresses IP

User:47.146.89.139 Special:Contributions/47.146.89.139 This IP has been constantly adding addresses of stations to articles on rapid transit lines, completely against consensus [136] [137] [138]. They have been warned many times by myself and two other editors, yet refuse to listen to anyone [139]. At this point, only a block will stop them from disrupting articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Has there been discussion on this issue or some place you can point an admin to to show the consensus? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has been primarily on the IP's talk page, and at User talk:RickyCourtney. Pinging @RickyCourtney: and @Lars Smiley: who may wish to weigh in as well. Generally, the IP refuses to communicate, beyond saying on RickyCourtney's talk that "Addresses our very important". To quote RickyCourtney's response, "I disagree. Looking at the pages for systems in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and Washington DC (just to name a few)… none have station addresses on the route level overview page. This information is displayed only on a station level page." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The concerns for me are the repeated disrupted editing (which, granted, could be subjective) and the users unwillingness to engage in an any discussion about the changes they are making. As I previously pointed out, the changes being made are against the accepted style on peer pages. I'm more than willing to have a discussion about this editors proposed change. --RickyCourtney (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Maybe you should have a discussion at a neutral venue for the purposes of determining an explicit consensus. No offence, but if I was a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia I would be seeing a bunch of people who are complaining about my edits and insulting me. The phrasing of the messages that were left don't really seem to be an invitation to discuss so much as saying "you're violating some kind of decision that was made in a discussion you weren't allowed to participate in and have no clue exists". It seems rather Kafkaesque to me to block someone for going against an unwritten consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll add on that the editor in question is a mobile editor. They may not be aware of talk pages, given that the mobile website doesn't actually link to talk pages nor does it provide a clear path to get there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: Considering they have posted on RickyCourtney's talk page twice [140], that is not the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Going on the mobile website while logged out in an incognito window, it appears to me as if user talk pages are linked from the main userpage but article talk pages are not. e.g. [141] (today's featured article) versus [142] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Jengaboot just here to push a negative POV

This is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Please follow the instructions and steps on WP:DISPUTE. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Jengaboot appears to be here just to push a negative POV on Antioch International Movement of Churches, including using weak referencing and loaded language [143], placing undue emphasis on living persons leaving the church [144], edit warring over negative coverage being removed [145], and removing content for not being critical of the church [146]. Their latest edits to the article came after I cautioned them on their edits, and it seems they've been copypasting my edit summaries. Their only talk page edit was to accuse another editor of bias [147]. As such, I can only conclude that they are an SPA here to turn the Wikipedia page into an attack page CiphriusKane (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane (in user's words) "nuked" my established contributions instead of constructively working and editing to maintain them. A "nuke" is a name for a reckless indiscriminate means of destruction. To accuse me of negative bias is a subjective accusation. My entries have been quite matter of fact. If you feel there is bias and loaded language, the proper edit would be to make it more matter of fact instead of blowing the whole effort up. I don't have a large expertise on the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules but there are ways to fix an entry rather than senseless and baseless mass deletions. User:CiphriusKaneseems to have an overly positive bias towards [148] to completely eliminate some of it's controversially noted entries. User:CiphriusKane has an intent on attacking me and my contributions. One such example is insisting on a copyvio on an entry that was already deleted by CiphriusKane . You can't have a violation when the entry is already "nuked". A "nuke" is a name for a reckless indiscriminate means of destruction. That vandalism is exactly what has taken place byCiphriusKane's actions . I would address the "problems" these entries have myself but, if user User:CiphriusKane were truly an unbiased and productive editor, it would be better for User:CiphriusKane to add back the entries in a format you deem correct. (talk)10 November 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:Jengaboot (talk • contribs)

I removed the controversies section because it was an indiscriminate and poorly sourced attack section, including implicitly trying to link the actions and beliefs of individuals to the church. I am neither in favour nor against the church. Also, the copyright notice is an alert to administrators that there is a copyright violation in the page history that needs to be deleted, which is still there. If there is legitimate and reliably sourced criticism about the church then it can be added to the article. To clarify, the criticisms sections took up half the article, and included the departure of pastors, and comments such as this edit summary indicate that this is largely built off Jengaboot's personal views.

Also, I would ask Jengaboot to assume good faith about my edits. Accusing me of vandalism and of bias for cleaning up a badly sourced and indiscriminate list of "controversies" which was frankly too long to go through individually is quite rude. That comment is actually a recurring theme in Jengaboot's repeated readditions of their criticisms, that any attempts to clean up the section is pro-church bias [149] [150] [151] CiphriusKane (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane your egregious "nuking" behavior and reverts were only destructive and seem to indicate you to believe certain privileges apply to you for some reason don't apply to me. You believe you can "nuke" entire sections claiming bias, but when I do this, for some reason, is not according to your biased preference. The controversies I recorded were matter of fact. Incidents occurred, I reported and cited them. Again, if there is any fact you found "loaded" or "bias" why not edit it to report in a more professional or unbiased manner instead of destroying the entire page? This is nothing more than effort to conceal and eliminate reports about this church and the truth. To "nuke" something entirely simply because you dislike or disagree with, and attack me with baseless accusations it is lazy, mean spirited, and extremely non-productive. For you to claim there is absolutely no value of authenticity to the contributions I carefully made is simply incorrect and if you were worth your salt, you would agree, reinstate, rework to maintain the page's controversies and accusations in a more professional manner than totally destroying it in the child-like manner you have chosen to carry out. (talk) 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide examples of your claims against me or redact them. This is entering personal attack territory. As for the reversion I made, it was blatant removal of content for the sake of removing content, including using false edit summaries and copypasted edit summaries taken from my own edit summaries CiphriusKane (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane You created this incident against me. You "nuked" ALL my articles, just because you felt like it. You made accusations against me on my userpage. Yes, YOU User:CiphriusKane are making these offense actions and personal attacks against me. When it comes to this page you haven't contributed anything, you've only worked to destroyed it. That's a fact. Why don't you take me up on an effort to contribute, to make the format work, or inform me how to do things properly when done wrong. Even better, aid the Controversial and Allegation contribution sections to preserve it. Not follow an abusive pattern of wanton "nuking" and destroying the page's articles, attacking me, based on your personal bias.  You have contributed absolutely nothing constructive nor productive to the page.  You have helped nobody by doing this. Everything I contributed seems to be wrong to you, I simply don't believe every single contribution I made is flawed. If you're so useful, instead of trying to wage a verbal war with me, why don't you go back and show me you can actually do it right? Restore a Controversies and Allegations section. Add back every single one. Because if you don't, every single thing I just said is right about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide examples and evidence of these accusations or rescind them. I have explained all my edits. And I will not be readding "every single [section]" to that page because the sections are designed to present an overly negative image of the church based on what seems to be your interpretation of the church's own sites and blogs rather than what has been said about them in reliable secondary sources. If you are just going to keep up with this type of comment, then I will just ignore it CiphriusKane (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane Summary: I've been very reasonable with you but here you are, refusing to take accountability for your destructive poorly backed actions. Yes, it takes a lot of work to write and research these solid facts that you so casually and easily destroyed in a few clicks. You are the overly negative person here. Don't "NUKE" every thing you have NO effort of contributing constructively and NO intention to discussing constructively to.

Jengaboot is now trying to refactor this discussion and refusing to provide any evidence for their claims and attacks against me, despite repeated requests CiphriusKane (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

CiphriusKane continues to personally attempt to smear me, fails to explain his casual deletions of this page while ignoring stated evidence. CiphriusKane can choose to be constructive on the content of the page he completely destroyed just because he felt like it but instead chooses to focus on personal issues and refute reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither have discussed any of this on the article talk page. I do think that deleteing the entire controversies section, because 'some of it is a copyright violation' then trying to get the revision deleted from history based on a claim of copyright violation does look an awful lot like whitewashing. Especially concerning, considering that much of the material removed was not found in any sources directly, and much of the material that does look to be a copyright violation remains in the article JeffUK (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a simple content dispute that didn't need to be escalated to ANI so quickly. JellyMan9001 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@JeffUK: @JellyMan9001: I removed the entire list for being elongated, poorly sourced, and indiscriminate, as assessing each individual section would have taken too long (I believe the relevant essay is WP:TNT). At least two of the sections were lifted directly from the sources. Furthermore, I did attempt to open a discussion with Jengaboot on their talk page, and their response was to copy my edit summary and start removing sections for not being critical enough. Given their past behaviour, which includes slow burn edit wars going on for nearly a year and spurious accusations against any who disagree with their version of the page, I felt like it was pointless discussing further, and brought it here as I felt their behaviour was a chronic issue of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN (see "You "nuked" ALL my articles"). I have made no comment on their behaviour, only their edits, yet I've been accused of bias, being childish, wanting to destroy, and being "overly negative" without any evidence of that being provided CiphriusKane (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff. I really don't know what 'copyright violation' User:CiphriusKane was referring to anyway. It just seems like something he's making up. And holy crap, [152] his own violation citation [153] says there is a 0.0% similarity to a copyright violation; violation unlikely. That's all User:CiphriusKane has got. And look, I've been saying even through his false claims, let's work together to make it work. Why is this way bad and how can we make it good besides just broad "nuke" deletions. I'm the only one saying that. But clearly User:CiphriusKane sees things that are not there and won't back down. Can't reason with that. The Controversy and Allegation sections deserve to be reverted in full. This was a baseless biased hit job mass deletion and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 07:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

[154] The actual comparison, which shows a 49.5% likelihood and a passage lifted straight from the article in question. Jengaboot's version shows a 0% copyright violation because I removed it CiphriusKane (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean you removed the copyright violation because there was no longer a violation. And I edited to remove the violation because there was no longer violation. But then you edited to reinstate the violation because you wanted to burn in a violation that no longer applied? Sounds like suspicious behavior to me. A 49.5% check; a tossup analysis, on a single subtopic entry sounds like a horribly abusive excuse to delete an entire largely unchecked section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly stop misrepresenting my actions. I've already stated twice on this page why I removed the entire section. The copyright violation (there were 2 that I personally saw) was only a minor part of it. Secondly, the purpose of the notice is not to signify copyright violations on the page, it is to indicate copyright violations in the history that need deleting. They have yet to be deleted so I readded it CiphriusKane (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just explained this on the user's talk page. If there were copyright violations on the page then they still need to be revision deleted form the history. Meters (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Jengaboot, please sign your talk page posts (I explained how on your talk page). They should also be indented the appropriate amount. Use one colon per level of indent. Meters (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

CV gone. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Thank you for teaching me to sign. I'm still learning. I'm not perfect here. But if nobody teaches me how to do things right, I'll repeat my "mistakes" because I don't see anything wrong. User:CiphriusKane make the effort. Show me what's salvageable for a Controversies and Allegations section, describe exactly why an entry doesn't work and how it can be edited to make work in an appropriate way. Something like "loaded wording" can be fixed incredibly easily. But I honestly don't even see it in my entries. Their leader and founder endorses spanking children. How is that not significant to his church? The belief of the individual who is the founder and current head of this movement is totally relevant and significant. A pastor was legally charged with prostitution. How is that a smear? It's not a lie. It factually happened. These were described by jellyman9001 as "simple content disputes". There have been too many subjective removals. If you're too offended and want to move on, alright, but whitewash nuking and taking subjective issues with every word isn't helping me nor has it been productive. Please demonstrate in a fair and balanced manner. Thank you. Jengaboot (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

HK unregistered ip cult again

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

• I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)
• Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058
  • (210.6.10.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
  • (210.6.10.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:Military of Hong Kong, Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
• despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me

  210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402

  210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100

• And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890
• A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.
• Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    This is not at all a solution. One just got to respect the many different ways people follow to protect themselves. In compact metropolitans it's easy to have access to free internet connections, from coffee shops to shopping centres, and from train stations to buses. If people create their accounts it would be much easier to track down all their edits. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    Do you mean IPs editing from Hong Kong or China with this edit summary - [155]? Would you please clarify? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

      @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

      Valereee that's just because people are coming from very different places and have very different life experiences towards censorship and privacy protection. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

      I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

      • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

        With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

        • Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Tamzin, quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

          @Valereee: Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an EAL thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious.

          • 210.6.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): The main one in Matthew's complaint, and in my opinion outright trolling, including in this thread. Could be given a few weeks off with limited (maybe no) collateral.
          • 219.76.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Appears to be involved in this based on this edit, but (assuming that it's not the same person as 210.6) I don't think has done anything blockable (but maybe worth warning).
          • 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Part of the trolling, and the overlap with 219.76 at Enping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) makes me think still at least partly operated by the same person, while these edits suggest that the football edits on the same range may be coming from that person as well... But maybe better to wait and see.

          I see you've already protected Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. I could also see a case for semi'ing

          • Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
          • Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

          Anyways, hope this is helpful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

          N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

          Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

          My observation is that what's happening around Talk:Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 has had little connection with Talk:List of lighthouses in China, except that Matthew hk took part in both of them. It may not be reasonable to treat them as the same case. On the other hand don't think semi'ing any talk pages would be a helpful solution to the actual problem. It'd be just a way to pretend the problem don't exist (just because there'd be no way for it to be known). 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

          Meanwhile would CU re Matthew hk be the way forward to look into whether those are people who Matthew hk recruited (and denied), Matthew hk's socks or meatpuppets, unrelated at all, or some people "blackmudding" him? 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

          Hello Tamzin would you please help take a look at this edit request? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

          Two cents from just another passer-by: You gotta look into their global contributions, not just en-wiki. The account Matthew hk for example is actually more active elsewhere (not to mention his IPs, and sock and meatpuppet handles). 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's too bad. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What are you doing? You requested for our help , but as soon as you were spotted , you want to get me banned? It was not just me who came to your assistance on your request. One other forum friend has done so too. Are you just trying to get us all blocked? Are you actually siding with the LIHKG and TeleGram people? 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    210.6.10.90 before you go can you please tell us more about what had happened between Matthew hk and you? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• An interesting yet important point to note is that while Matthew hk, Atsme and Valereee believe that they have been doing the right thing the participants at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings think quite the contrary. The same is true at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that the RfC discussion at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings which Matthew hk started has been concluded not in his favour. With precedence cases like Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations and now this one on border crossings I do hope that these people who act like in a way that they were behind the great firewall would back down and observe how the rest of the world function, and that there should be no need to bring anything like this again to WP:AN/I. 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Matthew hk has so far never demonstrated how the non-English off-site canvassing he mentioned and referred to as "pro-Hong Kong" or "deep yellow" is related to the three talk pages identified. It is not even known if that was targeted at the English version of Wikipedia, or if there had ever been any canvassing effort in general which is relevant to this version of Wikipedia. Chinese involvement (or in words of their statement in September, "infiltration") in the Wikipedia project, in comparison, had been something investigated and publicly acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation[156] and reported in the press.[157] [158][159][160] In that statement Maggie Dennis of the foundation had called what had happened "security risks" and concluded there were "potential persecutions"; the foundation had noted the problem as early as mid-2020.[161] 219.76.18.201 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  None of that is directly relevant to this discussion. What exactly are you asking to be done here, 219? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

  @HandThatFeeds: The ip just show up to request a block too as self confession as one of the not constructive underground / offwiki mob. Matthew hk (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks 219.76.18.201. I didn't know Maggie Dennis' recent statement nor the one from the Wikipedia Foundation a year ago. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Such threats are a genuine matter of concern that Tamzin, Valereee, Atsme and other administrators here cannot simply disregard. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Matthew hk can you please translate the screenshot you provided? Or at least copy and paste the text here so that it can be submitted to Bing or Google Translator? I just found it funny for anyone to suppose others can read in whatever languages. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The Lihkg.com one appears to be just another message to encourage people to contribute in a certain topic/area. If you found anything problematic please elaborate and be specific. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    The thread literally teach people how to use a mobilization bot, which this ANI thread and all the rest of the IP SPAs show there must be one place that can summon all of you as off wiki canvassing. You guys just boomerang yourself so hard. And if you able to point out which ip or account are my sock, please open a SPI, but if you are trolling again (just like the User:mathew_hk in the past), beware of a harder block. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

    Please be specific. Quote the post number and the specific sentence. Translate it. Spell out in what way that's relevant to the Wikipedia articles in question on this version of Wikipedia. Prove that that's relevant and that indeed happened. 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  • To 118.140.125.85, nice try on another black mudding. You just show the ips in this threads, almost all of them are SPA/ip hopper if counting in the same ip range, that without any edit in en-wiki except directly involve in the issues and articles in this ANI thread. Which clearly you just boomeranged all of your ip mob for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • What Matthew hk did above is precisely what's described in this BBC story.[162] (Jimbo weighed in in BBC Click's follow-up story.[163]) 219.76.18.202 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      Are you paranoid that every single admins or editor that report your cult is from China? Then you should have that ban for not constructive off site cult parallel universe or just mentally not stable? Matthew hk (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      I repeat my stance. Your ip cult is ip hopping to vote stacking or try to vote move or try to populate a "discussion" thread with yourself and may be one or two more people. That is not due to admin are from China, if you got blocked , it is your behaviour is not acceptable. Also trolling for accuse me off site canvassing is another reason for a block. I dig out prove you guys organize offsite wiki activity and you guys have no prove on me, which i always a lone wolf in en-wiki (Find me in POE wiki discord BTW for my other wiki edit in poewiki.net). Matthew hk (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      "...From China": No. Certainly not. It's always reasonable to believe everyone is they themself and acting on their very own behalf - unless and if and only if such people are working for somebody else when they edit. It was you who labelled people for being "(deep) yellow" and associate whoever editing without registered accounts to the Lihkg.com and Telegram posts you mentioned - with no evidence or proof whatsoever. You simply assert. (On a side note: Is it a "blockable" act for suggesting any editor is "mentally not stable?") 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion that Tamzin called 210.6.10.X as troll is because Tamzin is Chinese. Or Atsme ask you (the ips) registered an account because he/she (whatever non-binary) is a Chinese. You guy delusional really bad, for example, 210.6.10.X (or 219.76.18.X) has only 256 ips so that registered an account is a right choice, ip hopping and then vote stacking is not and blockable as illegitimate use of socking. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      A definite no. But even if that were indeed the case, being Chinese isn't something necessary. Take a look at this AFP story.[164] Your way of deduction doesn't sound logical or reasonable to me. 219.76.18.79 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Boomerang? 118.140.125.79 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Please consider to add 219.76.18.X to the block list suggestion due to this edit that claim i am off site canvassing (which does not exist) Special:Diff/1052291298. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew hk you don't seem to be familiar with Hong Kong although you claimed yourself to be originated from there. The IP range which I have been editing from belongs to the largest ISP in the territory. It's a service open for use by subscription at many restaurants, coffee shops, railway stations, buses, telephone booths, some retail shops, and so on. The diff you quoted was apparently done by someone else in a similar range. There are probably many other edits in the range and neighbouring ranges across global wikis. As for off-site canvassing which you alleged (yet all appear to be your staunch supporters, self-motivated or otherwise) from what I know they are across at least three ranges of different ISPs. Maybe more. Are you suggesting that all these ISPs should be blocked? 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, @Matthew hk:, back down. You're crossing some personal attack lines here. I get that you're frustrated, but Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion is over the line.

That said, the IP hoppers do appear to be stirring the pot here, and not legitimately attempting to improve the Wiki. A temporary block on some of these IP groups may be in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reference to NPA. Meanwhile I myself don't actually hop. It's the network which asssigns random IPs to me (and many many others). As for "stirring the pot", one gotta understand what's actually happening in this territory and the extent that has spilled over all across Wikipedia and other wikis. What Matthew and some of the pushers (say, S 0524, Walter Grassroot) have been doing may or may not be coordinated but that undisputably serves the same outcome (as mentioned above). That's the background or backdrop against which the events happened. Editors from the territory are probably tired of defending fact and truth against these people, and blocks simply aren't the solution and would work quite the opposite way. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: Clearly Tamzin suggested a larger ip block range and then i suggested a smaller one and then there is no block actually issued. Ips from 219.76.18.X still spamming this thread. If you are an admin. Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force.

I don't think HandThatFeeds had ever suggested that "a block [is] already in force" in his or her comment at 16:17, 5 November 2021. 219.76.18.203 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice. The ips still have zero understanding what going on and then blame the articles are protected (or potentially, blaming anyone that block them from editing) because wikipedia is corrupted and admin are Chinese spy, or anyone not agree them are enemy and anyone agree them are friend. They (most of them) still have zero idea on what is WP:V or WP:RS and still thinking not using talk page and then just spam for unprotection on List of lighthouses in Macau (just read above on begging someone to read their demand in this thread as off topic) and don't even read the talk page of Talk:List of lighthouses in China that what is the potential way to get what they want on splitting List of lighthouses in Hong Kong as child article. Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that they truly believe trolling me by spamming joke that I am the one canvassing that a low-key /stupid way to think it would made me / the "stumbling block" of rock to get blocked. This is no difference than the Mainland China wiki cult that doxing other Mainlander and force them to join. They just really need to learn to use talk page and solve the matter in civil way. (Still WP:WPHK is a deserted place and no one ever open a meaningful real discussion thread for a long time). It is deranged so bad that a few days before posting trolling comment in talk pages as 219.76.18.X and 210.6.10.X and then totally act like they are angel and innocent in here the ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about my request at 12:21, 3 November 2021, that's an edit request, a request to edit.. hm.. a talk page. Are you suggesting me to go to a talk page of a talk page? Meanwhile apparently it wasn't me who first referred to that talk page. It probably wasn't me who first gone off-topic if that indeed were off-topic. Medical advice, huh? 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It really means you did not understand you, as an ip hopper, (or your cult that deals collateral damage) is the reason that the page including the talk page to edit protected. Please create an account (what i mean is one person, one account, no sharing, no multiple accounts per person. Also may need a lot of explanation if your household use the same ISP and both have accounts in wiki if alerted the Checkuser admins in SPI) and reach "extended confirmed user" status. You not only did not understand what you are doing and instead forum shopping in ANI for something that is in WP:RFP. Matthew hk (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

On "medical advice" and "delusional": HandThatFeeds had asked Matthew to back down but he carried on. Would any admin evaluate and see what action(s) ought to be taken? 219.76.18.75 (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, 210.6.10.64/26 range was finally blocked for edit by 210.6.10.87 (Special:Diff/1054168343), which seem somewhat not related to this ANI thread. Matthew hk (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, are there any admin here? Ping @Tamzin: and @OhNoitsJamie: who accept the protect request. Yet another Hong Kong ip 203.145.95.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (now mobile phone ip that literally anyone easily ip hopping) still claim i am logout editing AND vandalism. Now the ip claim 210.6.10.X (which vandalized Shenzhen Bay Port) is my meatpuppet which i have no relation to the ip and Tamzin already said 210.6.10.X is a troll. Could any admin review this scheme that keep on using HK ip to organise vandalism and then name me as the mastermind as some kind of low quality black mudding. (Also, it definitely not me and I don't need to self request to reveal my ip to Checkuser i am in Australia, right?) Matthew hk (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidence that 203.145.95.X range is yet another range that try to troll.

• 203.145.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Special:Diff/1052306852 As you suggested elsewhere : Yet another ip claiming i am offsite canvassing or elsewhere (talk page) in wikipedia?
• 203.145.95.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Special:Diff/1054238016 This IP range has appeared to be shared by meatpuppets of Matthew hk Yet another ip claiming i has ip sock /meatsock but in fact it is all their socks.

The ip is in fact also involved in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that the ip is not agree on the rfc

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

Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:203.145.95.177 has been given a warning for making baseless accusations. I'm not interesting in diving deeply into this drama, but I blocked 210.6.10.64/26 for disruption at Country. As far as the other range, the user(s) is/are using talk pages for discussing changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Not really for other ip range that use talk page rightfully. At least for 219.76.0.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and use some time range , say, this thread is opened on 21 October 2021, let use +-7 days as example.

The ip edit on Talk:List of lighthouses in China was still part of the issue of the last ANI and the ip other edit in Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau , has causing the talk page to be protected again as that talk page was also involved in the last ANI.

The range another edit in Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (Special:Diff/1052291298) was trolling that made up something not exist.

May be you can count Talk:Han Chinese#Edit protected as legit use of talk page. So that, more unconstructive edits than constructive edits in talk page for 219.76.0.0/19 in the time raneg 21 October 2021 +-7 days ? Matthew hk (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not about to read this overly long thread, and it's not clear to me what exactly the disruption is. If there is ongoing disruption, I'd suggest creating a new thread and being specific (with diffs) as to what exactly it is, and leave out words like "cult" etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To both Matthew and those on the other side, please stop pinging me to ask me to do things. (Reply pings are fine.) I'm not an admin. The only thing I can help you with is finding sockpuppets, and I've already made clear that I don't think there's anything here SPI can help with. Other than my initial comments explaining my decision at SPI, my comments here have just been as a regular member of the peanut gallery.

@Ohnoitsjamie: FWIW, my takeaway, having looked through this a fair bit for SPI, is that the way forward is liberal semi-protections and maybe a few weeks' block of 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for POV-pushing and harassment [165] [166] [167] [168]. But I agree that the case for the latter would be much better made in a new section. (The cases for the former can of course just be made at RFPP.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pushers (and meatpuppets, if in case there is any concrete evidence) like 210.6.10.0/24 should certainly be blocked for what they did but we got to consider the collateral damages too if it's a broad range block. There aren't too many ISPs in this territory and range blocks often bring extensive damages. Range blocks should therefore be as short and as narrow as possible, and if they are already in place there's probably little need to protect the articles too (in this case Country and Shenzhen Bay Port). But then in any case blocks and page protection won't help solve the actual problem we've got on hand. The much much more important thing is that we need consensus, such as those I mentioned above, i.e. Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations, and get them enforced. What has been achieved at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings has so far been helpful too, although it wasn't properly kick-started in the very beginning. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A /24 is a quite small rangeblock, at least in terms of number of addresses affected. In some cases an ISP might have an unusually large number of people on a small range, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Every edit since New Year's Day appears to be by the same person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to Ohnoitsjames's message. I won't repeat here. 203.145.95.177 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, to be concise. Here is the new thread for one ip range #203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly advocate blocking these IP addresses where they crop up as this person (persons?) has been messing up Hong Kong pages for a long time now by constantly adding poorly sourced trivia, WP:OR, apparent hoaxes, extremely obscure place names, etc. Citobun (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would have a look but this thread is far too long and meandering. If someone wants to post a diff or contributions link with a brief summary of an actual problem shown by the link, please do so and ping me. Let's just start with one significant problem and not something like the disagreement at South Island line (West) which should be solved with a discussion and RfC if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at Grace Potter

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

---

2600:1003:b027:b692:0:47:d4eb:1701 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has issued this - a block may be required at this point. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 08:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked for a week based on a WP:AIV report. Based on their edits this looks like a garden variety vandal/troll rather than someone with a genuine grievance. Hut 8.5 08:54, 12 November 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.

Verbal abuse in hindi language

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 clearly see how this user(Leif Eriksson VV) using verbal abuse on the talkpages[169], mentioning someone's mother in such a way warrants a block for at least 24 hours. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed; their attitude appears to be wholly incompatible with a collaborative editing environment, and the fact that their talk page is littered with warnings for copyright violations and other things does not help either. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:46, 12 November 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.

Removal of content and re-direction to pages

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 TompaDompa removed the content entirely from pages such as List of highest-grossing animated films in the United States and Canada and re-directed them. I restored them all (whatever I saw had been removed). Kindly review. Surge_Elec (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I WP:BOLDLY performed a WP:Blank and redirect for those pages (mostly because I considered them to be WP:CFORKS). You have reverted my bold edits, so the next step is discussing it. Methinks the talk pages for the articles and/or WP:AfD would be a better forum for such discussion than here. For what it's worth, the Nobel laureate lists you restored (such as List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II) were subpages of a version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation that no longer exists (following very lengthy discussion), so I don't think it should be controversial to redirect those to the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Around 45 articles had been redirected. Discussing on the talk pages of every article was not really practical, so brought it here. Resp. admins - Kindly tell your decision on whether the content should be kept (given that there were no persisting issues and no census to redirect them). Surge_Elec (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Surge elec while an individual talk page may not be the right venue to discuss 45 page moves, neither is ANI. You could start a discussion on @TompaDompa's talk page, or on a common WikiProject. Jumping to ANI is premature/not best use of everyone's time. Admins are experienced editors, but not the arbitrators of content decisions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:52, 12 November 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.

Cite-spamming tendentious IP sock

Dealt with a tendentious editing serial-sockpuppeteer that was also a serial cite-spammer. When its last accounts User:Chathu69 and User:Chathuwr were banned and I purged most of the cite-spam and self-work/self-promotion but then a IP sock 212.104.224.5 suddenly appears and tendentiously edits Age of Information page to restore the content. Then right after it did three reverts it shifts to 212.104.231.67 and continues restoring the self-work and then 212.104.236.95 comes and tries to restore the content proving that the sock tried to lure me into falling into 3RR violation but didn't know removing WP:SOCK material is an exception to 3RR rule. I cannot tag the page for speedy delete because it was a redirect page existed before sock took it over. They are pretty much in the same range of IP socks used by Chathu/Basnayaka. SPI couldn't ban them because they are dynamic. Thank you -UmdP 06:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Another IP of the range hits other pages too all trying to bring back the refspam of the sock. Then the IPs loses it and tries to revert my edits in other pages throwing accusations like vandalism-UmdP 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And another day and the same angry loser keeps on harassing me. 43.250.241.6 and 61.245.171.110. -UmdP 14:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

David Cryan

Hello, I am not sure If I am asking at the correct place but… Could you please send me an email with the source code of this deleted page? Patrik L. (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Patrik L.: Not the right place per se, but yes we can do that. I'd recommend starting by asking the deleting admin though, and if that doesn't work check out the options at WP:REFUND. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting subpages created by banned user

Hello, following some images I found that a banned user created many user's sub-pages (some are huge, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FlamingSkateBoard) with repetitive content and images deliberately confused and manipulated.

- It seems that the main user was "Favoritismo", banned in January 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Favoritismo

- Later he re-created identical confusionary sub-pages as "Rallyismo": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rallyismo

- Then "FlamingSkateBoard": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlamingSkateBoard

- Then "CrabsPlankqon": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CrabsPlankqon

- Then "QutanRawr": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QutanRawr

- Then "EggYolkLol": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EggYolkLol

All the accounts have various of these sub-pages, and there may be other accounts that I have not found. I think that they should be all deleted per G3, G5, and G13.

Thanks for the attention.--37.160.160.89 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you failed to notify any user you have reported as required. Chip3004 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The accounts are abandoned, however I have now notified them.--37.160.160.89 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the OP/IP (thank you, 37.160.160.89!), these accounts show closer behavioural similarity than can be explained away as coincidence. I've deleted some rather large user-space pages, but – since this seems to be fairly old history – have neither blocked the sock accounts nor started an SPI. If anyone else wants to do either of those things ... or else this can now be closed. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Monarer - unsourced additions & CIR

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

I reported Monarer to ANI last month (thread) but the report (about continued unsourced edits [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] despite warnings) was archived without action. They still add unsourced stuff to articles [177] [178] [179], and they generally just make incompetent edits (changing a translation to a wrong one; adding info sourced to a review that does not support the claim) that need to be cleaned up. A quick look at their contributions shows that the great majority have needed reverting: they are a net-negative to this project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm issuing a final warning here, if it continues I'll block per WP:CIR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Iyo-farm repeated block-evasion

Iyo-farm is indef blocked on Wikipedia and has been evading his block by using o2 mobile IPs to post on the Vegan Society talk-page and at British pet massacre. There is a current SPI about this user [180]. Many of these IPs trace around the UK to four or five different locations, so this individual travels a lot which makes it easy for him to get a new mobile IP.

These IPs he has used today.

• 82.132.230.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.232.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.184.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.217.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And before that, these and many others (he often signed his comment on these IPs with his username)

• 82.132.225.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.186.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.234.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.229.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.224.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.220.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I want to point out this has been going on for 1 month now. I don't know if a range block is possible or not, I did suggest it to an admin but another opinion is needed because such a block would stop many others from editing from o2 so it is probably not fair but recently this user continues his block evasion on these IPs almost daily. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Iyo-farm had many problems, but definitely wasn't 89.241.33.89. I should now because that was me, a fact I even had on my user page for awhile. The IP address isn't even in the same range, try not to tar all IPs the same. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Actively, I agree with you. 89 was not him sorry, it got lumped in their by mistake. I added it by mistake when looking at the history of British Pet Massacre. All the others are definitely him. He is currently using this o2 IP to edit these same articles and his SPI [181] Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest partial blocking the 82.132.0.0 range from Iyo-farm's usual targets, I doubt the collateral will be that great. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

British pet massacre has been semi-protected for several months. Definity the right move. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Their range appears to be 82.132.128.0/17, if a rangeblock is ever needed. wizzito | say hello! 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's go back to first principles here. What's really going on? Psychologist Guy wants to discredit the Vegan Society with a length paragraph that fails on the grounds of NPOV, NOTNEWS and WEIGHT [182]. I reduced it to a couple of sentences retain the references [183]. Since then, he keep reverting to his NPOV version. All of the rest of it, is just obfuscation, & character assassination in an attempt to "win". It's all diversionary tactics.

Let's go back & examine his edit on the basis of those policies, & see if it actually works. As I pointed out on the talk page, it doesn't because of the brevity of the topic. The short version is better. --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.0 (talk • contribs)

More of the same. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Something interesting here is that Iyo-farm appears to be the same o2 mobile user that has been vandalizing the macrobiotic diet article. Firstly in his edit summaries and comments on his account Iyo-farm and many of his o2 mobile IPs listed above, he doesn't like using the word "and", he uses "&" which is rare to see in long edit summaries. He nearly always leaves a long edit summary or the "&" in his comments. Other behavior evidences are apparent including his obsession with using brackets which you can see on the talk-page. Iyo-farm also usually edits from 11-12 at night, then 6am in the morning then 2-3pm in the afternoon, this matches all the IPs on the macrobiotic diet. Iyo-farm also seems to have an interest in traditional Japanese culture, for example he significantly edited the Masanobu Fukuoka article, edited Mokichi Okada and created nature farming. The o2 mobile IPs are arguing that "fad diet" should be removed on macrobiotic diet and claiming it is a traditional Japanese diet. This fits Iyo-farm's editing interests. Last night at nearly 12:30 an o2 mobile IP 82.132.213.189 put an image on my talk-page [184]. Why would someone randomly do that? It was obviously Iyo-farm because all his other target articles have been locked. After this IP left a comment on my talk-page they edited the macrobiotic. Iyo-farm on o2 IPs had previously vandalized my talk-page a few days ago, no other IP has done that. These o2 mobile IPS have all vandalized the macrobiotic article:

• 82.132.218.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.213.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.230.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no doubt that 82.132.218.73 is Iyo-farm as a comment he left is an exact match of his argument and writing style which you can see on the talk-page [185]. I can not cite a diff because he re-edits his comments but to see his full comment check the comment he left at 14:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC) to user Alexbrn. Based on what I have seen this is a deeply disturbed individual who is moving to different articles because his other target articles are locked. I would support the range block for 6 months or a year. As of yet no range block seems to have been done. This user is one of the worst trolls I have seen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalising when it's removing content that is not supported by the given reference. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Look, all of this drama is just about Psychologist Guy attempting to defend his ownership of the Vegan Society page, & his drama is causing a huge waste of time energy, as with false sockpuppet allegations[186]. Once you start by accepting that, it'll all start to make sense. --82.132.186.1 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's block evasion because your account has been indef blocked on Wikipedia and vandalism because its well known in the medical and nutritional literature that macrobiotics is a fad diet but you have removed that term about 5 or 6 times from the article on multiple IPs. A range block is clearly needed here because you are still dicking around on talk-pages. As for the SPI, yes I did file it because this account is suspicious [187] a throwaway account that hasn't logged in 4 days and uses the same writing habits as yourself. Even if that account is not blocked and an admin disagrees with what I have suspected, you are evading your block on all these mobile IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User Çerçok continues on personal attacks and disruptive editing after block

Hi, the user Çerçok (talk · contribs) continue the similar behavioural pattern of personal attacks to other users now [188] and commenting on other people nationalities[189] after the week long block[190] that he got for the very same reasons and when he personally attacked me[191]. Thanks Othon I (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing objectionable in Çerçok's postings. They are an accurate reflection of your own disruptive behaviour and that of the other editor involved. We certainly need bans and blocks in this area, which has been rife with national tag-teaming for years, and your own tag-team is the first that needs to be taken out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not expect this petty behaviour from you. No wonder why you take sides instead of being neutral and you harassing me too but I have expressed my opinion about your manners previously. If you didn’t not notice the user has been banned for personal attacks and he made a personal attack to another user again. It’s a shame that this kind answer come from an admin. Othon I (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Othon I: As an uninvolved editor, I don't really see an issue with Çerçok's posts. Your reaction to the "commenting on other people nationalities" one is particularly weird, as it is merely a statement of fact- if Editor X explicitly identifies that they are Canadian (such as through an infobox on their userpage) calling them an Canadian Editor would certainly not constitute a personal attack. However, I do have an issue with your behavior and tendency to push POVs, and agree with Future Perfect that intervention is probably needed to stop this kind of behavior. Perhaps a T-Ban may be in order. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but really? What kind of POV am I pushing? Or where am I disruptive? Can you point me out? Even for a specific edit I have requested DRN and none even cared. If you believe that the right decisión is to ban me please proceed. But check my history for the last 5 years that I am editing. I have not even added anything without achieving consensus first. About Cercok, he personally attacked me before and then he personally attacked another user. The comment on nationalities you can find it as the reason of his previous ban. Othon I (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat and disruptive editing at WP:RfP

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.

---

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

Wikipedia:RfP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone have a look at Chickdat's behaviour with regards to this redirect please?

This redirect spent 15 years targeting WP:Requests for page protection until retargeted to WP:requests for permissions by chickdat last year. I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it.

I therefore took the redirect to redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where consensus was unanimously against their retargeting and resulted in the redirect being restored to it's original target.

They are now continuing to disrupt this redirect by attempting to convert it into a disambiguation page, falsely claiming that I need talk page consensus to implement the consensus of the RFD discussion and that their edits fall under WP:BOLD (which does not apply to contested edits and cannot override a formal community consensus building process like RFD).

This page should be turned back into a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection per the outcome of RFD discussion, and fully protected to prevent any more disruption from this editor and to match the fully capitalised redirect WP:RFD 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was making a WP:BOLD change on the page. This IP however, instead of approaching me on the talk page, jumped straight to ANI. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Because we already had a discussion about this redirect at RFD, which you damn well knew about because you participated in it. You know that the community decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection because that is literally what every single person in that discussion apart from you agreed with. WP:BOLD does not apply to your edits there, WP:DISRUPT does. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And instead of friendlily attempting to reach consensus on the talk page, you went straight to ANI. The disambiguation revision was intended as a compromise version, pointing to both project pages. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to reach consensus with you personally because the community already reached a consensus through a formal process at RFD a few weeks ago. No-one agreed with your proposed compromise, there was unanimous consensus that this should be a redirect to WP:requests for page protection. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't propose the compromise until three days ago, when I WP:BOLDly edited the redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You made the bullshit claims that there was consensus to disambiguate it at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where not a single person agreed with you. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not let other users comment on this discussion, rather than just the two of us? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it. - by consensus I meant WP:SILENCE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You nominated it's fully capitalised brethren WP:RFP for discussion less than a day after you retargeted this redirect, and again the community disagreed with you Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_7#Wikipedia:RFP, it was obvious that the community did not agree with retargeting. WP:SILENCE stops applying as soon as someone reverts your edit, so reverting my revert claiming consensus under WP:SILENCE shows you fundamentally misunderstand that essay. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe you saw this discussion. I'm clearly not the only editor supporting a retarget of RFP. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean another discussion which closed with consensus that it should remain targeting at WP:Requests for page protection? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So you don't see that 5 editors supported disambiguation/retarget? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't see the closure? "The result of the discussion was keep" 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do see the closure; I just wanted you to see that I'm not the only editor that supports this change. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, I propose a compromise. WP:RfP and WP:RFP redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, however, a page, WP:RFP (disambiguation) is created linking to other uses of RFP, like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Additionally, a hatnote is added to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection saying "WP:RFP redirects here. For other uses, please see WP:RFP (disambiguation)." 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about you poor behaviour and general disruption with regards to that redirect, it isn't a place to decide on what to do with the redirect - that was already decided at RFD. Your proposed compromise is terrible and makes no sense - you'd add a hatnote to each article that links to a dab page with two entries, one of which is the page you just came from? that's stupid - just include a link to the other page (which is what is already there). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What makes my proposal stupid? I'm trying to reach a consensus here. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The consensus was reached at redirects for discussion, where multiple editors discussed what to do and decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection. I don't need to reach a consensus with you personally because you disagree with the result. I'm going to leave this for an admin to look at now, because you clearly don't care that the community disagrees with you on this redirect and are going to continue to disrupt and bludgeon it until you get your way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying, IP, is right. Just because one editor disagrees with a consensus doesn't mean that it needs to be changed. However, at least 5 editors here believe that the page should be disambiguated. That might mean that the consensus must bec changed. Even so, look at WP:RfP! I turned it back into a redirect shortly after this discussion began. That doesn't look like I'm disrupting and bludgeoning it until I get my way, does it? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

However, I will leave this to the admins, too. If they decide to block me, I'll go quietly. Either way, I'm dropping the stick now. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) IP is correct in saying consensus was reached at redirects for discussion; both recently and on previous occasions. WP:RFP pointing to Requests for Page Protection has several times now been agreed upon re-litigating it without new, strong evidence that it should change (ie, concrete proof that a majority of users are using the redirect to find another page) is not a good idea. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm involved here as I participated in a couple of the RfD discussions, but the IP editor is correct that multiple discussions have found consensus against Chicdat's proposed/actual retargetting and they are also correct about WP:SILENCE and the lack of need to gain consensus to implement the consensus of a recent discussion. Chicdat: it's beyond time to drop the stick, if you don't do it voluntarily it will have to be dropped for you. A topic ban from discussing or editing any redirect, disambiguation page or hatnote that links to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and/or Wikipedia:Requests for permissions (directly or via a redirect) is the narrowest I think that would work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Thyrduulf, nice to see you again. My comment above indicates I did drop the stick voluntarily. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Chicdat, just remember to keep the stick dropped. Which is to say, please don't submit bold edits to that page any more, even much further on in the future. Feel free to advance whatever proposals to change something, but let someone else submit those once they enjoy consensus. Hope that makes sense. El_C 12:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • How about... For one year, I have a zero tolerance ban on anything related to the redirects WP:RFP, WP:RfP, and WP:Rfp. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • That is to say, the redirects themselves, not their targets. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @El C: Would you be willing to fully protect WP:Rfp and WP:RfP? Thryduulf suggested it would be a good idea at the last RFD, and the fully capitalised variant (WP:RFP) is already fully protected. There's no reason why such an ancient project space redirect would need to be retargeted except at the conclusion of a RFD, and this would go a long way to avoid issues in the future. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Works for me, IP. Fully protected indefinitely. El_C 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Chicdat: I don't see the point in a tban from retargeting those redirects when it appears you are already under a voluntary restriction from that exact same thing since May. Instead of adding more restrictions to the pile, try being less gung ho in certain areas of the project. Isabelle ^🔔 14:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• That list of voluntary restrictions is getting long... Levivich 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I would say that this discussion should be closed with a very strong warning to User:Chicdat. If they really think that they were making a bold edit against consensus, rather than a tendentious edit, then their inability to understand when they are in a known minority is a problem. They should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • [Not the same IP as OP] Considering the fact that they already have a restriction about retargeting project-space redirects, I would concur and that at the very least a final warning should be lodged. The fact that they edit-warred against 163.1.15.238 (OP), though, makes me think a short block might be in order to get the message across (since this isn't the first time they've had issues with retargeting project-space redirects). 68.193.40.8 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• While unrelated the RfP topic at hand, I would also like to point out where Chicdat went against the consensus that was established Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_47#Merge_Provisions here (he participated in the discussion). He decided to modify the WikiProject Weather template against that consensus here when he clearly was in the minority. He also moved a page in a similar manner here. Additionally, they engaged in multipage edit warring across a sanctionable topic in October at: 1234. Im deeply concerned considering their mentor, MarioJump83 is at semi-retirement and is no longer active per their userpage. I think we need to establish formal restrictions since it is clear that the involuntary ones are not keeping Chicdat out of trouble. I don't advise blocking Chicdat at this time, but I think they need formal restrictions to keep them out of trouble, especially considering their mentor is no longer active here and this is not the first time they have been brought here for their actions. Noah^Talk 14:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say stay out of projectspace altogether. Levivich 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Since Chicdat doesn't seem to understand consensusmaking processes I'll try to explain the norms around it. Not all consensus making processes are equal; "better" consensus processes cannot be overriden by "worse" consensus processes. In order from worst to best, it goes from WP:BRD (making an edit and nobody challenging it), to an informal discussion on the talk page, to a structured local discussion like an RfC on the talk page, and lastly to a structured "global" discussion like an RfC at a noticeboard or RfD. This isn't really set in stone (e.g. WikiProject consensii are weird and can be before/after a structured local discussion), but that's more or less how things work in practice. If a consensus has been established at a higher level, you cannot overturn it by trying to establish consensus at a lower level. You need to engage at the higher level because that's where the discussion is at. For instance, now that the issue over redirects has gone to RfD, you can't try to use BRD to challenge that consensus, nor can you try to start an informal discussion with another editor on the talk page. The way to challenge the consensus would be another RfD discussion, although repeatedly starting new discussions is an issue of its own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many of us are aware of the elephant in the room. Chicdat does not have the Elephant to see the difference between WP:BOLD and reckless wishful-thinking. He's an asset when working on content, and often goes awry when assessing other editors efforts & working in non-content areas. I'll repeat my comment from September 2020 - "It's my honest belief that the most supportive thing the community can help you with is to urge you to keep away from those administrative areas for the time being."

There are limits to the number of trips to AN & ANI which can be endured while waiting for Chicdat to acquire Elephants. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, as noted above, Chicdat is already under a myriad of 'voluntary' restrictions, and this edit-war retargeting violates one of Chicdat's existing restrictions anyway: I may not ... Retarget project-space redirects without a discussion at RFD. Thing is, this many formal restrictions would be unheard of, and it's probably hard enough for the editor to keep track of themselves for one. A few months ago, Chicdat's mentor said: Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions I don't think that state of affairs has really changed. Besides, there are various issues that have never really reached this noticeboard. Some are in Chicdat's user talk archives, and some weren't even worth mentioning there. It pains me to say it especially as it's not really due to any intentional fault of Chicdat, but it's clear we'll end up here again and again, and so I agree with Noah that formalising a broad restriction from the areas of concern is probably appropriate, which (based on the evidence/discussions linked above and the few user talk discussions I remember reading) seems to be more or less across projectspace, bar WikiProject participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Chicdat is partial-blocked from editing in the project space

Given my comment and those made by others about Chicdat unintentionally and chronically causing disruption in project space areas, I propose that Chicdat be partially blocked so that he is unable to edit pages with "Wikipedia:". He would still be able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. Chicdat should be prohibited from editing redirects to pages in the project space as well. I believe this would provide a balance between keeping the encyclopedia safe from future disruption while also keeping Chicdat out of trouble. This restriction would be appealable at this noticeboard after a minimum of 6 months pass. Noah^Talk 02:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per my comment in the previous section. In spite of the voluntary restrictions, there have been recurring issues and violations. In fairness, it is hard to remember a long list of restrictions like that -- last time we were here this was proposed, above we have this proposed, then there's frequent modifications like this (and others), etc. It's just too much even for any editor to reasonably remember, much less actually adhere to strictly (as is expected for bans). This is far simpler, appropriate in scope, proportionate to the issues, and unfortunately necessary. Also helps the editor stay out of trouble and focus on the areas where they're an asset. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Per Levivich & Iri, prefer topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• How about instead of a partial block, I adhere to a 0RR in project space? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  For me, the issue isn't just the edit war, it's general judgement in administrative tasks. Just as in the previous case the issue wasn't just the single tightly-scoped area under discussion. When you look at all the different discussions (at AN/ANI and on user talk), then the proposed scope becomes the most minimal one that encapsulates most of it. Also, I note there's already 7 voluntary restrictions and 5 areas of caution. I don't feel compounding the list is effective (I'm not even sure the current list is); I think it's better to replace the entire list with a new software-enforced scope, and also easier for you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• After all, please consider my productive contributions in project space. I'm a helpful asset to WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and I have nominated many articles about old people for deletion. I also make many helpful comments on all areas of the village pump, et cetera. The only problems I have in project space are those that stem from my WP:BOLD, revert, revert, revert editing. Therefore, a 0RR would be much more productive than a p-block. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed block is only from the Wikipedia namespace, not the Wikipedia talk namespace, so you would still be able to participate in WikiProject tropical cyclones. I don't agree that your comments at the village pumps are helpful, I'm afraid. Is "Yes" [192] a helpful comment that helped advance that discussion? Here [193] you quote deletion policy when someone is proposing a new project? In your most recent deletion nomination you spent a good third of the nom statement on how the person isn't in the top 20 oldest people, something that has no relevance to notability and no relevance to whether the article should be kept, and which confused the discussion [194]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Indeed. Another example is [195], which should've been read as a consensus against the proposal, but Chicdat seemed to have misread it and then created [196] with a mass-ping which was largely a waste of time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    And in the end, archives were added to RfPP, but you seem to have ignored that. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The fact that you eventually got what you wanted doesn't remove the fact that you were completely unable to read a discussion and see that the community overwhelmingly disagreed with you, and it doesn't excuse the disruption you were causing along the way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    If I was causing so much disruption, why did nobody bring it up until now? Besides, being outnumbered in a discussion isn't disruptive editing. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The disruptive element wasn't you being outnumbered. Also, the issue was brought up, at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive335#Changes_at_Requests_for_page_protection where your involvement was also mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    How come I was never notified about that? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, with regret. I might be an IP editor, but I'm not a newbie, and this isn't the first time I've noticed issues with chicdat's editing in "behind the scenes"/administrative areas. The distinct impression I have always had from their contributions in the Wikipedia namespace is that they are overenthusiastic and often overconfident, often to the point of mild rudeness, which coupled with major gaps in understanding and as Cabayi puts it issues with Elephants is always going to be a recipe for disruption. They're already under a voluntary restriction from large chunks of activities in this area, and a look through their talk page archives will show a history of disruption in this part of the project in a number of areas. It's a shame that in the almost two years they've been editing here they haven't been able to acquire Elephants in this area, so unfortunately I have to support a namespace block. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Their comments in this discussion have convinced me that they completely lack any understanding as to why their editing is disruptive or that what they were doing is wrong, so I'm revising my !vote to an unqualified support. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed restriction makes sense and is simpler all-around than the voluntary restrictions targeting project space. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This should be seen as a last warning by Chicdat. As the IP in the section bellow comments, there are serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to administrative areas of the project. I hope Chicdat can see the conversation here as a learning experience, and understand why he was wrong when he tried to be WP:BOLD. Isabelle ^🔔 13:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle Belato: I do understand why this didn't qualify as BOLD. It was because there were already three discussions against me. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial block from W: namespace. Wrong tool. Support TBAN from Projectspace maybe except WikiProjects instead, per nom/above. Levivich 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would like to note that some of the disruption mentioned above involved the moving of a WikiProject page and the modification of the project's template against consensus. The premise of this proposal was to prevent disruption across all the areas mentioned above. I have concerns that Chicdat may try to further involve himself in the merger process of the weather wikiprojects which is a long-term process. The page move and the template change he did were against part of the consensus involved in the merger. Noah^Talk 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Point taken, I updated my !vote. For me the important thing is that it should be a tban from projectspace (not just WP: but also templates, files, etc.) and not a pblock from just the Wikipedia namespace (I don't think they should be in WT: pages either). We'll never technically restrict someone into becoming a productive editor; this would be a tban to force them to focus on mainspace and nothing else, the idea being it's a last chance to be productive and not disruptive. I don't think they've been tban'd before, and if they violate this tban, the remedy should be a full block. It seems weird to exclude someone from participating in wikiprojects (it's like tban'ing someone from collaboration, like some kind of "solitary confinement"), but maybe there should be no exceptions to the tban. I could go either way on that. Levivich 14:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  What? You say I should not edit in WT? @Levivich: Please give three diffs of my disruptive editing in the Wikipedia talk: namespace. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Others above say it much better, but it is clear that Chicdat is a net negative in project-space. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all pages beginning Wikipedia:, oppose using the partial block tool to enforce it. There's overwhelming evidence that Chicdat is being repeatedly (and unintentionally) disruptive across a broad swathe of project-space, but there are too many occasions in which there would be a legitimate exception to the ban, and as such using a partial block would itself be disruptive. (A partial block would render Chicdat unable to participate in an Arbcom case even if they were the named party, for instance.) As in almost all the cases where people propose partial blocks against a named editor, as long as the wording of the topic ban is unambiguous there's no need to use a partial block to enforce it; if the user isn't willing to comply with the topic ban then we should be going with a full block not a partial one, and if the user is willing to comply then any partial block would just be a waste of time. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. 163.1.15.238's impression has been mine as well: this user, while obviously well intentioned, simply lacks the ability to edit competently in administrative areas at the moment. Perhaps that will change in the future, but his participation in project-space is – and has been for a while – a clear net negative. I would tend to concur with Iridescent that a partial block would likely do more harm than good: a duly-enforced topic ban should be enough to resolve the crux of this problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support PBLOCK from WP:, perhaps limited to 1 year. Oppose TBAN which is just setting a trap given Chicdat's inability to stop himself. Cabayi (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately it seems that their inability to understand community consensus isn't limited to shortcut redirects, and given that their latest actions in that sphere were a violation of at least one of their myriad voluntary restrictions I think at TBAN is just setting them up to fail. This shouldn't be viewed as a harsh use of partial blocking but as a final attempt at avoiding a full WP:CIR ban - Chicdat, take this as an opportunity to demonstrate in other areas that you can learn to be a productive Wikmedian. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My observations

So I've been dragged to ANI once again. I apologize for my prior absence from the discussion, I was grounded. From my knowledge, here's what's been happening. 21 October 2021 12:16: An IP reverts my retarget from July 2020, saying that in prior discussions, RFP was unanimously against being retargeted to PERM. 12:18: I revert with the untrue statement that I did gain consensus. 15:44: The IP did not revert, but instead nominated RfP at RFD.

During the RfD, I meanwhile got myself involved in a content dispute about a man's death date.

29 October 2021 3:16: The RFD was closed as retarget, and RfP was retargeted to RFPP. 31 October 2021 13:03: A longevity dispute I was involved in, with many edit wars, was resolved by Blablubbs, who threatened to sanction both of us. 6 November 2021 11:23: I WP:BOLDly turn RfP into a disambiguation page. 9 November 2021 11:29: An IP reverts me. (The IP is the same one who reverted earlier.) 11:30: I revert the IP. 11:30: The IP reverts me. (2nd time) 11:32: I revert the IP. (2nd time) 11:34: The IP reverts me. (3rd time) 11:35: I revert the IP. (3rd time) 11:47: To avoid breaking 3RR, the IP reports me at ANI.

Now it is being proposed that I am partially blocked. However, I have good contributions in project-space, too. WikiProject Tropical cyclones. The village pump. XfD. Discussions concerning adminship. Why can I not adhere to a 0RR in project space instead, with the condition that if I violate it or exhibit any tendentious editing, I am indefinitely blocked? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you are still claiming that your edits fall under WP:BOLD shows the issue here. You cannot just BOLDly decide to override a community consensus built through a formal process that closed a week prior. Have you actually sat down and read WP:BOLD or are you just throwing it around hoping that it says what you think it does? You really need to read the sections on WP:RECKLESS, the need for careful editing in the Wikipedia namespace and that you need to take your edits to discussion after your "bold" edit was reverted. Also I did not bring you to ANI to avoid breaking 3RR, I brought you to ANI because you were being extremely disruptive, were engaging in Tendentious editing and were refusing to accept multiple community consensuses that were against you. If you cannot understand this then this really reinforces the need for a partial block until you do. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No. My edits were bold at first. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you trolling, are you looking for an excuse, or are you legitimately unable to understand the concept of consensus building? We had a discussion a week prior at a centralised venue, where everyone on Wikipedia with an interest in that redirect could comment, and not a single person agreed with your theories on why this should be disambiguated. When the community has universally rejected your proposal you don't then get to disambiguate the page a week later claiming "WP:BOLD!". If you aren't trolling or trying to use BOLD as an excuse and legitimately cannot understand this then the closing admin should consider my !vote revised to "Support Site Ban, per WP:CIR". I'm going to leave this for others to comment on now since this just seems to be going round in circles. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I know how people create consensus. They start a discussion, and what is generally accepted becomes consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants you to be indefinitely blocked. To make such a restriction on you even if you are the one suggesting it would be punitive rather than preventative. The issues I have are more with your overall judgment in the project space. It's far more than simple reverts and a 0RR restriction wouldn't cover the array of issues presented here. Your list of self-prohibited items is growing significantly too long as problems have cropped up. I felt the best option to keep you from being dragged back here again was to do a partial block. It prevents any future disruption across the whole project namespace. The goals here are protecting the encyclopedia and keeping you out of trouble. You would still be able to participate in discussions on any talk page as the Wikipedia talk namespace would be unrestricted. Noah^Talk 12:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am sure that there are alternatives to a partial block. For instance, I am open to someone mentoring me. You know, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Isn't blocking a last resort? Is there something I can do to convince you that I'm here to build an encyclopedia? I'll do anything. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts your good intentions. It's the repeated poor execution that's the issue. A partial block would help keep you on track and hopefully ensure there isn't a "next time". There have been too many "next time"s already. Cabayi (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I never have once thought that Chicdat has been acting in bad faith. However, there have been too many "facepalm moments" that have required cleanup from other editors. I think Chicdat could be a good editor eventually, but he just needs more time to learn, and hopefully, a restriction would help with that. Noah^Talk 20:23, 11 November 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.

Babydoll9799

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 Babydoll9799 (talk · contribs) is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Billy Balmer as an example. They are removing Category:People from District, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both Category:Profession from City, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category.

Furthermore, edits like this violate WP:SUBCAT, and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories!

A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ".

The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like this (removing category) followed by this (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both Category:Politicians from Liverpool and Category:People from Aintree, why can't Billy Balmer be in both Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby? You have contradicted yourself there.

If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything?

You did refuse to discuss, you ignored WP:BRD, you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also no, a person cannot be in both Category:People from Liverpool and Category:Footballers from Liverpool per WP:SUBCAT. People get categorised into district and profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point, as expressed here, seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the Category:People from District series. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the Category:People from West Derby category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" and "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. Levivich 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include this and this and this. Therefore, in the absence of a Category:Footballers from West Derby (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing Category:People from West Derby has been disruptive, has it not? GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this is just classic WP:RGW editing ignoring WP:V (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position I know the truth, sources be damned! If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Wikipedia, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. Levivich 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). GiantSnowman 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No need, helpfully @Orangemike: has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. GiantSnowman 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is known for a fact to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. jp×g 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman.

In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England.

I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you do not get it. Here on Wikipedia we do categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. Competency is required and you do not seem to have any. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799, please take some time and review our verifiability policy and category guidelines. While you're at it, you should also read up on BOLD, revert, discuss and how to use Talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as minding my own business when you're being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. GiantSnowman 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at WP:CFD). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the Billy Balmer article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see this and this and this as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? GiantSnowman 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see this and this and this. They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. GiantSnowman 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• My view on this is that if Babydoll continues to make these changes going forward, they ought to be blocked. The canvassing linked above is definitely poor form, but also quite obviously ineffective so it doesn't really concern me. What does concern me is these 350 edits over the past year (although about 300 of them are from the past three days) that all seem to either remove categories, or otherwise change geographical details (e.g. in infoboxes), and many are still the current revision. What are we doing about those: leaving them? Reverting them? Anyone want to go through them all and check? (I don't, and also I don't have the knowledge of UK geography to know if they're good or bad.) Personally I'd support mass reversion because about 300 of them are from the past three days. Levivich 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given the clear issues raised here and shared by the community, I suggest a mass revert. GiantSnowman 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  +1 on the mass revert. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich and Trey Maturin: is one of you able/willing to mass revert? GiantSnowman 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Levivich with perm removed

-EEng

• Sorry, I no longer have the script and long ago asked for the perm to be removed. Levivich 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I started doing a mass revert, but am now reverting some of my own edits in cases where the change by Babydoll9799 was fine. – Fayenatic London 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you @Fayenatic london: - if you are unsure if the Babydoll edit was 'good' please let me know. GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, that was more fiddly than I expected, but is now done. The repopulated categories are now in Category:People from Liverpool by locality. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the disruption has continued. I pointed Babydoll9799 to WP:CANVASS at my Talk page (in response to their message) and reverted several of their inappropriate notifications. I thought that was it, but then I saw that they canvassed again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside, and left a followup message specifically mentioning GiantSnowman. I left a more formal warning for canvassing and then reverted their canvassing at a user Talk page and at WikiProject Merseyside. They've now left me another message, displaying a significant amount of IDHT), reinstated their message at WikiProject Merseyside, and canvassed again at Category talk:People from Liverpool. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799

Because of the disruption mentioned above, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Babydoll9799 from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed, until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies and guidelines.

• Support as proposer. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How can you say this when I was correcting articles? Is Wikipedia not available for people who have only a passing interest in certain pages and wish to correct articles and information? Because another user has chose to disagree I am hung drawn and quartered? I spent time correcting articles and repeatedly explained why but I have been cast as a trouble causer, edit warrer being called disruptive, and also "canvassing" when I am asking for help. Seems you're all interested in calling out people rather than focusing on the articles themselves. Surely correct information is desired? When a person is from a city their birthplace it the city and not a district within; this is the entire basis of my arguement. However I am not even allowed to speak because people like the above user are whipping my ass. Amongst the other users Woodroar and GiantSnowman have refused to listen to my point of view and instead dismissed it. Instead making accusations.

I don't accept this. I edit in good faith if I make mistakes I will accept that. However I will not back down if I know that I am right. (You will have already castigated me about this but yes I know my city do you?). I can say what edi is right and why but all I have is blanket faceless jobsworths telling me that I am in the wrong.

I have stated several times that people from Liverpool should be categorised as the city not the district, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England and that the numerous pages I have edited all (but a handful) have contained incorrect information about their birthplace and the category of where they are from. But those edits have all been reverted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:CANVASS and agreeing to heed their advice going forward. Levivich 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would add three things and then I will break:

This is about the [Category:People from Liverpool by locality] page which were set up by user Rathfelder in March 2020. Those pages seemed error strewn and I had attempted to restore them to [Category:People from Liverpool]. After all, the city (here Liverpool) is the primary place where the person is from, not the district within. As per [Category:People by district in England] This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) .

1 When making these changes there were a number of errors in the birthplace of various people. The birthplace is not an inner district it is the city of Liverpool. 2 When making these changes I found a handful of the pages were not in the correct category anyway. Either from the wrong district or not even from Liverpool. 3 When making these changes I tried to establish when those known people had a specific occupation I recategorised them from [Category:People from Liverpool] to occupation such as [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. A person can be both categories but most pages are by occupation when it is a more specific occupation.

The above edits were all correct. However some consternation arose because some of the edits were unsual. Taking in to account what (districts) were within Liverpool and also when they were absorbed in to Liverpool (mostly in the 1800's). It is a question of both correcting the birthplace of someone and identifying where they are from. I gave an example Ibou Touray the page said he was born in Toxteth and the category was [Category:People from Toxteth] yet Toxteth is part of Liverpool and has been for some time. Which means this person's birthplace is Liverpool, and should be categorised as [Category:People from Liverpool]. Equally [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. Finally as the page currently states "Born in Toxteth,[3] Liverpool, " ... However since GiantSnowman objected to this incorrectly I might add, and chose to air his grivences here, I am portrayed in a very negative light by both GiantSnowman, and others including Woodroar. Because I am not playing the game they want.

Above I provide reasons why I have edited. I don't think I should have had to jusitfy this but because of being called amongst other things "disruptive" because I have tried to stand my ground, I have had to do this. Perhaps I do need to understand Wiki more but I am not a professional editor, and that does not justify being hounded like this. I have not had any one wanting to discuss this with me; to ask just complete disregard. I assume you have read the above and will consider the reasoning for my edits. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Further points (regarding WP:DROPTHESTICK ) Quote from an earlier comment " Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. ".

Surely instead of telling me off for portraying "I'm from here, I know best" point of view, that you verify that I am wrong? Surely the article needs to be right? Right? I refer to my earlier examples of both the Categories and the person pages that I had edited/correct. I stand by that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support this idea, whilst also knowing that it's not going to gain traction. The problem here is that Babydoll is not wrong, per se, but also not right. They do have a point - to the outside observer (which is the majority of our readership and the majority of our editors) it does look weird. How can someone be both from West Derby and from Liverpool? But that's how much of European society is organised, with our towns and cities growing organically over 1000+ years, swallowing up neighbouring towns and villages. It's hard for most readers to see that someone can - happily - enthusiastically - fully sourced - be both from Acklam and Middlesbrough, or, conversely, from Rainhill but not from Liverpool.

Nevertheless, the main issue here is that Babydoll clearly doesn't grasp how we work here. We work on the basis of consensus. We work on the basis of verifiability not The Truth. They have their own opinion on what the articles should say, and the people who disagree are wrong, as are the sources they quote. We're being ignorant about something that is obvious to them. It must be intensely frustrating and I really do understand. It sucks. But it's how things are done here, and until they can demonstrate that they understand, and stop posting huge screeds explaining how everybody else volunteering here is a fool for not grasping their point, they need to stay away from the articles in question. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all category-related edits, broadly construed, with the exception of talk page posts. It is clear that Babydoll, for whatever reason, cannot see or understand the relevant policies and lacks competence in this area. If a topic ban does not work, then extend to indef block. (NB I've only just seen this discussion on my watchlist; would have appreciated a ping!) GiantSnowman 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, @GiantSnowman! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar: not an issue! GiantSnowman 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject. I have asked several times for people to challenge me on this matter and you have not. Making it about Wiki rules and regs is all very well but I made edits only to correct certain information. I make a few points very clear.

1)This is not about me saying I am right and those that disagree are wrong. I am providing factual elements to the arguement. Where some places (obviously this is in the pages I have edited) the city of the person's birth (IE Liverpool) overrides the district where they are from (IE West Derby). They can be from both, however. I have given examples of this. 2) The category that I was removing was for pages created in March 2020 (People from Liverpool by locality) but again the city (Liverpool) overrides the district. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England it clearly states we are talking about city's and boroughs. This is clear. All the districts (like West Derby) would be classed as Liverpool. For historical purposes West Derby in the 1800's may have been a township in its own right but in the 20th and 21st century this is part of Liverpool; as too other districts mentioned. 3) Some of the pages edited were incorrect as some of those people were not from the Liverpool district mentioned or from the wrong district. This means just because I have made numerous edits do not mean I have been disruptive or lack compentency. It is something I have done for over a decade. In fact I have expanded the Liverpool pages massively over the years. Many pages owe their existence to myself. As I have asked in a polite way, are you from Liverpool and why are you taking such interest in articles about Liverpool if you are not from Liverpool? Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Re "These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted". First and formost, please state what my disruptive behaviour is, and how I am continuing it? Is the fact I am requesting for some discussion re my good intentions (as in my last post) being seen as disruptive behaviour? Am I not allowed to challenge you guys or are you just happy to weed out certain individuals who don't spend all day reading WP rules and regulations? I am sorry I am only editing in a small way. My lengthy responses make it clear what I am debating here. Have all my edits been checked to see that every single one of them was wrong? Because I can assure you that 99 percent of the edits were done in good faith and some I have to question if I should leave them as they are but sorry if I am saying 99 percent of my edits were correct then how can I be disruptive? Because I disagree with you guys? Funny you don't question whether you are wrong just that I am wrongBabydoll9799 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. We're moving from WP:TRUTH past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT into WP:CIR territory. That's unfortunate, but all the words above indicate that Babydoll just doesn't get how an encyclopedia like ours works. Ho hum. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CIR/WP:IDHT. Levivich 20:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CIR, and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and [[People from district]] categories, if the former category "tops out" at the city, with no [[Profession from district]] subcategory. To use a similar American example I just edited, John Mitchell (composer) is correctly in both Category:Musicians from Los Angeles and Category:People from Hollywood, Los Angeles. DoubleCross (‡) 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for a topic ban in my view - please can an uninvolved admin review and close? GiantSnowman 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If I don't get what the problem is then enlighten me? No one has addressed my points just simply been roughshod about why I don't fall in line with your thinking. This is blatently being ganged on. I can see that this will fall on deaf ears. So be it.

As for the response from Double Cross "and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and [[People from district]]" . This is madness. This is one of my arguements and you're making it appear that I do not understand!!!!! Utter madness. Of course a person can be both a profession and from a district. I never disputed this, it is the wrong point. My point is the "district" in this instance is replaced by the "city". Couldn't be more simpler. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem. On Wikipedia we do not replace more precise categorisation (district) with wider categorisation (city), which is what you have been doing. You have been informed about WP:SUBCAT and this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors and yet you still don't get it. GiantSnowman 21:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: you say "You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject". But we can, and we do. You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now.

Indeed, what's happening now is that we're collectively trying to keep you as a valued editor here, by simply excluding you from an area where you won't - can't - accept consensus. The alternative is that we show you the door entirely, and nobody here wants that. But it's coming if you won't drop this damn'd stick.

I know this is hard. I've been there. I tried, as a single editor, to change the abhorrent, inhuman and incorrect phrase "committed suicide" to phrases recommended by mental health agencies worldwide - things like "died by suicide" or "took their own life".

The consensus was against me. My fellow editors didn't agree. My edits on the subject were rolled back en masse. And do you know what I did? I walked away and edited in other places, on other subjects. I know I'm right on this, and I know that all the others are completely wrong. But I didn't win the argument, so I walked away. It sucks. But it's what you need to promise to do now, or things are going to get shitty for you and I'd be very sorry if that happened, truly I would. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional comments and I will read WP:SUBCAT as pointed out by GiantSnowman. Even with a brief check on WP:SUBCAT This is NOT my arguement.

Trey Maturin states "You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now."

I try to understand what other users are telling me. I have tried to provide a reasonable "arguement" but I think we're at loggerheads.

If it is me that is not understanding what you're all trying to say, then fine. I can learn. I have not been editing in the interim and I am wanting to remain free to edit in the future.

Whilst I may have plenty to learn and understand and I may have "lost" this arguement; I am sorry I have to challenge because I think we're at cross-purposes, I still have a questions unanswered. This is not about me challenging the consensus, it's about trying to put my point of view across so that you can understand why I am upset by this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, we get why you're upset. But, and I'm being completely frank here, your arguments about how to categorize people based on your own personal knowledge don't count on Wikipedia. And, for that matter, neither do ours. We're here to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about people and then we categorize based on what the sources say, period, full stop, end of sentence. If reliable sources say that your next-door neighbor lives in an adjacent borough or city, that's what we're going to write. It may seem wrong to you, but real life is messy and where we come from isn't always so clear. A border town near me has changed names and jurisdictions multiple times in recent memory and the people there have strong opinions on where they're from. That can change from person to person and it doesn't always line up with any legal definition, current or historical. As I said, real life is messy, which is why Wikipedia is based on verification and not "truth".

I hope this makes sense. And, for the love of all that's holy, please please please read WP:INDENT start formatting your messages properly. I sympathize with screen-reader users who will have no clue what this is about because your replies are all over the place. Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 11 November 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.

MrsSnoozyTurtle

User MrsSnoozyTurtle is editing Mehmed Şevket Eygi in bad faith and deleting information according to her own POV. I’ve had multiple discussions with her and attempted to reconcile but she just will not budge. I’ve warned her too. Please have a look below for just an example of her vandalism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047670501

Thank you, 786wave (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @786wave, if you are going to accuse MrsSnoozyTurtle of editing in bad faith we would need more diffs which you clearly haven’t presented, furthermore the diff that you presented which I believe you presume substantiates the vandalism claim doesn’t show MrsSnoozyTurtle vandalizing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I assume the OP means this diff made on October 27, which the OP reverted today.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment [this comment] where 786wave called her "SleazyTurtoise" and accused her of being an anti-Muslim Islamophobe isn't exactly civil and doesn't speak well to the merits of this ANI complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

isn't exactly civil. The OP's comment is a personal attack. They have been blocked before for making personal attacks and, in my view, should be blocked again. doesn't speak well to the merits of this ANI complaint. I disagree as I think the attack by the OP and the change to the article by MST are discrete issues. MST's change was absolutely wrong. You do not say such things in the opening sentence of an article. MST added a bunch of refs, which I haven't looked it, but the subject's alleged anti-semitism isn't even mentioned in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• On Talk:Mehmed Şevket Eygi, I see MrsSnoozyTurtle consistently being very friendly and patient, while I see 786wave being consistently uncivil, dismissive, and rude. It took 786wave three edits to finally make clear where they supposedly had already answered MrsSnoozyTurtle's concerns, actually pointing to a unilateral post that merely makes a number of assertions with no basis in policy. Then today, as also pointed out by Adamant1, 786wave went for a straight personal attack. I believe 786wave should be given some time off. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment There is absolutely no evidence of MrsSnoozyTurtle editing in bad faith; 786wave's accusations are made of thin air. However, I suggest having a closer look at 786wave's edits – I think that he needs to be blocked because of his personal attacks. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment These two editors have been long-term edit-warring on that article, with 786wave more often at fault; that said I would hesitate to endorse a BOOMERANG as the motivation for the report is a diff by MrsSnoozyTurtle that was correctly reverted by 786wave (and should be discussed on talk before being restored). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Originally 786wave created the article after a failed AfC. Then they edit warred MrsSnoozyTurtle when she tried to put notability and POV templates on it. Which led to MrsSnoozyTurtle doing a PROD for the same reasons. The PROD was subsequently removed by 786wave because the person "was a respected journalist and intellectual whise writings and books are all over the internet and his funeral was attempted by numerous heads of state." None of which seems like a valid reason why Mehmed Şevket Eygi would be notable. In the meantime, 786wave has been warned and blocked multiple times for edit waring. He's also called people who left him messages on his talk page ignoramuses, among other things.

As far as particular edits in the article goes, MrsSnoozyTurtle removed an un-sourced personal claim about Eygi being the instigator of the events referred to in the non-fictional biography work Mr. Pipo. Which 786wave reverted because apparently removing un-referenced personal claims is vandalism. So while I agree the one edit by MrsSnoozyTurtle wasn't great, taken as whole it's clear that a lot of this could have been avoided if 786wave hadn't of created a non-notable article after it failed an AfC, inserted un-sourced personal comments, Etc. Etc. The edit waring and insults hasn't been confined to this particular article or MrsSnoozyTurtle either. It just seems to be the general way 786wave deals with things. So IMO a BOOMERANG is warranted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment The nominator should be boomeranged for making personal attacks, especially considering they've been blocked before for that same reason. Otherwise, it seems like a content dispute better handled at WP:DRN. Curbon7 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Calling another editor a vandal in order to "win" a content dispute is in itself a personal attack. I agree with the other editors who say that a block of 786wave is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Yes boomerang for the PA, but lets not ignore this edit. That is quite clearly POV editing of a BLP (OK died in 2019, but the edit is still very POV) and should not be ignored jut because the other editor was uncivil. Aircorn (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: If your talking about MrsSnoozyTurtle's claim of him being anti-Semitic, he was apparently pretty vocal about his dislike of Turkish Jews. to quote him "The Sabbateans have a monopoly over Turkish society. The Turks themselves live like the subject population of British India. Secular measures are always the will of Sabbateans because a real Turk, even an atheist Turk, would never do so much harm to Turkey." That sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not how we add information to a biography and was rightfully reverted. It is quite clearly undue and violates lead as nothing is mentioned in the body. It contains red flags of someone editing with a POV - inserting directly to the lead, removing journalist to replace with a more generic writer, citation overkill and using cites that are unreliable or don't seem to support the claim as written (the best I could find was "pro islamist"). Maybe there is a case to mention views, but do it in the body and with context. Aircorn (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In case your interested I got the quote from [here]. I think it's a reliable source. It's not surprising that there isn't anything that specifically says he's anti-Semitic. That's not usually how it goes. For example on Richard B. Spencer's article, he is called a neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. He claims he's none of those things though and most papers don't refer to him as such per say. He's mainly referred to in the media as a "White nationalist." Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel. But's its still fine to put the other terms in the lead of his article. Outside of that, maybe she was planning on adding better sources and mentioning it in the article later, but decide not to because 786wave revert her, called her an anti-Muslim Islamophobic, and opened this ANI report. Should she have just ignored all that and continued editing the article? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note from my side: The sources that MrsSnoozyturtle added are, in general, reliable. However, the way they have been added is not ideal, and I'd agree that it's POV editing. The opinion presented in these sources is very extreme (i. e. they describe Eygi as an antisemite and neonazi), and I think that it is absolutely mandatory to precisely explain whose opinion that is. Nonetheless, I get the feeling that the OP is a pro-Turkish POV editor: In this edit, the OP introduces the wording "radical seculars", and removes the category "conspiracy theorists". Another editor reverted that, which the OP thought was a reason to pull that editor to ANI ([197]). Other edits also indicate that the OP is unable to accept that adding certain referenced content to articles is not vandalism. Maybe topic-banning the OP would be a good idea. I'd support that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether the person promotes anti-semitism and conspirocy theories is not really the issue. The way that MrsSnoozy has presented that information is. I am at a disadvantage as I can only read the English sources they cited, but none of those are sufficient to make such a claim [198][199][200]. While the above quote is there, it is not nearly enough. And yes sources need to explicitly say they are an antisemitic or a conspiracy theorist, otherwise it is all just original research. I am not arguing against a block of 786 for the personal attacks, but in my opinion the civil POV pushing from MrsSnoozyturtle is much worse than the OPs POV pushing when comparing the diffs provided. Aircorn (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it wasn't a little POVish or that the sources where the best, but those are issues that can and probably would have been resolved through the normal editing process. 786wave wouldn't have allowed the information to stay on the page even if it was well sourced and mentioned in the body of the article anyway though. So it's really a mute point. As far as if the sources need to explicitly say someone is anti-Semitic or not, I've given you one example where they don't and the article says the person is anti-Semitic. If you want another there's David Duke. One of the references there is to an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who goes out of their way to connect David Duke to anti-Semitism without actually saying that's what he is. It would be ludicrous though to say that sentences like "He also made a presidential bid on the virulently racist and antisemitic Populist Party" or "Scalise spoke as an “honored guest” to the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a racist and antisemitic group once led by Duke" aren't drawing the conclusion that he's anti-Semitic even though they don't specifically say so. Same goes for saying that it's wrong to synthesize that opinion in the David Duke article because it's not 100% explicitly clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse a Boomerang on OP, I believe ANI makes it explicitly clear that one who deems it fit to file a complaint here should know their own edits would be scrutinized as well. Following the diffs brought to light the WP:PA's are egregious. Celestina007 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions as a warning to both editors will be sufficient at this stage as there are faults on both sides. Blocks should be a last resort not a speedy go-to fix in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation spamming & promotion by User:Crishazzard?

Greetings admins. I initially brought this concern up to User:Wtmitchell. I first came upon this potential issue when going back to an article which I helped bring up to GA status, Goat Canyon Trestle. Earlier this year a relatively novice editor made an addition to the article to a source which I was not familiar with, HikingGuy.com. The front page of the article has a statement:

Hi, I’m Cris Hazzard, aka Hiking Guy, a professional hiking guide.

This name matches the user name of the editor Crishazzard (talk · contribs). I have since removed it from the article, as whether it is a reliable source is debatable. If the user is the creator of the website, for that user it would be a primary source, thus potentially original research, and potentially promotion of their own website.
Looking at the editors other edits, the editor has added to other articles utilizing the same website (not all examples):

• Trans-Catalina Trail, diff
• Hot Springs Mountain, diff
• Desert Queen Mine, diff
• Palomar Mountain, diff
• Tahquitz Peak, diff

Now not all edits by this user have only been to add hikingguy.com to an article as a source, but a lot of them are, thus I believe there is potential for user improvement. Also, I don't think the user means to damage the articles they contribute to, but by continuing to add hikingguy.com to articles it is potential citation spamming. Is this a concern? Or, should I just move on to better usage of my time on Wikipedia?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@crishazzard: I'm a primary source, doing original research, and contributing to articles. I'm not sure what type of promotion you think that I'd get from citation links. I can tell you it's probably zero. As a contributor who doesn't live in the Wikipedia universe regularly, seeing an "incident" like this is particularly disheartening, especially as a professional with first-hand experience on the various topics I've addressed. If my research is good enough for the Forest Service to plagiarize, I'm thinking that it's probably good enough for here. Also note, I've also contributed numerous times without citing HikingGuy.com, the website you are questioning as being promoted, which is the source of record for the trails that I've documented. Just let me know if I've violated the terms; I'm not interested in contributing if I'm being labeled a "spammer." I'm happy to back out all my edits and move on. Crishazzard (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Crishazzard: please see Wikipedia:No original research. I had mentioned above, that not all your edits have been to include the website, hikingguy.com, and that I beleive that edits were made in the attempt to improve articles. That said, by adding links to the website, as sources, and as external links (example), to the website that you are connected to it can be seen as citation spamming, and promotion of it, and thus a potential conflict of interest to promote your website, hikingguy.com.

As I stated again, I think you have the best of intentions in doing so, but perhaps this has made you aware of some policies and guidelines which you were not aware of before, and thus will avoid adding primary/original research to articles, and utilize other reliable sources in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here; there's not many cases where people can cite themselves. While I doubt you're actually trying to harm the encyclopedia or doing this in bad faith, we've had a lot of people who have come on here in the past and added citations solely because they want to improve their website's search engine optimization. Google may take Wikipedia citing a source as being an indication of reliability and so might advance it in search results. SEO experts believe this and so spend their time trying to sneak in references to their website. That's why we take such a hard line against it regardless of the reliability. Also, we generally don't take contributors' claims of first-hand experience into account. There was an issue a while back where that backfired (the Essjay controversy) and we eventually decided that it was better to just ignore people's credentials entirely and insist upon very strict sourcing standards that make someone's experience mostly irrelevant. This isn't a comment about you or saying you don't know what you're talking about; it's just we can't take your word for it due to issues we've had in the past.

A better way to contribute your unique knowledge might be by adding photos of the hiking trails/sites in question. Since we can't include copyrighted images made by others, there's an exception to WP:Original research that allows for editors to add photos based on other reliable sources of information or include images they've taken themselves. Diagrams based on existing reliable sources might also be useful. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Joe Walz edits continue under User:SpiroAgnew1980

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. Over the last several years, several Wikipedia accounts, all tied to verified sockpuppet GeraldFord1980 have continued to make several edits referencing "Joe Walz" on articles relating to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This continues to be done by using legitimate sources to attempt to legitimize rubbish content, which causes frequest page disruptions. I have twice commented on the talk page of the user in question to ask him to stop his disruptive editing, but around the same time I left those comments, there were no less than 3 additional edits from this user in the same vein. This user is not here to constructively contribute to such articles, and is instead clearly focused on doing everything within his power to disrupt such content. It also seems like we no sooner get one account of this sock blocked before one or more additional accounts doing the same types of damage are created and used to further disrupt page content. I'd strongly suggest the user in this case be immediately and permamently blocked, and am hoping there is a way to nip this situation in the bud so it doesn't keep happening. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

SpiroAgnew1980 indeffed by Blablubbs. Deor (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Revdel request

Can I request that this revision of Talk:AFTV be revdeled please because it's not only irrelevant to the article, it also appears to be a gross WP:BLP violation by alleging one of the participants of this was arrested and imprisoned with no evidence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Aqwert777

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.

---

Aqwert777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aqwert777 has added the same tweet[201] to the page Michael A. Grinston 13 times since August 27th. The only major news article headlines that mention this tweet (by the New York Post[202] and Fox News[203], as well as about half of the users edits on the page[204] falsely imply the tweet was insensitively made after the 2021 Kabul airport attack. I reverted the edit once when I came across the page[205] then twice with explanation following Aqwert777's re-reverts[206][207].

Aqwert777's other contributions almost exclusively consist of uncited, politically biased wording changes favoring conservative figures[208][209] or opposing liberal figures[210][211]. Their only time participating in talk page discussions was to complain that only content critical of "certain political views" required citation[212], after they edited the page Dan Rather to say he was "a pioneer of fake news"[213].

I'd slightly delayed reporting this here, hoping someone else would, as I didn't want to get flak being a new account reporting something on ANI. SpinningCeres (talk)

Not hered to be not here any longer. Canterbury Tail talk 18:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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 by Feminist Psychiatrist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a clear legal threat. DuncanHill (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on their "as usual" comment I think they've been here before, and I've indeffed for disruptive editing and harassment of an algorithm. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Will no-one think of the algorithms?" Thanks Acroterion. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 16 November 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:KIfanboy – Educational issue with new editor leading to disruption

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

This editor is fairly new and initially showed signs of a willingness to communicate and learn, but despite their responses early on, the behavior hasn't changed in regards to sourcing, content disputes, and moving articles. The editor has received at least 8 warnings to date, first regarding edit warring behavior in content disputes and then eventually over page moves and adding unsourced content. I attempted to provide additional information on how to cite sources, directing them to WP:REFB, and even suggested discussing page moves on article talk pages (or even mine) until the editor was able to get a better understanding of the process. All of this seems to be failing, as another page move was just performed earlier today despite all the communication. Here are some diffs of problematic edits:

• Fast Lane (Cedar Fair) – reinserting challenged content
• Kings Island – one of several attempts at ramming in a big change despite earlier warnings (was eventually semi-resolved through discussion)
• Kings Dominion – unsourced content
• Delirium (ride) diff1 – reverted page move
• Delirium (ride) diff2 – reverted 2nd page move
• Aqua Twist – reverted page move
• Skyscreamer – reverted page move
• The Flash: Vertical Velocity – reverted page move
• Kentucky Kingdom – reverted page move

Hoping someone can levy a final warning, offer assistance, or take any other appropriate action to help stem the disruption. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, GoneIn60 does have a point, but blocking him won’t do any good. If someone different tries to help KIfanboy then maybe this would be better. All they are trying to do is help and if you keep scaring everyone who tries to help, then you won’t have anyone left to make the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterlover101 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

To the surprise of nobody, the brand-new account joining us here is a sock of KIfanboy. I've given KIfanboy a week off for the deception, but this is not intended as a resolution to this AN/I thread. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

––FormalDude ^talk 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane disruptive editing

User CactiStaccingCrane is engaged in disruptive editing on SpaceX Starship; for more than a month now, they have opposed[[214] and repeatedly attempted to remove the "Criticism and controversies" section from the article despite clear opposition on the talk page[215] as well as a DRN case which concluded that there was no consensus for their proposed changes and therefore the criticism section should stay[216].

CactiStaccingCrane has been warned multiple times[217][218] that removing the criticism section without consensus is unacceptable and disruptive, but they have continued to do so, without any recent discussion on the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for their edits. They have acknowledged having a bias on subjects related to Elon Musk[219], and antagonized another editor in a separate article related to Musk's ventures[220].

Edit diffs:

• 24 October[221]
• 8 November[222]
• 13 November[223])

Stonkaments (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments, you did not actually respond to my proposed compromises in discussions (see talk page and dispute resolution), and you just open the discussion and ghost us. In my opinion, it is a bit contradictory than what you claim that I'm being ignorant.

Feel free to refute me below. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A search in ANI boards found out that Stonkaments has come to ANI pretty frequently and even being boomerang'd. (sort by time: [1], [2], [3]) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I laid out my arguments on both the talk page and the DRN for why the section is warranted, and both venues agreed there is no consensus in support of your edits. Nobody is under any obligation to continue an unproductive conversation based on your unwillingness to accept the talk page consensus (WP:DROPTHESTICK). Stonkaments (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Magherbin disregarding the need for RS and weaponizing SPI

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

A while back, I happened upon an uncited mention in Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi that this historical figure belonged to the Abadir dynasty. I pinged Magherbin, the editor who added this to the article, to ask for a source. Since no reliable source was forthcoming, there was a short back-and-forth, during which Magherbin suddenly lashed out [224]: if editors are going to show up pushing Somali POV, i'll continue cleaning up these pages. [...] Its clear you're a Somali POV pusher masquerading as a neutral editor. How are you an RSN volunteer within 4 days of creating an account? The nationalist editors cant distort history here, [...] its up to you guys, if you push a misleading narrative especially on talk pages, I cant allow false information to remain in the articles. Its no surprise that this page is sock prone. Thinking not too much of it, I looked a bit further for sources, eventually finding that the 'Abadir dynasty' itself does not seem to have ever existed. I proceeded to nominate the Abadir dynasty article (which was wholly written by Magherbin) for deletion.

After this closed as delete yesterday, Maghrebin opened an SPI against me. Now the closing admin of this SPI found the evidence presented unconvincing enough that the filing borders on a personal attack (the filing contained aspersions that went beyond socking like the problem with these socks is not that they're just socking but are highly disruptive). But what I find much more concerning is that Magherbin seems to believe they are fighting sock farms that were maintaining bias in the horn of africa section in articles which I have improved somewhat now (emphasis added) [225], echoing their earlier i'll continue cleaning up these pages. Yet it's them who created an article that was basically a hoax and added unsourced (and unsourceable) links to this on various pages [226] [227] [228] [229].

In their unblock request back in January 2020, they stated that Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. Since, they've accused Ayaltimo of sockpuppetry twice [230] [231], as well as Ragnimo (in both previous diffs) and GoldenDragonHorn [232], all without any consequence. In their accusation against GoldenDragonHorn, they stated that What I find interesting between GoldenHorn and the other two editors is their agenda to discredit Arab influence on Somalia by pushing fringe theories on multiple articles, backing this up with a diff of GoldenDragonHorn pointing out the unreliability of sources upon which these Arab founding myths are based. This, assuring that these Arab founding myths are properly represented as myths rather than as history (which would be pseudohistory), is exactly what I've been trying to with regard to these articles (further explanation & diffs in my reply here). It seems that rather than creating socks themselves, accusing others of sockpuppetry is now Magherbin's way of trying to evade the 'harassment' of other editors.

This combination of tone deafness when being pointed out the unreliability of sources, or even the non-existence (at least in RS) of a concept they wrote an entire article about, with weaponizing SPI to try to get rid of those trying to point out problems is, in my view, completely unacceptable. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consistent with this editor's behavior and the revelation of three separate DS notices, I've issued a two week block for for their editing behavior. A reminder that per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa persistent long term abuse on or concerning the Horn of Africa may be handled with ARBCOM imposed discretionary sanctions. For now, in accordance with that ARBCOM ruling, I've logged the blocked at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021. @Bbb23: If thera re socks involved, could this be one of the previously ID farms? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: I'm afraid I don't understand to what you're referring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry, I should have clarified that I was asking if this looked like either Middayexpress or MustafaO, however after a closer look I decided to block the reported account for DS violations and to request the ARBCOM take a look at the Horn of Africa region once more. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that since this is not by any means a temporary problem, a temporary block isn't likely to solve much, in my view. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would look into this a bit further. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Found it! Took me two days, but I did finally manage to track this down: Megherbain was named as a suspected sock account in 2020, believed to be part of the MustafaO farm known to have been active late last year. He came up in the carpet bombing campaign that saw Ragnimo, Ayaltimo, GoldenDragonHorn, and WonderingGeljire hit with sock accusations. In that campaign, it was noted that he had ties to Middayexpress, and the report of April 02, 2019 shows a CU which did in fact identify this user as part of the Middayexpress sock farm for which he was indefblocked. Of great interest here is that the other alleged sock at the time was globally locked - yes you read that right, globally locked - in July 2019 for cross wiki abuse, which then begs the question...why is this account still being allowed to edit? I see in the block log a standard offer which @ST47: accepted in January 2020, but given the other block I am curious to know why the indef block was not re-instituted? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: Just a few corrections. I never found that Magherbin was a sock of Middayexpress or MustafaO. I found that Magherbin was confirmed to Lokiszm7 and a couple of others, which Magherbin later admitted to when he requested an unblock in January 2020. I don't know why Magherbin's standard offer unblock request was granted, but if you think of that group of accounts as being a separate sock farm, Maghberbin was the master. Normally, if we're going to unblock any account, we unblock the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Fair point, but I dare say at the moment both of us need to hear back from ST47 about why this account was unblocked. I can't figure out why, and it looks like you can't either. If it should transpire that this is enough to show the standard offer has been violated then it would be grounds for a perma block, but I want to hear from the others first. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: If it should transpire that this is enough to show the standard offer has been violated then it would be grounds for a perma block. I'm not sure I understand what "this" is. When I said I didn't understand why he was unblocked, I meant only that I hadn't looked into that aspect of it. He was unblocked because there was a consensus to do so at the time. It seems like there is a bit too much negative innuendo here. It's not that I'm opposed to an indefinite block or a topic ban; I just want to make sure everyone has the facts straight.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's why all I've done is block for disruptive editing and propose a topic ban. I'm too close, and this needs another set of eyes and hands to make a fair judgement. Its up to the community now. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I'm not sure why you're pinging me. The unblock log links to the discussion of their successful standard offer appeal. See WP:SO. ST47 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the negative innuendo is not helpful. Magherbin was cleared from socking long ago and this should not be what this ANI's about. I've asked TomStar81 to collapse these comments here, but it seems they've logged off shortly before I wrote my message. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for Topic Ban

In light of the above and on the assumption that the block will not evolve into a ban, I would propose a topic ban for Megherbin from all Horn of Africa pages, broadly construed. If they are a constructive editor, that should solve the issue by keeping the editor off the pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - seems so obvious per the above, I'm surprised we even need to have a discussion about it. I guess having permanent Horn of Africa DS will help with this sort of thing in the future. Levivich 15:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd personally like to see this limited to ethnic conflicts and military conflicts in the Horn of Africa, given that most of the diffs linked appear to be about figures who engaged in ethnic/military conflicts in the Horn of Africa. I don't really see the benefit in a ban from ALL articles related to the Horn of Africa; we wouldn't give a t-ban from British isles-related articles broadly construed if an editor was acting disruptively on articles related to the Anglo-Scottish Wars. If we really want to give this editor the opportunity to behave constructively, we shouldn't ban them from editing any articles whatsoever related to the region they're likely from. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: the focus is rather historical: the Abadir dynasty (AfD) was about a supposed dynasty started by the semi-legendary medieval saint Abadir (regarded by the Ethiopian Harari people as their ancestor), which the article claimed to have ruled eastern Ethiopia since the Middle Ages into the 19th century (in historical reality, eastern Ethiopia was ruled by a succession of different sultanates in that period, often finding their impetus in conquests starting from what is today Somaliland). A good comparison would be an editor tampering with historical articles relating to the Balkans, pushing (e.g.) a Serbian narrative. Note that they almost immediately assumed an editor pointing out that we have no source for stating that the 16th-century conqueror of Ethiopia Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (whose background is unknown and whose real inspirations were actually religious rather than ethnic) should have been part of this 'Abadir dynasty' (and thus himself in a way an 'Ethiopian') to be a Somali POV pusher [233].

Now it is well known that users who edit from such a perspective will generally also take a battleground approach over the proper origin of food articles or a piece of clothing. But it's true that there's no evidence of that presented here (Magherbin's last 500 edits are almost exclusively to historical topics and Ethiopic/Somali ethnic groups), so it makes sense to me to limit the topic ban. However, this should not impede us from discerning that ethnic conflicts are fueled by competing historical narratives, and that a topic ban should thus certainly include a ban from historical articles.

What about a topic ban from Horn of Africa pages related to history, military conflicts, and ethnic groups, broadly construed? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Kent2121

• Kent2121 (talk · contribs)

User is seemingly trying to WP:GAME extended confirmed.^{[234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241]} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

MJL, It's either that or WP:COMPETENCE, either way I think we need a block so we can work out what's going on. Go back to this revision of their user page to see noticeable warnings such as vandalising Talk:Main Page - that's a red flag right there. Oh, and there's a bit of sockpuppetry in there too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This 2017 ARCA seems to suggest the community can decide when/if EC status can ever be revoked. The point of EC is to establish basic familiarity with regular editing before jumping into controversial topics: if an editor obtains EC by pointless +1/-1 revision spam in sandboxes then presumably they haven't met the intent of the right and risk having their EC status revoked until they do. This would solve issues like this current one without needing actual blocks. Or is there some more recent decision that prevents removal of EC userrights? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333, for doing the needful. I warned them in the diff you cited because they tagged the main page for CSD and was immediately reverted. They were doing some other dubious stuff. Never got an explanation but based on the nonsensical unblock request, WP:COMPETENCE. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Lightburst 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.

---

User:Lightburst was tBANned from deletion discussions on 4 November. One of the causes for that ban was various acrimonious discussions at AFD regarding Tuskegee Airmen. Yesterday I reviewed all the Tuskegee Airmen pages that I hadn't previously looked at, cleaned up many of them and PRODded five. Several of those PRODs were dePRODed by User:NemesisAT who gave a fair rationale for the DePRODs. I proceeded to nominate one of those pages for AFD: Jerome Edwards and made some further edits to the page. Lightburst then turn up on the page and reverted many of my edits:[242] restoring duplicated information, information about the P-40 plane that is fully covered in a link and changing the order. When I saw these changes today I defined Second lieutenant and again removed the information about the P-40: [243]. Three minutes later Lightburst reverted me and accused me of edit warring: [244]. I raised a discussion on the Talk Page: [245] and then reinstated my changes: [246]. Lightburst did not engage on the Talk page and just reverted my changes again saying I was edit-warring: [247]. Lightburst is clearly edit warring. Beyond those issues, there are basic competence/battleground/OWN issues with Lightburst which I think makes them incapable of reasonably editing the Tuskegee Airmen pages. For example:

1. unnecessarily replacing the aircraft image [248] and then changing their mind [249]
2. not understanding that you don't need to define a ref that is only used once: [250]
3. repeatedly adding the Congressional Gold Medal (2007) as if it was an individual award when it was a unit award given in 2006: [251], [252]
4. apparent inability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources: Talk:Herbert V. Clark#BF109 kill​
5. lying about image copyright status: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller

In addition to their earlier statement that all Tuskegee Airmen are heroes and deserve pages shows that they cannot edit these pages in an objective manner. Accordingly in addition to their deletion tBAN, I believe that Lightburst should also be banned from editing any Tuskegee Airmen pages. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• This does not sit well with me, appearing somewhat like targeted harassment against someone who is already under sanctions so let's see what else we can pin on them. If you've sent this article to AfD then why insist on removal of content that will be deleted anyway. If there is edit warring then why not report at the edit warring desk? Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• #1 is not a big deal, #2 is a complete nonissue and arguably improves the article, #3 is nitpicking, #4 is debatable, and #5 is assuming bad faith. I haven't looked into the edit war, but your list of supposed issues strikes me as a whole lot of nothing. Mlb96 (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Polyamorph & Mlb96. And the complaint of edit warring looks strained. Starting a talk page section where you say you'll immediately re-instate your change without waiting for reply is not following WP:BRD. (Admitedly I've done the same thing myself once or twice, not saying it's neccessarily bad editing, but technically it suggests youre the one who is bordering on edit warring). I would reccomend to Lightburst they consider stepping back from deletion adjacent activity for a few months, even though their tban explicitly allowed the to edit articles under threat, but this should be up to them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is this really necessary? This looks like a content dispute. The deletion discussion you link to, where you accuse Lightburst of "lying about image copyright status", was already concluded by the time the thread before the last two ARS threads took place, i.e. the one that concluded with Lightburst's restrictions being placed. Everybody in that thread saw that discussion, and they evidently did not think it was compelling evidence to issue the expansive topic restrictions you propose here. Has anything at all changed since then, other than the fact that you're angry at them? I am also puzzled by the apparent claim that "not understanding that you don't need to define a ref that is only used once" is a sanctionable offense. Could you explain this in some more detail, @Mztourist:? jp×g 11:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• It now reads: "Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the Tuskegee Airmen in 2006" in these articles. Trying to remove any mention of the gold medal at all, instead of simply clarifying it was given to everyone, is a mistake you made Mztourist, no fault for Lightburst adding information about it, it just should've been clarified it sooner to eliminate he problem. And now that that problem has been solved, why mention it here at all? And he did not lie about the copyright status of the image in question. Common sense, they let a famous person visit them and pose for pictures at a military base. This was clearly a military publicity photograph, one of many like it made in World War 2. You arguing about it at File_talk:Lena_Horne_with_Tuskegee_airmen.png, and we having to waste time with a deletion discussion that ended with "The result of the discussion was: keep. With evidence found that shows that the image was published in 1945 and nothing to indicate it was registered for copyright, this is a PD image." shows you as a problem not him, at least in that particular case you decided to bring up. Dream Focus 13:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with what others have said. There's no need to get into the content dispute here. As for behavior, editing articles nominated for deletion is squarely outside LB's topic ban. More to the point, unless something is truly egregious (superfluous material is not), if you removed material that was there since the article was created and LB restored it, and you removed it again (twice) without finding consensus to do so, you're both edit warring and you're the one not following BRD. The article looks like it's headed for deletion anyway, so is this all really necessary? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have to agree with the emerging consensus here: this seems like primarily a content dispute at this juncture. I'm not seeing any evidence of an intractable behavioural issue with regard to this editor and this subject matter (at least insofar as been evidenced here). It does seem that Lightburst violated BRD with regard to at least some of the content in question, and thus was arguably the person who initiated the edit war--something that they definitely are experienced enough to know is not acceptable. But that's a relatively minor matter that should have been taken to WP:AN3, not brought here and blown into the kind of proportion supposedly requiring a TBAN, which is a pretty serious sanction that would need to be justified by substantial disruption that can be arrested in no other way.

For that matter, Mz, are you certain you really want us focused on this? Because you were basically edit-for-edit matching them in that edit war, well past the point where the more likely sanction for this behaviour (a block) would be just as equally justified for you: "they started it" falls off as an explanation after your second revert. You know the procedure here: if you think someone is violated WP:EW to try to enforce their preferred version of content, you report the matter--you don't participate in and prolong the disruption, even if you think you are on the right side of WP:BRD and/or WP:ONUS. This matter should have been taken to the article talk page, not become the subject of an edit war and then an attempt by one of the edit warring parties to reach towards an unjustified sanction to remove the other editor from the subject area altogether. If you want, you can take the matter to AN3 now, but after engaging in the edit war yourself, you should be prepared for potential blow back. But I don't think your proposal here has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance, so your best course of action at this juncture is to engage on the talk page. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:48, 15 November 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.

Inspectormusic repeated unsourced information and genres after multiple warning

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

As their talk page shows they have been warned multiple times about adding unsourced information and genres. They have even been blocked for 48 hours about it. This did not stop them from continuing the same behavior. They were warned again by multiple editors, and again, they ignore the warnings: 1, 2, 3 and many more. There should be a limit to the number of times a "last warning" is left before someone does something about it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought an ANI warning will change something, but this behavior continues: unsourced genres and again and again. --Muhandes (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like some WP:LTA vandalism here. – The Grid (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That may very well be the case, perhaps someone more familiar with the area can have a look. --Muhandes (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks to me like block evasion, very much like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 who adds unreferenced genres and "associated acts". Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I am no expert, but that seems likely to me. --Muhandes (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:CANVASSING by User:Skyerise

Three users voted Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Missouri, and Skyerise inappropriately canvassed them at [253][254][255] about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas. This is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS as both votestacking and stealth canvassing by advertising to a partisan audience that would support them, with no disclosure given on the AFD either. This long-time editor should absolutely know better and this should be admonished. Reywas92^Talk 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I simply notified all the responders to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Missouri about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas, except for those already presumed to be aware of the latter because they had already responded (one user: Ajf773). It just happened that all those were people who had !voted keep. Had there been people who had !voted delete, I would have notified them as well. However, there weren't any. Reywas92 seems awfully eager to subvert WP:LISTN, which actually fully supports both these list articles! Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Reywas92 made two separate AfDs for essentially the same topic. Rightfully these should have been a combined AfD so that responders to either would have been immediately made aware of the other. Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, how convenient that the only people to notify just happened to share your opinion! Of course you could have instead put a link in the discussion mentioning the other for anyone to see without targeting those voters. Wrong, there is no requirement that AFDs be bundled, and it's perfectly reasonable to discuss these separately. When your AFD comment says "This is not at all comparable to the situation with the Ohio article" that I reference, how am I to know you wouldn't complain that the Kansas and Missouri pages aren't comparable either? Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Skyrise has continued to inappropriately canvass keep voters, even after this warning. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure looks like you're running both a deletion and merge discussion at the same time which appears to violate WP:FORUMSHOPPING policy, see Talk:Missouri wine#Proposed merge of List of wineries in Missouri into Missouri wine. This thread seems to be your third forum. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? This thread is about your canvassing, not further discussion of the topic. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. Your rhetorical question is highly inappropriate. See also WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I procedural closed the merge discussion, see the rationale here. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS lists "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" as an appropriate case for canvassing. The talk page notifications were neutral and sent to all participants of the related discussion. The canvassing wasn't "stealth" as claimed, as it happened on wiki. The only fault I can see here is the lack of a note on the second AfD, other than that, I feels the actions do not violate WP:CANVASS. NemesisAT (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say this is clearly canvassing. If Skyerise had also notified the one editor (Ajf773) that did not vote "Keep" at the previous AfD, then I would have been good with it - but they didn't, they simply notified those on "their side". It seems that it was done when it appeared that the 2nd AfD was in danger of not closing as Keep (at the time it had two deletes and two keeps). The persistence in continuing to do this after this ANI had been raised is really quite unfortunate, and a very poor idea. User:Skyerise - since the AfDs were fairly obvious closes anyway, I'm not going to take any action here; but please ensure that you are not giving the impression of attempting to sway AfDs inappropriately. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am just passing by and have no intention of taking part in this discussion, but I am just a bit curious about what would be the point of notifying a user (Ajf773) six days after they had given their !vote (and even discussed it with Skyerise). --T*U (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely normal not to contact people who already participants. This is what we do when we notify previous participants of a new discussion, and there's no reason we should do anything different when we notify participants of related discussions. Actually editors who are already participants can get annoyed when notified unnecessarily. The only case when you should considering notifying existing participants is when something has changed since they participated e.g. there is a new option in an RfC. That said, proper disclosure of what you did and why helps reduce confusion and concern. If Skyerise had mentioned the notifications at the AfD and mentioned they didn't notify existing participants or frankly just mentioned Ajf773 my name since they were only one editor, it's much less likely we'd be here. On the more general issue, I originally had some concerns given these AfDs seem only loosely connected in subject matter but since both were happening simultaneously and I assume there were no other wineries in state A AfDs happening at the same time it's probably okay although it might still have been better to discuss the planned notifications first although I appreciate the length of AfDs is generally short. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is not canvassing to contact everyone in a recent similar AFD who hasn't already found their way there already. There is no possible reason to contact those who already know about it. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yungmemelord

user:Yungmemelord looks like a classic case of WP:RADAR. They make significant changes to articles, almost always without any edit summary, and always (so far as I can see) without providing any citations. But in five years of editing, they have responded to another user only once, four years ago, in a message which revealed that they had introduced a serious factual error to an article. They have never posted anything on an article talk page.

This blank refusal to communicate goes against any notion of collaboration, and makes it impossible to tell if they are even editing in good faith. So I invite you administrators to consider whether something needs to be done. 82.132.213.204 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It stretches AGF to believe a user of five years' standing is unaware of having a talkpage of their own, but I suppose it may still be the case. Another possibility is that they don't have enough confidence in their English skills to use talkpages. Anyway, communication is required on Wikipedia, and I have blocked the user, with a link to their talkpage in the log, to help them find the page, and to oblige them to use it. Thank you for bringing the problem here, IP. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

Update: The user has undertaken to communicate going forward, and I have unblocked. Please let me, or this board, know if they don't live up to it. They are now supposed to respond to concerns on their page, use edit summaries, and, when relevant, use article talkpages. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

User:ZX2006XZ and Buck Wild

• ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is a draft about an unreleased film, and has already been declined five times by three reviewers, who have cautioned the originator to stop resubmitting until the film is released. The originator, who has been the subject of other recent discussions about resubmitting drafts that have not been improved, has renamed this draft, but has otherwise only made trivial changes, and so is continuing to resubmit what is actually the same draft tendentiously. I don't want to take the draft to a draft deletion discussion, because the film will be released in early 2022. I am instead requesting that the originator, who has been warned, be partially blocked from editing this draft (which would block resubmission and moving). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They are not understanding the AfC process. I would be more for blocking them from submitting articles until they become familiar with the basic guidelines and policies. – The Grid (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I should probably stop submitting for now. ZX2006XZ talk, 13:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If I remember correctly, I started a thread about this a few months ago. It was in relation to this exact draft. [256] I would ask for a p-block until January 28th, 2022, given that's the expected release date of the movie. When that occurs this issue will more or less be mooted. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Chess - Thank you for looking it up. Yes. I see that at that point they apologized and said that they would work on improving their drafts. Some of us said that that thread should be closed with a final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I see that the editor in question has occasionally used user talk pages, so they do know how user talk pages work. The previous thread seems to have been archived without administrative action, but the editor should have understood that they were warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor said above "I should probably stop submitting for now", but they didn't mean it, because they just submitted Buck Wild again. Maybe they have a little brother. Or maybe they are a little brother. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Their little brother resubmitted logged out, which would have evaded a partial block if there had been one. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Mike Peel's undeclared automated edits make articles worse

Mike Peel is "correcting" links to commons in a bot-like manner, without enough (any?) control of what they are doing. After some people raised individual cases, I raised this as a general concern on their talk page yesterday[257]. While they improved some isolated cases, they ignored the bulk of the issue (neither replying to the post, nor actually and more importantly correcting their errors). This has happened on hundreds (thousands?) of articles, in many cases incorrectly. Apart from the ones in my post on their talk page (which show the botlike stupidity of some of these, e.g. this); other examples include (but aren't limited to):

• Removing the commons catgeory "former muslims" from the article "Ex-Muslims", because "Commons category belongs at Category:Former_Muslims"???
• The Commons cat "Flora of the Sonoran Desert" doesn't belong at List of flora of the Sonoran Desert Region by common name? The same has been done at many other list articles, apparently a "List of X" article is not allowed to have the commonscat for "X" for some reason...
• "Category:Lewitt-Him" is about the design partnership between Jan Le Witt and George Him. According to Mike Peel, the commons cat shouldn't be included with the Jan Le Witt article because it belongs at the George Him article???
• Obviously the Commons cat Tristan and Isolde doesn't belong on the article for Tristan alone[258]. No, it's much better for our readers not to have a Commons cat there at all than this terrible mismatched one.
• William Parks (publisher) may not have the Commons cat "William Parks". No, no, that Commons cat obviously should only be placed on... William Parks (publisher). This kind of stupidity, whether it is automated or done manually (and I sure hope that it was done automatically), is just terrible editing from an experienced editor.

As Mike Peel is not inclined to go systematically through his edits even when it has been made clear that way too many of them are clearly wrong (while many others are very debatable whether they are really better for our readers), and seems to be running an undeclared, unauthorized bot to do so, perhaps he can be topic banned from making such edits? Fram (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a policy of not engaging with/replying to Fram, since their comments are often deliberately inflammatory (as indeed this one is). Just to be clear, the edits are semi-automated, not automated. It's part of my general syncing of links between Wikipedia <-> Wikidata <-> Commons (few million done so far). I'm always happy to look again at individual cases when pointed to them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that there are so many "individual cases" that it is not up to others to point them out one by one, but that you should look at all your edits again when it becomes obvious that they contain too many errors. And "semi-automated", meaning that you actually looked at these and decided that yes, these were good? Removing the Commons cat "Rivers" from River ecosystem[259], but at the same time leaving the commons cats for "Streams" and "Springs" is something you actually manually approved? Or this? This or this is better for our readers? You really manually approved all these semi-automated edits where you claimed that the link didn't belong in "X" but in ... "X"? Fine, then it isn't an undeclared bot but a stunning lack of competence. Fram (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"the edits are semi-automated" This is a lie, or at best, a completely misleading description of the edits (the alternative, that Mike Peel is actively incompetent, is not one I am entertaining). They may be 'semi-automated' in that Mike Peel is actively approving them, but like many past abusers of semi-automated tools, he is not verifying that the individual edit should be made and is correct. He has a broad task he wishes to perform, he uses semi-automation to do it at a high rate, but the individual edits are not scrutinised before the edit is approved. To be fair to Mike, this is not specifically an issue with him, its an issue with editors in general using automatation on their editing account to do large scale tasks without even a nod at BAG. The purpose of BAG is to make sure large-scale automated and semi-automated editing is not disruptive, however BAG is largely uninterested except where a Bot is directly involved. Despite BOTPOL being very clear that it covers all automated and semi-automated editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death: I am happy to admit that I make mistakes, likely including the ones listed above (I want to double-check them this evening.) Note that I have to manually enter 'y' or 'n' for the edit to be saved or not - see [260], and similar in other scripts e.g., to change the link rather than removing it. I think that 99% of the edits I'm making are good, but some bad ones seem to have slipped through. I am happy to commit to a higher level of scrutiny with my future edits using this tool (I did get a bit carried away on Saturday evening). Note that I have a bot task approved that is related to this work (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 4) - I am using related code to that with this semi-automated work. I'd be happy for BAG to look through my semi-automated code if they want, but as you say they don't seem interested, and I don't know of a process for this. The work is not suitable for direct bot editing, since it has a high percentage of false positives that I am manually skipping and resolving in different ways (e.g., fixing things on Wikidata or Commons - see my contributions there during the same time period as my edits here). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

BAG is in the approval business, but not the enforcement business or the supervision business. If we get a request we'll review it for approval, but if an editor is operating a bot on their account (or a MEATBOT, or an unauthorised script, or similar) it's really an administrative issue to block the editor and/or require them to go through the BRFA process. A lot of bot-related issues would be solved sooner if this was more widely understood. I do agree there is a problem with some mass "semi-automated" editors more-or-less riding roughshod, and it being incredibly difficult to challenge those edits, and such edits probably not having consensus if they were discussed beforehand... but I don't know how you'd go about solving this. I don't think requiring it all to go through an approval process will work, due to sheer practicality constraints (BAG doesn't have the manpower. for reference: this was the list of outstanding BRFAs at the end of October). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have had hundreds removed: Hyett family from Painswick House (they built it), Philatelic expertization from The Philatelic Foundation‎ (that's what they do), East Barnet war memorial from Catherine Loveday (she is closely associated with its upgrading) etc. Maybe some of them aren't close enough but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of thought attached to this and it looks like Mike doesn't read the related article first. Saying he will correct them if anyone complains just isn't good enough. There have been a number of complaints on his talk before and he promised to stop but didn't. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: Those are clearly misplaced links to Commons. Another example might be 'Salisbury' from Robert Poynaunt - you've added a lot of links like that, and they really don't help the reader of the article to find media content that's actually related to the article. Catherine Loveday should really have a dedicated Commons category for the person - I'll look into setting that up this eve. "he promised to stop but didn't." - not true, I've said I'll try to do better, and I think I have been doing, but not that I would stop. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mayor of Salisbury and twice its MP. They only have to be related and useful for the reader. We may differ on how close they should be but what about the others that have been mentioned? You did promise to stop in the depths of your talk page about a year ago. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "he promised to stop but didn't." - not true, I've said I'll try to do better, and I think I have been doing, but not that I would stop. - Mike should now agree to stop. Levivich 13:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And these need to be mass reverted going back to Sep 18, it looks like. A couple thousand. The error rate is very high. Edits like [261] and [262]. Just the underscore bug alone... I can't believe it's been two months and Mike is still doing it. Numerous complaints about this on Mike's talk page. Levivich 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • All of which I replied to (except for Fram's). Both of those edits look fine to me - those are misplaced links to Commons (the second article doesn't even have an image in it!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: What do you mean both those edits look fine to you? Look again: Special:Diff/1046450932 and Special:Diff/1045110488. Those edits removed {{commons category}}. And it did it because your script isn't matching spaces and underscores. And this was two months ago. How does any of that look fine to you? I'm sorry but it's clear you lack the competence for this. Are you going to agree to stop making these edits or not? Levivich 15:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @Levivich: It's nothing to do with spaces or underscores. Click on the links in the edit summary to see the places the links actually belong at. I really don't understand your comment here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh I see, you're mass-removing every commons category link to Category:Foo unless Category:Foo matches the enwiki article title. I had AGF'd that your intent was to remove links to non-existent categories, but I see it's worse than I thought. Stop doing this now. I restored the two I linked to above, but there looks to be a couple thousand over the last two months, and I'm in favor of mass-reverting all of them. Levivich 15:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
            • That reminds me of the same problems we had with BetaCommand back in 2008-2009 when we started to require NFC rationales for all images (due to the new WMF resolution and requiring us to do this), but where Beta's semi-auto script would at times would fail to match the article title that the image was used in to the article title stated in the ratioanale, and I'm pretty sure that the community agreed then this is absolutely where a human should be reviewing these steps to make sure "simple" typos could be fixed, or the like. (I'd have to go back and look but that led to Beta's ban on semi-automated tools). This feels like the same problem. --Masem (t) 15:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
              • No, it's not blind removal, and it's not just matching article titles. It's whether the topics actually match each other, or whether the Commons category is above something else - which is what is the case here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
                • While what you may be doing is not stringing matching or the like, the errors being brought up are of the same "should have been easily caught if a human was doing it properly" that there was with BetaCommand. This is not to say you had to be error free, but the error rate here based on this thread is seemingly too high to suggest that you spent enough time before hitting "y" on your script to review if the change was appropriate. That's how the situation is comparable. --Masem (t) 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • @Masem: OK, I've already said above that I'll commit to a higher level of scrutiny in the future before making these edits. Bear in mind that this has been a >3-year process so far, though, and is probably around 80% done - help with the remaining cases in Category:Commons category link is locally defined would be really appreciated! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"99% of the edits I make are good"? That's extremely optimistic. I just reverted 2 edits here, where you deleted one of three commons cats incorrectly on 6 November (and left two similar ones), and then removed a second one 1 week later (and left one other). So it is obvious that this isn't a new issue or only happened last Saturday, but has been going on for quite a while (as evidenced by the other comments here). Or DB AutoZug, which according to the lead, "DB AutoZug GmbH was also responsible for the car transporter trains from Niebüll - Westerland, known as the SyltShuttle". Not good enough for you, apparently[263]. Helpful? Useful? Improving Wikipedia? Just what we need? Really? The tomb isn't part of the light house perchance? For crying out loud, you really believe that the Commons cat "Category:Solar energy in the United States" doesn't match sufficiently with our article Solar power in the United States [264]? "99%" good edits, unless you count the bad ones that is. Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope it's clear to people reading this that Fram's comments are deliberately inflammatory, and are seriously lacking in AGF and any sort of constructive attitude. This is not new: it's been a trend for multiple years now, spread across multiple different topics (mostly anything with any connection to Wikidata). I've given up replying to them directly, since that doesn't seem to help - it just generates more of the same (as I expect this will, sadly, but it needs to be said). If we want to collectively step back and reassess how we're doing links to Commons, we can do that (I've already run multiple RfC's related to different parts of this topic to get wider consensus - I didn't think that was needed for this part of the work, but we can do another RfC if needed). But I don't believe this AN/I thread is the venue to do that, particularly given how Fram has framed the discussion (e.g., in the section name, and all of their comments so far). I will still commit myself to looking through the examples Fram has raised here, though, to see how those cases could be better resolved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've worked through the examples: some are good points, and I've reverted myself there. Others seem to be cases where there are two Commons categories, and it seems that I've removed the wrong one somehow - will have to double-check the code for that before I start running it again, but anyway I'd have caught these on my next pass through and would have fixed them. Others, I stand behind - they are cases where the Commons category really doesn't match the article, or where there's already another Commons category link that has this one as a subcat (we shouldn't be trying to replicate the Commons category tree structure here!). I also have a bunch of notifications of reverted edits from Fram, will look through those separately. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

before I start running it again I don't think you're hearing everyone saying not to start running it again. Levivich 18:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I meant for 'if' to be implied there, but should have stated that. If I do run it again, I would do so much slower and more carefully, with a lot more manual edits associated with the work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have also had to first undo an un-linking to a commons cat and then a mis-catting of commons cat link conducted by Mike Peel. I am now engaged in a discussion about it on his talk page - but to be honest, I do not think it is necessary. The un-catting should have never happened in the first place as it completely cut off the article from the directly related commons store - and with an edit summary of it not fitting the article. This was flatly false, and it very obviously did not have any sort of human/manual review before being conducted - and the edit summary is in direct contradiction to the truth. After seeing the ANI notice on his page - I went and looked at some of the other edits and have to agree that there is a very high error rate. This is very clearly scripted or partially automated - or at the very least being conducted without the necessary background and knowledge needed in order to execute these edits and de-linking to directly applicable commons cats. It appears gross and rampant in nature. I do not state this in effort to badmouth Mike directly - but simply to point out what the end & net result is & appears to be.

If the end-goal here is to try and trim down the commons store itself - isolating them from their related articles is the wrong way to do it. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be many edits made here that remove relevant Commons categories from articles. Others remove less relevant Commons categories (most typically, natural parent categories of the "correct" categories). Generally it seems to me that most of the pages should have Commons links, and the links require refining (or creation of the corresponding Commons category) instead of removal. Mike seems to be doing this work too fast and should immediately stop. Also, some of Mike's work seems to be based on article titles instead of article content (see the history of Mixing console) and that doesn't look like a particularly good idea either. The error rate certainly is not acceptable; if this were done using AWB I would have removed access already. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with this - he too often does not look at, or take in, the articles he is messing with (or the Commons categtories for that matter). He also tends to assume that where he perceives a disjoin between Wikidata, Commons & en:wp, we are the one which should be changed to "fit in" - more often it is the other way round. In fairness, he denies this. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, Mike, it's not at all clear here that "Fram's comments are deliberately inflammatory", because most of Fram's comments appear to be accurate, as are the very large number of comments from other editors pointing out errors in your "semi-automated" editing. The whole point of semi-automated editing is that a human checks the edit for accuracy, and it's equally very clear that you aren't checking your edits sufficiently and therefore introducing either actual errors, or removing categories that are valid for that article. Frankly, since this appears to go back a significant amount of time, I'd suggest it might be a good idea that unless you can decrease your error rate to an acceptable level, you stopped doing it ... after, of course, spending some time fixing the dozens of errors. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Look at the phrasing of Fram's comments. I'd note that there are WP:OWN issues with some other people's comments here (look at who started the articles). I accept the issue with the too-high error rate: I've been working back through cases raised here already, and will continue doing so. If I continue with this, I'll go a lot slower and make sure my error rate is much lower. I'd also appreciate any suggestions you or anyone else has for getting more people involved in this work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "I hope it's clear to people reading this that Fram's comments are deliberately inflammatory, and are seriously lacking in AGF and any sort of constructive attitude" - however, it's also my observation (and I think I've told him this publicly) that Fram tends to be at his most abrasive when he is 100% right. I don't understand how any of your edits actually help the encyclopedia; indeed, they seem to removing references to additional images and pictures that might benefit the reader. What gives? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: "most abrasive" is a weird way to put it: it implies friction but in a positive way (finishing/polishing), and I can't see how that excuses such behaviour. The edits linked to here are a choice selection from my edits here: have a look at my contributions record directly if you want to get a more comprehensive view. My aim is to generally improve the links to Commons (as someone that has also significantly contributed to Commons), and I've been correcting links extensively over the last three years - but some links do just need removing, as they aren't helpful to readers or editors. The cases and the issue here are mostly where I'm removing the links, where I've been over-zealous in doing so and have made mistakes. I'll be more careful with doing this in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• I complained to Mike Peel about one of these edits a couple of weeks ago, and his response was helpful and collaborative, so I don't think there's a problem there – he is prepared to fix errors when they're pointed out, as he says. That said, I hadn't appreciated the scale of the problem, nor that it was being done by semi-automated means. That just isn't OK: if there's a category mismatch that can be fixed without evaluation then we can get a bot to do that; other cases clearly need careful review, which probably includes reading the article and checking the related image categories. It's the failure to take that necessary care that has led to so many complaints. Apart from a request to Mike to now please stop making these changes in this way, I've a few suggestions (probably already made above):

1. stop worrying about this – we get a red warning message in edit view when Wikidata has muddled things up, and anyone who has time can go and fix that;
2. assume that Wikipedia is right, that Commons might be, and that Wikidata is not, then act accordingly;
3. add a |wd=no parameter to {{commons category}}, for use when we want to link directly to Commons without worrying about what Wikidata thinks of that; or
4. revert {{commons category}} to this version (I think?) and leave Wikidata out of the loop.

Mike, I'm no template editor, but to my inexpert eye it looks as if all this is you working to fix problems that you created yourself by editing that template. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• You say, "stop worrying about this – we get a red warning message in edit view when Wikidata has muddled things up, and anyone who has time can go and fix that;". I am not a big fan of fixing it after it is broken when it could be prevented in the first place. There is plenty of other work we all have to do on the project without having to take this mentality. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Picard's Facepalm, I mean of course "stop worrying about categories not being synchronised with Wikidata" – there's no urgency for that. Mike has been asked by several people to stop making these edits, so I'm sure will not be breaking anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: If you want to go back to a non-Wikidata version of the template, you need to go back nearly a decade, to [265]. However, there have been multiple RfC's about that (see the template talk page history), and I don't think that's the controversial part here. You also seem to be missing that I've been making thousands of changes on Wikidata to correct links there - I've not been assuming that any project is right, but that all three could be wrong, which matches reality. Wikipedia is definitely not always right here. But I'll stop the removals now (see below). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Mike Peel: there's a pretty strong consensus in this thread that the commitment to be more careful is not enough. Please stop doing this task at all, at least until you've had a chance to review all the previous edits and fix the errors they've caused. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Euryalus: OK, my understanding is that the removal of the template is the most controversial: I'll stop doing that. I'd like to continue changing them as necessary, but much more carefully: that has had very little pushback since I've been doing it, and I think is helpful here - but I can stop that as well if need be. I think the bot task is completely uncontroversial (no-one wants to see a broken link), so that can continue. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I engaged Mike Peel about this very topic over a year ago, so this has been going on for a while. It *should* be of concern that Wikidata-centric editors have been going around changing not only this site but Commons for the worse to suit whatever agenda they have going on at Wikidata. These are separate websites, albeit designed to complement each other. I think people fail to understand that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the simplest solution would be to hold an RfC and to prohibit any use of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia. This would be like going back to stone age, but I am sure a lot of active users (possibly the majority) will support this proposal notwithstanding, and this would stop all discussion of the type "Wikidata is evil" forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many hands make light work? This seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing as I doubt that the {{commons category}} links get much usage. Myself, I usually suppose that good pictures will have been already selected for an article and, if it seems unfinished, I will use Google to find images rather than relying on commons category searches. Categories are especially weak as a search tool because they are an old-fashioned hierarchy rather than being relational. And limiting a search to Commons is self-denying as it's not that good.

As a recent example that I just noticed, Mike removed the category Dwight Schultz from the article Howling Mad Murdock. That category was quite debatable as that actor is perhaps better known for his more recent role in Star Trek. And the page is now a redirect so it's all lost in the churn and noise. See WP:INTODARKNESS. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons category links are there for readers, not for editors. Very often, there are more images on the Commons than can be put into the article, giving the reader additional options to look at relevant media. In the case of Murdock/Dwight Schultz, I don't see your point, given that c:Category:Dwight Schultz contains several images related to his role as Murdock and zero related to Star Trek. Clearly, whether to link there or not is an editorial decision, and "Removing misplaced Commons category link" is not a good explanation for Mike's decision not to link there. —Kusma (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I know they have agreed to stop, so we can probably end this section, but to give an idea of my deliberately inflammatory remarks vs. 99% good edits, I just went through the 29 edits Mike Peel made between 21.20 and 21.20 on 13 November: I have now reverted 10 of those([266][267][268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275]), in addition to two already reverted previously[276][277]. That's more than 40% (with a few of the remainder dubious as to whether the removal really was an improvement). These 10 new reverts include this edit to Rhine Gorge, with the edit summary "Removing Commons category link that does not match this article (commons:Category:Upper Middle Rhine Valley", even though the article starts with "The Rhine Gorge is a popular name for the Upper Middle Rhine Valley"... I'll continue looking at these and reverting where needed, but any help is welcome as this stretches back through a long period and many, many edits. Fram (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of those are crap reverts - the Commons categories are clearly wrong in those cases. But by all means, have at it - I'm out of here. Mike Peel (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In the case of the Lake Waccamaw one, the edit summary states in part "Commons category belongs at Lake Waccamaw State Park", yet I could find no evidence of you touching that article. Talk about a paper tiger. Perhaps you don't realize that mere activity on this project is commensurate with its maturity, while actual content building is far, far behind the curve. People aren't interested in a long-term commitment to building an encyclopedia when they have to contend with others who only want to tear it down. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And there seems to be no reason at all that the Commons cat can't be on both pages of course. Fram (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I'm giving up with the maintenance work to go back to focusing on content creation (e.g., see the article I started last night). Have fun with the maintenance. You do have a plan for maintaining the commons category links going forward, right? Mike Peel (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Can some other people check these reverts and give their opinion? It would be good to know where I went wrong before continuing with these reverts. Fram (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of these (not the Rhine Gorge one, where Fram is unquestionably right) are cases where the Commons category is relevant to the article, but does not correspond 100% to the article subject. I think that having 90% accurate Commons links on a Wikipedia page is preferable to having no Commons link, as Commons is a sister project with relevant content that we should try to advertise wherever possible. It would be helpful if @Mike Peel could explain the purpose of these removals (I can't see it from the edit summaries) instead of shooting the messenger. —Kusma (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Not really much use when they don't actually relate to the topic. You go from the article to the Commons category, then you don't know which media are actually related to the topic you're interested in (if it's broader), or in a lot of cases, you don't find any media that actually match the topic (particularly if it's a narrower topic). Neither of those is really useful to readers. Better to always have 100% matches, where you can clearly find the media that is actually related to the article - and not misleading the reader when there isn't relevant content. I completely agree that more links to Commons is better, but they have to be the *right* links to be useful. Mike Peel (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I think your better to always have 100% matches is a fairly extreme position that doesn't seem to be supported by consensus (many of us seem to be happy to have "the closest existing category on Commons" in articles instead of your all-or-nothing approach). Edits of this type should not be done semi-automatically without prior wide community approval. —Kusma (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

[ec] Certainly, the very first one I checked was [278], where you restored a Commons Category link for c:Category:Kohl mansion, Burlingame, California to Mercy High School (Burlingame, California), with an edit summary of "It's the actual building the school is housed in..." While you are factually correct, the link should not be on the article, because it belongs on the separate Kohl Mansion article. You seem more interested in attacking another editor than in improving the content of the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"the link should not be on the article, because it belongs on the separate Kohl Mansion article." And why not on both? You have removed a link to images of the school building, from an article about the school[279] because it is "inappropriate", but your explanation here doesn't help me to understand why this would be so. Fram (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

[ec] :::The next one I checked was [280], where you restored a link to the category for Putney, Vermont to Putney Village Historic District, even though we have the former article. Your edit summary was, ironically, "Not helpful". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Same question: why not on both? It's an "external link" or a "see also" link, the images in the Commons category are almost exclusively of buildings in the Historic District. Apart from an ideological "they must match 100%" and "only one article may link to a certain Commons category" mindset, what actual reason is there to believe that the link isn't helpful or interesting for readers of the article who want to find additional images? Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A few final thoughts from me:

• Nobody is scrolling to the bottom of articles, much less clicking on these links anyway.
• The reader is smarter than some of us might be giving them credit for, especially any reader who scrolls to the bottom and clicks on the commons link. Readers can read page titles and they understand how web sites work. If the link to commons isn't a 100% match and is instead narrower or broader, the reader will understand and be able to cope. If there is more than one link, the reader will not be overwhelmed.
• Decisions about what links go in an article should be made by the editors who write the article. The very notion that someone is gonna decide what the best link is for thousands of articles is a joke. It's arrogant. None of us have the expertise (or the time) to read thousands of articles and make a better decision than the authors made. This cannot be done with a script.
• Generally speaking, there is no edit that anyone needs to make to 10,000 articles. Almost every time someone tries to change "one thing" (whatever it may be) in all the articles, they just make a mess. The legendary BKFIP removing "best known for" comes to mind. The encyclopedia doesn't require that kind of maintenance, and it's already at the point where we can improve one article at a time, but not a thousand at a time, because the articles are generally diverse and developed enough that they require individualized attention. No shortcuts, no one-size-fits-all editing. It seems every time someone tries to do that they end up at ANI eventually. Levivich 12:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

I came across an edit to a page called Albatross_cx, which changed the article to be about a Czech municipality. First it looked like vandalism, but turns out that the user Nueler_Erien (talk · contribs) has hijacked and renamed the original article to make it about an ad agency instead of said municipality. So they moved the original article to Albatross_cx, then instated a redirect to original Korolupy article. Quite a devious way of taking over articles. Eik Corell (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and handled the technical aspect of undoing the odd page move. The user in question has not edited since 2019; so I'm not sure there is anything left to do. --Jayron32 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just some extra info: This does seem to be an intentional hijack - Just weeks before the replacement and moving, the user's draft article [[281]] got rejected for it being "covert advertisement", so it's not because the town is known for this company or anything to that effect, it's just plain old stealing another completely unrelated and inactive article to circumvent community review of their previously rejected submission. Eik Corell (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a little more extra info: for more about this MO and suspect, see archive. Thanks for spotting it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, snap. I was unaware of that case. I'll be blocking presently, even given the staleness, this is clearly part of that sockfarm. --Jayron32 16:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

IP 71.85.36.15

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

This IP has a history of WP:OR violations and only at Template:Kansas City Chiefs roster. They frequently add and change player's numbers that go against what is provided at the team website. I have advised in my edit summaries on my reverts to provide where they got the numbers from in an edit summary and they have not once provided it and has not communicated in anyway. Every one of their edits, I've either reverted or manually reverted.--Rockchalk717 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note on the latest one: NFL.com has Devon Key wearing uniform #24: [282] They are generally a fairly reliable source. I know that Key is on the practice squad, but those players are also generally assigned numbers (to wear during practice), and a reliable source does have one. I agree that changing or adding information that is not in articles and does not have an obvious source, especially against the advice of people who have warned you before, is a problem, but there is a source in this one case. --Jayron32 18:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't think this belongs in AN:I (although I may be mistaken), and should go to AIV. It's an IP editor, after all. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 18:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The issue is, the Chiefs have given 24 to Melvin Ingram and per NFL rules, during the regular season two players cannot share a number, even if one player is on the practice squad.--Rockchalk717 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Plutonical: AIV is for "obvious vandalism". I don't think original research violations qualify. I have reported IPs here before as well.--Rockchalk717 18:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. I've struck through my comment. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 18:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

EKP70

EKP70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User EKP70 has continously replaced the content of pages with content that has been highly disagreed with. They seem to go for specific articles, disappear for a while and then come back and disrupt the same articles, examples include Morenada, Saya (art form) and Caporales. Their disruptive editing can be seen in their contributions and appears to have started since this edit in 3 September 2021. Jurta talk 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a mix of long term edit warring and WP:IDHT, specially in the Morenada article, where they reverted four different users 10 times. Despite consensus against their additions, they haven't engaged in conversation with other editors since October. Seems like a pattern of disruptive editing. Isabelle ^🔔 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Botyaar6767

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

---

The subject has previously been editing Draft:Mohsin khan, which was rejected at AfC, and subsequently created an instance in mainspace about the same subject, under the title Iamrealmohsin. They have repeatedly removed maintenance templates from that instance (messaged on their Talk Page, most recently at Warning level), but more worryingly have tried adding false information with claims about the subject's involvement in Slumdog Millionaire [283] and repurposing an awards table from the Sharib Hashmi article: [284]. (Concerning suh claims, see also Slywriter's AfC comment that the draft's "Filmography includes movies before subject was born" [285].) Overall, this raises concerns that other edits may lack veracity and the editor is WP:NOTHERE. AllyD (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Blatant hoaxes? Check. Odd promotion? Check. Here to build an encyclopaedia? No. Block button clicked? Yes. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh and I just discovered they're a sock of User:Iamrealmohsin, so I'll tag that up as well. So worth keeping an eye on those edits as they're blatant self promotion socks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 15 November 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.

Disruption at South African farm attacks

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

---

This IP is disrupting the South African farm attacks page with expletive laden edit summaries, insults and such. I can't be bothered going back and sorting them and the vitriol out every ten minutes. They just seem intent pushing their POV. Loudly. see Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:200A:5500:88BB:5F1B:5FE6:CAE4 Mako001 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I revdel'd and made a dummy edit note. But Mako001, you say I can't be bothered going back and sorting them and the vitriol out every ten minutes, but that IP has made a total of two edits (ditto for the /64). Are there prior edits I've overlooked? El_C 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This popped up on my watchlist as I had left a note on IP editor’s talk page asking them not to swear in their edit summaries. I had only seen two edits from the IP. Equine-man (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It seemed like that was going to be the case, (as they had rapidly proved themselves to be intent on pushing their POV with a large stick) but they have now shut up, for a bit. Maybe getting a level 4 for their latest edit, followed by the deletion of that and moving it to AIV got the message across that they should probably stop. I can't exactly continue to AGF when they have used an f-bomb loaded edit summary like that one. I would like to WP:RPP due to the persistent disruption on the page. Almost every edit when unprotected is either an IP adding POV rubbish, or someone reverting said rubbish. I would recommend indef protection, due to the fact that it either stops or slows greatly when protected, with no loss of positive contributions, but resumes as soon as protection is lifted, and it has been protected five times now. Strictly speaking though my comment was inaccurate, so I have struck it. Mako001 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree those short protection periods seem inadequate for this kind of article; I've semi'd it for a year. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 14 November 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 edits; attempts to disclose purported real-life identity

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 my (sourced) edits on topics related to the Romanian far-right, recently created User:Danielbughi999 engaged in a pattern of subtle yet disruptive edits. He/she/they repeatedly refereed to me as "Bogdan" (a common Romanian first name) and left me an invitation to join the Inteligence Task Force[286]. Since the account has so far been used exclusively to stalk my edits, I basically see this as a way of subtly sending the message "we know who you are, we have our eyes on". While I'm in no way intimidated I saw fit to report this. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Scrubbed and shown the door. El_C 13:23, 14 November 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.

Wiki-Libre oficial: vandalizing pages related to Spain in the Americas with plausible-looking hooey.

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.

---

Brand new editor Wiki-Libre oficial (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles related to Spain in the Americas with plausible-looking hooey which doesn't check out. Also knows almost nothing about wiki-editing, does things like inserting fake citation-numbers using text superscripting. I reverted a couple, after researching them, but they were reverted back. -- M.boli (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This does look like some combination of vandalism or nationalist POV pushing, plus their username likely violates WP:MISLEADNAME. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:20, 14 November 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 conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries

Bluefin9 and IP vandals repeatedly removing content from article and refuse to come to any resolution despite proposal to debate the conflict on talk page. I've tried to reach out to user's talk page with no avail. Similar issue was also brought up by other IP editor but was dismissed by Spencer. Possible alt accounts. Editor refuses to come to any resolution with disputed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — BlueGhast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To provide additional context, the removed content includes links to hate sites associated with the Joy of Satan group, full of antisemitic rants and quotes from false sources such as the Elders of Zion. User above insists that these are meant for further research, but they appear to be using the page for recruitment purposes. --Bluefin9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I should state that editor is blanking entire section, including official site, under an emotional conviction. There are some I can understand and was willing to work with, but some are integral to the article. The links are intended to provide readers further research into understanding the controversial religious groups ideology, as well as its influence in the development of the theistic Satanist scene. BlueGhast (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of those links to be appropriate per WP:EL. Woodroar (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

How so? I do not see why the official website would not be appropriate to the least. As well as its secondary official web page. The BFS site is the organization's official webpage for providing readers an understanding of their cultural reinterpretation of the ideology. The odysee link is also the organizations media platform. BlueGhast (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the talk page really, not this noticeboard, but FWIW: we tend not to include multiple sites for organisations like this. A single link to their official website would probably be permissible (I note this is already done from the infobox), but we don't need their media platforms or social media sites, etc. This is covered at WP:EL, and at WP:ELNO. The removals appear to be valid, and are certainly not vandalism. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Very well, EL section will only include official link. BlueGhast (talk)

We already link to the site in the infobox, so we don't need a second link. Note that we don't put a second link at Stormfront (website), for example. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but I do not understand the point of keeping the EL section then. I also do not understand why some other religious articles implement this as well.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple

Care to explain? BlueGhast (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The external links section is useful for official links that aren't already in the infobox (or if there is no infobox), ELYES-appropriate links, etc. It's probably overkill to put official links in the EL sections of those other articles. At the same time, I'm not sure those other links are actively harmful, unlike a group with ties to National Socialism. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I should've said foremost, those links were added there due to a conflict with another editor over what the official site link under the infobox should be. The organization has quite a lot of official webpages for some reason but most notably are SIG and SL. Would it be okay to add the Satan's Library webpage then? It's a multilingual repository of the organization's religious sermons and material produced over the years and only very loosely ties with any major controversial issues. Also, is there any official policy on wikipedia to inform editors on content that is "actively harmful" BlueGhast (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The library already is linked from their official website, so WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says no. Woodroar (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This whole article is a mess. Unreliable sources, vanity press books, pseudo-academic journals from non-profits, primary sources, a Master's thesis that's not widely cited by other scholars, etc. A doctoral thesis is cited throughout the article but many of those citations are the author giving examples of primary sources or listing organizations, not his own opinion. Meanwhile, academic database searches like JSTOR and Google News return plenty of sources on "Joy of Satan" but none of them are used, which suggests serious POV issues. Woodroar (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, that leaves us with the JoS's secondary official website "Satanisgod.org" webpage which kinda serves as the organizations table of contents for users to navigate their various websites. This is also the link that I was having a conflict with other user who made me put them in the EL section. I think this would be more appropriate to the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The search bar at their main site link to and searches that site. Also, keep in mind that we're not here to serve as a directory to all of their sites. Our "job" on Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about Joy of Satan Ministries, not be their mouthpiece. Woodroar (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I know this. But we must also provide readers the adequate material for further research should they desire. BlueGhast (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to make the most of the scarce amount of sources available, but I understand the article needs further work. I've tried reaching out on article talk page for more input and how to maintain a neutral pov, as I always do. BlueGhast (talk)BlueGhast

Also, article has passed review multiple times. The original article was also brought back from deletion by Liz after proving article had adequate credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Joy of Satan Ministries, this was a procedural restore, not a stamp of approval by Liz. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your first step to resolve content disputes shouldn't be ANI. Since you're both new you should get a pass, but in the future, you should try resolving these kinds of dispute via other methods that do not require an admin to get involved. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides a list of ways to resolve disputes like this one. Once you get to this level of argument with more than two editors, the solution isn't to WP:EDITWAR but to start something called a WP:RFC on the talk page. This is a great way of resolving disputes, and will notify randomly chosen editors to either support or oppose a proposal you have. In this case, you might start an RfC with the template {{rfc|reli}} to indicate an RfC about religion. Then, you add a neutrally worded proposal below the template, such as "should we include external links to the Joy of Satan Ministries and other related organizations outside of the infobox?" After that, you can do something called a "!vote" where you explain your position on the issue and suggest what should be done, by either !voting support or oppose. Then, after 30 days (or earlier if the consensus becomes clear) the RfC will be finished; you can ask for it to be "closed" by an uninvolved editor at WP:CL, although most RfCs are much clearer in what needs to be done. I've gone ahead and set up an RfC for you on the talk page so you can see how it's done; please discuss the actual content issues there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies, meant to link WP:RFCL in the original point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrator with civility issues

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:Drmies seems to have a problem with communicating in a civil manner. Over the last few weeks I have seen the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=1055559885 "I would greatly appreciate it if you could try to be a little less fucking patronizing (profanity intended)"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=1055477060 "Honestly, right now I don't give a flying fuck about what you think"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eplee&diff=prev&oldid=1055287849 "Seriously, fuck off"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eplee&diff=prev&oldid=1055287675 "Oh fuck off"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=1054780181 "Fucker disrespected Saban and Sewell"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=1051204910 "There's a million fucking things in the world that are much more important than any of this will ever be"

I don't find this appropriate from any user, and from an administrator I think it is not acceptable at all. It suggests to me a lack of judgement and self-control. So, I am bringing it to your attention.

I am not able to notify them directly as their talk page is protected. 109.144.25.206 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I notified them.VR _talk 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I expect this will not go the way you're hoping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies is a great admin who does the thankless job of dealing with very problematic users on wikipedia. The use of "fuck" is common in American English and is routinely used by wikipedians especially upon encountering total nonsense behavior.VR _talk 13:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• The use of "fuck" for emphasis is certainly less than ideal, but certainly not a sanctionable thing. I have done it from time-to-time in a moment of frustration, though I often regret it as it is usually not useful in the end. I would recommend to Drmies to perhaps consider that the use of the word fuck will tend to escalate, rather than reduce, conflict, and should possibly temper their use of it when interacting on a regular basis. Otherwise, I don't see anything sanctionable. Just advice that it really isn't a useful way to build a collaborative environment, nor does it actually encourage people who are doing the wrong thing to change what they are doing.--Jayron32 13:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Very much agree with this. I am not among the good nor the great of Wikipedia, but I feel compelled to weigh in. Is Drmies acting suboptimally here? I think so. Do I wish he would try to choose his words a bit more carefully? I do. Do I think he deserves any sort of sanction? I do not. Cheers, all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I guess some of this was suboptimal--if this is all it managed to prompt. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• First two are needlessly hostile, others meh. Levivich 14:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I know we all have bad days; I've told a sock of Vote (X) for Change to fuck off at least once, though at least telling a well-known long-term abuse case and sock master to go and do one is less of a WP:CIVIL / WP:BITE issue. Even so, can you just, like, you know, chill out a bit? I appreciate taking diffs completely out of context isn't helpful, but the above looks like the start of a million and one "Request for indefinite block of Eric Corbett for violating WP:CIVIL" threads that haunt the archives of this very board, that get so long that ANI almost collapses under the weight of them. I think the bone of contention with Tol is distinguishing "enslaved person" over "slave", so let's talk about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I get a bit angry when people just waltz over that "slave" language as if it's just words. It's more than a bit privileged, and the irony of us talking about words here is heavy. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm always bemused at how easy it is to successfully concern troll on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Which is ironic as the OP in this section is almost certainly a V(X)FC sock as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Just checked. You're probably not wrong. --Jayron32 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• For what? For what? El_C 15:18, 19 November 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.

Politanvm user Editing List of mudaliar even after reference was provided with vested interest

Politanvm Editing List of mudaliar even after reference was provided with vested interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakthiG1977 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@SakthiG1977, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I’ve left a message on your talk page explaining my edit. Another user left you a similar message a month ago. Politanvm ^talk 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning at Hogan AfD and DRV

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.

---

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-mobile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Herostratus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DRV for Hogan ended with relist with the comment No consensus, but relisted. Opinions are about evenly split between endorse and relist. I'm discounting the opinion of the appellant, Supermann, because their 24(!) contributions to this DRV have been disruptive. Responding to any and all views one disagrees with needlessly extends and complicates a discussion, see WP:BLUDGEON. Because of the walls of text, any good arguments on either side are not easily discerned and I'll have to do with the headcount. Given that we have no consensus here, I as DRV closer can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so because the discussion was relatively short and not previously relisted. It is therefore possible that a relisting might result in a clearer consensus by DRV closer Sandstein at Special:Diff/1055526045. Following the relist it looked highly likely WP:BLUDGEONing were likely to continue, additionally the formatting was making it difficult to determine who was saying what and a bolded comment from Herostratus looking like a double !vote (The first wasn't a correct formal !vote but at a minimum orginal formatting was unclear and disruptive). I rightly or wrongly called for a stop at Special:Diff/1055666204. Matters seemed to improve (at least for now) but Herostratus has challenged me with Hey, don't threaten people with ANI. Either open a case or keep quiet. ANI is not for waving around to frighten other editors with empty threats. That's just really insulting and inflammatory. It's not a good way to move discussions like this forward in a calm manner, I don't think.. I like to think I don't do idle threats but state my genuine intentions, so here I am, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I am somewhat also mindful of this edit Special:Diff/1055097347 at the DRV which at least on first glance seemed to attack several admins, and while I've glossed over it at the talk page I feel a little uneasy about it (if I re-read it very very carefully its maybe not quite as bad as I thought but it certainly resulted in BusterD having to give a detailed explanation). My feeling is Hogan is likely just notable and deserved of the article: bringing this here will likely attract towards its deletion and possibly a boomerang on myself. Hopefully the AfD can run its course without BLUDGEONing and VAGUEWAVE, and this ANI thread will simply close. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Would you like to -- concisely -- state exactly what your issue is, and what you are looking to see done here? Ravenswing 12:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing. But like terminator Arnie if issues continue I'll be back. Object is to curb seeminlgy problematic behavior. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:53, 17 November 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.

Reconsideration of Block

I was blocked on 10th November, 2021. The block was because of a copyright violation. I have thoroughly read the Copyright Policies. I did not have a proper knowledge about the copyright policies prior violating but now after reading the policies once again, I clearly understood the importance of creative writing and the consequences of copyright violations. I totally regret my violations now. I will surely change from now, seeking more information from independent sources and writing them in my own way. I agree that I had made a huge mistake by copying copyrighted content. It's quite clear to me now how to handle copyrighted material. I would highly appreciate getting an unban which would help me continue my Wikipedia journey and I promise that I would never violate the copyright policies and always take a detailed look at all of my edits to prevent any further errors. I deeply regret my actions now. I am requesting for a single chance to correct myself. I acknowledge that the paragraphs were intentionally copied from a website as they were accurate, unknowing of the facts of the strict copyright policies of Wikipedia. This kind of breach of trust will never be done again as I have clearly realised my mistakes. Please give me another chance under the Wikipedia ROPE policy and if I do any mistakes regarding copyright, you can permanently block me. A single chance would be highly appreciated. This is the first time for me getting a block and I had never shown any kind of bad faith in Wikipedia before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2006nishan178713 User:2006nishan178713 14:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@2006nishan178713:You have an active unblock request on your talk page and 16 minutes after you put an {{Admin help}} template on your TP you posted this request here. WP:Forumshopping will probably make it harder for you to appeal your block. You were told to be patient and you keep pushing it. Judging from some of the comments on your TP, especially that you appeared to notice that a bot had flagged [your] article for potential copyvio, [you] logged into the copyright patrolling interface, and marked [your] own article as "no action needed"[287], this isn't really something you can just apologize for and move on. You need to keep this conversation centralized on your TP and wait for an admin to answer your unblock request. Courtesy pings to the admins who are active on your TP: @331dot, ToBeFree, and Moneytrees:. This should probably be closed before you dig a deeper hole & end up fully blocked from WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this as forumshopping as much as advertising. They are asking the same group of people for the same action, not seeking a different result in a different forum. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but even after repeated pings to the concerned administrators, no review was done

Thanks! User:2006nishan178713 11:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Imagine the chaos if every blocked user created such a thread because their block review takes longer than a week. Perhaps Moneytrees should just have chosen the classical site-wide block option; partial blocks from the Article and Draft namespace evidently keep too many ways of disruption available. See CAT:RFU for the current list including some review durations, compare it to yours and please continue waiting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree You're right, I didn't predict the level of disruption that would result. Usually, users partially blocked for copyvio don't go everywhere trying to appeal. @2006nishan178713 If you continue this sort of behavior, me or another administrator will convert your block to a full one. As ToBeFree says, please wait. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Complaint concerning Sarah-Lee Heinrich's article

Context:

Sarah-Lee Heinrich, a German politician made several racist remarks. e.g. When she was an adult she called German society a "disgustingly white majority". This was reported by various German newspaper, including Welt.de ( https://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/plus234372910/Parteinachwuchs-Eklige-weisse-Mehrheitsgesellschaft-Die-Gruene-Jugend-und-ihr-Deutschlandbild.html )

Incident:

After I've added this information to the article about Heinrich the user User:TheRandomIP removed the information multiple times. When I tried to contact TheRandomIP on their talk page, they reverted the message and kept reverting the article.

A few hours ago User:ToBeFree joined TheRandomIP and reverted the article, then locked the article. When I tried to communicate with ToBeFree on their talk page, they reverted my message.

This appears highly dubious to me and I believe TheRandomIP and ToBeFree are politically motivated to defend the politician's reputation, despite wide criticism in the German press.

I am not sure how to proceed from here as I feel that Wikipedia is being abused by them for political purposes and direct communication is not possible, when messages are ignored and reverted. I do not believe that Wikipedia is intended to sweep widely reported hateful speech of racist politicians under the rug and this kind of political censorship goes against the values of Wikipedia.

I am very disappointed that ToBeFree has abused their position of power to side with the politically motivated, bad faith actor TheRandomIP and helped them to do damage control for a politician, who conducted racist hate speech. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a propaganda tool to defend racist politicians. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you've abused this noticeboard to cast aspersions of political motivations against other editors, without having made any attempt to gain consensus for your edits on the article talkpage. You appear to have a strong POV that you're trying to insert into the article - you will need to gain consensus. I note that TheRandom IP suggested and implemented wording that had been included by consensus on dewiki, which you've ignored. Shrill accusations of political manipulation like those above will not gain much sympathy at ANI. I've revised the heading on this section to something less shouty, and warned you for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion that the IP needs to tone things down considerably. That said, it was unhelpful for ToBeFree to remove the entire paragraph in question and then also protect the page. That's crossing the streams a bit, and the article had been stable for a week prior to the current dispute. No one disagrees on mentioning the incident; removing it entirely confuses the nature of the dispute. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatives to protecting the page (and returning it to the status quo) would have been blocking at least one IP range and another IP address for edit warring, so I think it's a good compromise. WP:BRD is a good guide. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion How is it a strong POV, when it is exactly what welt.de (one of the major newspapers in Germany) reported? Also I'm not sure how repeatedly removing the racist hate speech by Sarah-Lee Heinrich from her article (despite being reported on) can be interpreted differently than "politically motivated".

Lastly the discussion in the German Wiki was mostly concerned with Sarah-Lee Heinrich's racist Tweets as a teenager and her "disgustingly white majority" comment (which she made as an adult) was only added as a sidenote that wasn't covered by the discussion about her teenager Tweets.

I'm not sure why exactly the politician gets special treatment and sweeping hate speech under the rug is being tolerated. Heinrich is a person of public interest (politician and Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend of the Grüne Party), she made racist hate speech many times, this was reported widely in Germany.

So why exactly is this information excluded from Wikipedia? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is your POV that I'm referring to - you have a strong agenda that seems to have caused you to focus on denigration of the article's subject. That's not good. I agree with Mackensen that removing the section and protecting was not appropriate. I can see a rationale for the protection, but I have reservations about removal in the entirety by the same admin. One or the other, but not both. Except for that, this is a content dispute that belongs on the article talkpage, not at ANI. We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection, but we will not tolerate aspersions of political bias in the meantime, or score-settling. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection"

Fair enough.

Just as an additional information: The article used to include the "disgustingly white majority" part ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah-Lee_Heinrich&oldid=1051761722 ), before TheRandomIP made 7 edits in quick succession, which removed the section. So I'm not sure why it is suggested to block me, when TheRandomIP started the situation. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by "denigration of the article's subject. That's not good."

How would you phrase it then, except calling her comments racist hate speech and her a racist? (Especially as she repeatedly made racist remarks in the past)

--94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article started as a horrible BLP violation which took what looks like an opinion piece and turned it into "objective" phrasing in Wikipedia's voice. TheRandomIP needs to be commended for starting to turn that awful thing into a real article. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm plowing my way through the article, slowly; the IP could have been blocked already for a BLP violation in this edit summary, which makes me wonder if this is the same person--this is the IP who first introduced the content. The real question is whether we are going to argue whether an admin was too heavy-handed--or whether an admin did exactly what needed to be done in order to prevent the "orchestrated shitstorm" from being continued on our Wikipedia. And what did ToBeFree do? Remove content for which there was no consensus, content that clearly had BLP-related problems, and semi-protect the article in order to prevent a series of IPs from reintroducing that content. What TheRandomIP should have done, of course, is loudly cry "BLP" in the edit summaries--but they don't have a lot of experience on the English wiki and we shouldn't fault them for that. ToBeFree deserves a beer/barnstar, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If somebody edited Trump's article multiple times and at the end the "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists" tweet simply disappeared and Trump was solely portrayed as a blameless victim of a hateful shitstorm, would it be equally commendable? Would you advocate to block the person, who included the information? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your POV, encapsulated in that edit summary, is highly problematic. In general, we extend considerable discretion to editors and admins on matters of BLP, which is what I see in the removal and protection in the face of your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is "highly problematic"? She made racist comments (not only the "disgustingly white majority" one). How is it problematic to call her comments racist, when the comments are racist - or her a racist, when she repeatedly makes racist remarks?

How is it POV or problematic? To me it's simply factual. I would really appreciate an explanation as I do not fully understand your criticism of what I did. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You are interpreting that as "racist," rather than as a (badly stated) complaint about disproportionate representation by a dominant group, and are trying to insert your interpretation into a BLP. It's the kind of bad-faith application of assumed symmetry to a complaint about asymmetrical power that is in vogue nowadays. See the brouhaha concerning critical race theory in the U.S. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What Acroterion said. So you don't fully understand the criticism? You don't get that your words do not reflect a factual situation but only your interpretation of some facts? You don't see that that article does not' reflect that she is "solely portrayed as a blameless victim"? Then at best you do not have the competence to edits BLPs and sensitive matters--at worst, of course, you're pulling us into the shitstorm. Either way, the real surprise here is that you haven't been blocked yet. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do the WP:BEFORE, but this seems like the type of article where possible BLP issues are best handled at AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for this discussion if someone could state what they think the BLP issues are, either here or on the article talk page. Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself and they're being removed, but I'm not seeing it in the content revisions themselves. If folks think this is a WP:BLP1E situation then fine, but then the article should go to AfD. In its current form, there's no assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself"

What exactly is problematic? I would appreciate an explanation of what exactly you find wrong.

AFD: Sarah-Lee Heinrich is a German politician and the Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend. Also she is is in various interviews by big media outlets in Germany (e.g. ZDFheute, SWR, Sat1). I think a politician who is so public, controversial and in such a position of power should get an article.

--94.31.105.144 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To me it is clear what happened here: In the German Wikipedia we almost unanimously decided to describe this event in a certain way also with respect to personality rights. But a few people (a small minority) wanted to have a "harsher" formulation and wanted to include details we didn't find appropriate to include. Then they just took this to the English Wikipedia, wrote a puny article just to include what was rejected in German Wikipedia, hoping that no one will notice. That was the only purpose of this article. This is a pattern I sometimes observed also in the past, and maybe it would be worth to discuss how do you normally deal with such articles? --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is safe to ignore all crosswiki concerns in this case. There was an AIV report about the edit war, the report was removed after 5.6 hours, I've noticed the removal and chose to have a look beyond "This noticeboard is for reporting obvious vandalism and spam only". Two editors, one of them without an account, were fighting over the content of a BLP. There was zero talk page discussion, so I enforced talk page discussion to happen. As I had a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, I removed the disputed content (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL) for now. As the neutrality of the resulting revision was likely to be challenged (QED), I also added {{POV}}, which has a perfect text for this situation: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." End of the story.

The best way to deal with the situation is to find a consensus on the talk page of the article. We have noticeboards such as WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN for neutrally inviting editors to an ongoing discussion. There is an entire policy dedicated to dispute resolution at WP:DR. Specifically, the following steps are not part of a good dispute resolution:

• Accusing disagreeing editors of intentionally damaging the encyclopedia ("vandalism");
• Avoiding a central discussion on the article talk page by misusing user talk pages for content discussion;
• Escalating the conflict to ANI before even using the article's talk page;
• Accusing others of misbehavior instead of focusing on the content.

The actual hero here is Mackensen, who took the time to start a proper talk page discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. Those interested in finding a consensus about the article's content should join it!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I brought it to ANI because you sided with somebody who started an edit war and used your position to lock the article. This is why my complaint is about you and TheRandomIP in ANI and not a discussion regarding an edit war in the appropriate notice board. --2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:64B0:DE51:9847:D940 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't side with anyone. Two people fought over the wording of a paragraph, so I removed it entirely instead of protecting a specific version of the paragraph. Three (!) policies supporting this approach are described above: The protection policy, the verifiability policy and the BLP policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

TheRandomIP wanted to remove criticism of Sarah-Lee Heinrich racist comments from the article. I wanted to keep the criticism. You removed the section, which did exactly what TheRandomIP wanted i.e. removing the criticism. I call it siding with TheRandomIP. If you simply wanted to stop the editwar (which was started by TheRandomIP) you could have locked the article, but leave the information as it was before TheRandomIP removed it.--2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:CEA:6715:4D7C:6EFC (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This was not an option: The neutrality of the content "as it was before" has been disputed, so protecting the page without removing the content would have been incompatible with the policies described above. It may usually be possible to restore a "pre-edit-war revision", but this doesn't work if the article's initial neutrality is under discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• No comments on the user here but would a sysop be able to revdel the borderline attacks in the article history? (I'm not sure if it's technically possible to delete the first revision.)—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• I was in a way sorry to see Acroterion blocked 2603:9001:301:3600::/64 for three days, three days ago, for BLP vios. I was going to block both that IPv6 range and 94.31.105.144 (obviously used by the same individual) for a month for the same thing, as I find their conduct outrageous, with the hypocrisy and bad-faith arguments, as well as seriously concerning for the BLP subject we need to protect. But I guess that would be double jeopardy. Bishonen | tålk 15:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC).
  • If you think a longer term is needed, I'm fine with a longer block. I based the length on the relatively short tenure of their contributions, and figured they'd move on to something else that we'd have to block again. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Acroterion: When I posted above, they hadn't edited since your block, so it seemed most correct to leave well enough alone. But now they have, and in just the same way as before, with an attack on you as extra spice. I've blocked both the IPv6 range and the single IPv4 for a month for violations of the Biographies of living persons policy. I'm also offended by their hypocrisy and bad faith, but those are not what I'm blocking for. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC).
      • How nice - the business about fascism is indeed a fine garnish of hypocrisy, given what they're complaining about. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Anwar Shah Orakzai

An admin might want to review this article, the IPs on it, history, seems the IPs are up to no good, #sockpuppets? Govvy (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted yet again and Creation protected indefinitely. El_C 13:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheers El_C. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

71.67.236.114

71.67.236.114 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This IP user has been spending the month of November removing maintenance templates from articles without giving any explanation. Gave them a last warning yesterday [288], but this morning they were back at it [289]. I suggest a preventive block in order to prevent further damage. JBchrch talk 18:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from article space 1 month to see if we can get them to a talk page. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Juli4ana 4gui4r does not communicate despite pings and user talk page messages

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.

---

• Juli4ana 4gui4r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user added about 8,000 bytes of (what I would consider to be) trivia to the article Space Jam: A New Legacy.[290] The insertion was reverted by another editor on the basis that it was overly detailed. Juli4ana 4gui4r reverted the revert.[291] I reverted back with a note in the edit summary asking them to join in a conversation that I opened on the talk page.[292]

The user did not engage on the talk page and reverted back have been continuing to add more detail to the list, despite three pings from myself [293][294][295]. I also left a talk page message on Juli4ana 4gui4r's user talk page in case they had pings disabled.[296] Even after the talk page message, they continued to edit the article without acknowledging the talk page discussion.

This user's edits are not tagged as being from a mobile device so I don't think it's a mobile notification bug problem. Perhaps they are just unable or unwilling to engage in discussion. I am requesting a block until they show they are willing to communicate with other users. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Still going, reverting other editors without communication. Request a page block to try and force the editor to communicate. Slywriter (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:41, 18 November 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:OWN and accusations of racism by Vhubbard/SConner252 and KMcstevenson

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.

---

Vhubbard, recently renamed SConner252, is a SPA dedicated to the article of author Emunah La-Paz , whos real name is Vicki L. Hubbard. Since the article has been nominated for deletion, the account, alongside possible sock KMcstevenson, has engaged in increasingly disruptive editing in futile attempts to stop the deletion going through, this includes KMcstevenson baselessy accusing Wikipedia users of engaging in racial profiling for attempting to delete the article, Vhubbard/SConner252 claiming that she has special permission to stop page deletion, when she does not Vhubbard/SConner252 removing the AfD notice for an ongoing AfD. Can this be dealt with. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As noted at the AfD, there is an open SPI. I've removed the disruptive comments at the AfD. I've also indeffed KMcstevenson for disruption. I'm tempted to do the same for Sconnor252, but so far have not.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Indeffing Sconnor252 would be a difficult decision, but I think WP:ROPE is probably there. The accusations of racism and the weird threats in the material you have removed seem to me to tip the scales against them. But that is why you are an admin with difficult decisions available to you, and why I choose not to be one.

The SPI is on hold for training. I'm not sure I envy the editor under training for this one Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

However, Bbb23, see this diff Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For anybody who cannot be bothered to click the link, it shows that Vhubbard was autoblocked due to sharing the same IP address as the now blocked KMcstevenson. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding Vhubbard/SConner252's originally malformed response below. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Racial harassment. This is supposed to a help forum however the work put into this article, is being deleted. There is no reason to do so. There are egos involved instead of humility. Your intent to remove files indicating copyright violations. Your intent to discredit this article that has been researched for years, is wrong. And it’s because you can’t have your way. Limiting the amount of African American Articles on Wikipedia. So you delete the entire articles full of facts and information. And that abide by the guidelines. M @Bbb23 disruptive edits? How is adding facts disruptive. Adding facts, to an article that you and @Hemiauchenia @ Timtrent and others that have been mentioned in my racially profiling report. Request received] - 33426 Racial discrimination and ongoing harassment. I have no problem with allowing others to edit this article, yet deleting the entire article and erasing facts, is vandalism and harassment. You have no right to delete an article without contributing what you are supposed to do. And deleting the contributions of others. This is in fact witch hunt racially fueled and motivated and I have proof. I have recorded the number of times that I have asked that the article not be tampered with and deleted 5 times it has been removed. Beforehand, the entire article deleted twice. This situation has reported to the fullest.° — Preceding unsigned comment added by SConner252 (talk • contribs)

Please be very clear, SConner252, nothing of any description in my interactions with you nor with the article, nor in any reports I have made, have anything whatsoever to do with race. I do, however, take grave offence at accusations of racism, and some implied threat of a "racial profiling report". Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. No, you don't get to accuse people of racism (not to mention vandalism and harrassment), and "This situation has reported to the fullest" and a "racial profiling report" sounds very much like a threat to me. Which isn't happening either. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 18 November 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 Behaviour, Multiple Threats, Filing False Reports, Canvassing, Racism and POV pushing

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.

---

• Echo1Charlie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, several editors on Wikipedia are having multiple problems with a highly problematic user and we are at a point where administrative action is now required. These problems have lasted several days—and after having assumed good faith—we are all at the end of our ropes. Echo1Charlie has been exhibiting a history of multiple problematic behavioural issues when it comes to not listening to consensus (often disruptively going around and around in circles without refusing to actually listen to others, and then issuing false threats when this doesn't work). He also has a history of filing false reports in an effort to mislead others (particularly administrators) in an attempt to push POV. Users have engaged with him on the talk pages of the articles of concern, but he absolutely refuses to listen to consensus simply because he is not getting his way. He is additionally attempting to push POV through WP:CANVASSING now (yet again) through multiple avenues across Wikipedia, despite having been warned not to do so. Furthermore, and now more worryingly, is that he is now bringing race and ethnicity into the matter in a poor attempt to whip up racial and ethnic conflict to try and discredit the users who have been so patient with him and who have been trying to reach consensus with him. He is now clearly accusing me and another editor (Cipher21) of being Pakistanis simply because we disagree with him (I do not know the ethnic background of the other user, nor of Echo1Charlie, and I find it absolutely ridiculous and insulting that he is even attempting to brand me with an ethnicity I do not belong to). At this point he is being nothing but disruptive to the project, and thus some urgent help would be appreciated.

—NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: Who, exactly, is "we"?

A brief review of the diffs does not show any immediate issues other than content dispute and assumptions of bad faith. I don't see any false reports or threats. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

At a glance I'd say make sure everyone involved is aware of WP:ARBIPA and they can take it to WP:AE if there persistent problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dropped a notice on the OP since their last one was over a year ago, other party received one a few months ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir The other editor is Cipher21. As to the threats, Echo1Charlie has unnecessarily been aggressive and uncivil throughout. Immediately after having had a content dispute he issued me with this (a "final" warning threatening to block me, accusing me of vandalism—when my edits were anything but—additionally, he had issued this first and only warning to me; which was pretty unnecessarily aggressive) despite himself engaging in WP:3RR violations across two articles over the same issue despite me showing evidence I was originally first and foremost taking the dispute to the talk pages to reach consensus with him. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just re-iterate what I've already said: You are all aware of WP:ARBIPA, so this should go to arbitration enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have redirected the issues there as stated. Thank you. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:13, 18 November 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.

Color Me Badd

• Color Me Badd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I bring this to administrator attention as I feel the issue is too sensitive for me to deal with alone.

At the start of May of this year, Bryan Abrams, the lead singer of this band, sent me a direct message through my personal Twitter account asking me to make certain corrective edits to the CMB band article to highlight him over the rest of the band, which was lengthy and which I won't detail here, since I had edited the article often (mainly to restore numbers after trolls reduced their album sales to an absurdly low number; the "-,000" joke we all know). As the subject had a BLP issue involving a performance going south a couple years ago to some public attention, I was leery of accepting their request and editing to their satisfaction. Suffice to say, I decided not to acknowledge the message at all after asking for advice through a help-me talk page request. They did not further DM me, and I considered the matter closed.

This morning, a new account, Epithelialcortex (talk · contribs), popped up on the CMB article, where the new editor made a claim that a singer hired to take Abrams's place during a personal health hiatus was not an official member of the band. The editor claimed that the singer was merely a 'contractor', which is not a term ever used for a performer in the music business and removed the subject's name under that claim. I don't know how to proceed from here, as reverting the edit as unsourced will likely anger that editor, and I have no intention of entering an edit war with them, as this opens up a BLP bird nest. I will notify per ANI rules. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You might post this to WP:COIN too. Leijurv (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Jelling" usernames

"Jelling" usernames follow a pattern: Every single one of them has a spelled-out number at the end, the most recent one being "Jellingsixty". If the pattern continues, then we would likely see "Jellingsixtyone", "Jellingsixtytwo", "Jellingsixtynine", "Jellingseventy", "Jellingeighty", "Jellingninety", "Jellingninetynine", and "Jellingonehundred" being created over the next several months. I have tried requesting "Jelling" usernames to be added to the blacklist on Meta, but the request was declined. So, how else could we deal with this disruption? A bot creating a new "Jelling" account every day and immediately blocking it is clearly not worth it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jellington. It's underpopulated. Narky Blert (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Without seeing this thread, I would be quick to block "Jellingsixtynine" at the slightest trace of bad editing. Especially if they throw "420" into the mix. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellington has a WP:DENY warning against tagging socks. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User Wallyfromdilbert Mutual antagonism escalating

I am not going to claim that I am faultless here and I don't have a great understanding of Wiki policy. The user Wallyfromdilbert and I have been edit-warring on the page for the film Child's Play (2019) He keeps referring to the title as 'name' even though the more proper and generally used term would be 'title.' When I did ask him for the justification for this he cites the fact that a handful of users on the talk page agreed with him even though this was mostly users who happened to be online at the time of our initial conflict over two years ago. I did not understand that any group of random users at a specific time gets to permanently determine what term should be used. Do we just vote on terms? When I asked "wallyfromdilbert" for the specific policy his response was to start intentionally and with clear ill-intent started to revert my edits on pages he had previously had no involvement with. Given this and his anal-retentive behavior in general regarding the term "name", I can not reasonably expect this clearly warped person to act in good faith. I did respond to him with anger and spite, unfortunately. I am requesting a remedy here and hoping that you will not block me. I will not engage in such behavior in the future but this person's response and level of antagonism did get the best of me. (Sellpink (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC))

Note OP's personal attack at User talk:Wallyfromdilbert: And clearly having a severe mental illness and no life to speak of beyond living for Wiki drama. I feel sad for you, you are so pathetic! Schazjmd (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sellpink is also pledging to sock if banned: I will continue to change the term even if I am banned under other accounts until someone other than you becomes involved. Schazjmd (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I admit I responded in the heat of the moment. That is not seriously anything I would do. (Sellpink (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC))

Why in the world would you lose your cool over something like this? To recap, it sounds like a mundane content dispute where one side resorted to highly inappropriate personal attacks. I can't see any other result than a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I felt he was being passively aggressively antagonist towards me and could have addressed it differently. He is antagonistic. After he whined about how I was going on the page and without consensus changing the term he does the EXACT same thing to my entry on 'Fiddler on The Roof' and that was clearly not a good faith action on his part. Does he get no blowback for that? If am I for doing the same thing, should he also be called to task here? (Sellpink (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC))

You may have lost the community's trust, though. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to say, as you've offered zero evidence or examples, but I can't see how any level of "passive-aggressiveness is as remotely as bad as your blatantly aggressive name-calling. And the fact that you attempted to report them. Ridiculous. What a complete lack of awareness. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sellpink, you really need to read WP:NPA. Just in your posts here, you've said "anal-retentive behavior", "this clearly warped person", "passively aggressively antagonist", "antagonistic", not to mention your aspersions on his talk page.

It's interesting that you reported another editor over two years ago for the same situation on the same article. At that time, you did not get consensus for your change in the discussion over the term on the article's talk page, yet you haven't started a new discussion to change the consensus.

I haven't been able to find anything inappropriate in Wallyfromdilbert's comments. Do you have any diffs? Schazjmd (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Title" and "name" are synonyms in the context of the official appellation of a film (or movie) or any other creative work. For well over 2-1/2 years, Sellpink has been riding a hobbyhorse hard over this utterly trivial and imagined distinction, and the current argument involves a slasher film. From the saddle of their hobby horse, this editor has deployed severe personal attacks against anyone who objects to their deeply idiosyncratic view. I propose a topic ban for Sellpink preventing them from any edits having to do with "title" or "name", broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the general proposition that works have titles and people have names, but it's certainly not a significant enough distinction to make a crusade of changing existing usage in articles. I would support having an RfC on the topic, but I agree that Sellpink's specific conduct warrants a topic ban (which would also exclude them from such a discussion). BD2412 T 02:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

From the saddle of another horse:-

“The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”

“Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.

“No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”

“Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.

“No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways and Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”

“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’”

A completely logical set of distinctions, unlike the one posited by OP. Narky Blert (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sellpink, I would suggest you request to withdraw this complaint and state that you are voluntarily withdrawing from the topic. Else this is almost certainly going to boomerang into some type of involuntary restrictions. Springee (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• I just want to note that I find it very disturbing that at the exact same time Sellpink left those deeply offensive comments on my talk page, I also received notifications for "multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Sellpink is not a rookie here, has had many edits over several years, and has been at ANI and in edit disputes before: he has zero excuse for not knowing what WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA require of him. Language such as "clearly warped person" in the damn ANI complaint is unacceptable. I would absolutely Support a ban on Sellpink such as User:Cullen328 suggests -- how about an indefinite interaction ban with Wallyfromdilbert and an indefinite topic ban from the Child's Play (2019 film) article, along with a warning that any more acting out "in the heat of the moment" or otherwise will result in a more general block? Ravenswing 03:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I gave him a final warning on personal attacks earlier today. That said, if someone feels that a block is warranted right away, I don't oppose that either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "And clearly having a severe mental illness and no life to speak of beyond living for Wiki drama. I feel sad for you, you are so pathetic!" is pretty damn egregious. If I had a mop I'd want to hear Sellpink make a very abject apology to Wallyfromdilbert -- as well as a very abject apology to us for daring to complain to ANI after such a vicious crack AND stating that he'd sock if necessary if Wallyfromdilbert didn't kowtow to him -- to dodge a block; an indefinite interaction ban is the least that ought to be done. Ravenswing 08:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support Cullen's suggested topic ban, along with a warning that any aspersions, incivility, or insults to another editor will earn an immediate indef. Schazjmd (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious about the IP User:2601:543:4380:3A10:505B:6B5C:4112:42D8, btw. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TVNATIONALITY violations by many users on a massive scale

I have found that the user MorganPearce (and many other IPs and users) have been committing MOS:TVNATIONALITY violations on an incredibly massive scale to kids' TV show articles. Despite multiple warnings on his talk page, the behavior continues, and a large cleanup is likely needed. Please read this excerpt from MOS:TVNATIONALITY to see what I am talking about:

If singularly defined, it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can reliably be referenced. wizzito | say hello! 04:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Wizzito: Please provide specific diffs of the allegedly disruptive behavior, so that we don't have to find them ourselves. At least you notified this user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 there are a lot of them, here's some examples done by MorganPearce:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wrong_Coast&diff=1053923877&oldid=1047360202
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horrible_Histories_(2001_TV_series)&diff=1051986474&oldid=1049214497
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bing_(TV_series)&diff=1053832851&oldid=1053832695

There are a lot of users besides MorganPearce here making these violating edits, though, and tracking all of them down is pretty hard. Also a lot of these edits were made many months ago and have gone unnoticed until now. I'll try to document this further, now that I know that many IPs and accounts are involved in this. wizzito | say hello! 09:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mind flux

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.

---

Notified

This user, being unable to get his/her way in a talk page debate, has resorted to personal attacks. Specifically:

• your (disturbing and racist) claim
• hey cool cant link to jews. really mysterious motives you guys have
• disgusting racists
• Nazi parasite

Zero^talk 14:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked them for 1 week. They were warned on November 16 about the personal attacks, and have not desisted. --Jayron32 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's lenient. I revdel'd a few of the worse attacks. But why is this user even engaging WP:ARBPIA pages in the first place? They do not have the required EC user right atm. Hmm. El_C 15:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree on the leniency there, I'd have indeffed for those. And as for the rights, the account was created in 2006 which likely has something to do with it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to override me. I'm not a particularly good admin, as I tend to be slow on the banhammer and believe that people can change their behavior through their own choice and effort. If you want to indef him because I can't be trusted to make good decisions (I clearly cannot), then go ahead. Also, feel free to revdel anything you'd like. --Jayron32 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In seriousness, I don't view an Indef as permanent, but as an attention seeking measure. An indef block tells the user that we take this kind of behaviour very seriously and its completely unacceptable, its not a slap on the wrist thing. It just means they need to engage and discuss in order to get their editing rights back, and have to face the behaviour, instead of just going away for a bit and returning with no real engagement incentive to alter said behaviour. This is purely my opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In seriousness, feel free to change my block length. I don't claim any first mover advantage, and if there is consensus that I acted inappropriately, by all means, please fix my mistake. Just because I was first to respond doesn't mean I necessarily did the right thing here. I usually assume I don't do the right thing; as I said I am not a particularly useful admin. I try to be good, but I don't often succeed. --Jayron32 15:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Good talk. El_C 15:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm? --Jayron32 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: was that intended to be dripping with sarcasm, or are you really down on yourself? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of any sarcasm. My administrator actions are open for review, and two other administrators objected. I admitted to my faults, and let them know that I am quite OK with them overriding my initial mistakes and adjusting the block time. I fail to see the humor in my answers here; I'm not sure why you thought that I wasn't serious. Admins should always be open to being wrong, and if I am, I invite correction. --Jayron32 18:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not humor... I wasn't sure whether to interpret the following parts of your message as ironic self-deprecation or as actual self-disparagement, and I was concerned for your well-being. I'm not a particularly good admin + I can't be trusted to make good decisions (I clearly cannot) + I usually assume I don't do the right thing; as I said I am not a particularly useful admin. I try to be good, but I don't often succeed. Since, as you say, you're being serious, then I urge you not to be hard on yourself. I'm quite sure nobody here thinks you're a bad admin. In any case, nobody can be expected to make 100% perfect calls 100% of the time. I personally consider your contributions valuable. ♥ AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. For the record, the others were entirely correct here; given that the user continued their offensive personal attacks on their own talk page after being blocked. Another admin instituted talk page restrictions, and I extended the block to indefinite, my good faith being exhausted at this point. --Jayron32 11:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the response in which the accusation of racism is repeated, would ask that at least an ARBPIA ban be instituted. If that needs to go to AE then fine. nableezy - 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the obnoxious use of emojis... can they please be blocked for longer? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely topic banned Mind flux (talk · contribs) from the PIA area due to the problems discussed above and, in particular, due to their reply to the lenient block notice (see 🖕 + 💩 + 🧠 + 🚽). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 19 November 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.

Jacee215 (Volk Han dispute)

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:Jacee215 (not sure if this person is "for real" or just trolling) and I have been engaged in a draining, over year long (starting September 6th, 2020) back and forth regarding Fighting Network RINGS and Volk Han.

Talk:Volk_Han

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability

It began when Jacee deleted large chunks of information from Volk Han's page that I had to revert manually, with a message at talk page claiming him to be a fake fighter with numbers-based name. I humoured him till he went away. Only for him to return some year later to do it again, this time with Dave Meltzer quote (used out of context) to justify it - and that's when the vicious cycle began. I took the topic to MMA wikiproject, since no clear consensus about the matter has been formed. It's been just him and me with one comment from User:RafaelHP - comparing the situation to one like with Nobuhiko Takada.

I generally agree with consensus that "Volk Han is a shoot-style pro wrestler who did some MMA fights" - which he disagrees with. Jacee appears to think that Han is a complete gimmick-based pro wrestler, comparable to the likes of John Cena and Triple H. That Han has not done *a single real fight* described in his MMA record (which presently excludes 91-94 era fights from early RINGS, proven to be worked/kayfabe) and saying that "treating Han's RINGS fights real is like treating Cena's WWE matches real." He remains adamant on his view, unable to tell apart WWE style pro wrestling and Rings' "first shoot wrestling-then-mma" to realize what the gray area with Volk Han is really about.

He often appeals to common knowledge to avoid providing citations to back his claims - which I realized only this week that he cannot do (on basis of Untested facts or arguments, indirect knowledge and controversial claims without clear consensus on wikipedia).

I confident that he is outright trying to game the system (on basis of "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification, or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy") to get his take through. That or he has been playing around with me this whole time.

I've recently issued a detailed rebuke at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability, with NEDOCHAN telling Jacee to stop removing a MMA records. Regardless, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts, NEDOCHAN instructed me to take this issue to ANI and so I have. TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

More or less what he says is correct in terms of the events sans all the biases. I just want this one thing to be known: Volk Han was not a fighter. All of his matches are works, every single match listed on Wikipedia was a work. Jacee215 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jacee215: Could you provide evidence that Volk Han's MMA matches are so-called works? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7R5qAQNFso . However, I will absolutely 100% admit. I cant find people saying "this guy is a big fat phony." But in that same vain, i dont think people say that about John Cena. How about this, SOMEONE SHOW ME A REAL VOLK HAN MATCH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no more evidence that Volk Han's matches were works than any other fighter. His fights are listed in the same sources as others from the era. Deleting his entire fight record from his Wiki pages based on WP:OR is clearly highly disruptive. The fight record that was deleted was sourced in the same way as every other MMA fighter record on Wikipedia. Per WP:VERIFY we need to go by what the sources say.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont know how else to say this, but you are either wrong and have limited knowledge on the subject or wikipedia may wish to consider IQ checks. Sherdog has already been considered as a non reliable source. Everytime a new pro wrestling organization pops up do you have to be told its fake? No. I can tell a fake match any day of the week and in fact the average MMA/pro wrestling fan can too. Its common knowledge. Volk Han is of that category. He is not Dan Henderson, Dan Severn or Ken Shamrock. I'd furthermore like to clarify one thing thats being said " i think Volk Han only was in worked matches ." I take particular offense to this and I consider this to be a personal attack on my intelligence when it is obvious and apparent that most pro wrestling and MMA fans can tell a worked matched. Why would I be considered less than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 17:10, November 18, 2021 (UTC)

So now you are outright insulting Wikipedian contributors who disagree with you? How low can you go? TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have no horse in this race. I am not an MMA fan or a wrestling fan. As an independent view on this, and only speaking from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, all claims require reliable sources as defined by WP:RS and WP:V. This is non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, and "Look at it yourself and decide" is NOT a reliable source as defined by policy. Jacee215, you need to desist from making changes to Volk Han's article unless you have reliable, published sources that clearly establish that your claims are valid. "I know it when I see it" is not good enough, and if you continue to try to edit the article in this manner without producing reliable sources where someone can read these claims, you will be prevented from doing so via a block. Produce reliable, independent, sources or drop the matter. --Jayron32 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Except that the sources used to prove volk hans fights IE sherdog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com are not considered reliable. In reality whats happening here is this. Im saying prove it, and u guys are saying prove it. But i shouldnt have to prove anything when there hasnt been any reliable sources that he is a fighter. By your logic we should delete Volk Hans record until someone can prove its real. I 100% agree this, and this was my original logic but apparently the unreliable sherdog is enough when your name is Volk Han.

Of course, we can go with tapology, mixedmartialarts.com,, MMA-Core . Though Tapology incorrectly lists 1991-1994 fights. Also, what about other RINGS folks? It's not just Volk Han, y'know. There are other fighters in RINGS, who are equally in compromised situation by your claims. Don't they need verification too? Also, it should be brought to attention that Jacee brought up Ken Shamrock, who had fights in Pancrase, and there are sources saying that their fights there worked? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You could be you'd also be wrong because [All 3 of those sites cite each other but nothing else] and are not considered reliable. And i never said I didnt wish to address those other people but with all due respect If we can not collectively recognize that Volk Han was 100% fake how are we gonna recognize that Dan Severn was 97% real At this current moment we live in a world of fiction where reality is unattainable(apparently), because no one really say volk han was a fighter.Jacee215 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Enough. We've gone over this at MMA Notable - we can prove Ken Shamrock had fake fights with citations and we can prove Pancrase had fake fights with citations. Now you are ignoring what you are told! Ergo you can prove 97% of Dan Severn's fights were real with citations and to end this Han charade you need to prove Volk Han had fake fights with citations and you have to prove RINGS had fake fights with citations. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

EXCEPT @admin this is a flat out lie what he says here There is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between Ken Shamrock Dan Severn and Volk han note
note that he is trying to deflect the microscope from volk han

1. Dan Severn's record is support by reliable sources
2. Ken Shamrock like wise
3. More than 1 source which is considered extremely reliable in fact
4. It's funny how we can't just provide something really good like these two above for Volk Han

Is it because sources of this quality can not be produced?

Regarding ESPN, that's incorrect. Volk Han is listed in Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira's fight record in ESPN. Infact, I found Volk Han's unfinished ESPN profile. The other dubious RINGS almuni - like Andrei Kopylov (Han's RINGS Russia Teammate) and Kiyoshi Tamura (whom Han had many famous worked fights with) - are there too. TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

perfect much appreciated I've deleted Volk Hans except for his match with Nog which Your source is good enough for me let me know if u find anything else for the others you already know though.Jacee215 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, he did the delete bonanza at Volk Han again, despite using incomplete fight record at ESPN.TrickShotFinn (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted. :) -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Also, that Maeda fight is highly selective. It is a bleed-over from 1994 Shoot Wrestling era as it was part of a tournament. Even the comments in the video say so. I know visual evidence is pointless here, but just for reference, he are two fights after RINGS adapted the KOK rules (basically contemporary MMA rules); the 1999 fight against Cvetkov and the 2001 fight against Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira. My pence;

• The 1999 Cvetko Cvetkov (KOK Rules) seems real enough/like a actual MMA fight. Though, Cvetkov doesn't look like too capable of a fighter - if anything, this creates a impression that Han was pitted against a easy fights during 1999-2001. Which would make sense, considering how close Han was to top brass and if he wanted to protect his image. Regardless, I doubt that fight is a "pro-wrestling style work" (fixed maybe, but not a show) based on lack of dramatics (i.e last minute escapes) and different pacing than the Dick Fry and Tamura ones Jacee used at MMA Notablity.
• Same with Nogueira fight. I don't see anything deviating from a typical MMA fight. Though personally, I get slight feeling that Nog may have been ordered to go easy on Han by the brass. But that's a job for verifiable sources.

That said, there are contemporary, active MMA organizations guilty of comparable shady booking, so the term "work" can be awfully vague in this sense. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

I think this assessment by his strongest supporter should be inditement enough. Upon review of the evidence his strongest supporter could bring nothing in his defense neither could he deny the allegations. ie Han is a work and a half and I dont have aynthin to prove otherwise. Jacee215 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide reliable sources stating that his fights were "work." Without that there is no way such a claim is getting into the article, nor can edits be made assuming it as fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hows that? If he is listed as a mixed martial artists fighter shouldnt that need to be sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@admins: Do backhanded comments count as a personal attack? TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jacee: It's not that I'm that much of a fan of Han, its your relentless hate***er that has bought us here. TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's really not, I thought my delete was the obvious move in 2020. What brought us here was this, sloppy article edits with little oversight and crap sources by people who have no idea on the subject. That's the truth, if that Volk Han article was written today, by non bias semi knowledgeable people none of this would be this way. But because it was written quite some time ago before we have some of the sources we have now and it stood uncontested for so long it you actually start to think it's real with the fact that Volk Han may have actually been a popular guy. But in the end [Opinions dont change reality] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black, Jacee. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You should stop responding and let others review the thread. If the back and forth continues it will become too long for anyone to bother reading. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I shouldn't even be here per se. TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You're on thin ice, Jacee215. If I were an admin, I would block you right now for incivility. See item 1 of Wikipedia:Things that should not be surprising. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This should be an immediate block. Telling someone they may wish to consider [[Eugenics| IQ checks]] is absolutely unacceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Jacee215 blocked 31 hours for this completely unacceptable edit, hoping we can get their attention to what is acceptable here. —valereee (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You know a user is bad when they inspire you to become an adopter. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the record. —valereee (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for the caution/future reference if problems persist: User:Jacee215 also uses User:100.11.240.111 (see Special:Contributions/100.11.240.111) and possibly User:100.34.164.49 (which he likely used to create the Draft:Takaku Fuke entry, based on it being followed by Jacee215 in the entry's history) as his handle. (Redacted). So if Japanese Pro Wrestling / MMA pages related to RINGS alumni (esp. Volk Han - his favoured target) gets vandalized by somebody close to aforementioned location, it might be Jacee. Further ways to tell him is his writing style, as he alters writing style between responses - sometimes using good grammar, capitalization and punctuation and then with random capitalization and punctuation, with lots of unnecessary/clumsy spacing. He often also forgets to use a signature. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 14:03, 19 November 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.

Christopher1968 - communication problems

I've recently reverted a bunch of unsourced edits from Christopher1968 (talk · contribs) ([297], [298]) and notice there is a pattern to this [299], [300], [301], [302]. He was warned about this in September 2017, and again in January 2020, but that doesn't seem to have made any difference. Now, perhaps I'm just a bit of a grump because from my experienced, unsourced trivia tends to attract more unsourced trivia to an article because it makes other editors think WP:V isn't important, but in this case, I think we should do something. Any ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Very little communication, but he does know where his own talk and article talks are, so maybe he'll come in. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Supermann bludgeoning, incivility, competence issues

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.

---

Apologies for opening this so shortly after the last one, but Supermann's behaviour and attitude is extremely problematic. Basically, they seem determined to have their own way, repeatedly misrepresenting what others have said, cherrypicking/misrepresenting/wikilawyering policies and essays to suit themself, tying up discussions with so much crap that it becomes exhausting and hard to determine what's happening, and repeatedly attacking other editors for not agreeing with them.

Misrepresenting what others have said: Here they claim that Girth Summit "encouraged [them] to push [Stephen Hogan] back to mainspace after having been put back to draft." What was actually said was "You [Supermann] are not required to take the draft [Stephen Hogan] through AfC. You have the necessary permissions to move the draft into article space yourself, if you want."

Here they say "I wouldn't use terms like deceptive to describe another editor." Except the context that "deceptive" was used was here to justify removal of text here. I have not replied to this misrepresentation because it feels pointless.

Wikilawyering: Here they argue that their suggestion to watch films and decide if they're notable isn't original research as "It doesn't say to completely ignore or rule out watching the film."

Here they try arguing that an edit is not promotional because "the disadvantage of CW Seed have been discussed".

Bludgeoning: Just see this closing statement by Sandstein

Personal attacks: This comment is extremely inappropriate, specifically "Why do you [CiphriusKane] keep taking things out of context and not assume good faith? Aren't you behaving like a persecutor again?" I asked them to rescind the comment, but they chose to reply with sarcasm.

Sorry, this is a bit exhausting for me. There is a bit more I want to say but it's tiring writing this. TL; DR Supermann has been engaging in inappropriate behaviour and discussions and warnings are seeming to have no effect CiphriusKane (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Treating Wikipedia like a forum: Supermann also has a bad habit of bogging down discussions with irrelevant details. Here they open up about a meeting in NYC, even though nobody else said anything about COI at that point. And here they talk about watching Buried, even though it had no relevance to the question being asked. And here they talk about their military history and pacifism. All this does is bog down the discussion as people have to decipher what's relevant and what's Supermann talking about their day CiphriusKane (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I have jumped through hoops and tried every good faith technique I can to try and keep them from being blocked and in a good faith attempt towards rescuing the Hogan article. I've taken good faith slap down a hit from Bbb23 in the thread above and I've just about had enough at it. And I've got controversial DRV and Commons undelete I wish to raise as well, which I'm not looking forward to. So I've reached the point where I'm happy to see a block/ban for persistent process Bludgoening. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit exhausting to me too when I have seldom taken anyone to ANI over my 15 years here. And this is more like Wikipedia:Harassment on a daily basis where they force their views on me, calling it a consensus. And people ended up just counting votes. All I am trying to do is to clarify my position because it seems like I am lost in translation. Given English is not my native language, I will stop responding further. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oof, I'm right down there in the trenches at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan and the previous WP:DRV, and even I can't figure out who is being a jerk. Pretty much everybody, really, including me too I shouldn't wonder. Supermann has been energizer-bunny hyper to the point of being maybe a little annoying in defending his article, but he's mostly polite and makes good points actually. There's a case against him at the COI noticeboard, there was a sockpuppet deployed against him in kind of sus circumstances (IMO), and it's been quite the circus. Anyway there's a lot of emotion here but whole contretemps is about over and it'd be a career to just sort all this out and I'm not sure what that'd even accomplish. Alternatively, just ban everybody involved and let God sort 'em out (joke!). Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW User:Djm-leighpark, even tho we're not on the same "side" here, allow me to say I'm sorry about User:Bbb23's post on your first thread ("OP wastes everyone's time") and allow me to apologize on his behalf if I may. I shouldn't blame you for being distressed. It doesn't take that much more time to not say things really unkindly and cause people distress -- the editor could have said "I really can't make head nor tail of this so we can't have a fruitful discussion" or "There's no actual remedy specified, so nothing to be done" which would be harsh (but justified) without being personally insulting. I'm confident that admins generally and User:Bbb23 in particular know that this is not the kind of attitude and verbiage that admins should be modeling, and I'm sure that xe was just having a bad day, as of course we all do so it's entirely understandable and forgivable. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Supermann has already bludgeoned the OP (who had voted Delete and now has struck that and left the scene) off of the AFD [303]. The entire AFD is a trainwreck of bludgeoning, with two editors (out of 15) having posted well over half of the bytes on the page, as of this writing [304]. Even after repeated requests to stop bludgeoning, side-stepping, and posting irrelevant walls of text (in addition to edit-warring), he has repeatedly done the same thing on Talk:Stephen Hogan and WP:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. Given the rabid insistence on creating and retaining and discussion-bludgeoning highly questionable articles, and the enormous and exhausting time-sink involved in dealing with him, my observation is that Supermann is a net negative. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Propose indef block - This sort of comment just sums up everything that's wrong with their behaviour. They get told their behaviour is inappropriate, they start arguing specific wording. They make personal attacks against me without proving any evidence. They demand to have the final say. Like I no longer have any idea if they're being malicious or just an idiot. And honestly, given how they can barely seem to go a month without causing trouble (July, August, September, October) and have been issued 2 final warnings, I genuinely feel like they are incapable of handling disagreements without causing disruption. I've not even looked at the 2017 stuff. I wish there was another way, but talking to them is pointless, warning them is pointless, and topic bans and partial blocks would not solve the issue CiphriusKane (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Endlessly disruptive editing and tendentious editing, borderline trolling, refusal to change behavior, low-quality apparently COI/UPE output, no adequate benefit to outweigh the endless negative. And that's in addition to all of the other trouble the editor has been in over the past 4 years, which have been recounted on various noticeboards and on his block log, etc. Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Supermann blocked indef

User_talk:Supermann#Indefinite_block. El_C 11:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Truth, justice and the Indef Way" ——Serial 11:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. The blocked user has demonstrated adequately they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They created an account in 2005, slept the account for twelve years, then in the year when active for the first time, got blocked about a dozen times under three user accounts. Topic banned from film articles for a year. Made promises to the last blocking admin, asked for the userpage to be deleted, slept some more years, then came back and promptly broke their promises, created a new user page proclaiming their 15 year history, but has been nothing but disruptive since in the field where they were previously topic banned. The user's multitudinous talk page contributions are filled with WP:IABSOLUTELYREFUSETOHEARTHAT, so much so that it is clear the user is gaming but just really bad at it. User:CiphriusKane was prescient in late August: "I feel like the current final warning is insufficient as it fails to address the points I just listed...". This block resolves those outstanding issues. BusterD (talk) 20:41, 18 November 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 rangeblock (Malaysian date vandal)

The Date-changing vandal from Malaysia has been engaged in a massive multi-day vandalism spree (scroll down to the bottom of that page). Is it possible to block that IP range? Thank you. Citobun (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Two of the IPs have recently crossed my path (and been blocked): 2001:D08:2185:84CD:68C2:AC15:505F:6903 (talk · contribs) and 2001:D08:1288:A9B2:419C:FBA8:B75F:D779 (talk · contribs). A rangeblock would be great. Cheers, Number 57 16:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2001:D08:1800:0:0:0:0:0/34 for one month and made a note of it in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Malaysia. Let me know if the problem moves to other ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Cipher21

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.

---

[[305]], He made a request for page protection here stating that poorly sourced or unsourced information had been added, right after that he removed over 2000 bytes of the information I added to the page [[306]]. As you can see, I added many sources with references directly from the US State Department government site and their reports along with quotes and a source from the US Government Publishing House. He blatantly lied and said that the information was poorly or unsourced when the exact opposite was true. He then misled an admin into admin protecting the page so that everyone would be discouraged from engaging with him on the page and adding further information on the page. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is ironic that Suthasianhistorian8 is fabricating lies against me while accusing me of making false reports. Firstly, I never said the content of their edits was poorly sourced; I requested pending changes protection because of vandalism from IPs like this (if the OP bothered to read the request, they'd know this - or they're trying to mislead others on purpose). Secondly, El_C added full protection of their own accord. Thirdly, the WP:ONUS is on Suthasianhistorian8 to explain to others why they want to add a long paragraph of largely irrelevant information to an article. Cipher21 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I still find it very suspicious that right after you filed your report, you removed 2000 bytes of information that I added (seems very deliberate) so that I wouldn't be able to do anything about it when the page gets additional protection. Moreover, the info box changes you've showed took place on Nov 16th, by one user, and it only happened twice on that day, and hasn't reoccurred since then. But you filed your report on the 19th of November. Anyways, my information was relevant in the context of this article and in the context of the Indo-Pak conflict and was backed up US State Department Reports, the purpose of my additions was to add balance and to add some neutral outsider views on the conflict, which would definitely give clarification and pertinent information to readers. You didn't even bother talking on the talk page before removing sourced information Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8, if I were to apply pending changes to the page, as Cipher21 requested, you'd still be able to edit the page. In fact, they felt that my full protection was excessive (see User_talk:El_C#Protecting_2001–2002_India–Pakistan_standoff). El_C 13:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8, please take care to read what I write. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain the addition of the content, not me. Also, remember to assume good faith and avoid making false accusations against others - I didn't even request such a high level of protection to begin with. Cipher21 (talk) 13:48, 20 November 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.

141.157.254.24 Removal of actual article in 2021 in American television

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.

---

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

I here to lodge a report after I am aware about the online troll and abuse and it is still ongoing, but one of this case I am about to report was 141.157.254.24, for removing an actual article that is mere an excuse to what online called as an "technical win", which is more about false information and trolls and has been surfacing quite lately since the last decade. This trolling has been widespread in many game show communities and other forums including Blogspot and Wordpress, and they are aware on talking action whenever necessary.

I noted the troll just recently and checked about it, and he removed that article, amount to the excuse citing "not notable". I suspect it was an online troll in Wikipedia and removing an otherwise actual article is just as plain dirty, saying it is an action equal to trolling. I do have evidence for this according to many game show forums and media across internet and how it got plagued before. JMrazFC (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how what I did was trolling, and what Blogspot and Wordpress have to do with it. I never used the term "technical win" once since I've been editing here. This just seems to be a frivolous report--141.157.254.24 (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the edit, you removed it because you say it was not notable, but I can defend it, because there was an article that say. Moreover, I found from several game show community websites such as Wheel of Fortune recaps and I found an article talking about trolls like Michael Taylor who spammed the pages saying that he want to declare grand prize loss a technical win, which by right, it is a misinformation. The removal of the note was also very frivolous to me because it is an actual news, but we know the online trolls does, and we do not tolerate trolls. I know you never say "technical win" that was a suspected move which is not right.JMrazFC (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of things are news, but I must ask that you remove this complaint. That's not what this page is for--141.157.254.24 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? I am not complaining. I happen to know that there are the online trolls. News are news and they are information. I will not argue about it. What happened is already happened. Full stop. I know you did remove because it is notable and I know that trolling is wrong. But this is something to take note of. Wikipedia don't tolerate trolling. I just want to let you understand so that we can be civil. JMrazFC (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think I make a mistake, you are wrong. I am not in a wrong either. Its just that removing that content is one half, but weighing on that "Michael Taylor" troll incident I can only judge that much. JMrazFC (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I not going to say again, put back the article and we call equal. JMrazFC (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like an extremely minor content dispute that should be settled through discussion on the talk page of the involved article, without the baseless accusations of trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:00, 20 November 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.

JCJC777, and Multiple sclerosis, and long-term concerns unheeded

Multiple sclerosis was, until a year ago, a Featured article. It was competently written, but had fallen badly out of date. During the last month, it has been heavily edited with several indications of problematic editing. Boghog, Lukelahood and occasionally me have struggled to stay abreast of some bursts of editing by JCJC777, which has not always conformed to policy and guideline, with a good number of reverts needed.

Dating back to 2012, User talk:JCJC777 has a long and continuous string of messages asking that they use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, use edit summaries, and format citations rather than insert bare URLs, along with multiple indications of COPYVIO. A review of the entire talk page is instructive. In spite of having almost 10,000 edits spanning almost 10 years,[307] JCJC777 appears not to have heeded any of these requests, warnings and admonishments. In November 2021, they were again asked to use edit summaries. As late as September 2020, Sphilbrick added a copyvio note to JCJC777’s talk page, Smartse added one in June 2020, Girth Summit added one in May 2020, and there are many additional notes about copyvio dating to 2012.

There is no answer on Talk:Multiple sclerosis to a Nov 5 2021 revert by Lukelahood that included copyvio.[308] It appears that JCJC777 simply doesn’t heed messages.

There are multiple requests and reverts mentioned by Doc James over many years on JCJC777’s talk page relating to a failure to use MEDRS sources. Both Boghog and BrownHairedGirl have had to convert bare URLs to citations. Lukelahood (a very competent medical editor) has had to revert quite a bit of JCJC777’s work, for numerous reasons.

Yet, similar issues continue. JCJC777’s latest round of edits today includes bare URLs and non-MEDRS sources, sample:

normal healthy individual.<ref> https://www.msnz.org.nz/prognosis/</ref><ref>https://my-ms.org/ms_prognosis.htm</ref><ref>https://www.mslivingwell.org/learn-more-about-ms/what-can-i-expect/</ref>

Considering the ten-year history of similar problems, and the message not being received, I am concerned that there may be copyvio in JCJC777’s edits at Multiple sclerosis going back to October 2021, and that indeed, a CCI may be needed; perhaps Ajpolino will have a look.

I also wonder if it is time to take a stronger stance re CIR and JCJC777’s editing on medical content. I have not examined their editing in other areas.

Considering the long string of messages dating back almost 10 years that have not been heeded on user talk, I am bringing this here, and will notify JCJC777 next. I will also post a note at WT:MED, as I’m concerned that we need to check everything added at Multiple sclerosis going back more than a month. Also, there are two different classes of student editing this term at that article, so I am concerned that we review JCJC’s work quickly, before the picture becomes complicated further by student edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC) typo fix SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks. I am guilty as charged ref source formatting (I believe a bot sometimes does the formatting automatically, and that some lovely wiki editors enjoy putting refs into correct formats). I am also guilty of not putting in the effort ref understanding wiki rules on sources. My motivation was just to make wiki articles better for readers. I'll just stop editing. Apologies for causing any trouble. JCJC777

My broader feedback to wiki is that imho it would/should not be hard for positive spirited contributers like me, short of time and bandwidth, to have tools that (1) automatically format sources and (2) tell us if the source is invalid, in real time (i.e. when we submit the edit). Using wiki needs to feel like state of the art tech to editors, otherwise it will lose them. If that means changing corporate structure to be able to fund the development of such tools then so be it. The danger is otherwise that wiki falls behind. The fact that this article, on a major topic, was so out of date, perhaps tells it's own story. JCJC777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 07:33,November 19, 2021 (UTC)

• And my feedback to you, looking over your talk page, is that if it takes you years and years and YEARS to get your attention about proper sourcing and formatting, that you should indeed take a break from editing until you're motivated to put in the effort to understand the rules. For my part, I don't understand how it is you have the time to make thousands of edits, but you don't have the time to learn how to do it right. Ravenswing 08:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• @JCJC777: There are hundreds of millions of web pages, books, scientific journal articles, magazines etc. It isn't possible to review all of them in advance, and in many cases the usability of a source is situational. Editors need to apply their judgment when deciding what sources to use. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating the backward looking and reactionary mindsets that will gradually now leave wiki as a [perfectly formatted] museum relic of the 2000s. The colleague editor with the best approach is Chris Capoccia; play superb defensive midfield role whilst someone else is upfront trying to make something happen. Don't expect everyone to be a grey robot. Go well. JCJC777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 10:03, November 19, 2021 (UTC)

JCJC777, you can sign your talk page posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. The persistent WP:COPYVIO over almost a ten-year period is of much more concern than the rest of your failure to understand Wikipedia, and is likely to require a WP:CCI. I missed on your talk page that you also had a recent COPYVIO post from Diannaa. Yet you have failed to answer that concern, and focused instead on the less crucial issue of citation formatting. This is even more concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@JCJC777: It's got nothing to do with "backward looking and reactionary mindsets" the tools you suggest are literally impossible to build with current technology because they would require an AI with essentially human level intelligence. As an example - BBC news would be a low quality source for medical information because it is not a part of the standard medical literature, it would however be a completely fine source for information on social movements around a disease, like patient rights. Both these uses could occur in the same article. Some sources are fine for some types of information but not for others, e.g. Rolling Stone is considered to be a decent source for music and entertainment but unusable for politics, an interview would be a good source for someone's birth date but would not be suitable for information on a conflict with another person they were involved in, and opinion pieces are generally fine for sourcing someone's opinion, but should not be used for factual statements. I also don't see how asking people to think about the sources they are using makes them robots, but having them blindly trust a computer algorithm doesn't?

There are already multiple ways of generating citations automatically. In the source mode editor click on "cite" at the top then "templates" then select the appropriate template from the list. This will open a menu with a load of boxes to fill in to generate a properly formatted citation. Some of these have an image of a magnifying glass next to them - if you fill one of these out and click the magnifying glass the software will try to fill in the rest of the fields for you. It doesn't always work properly so you need to check the output before you insert it. Have you ever tried using the visual editor? You might find it a bit easier to use. When you're editing an article click on the pencil at the top right hand corner and switch to visual mode. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple posts at JCJC777’s talk page where editors pointed him towards WP:MEDRS, and simplified descriptions of it and at various citation-building tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked JCJC777 indefinitely from editing Multiple sclerosis. Copyright violations are a serious matter, and if their response is to lash out, as seen above, then a block is essential. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be frank, @JCJC777:: if you truly believe that levying complaints about "reactionary mindsets" and lashing out is your best answer to being asked, for YEARS, not to commit copyright violations and to properly source edits to medical information, you are badly, badly, badly mistaken if you think you're going to get any sympathy here. Ravenswing 19:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ve now had time to look into a few other recent edits, but relatives arriving today for Thanksgiving, out of time. I suggest a WP:CCI is needed. Blocking further edits at Multiple sclerosis will help avoid overlap in cleaning up JCJC777’s edits from the student edits when they come in at the end of the term, but the COPYVIO issues (along with introduction of primary studies) seems to be a widespread issue, with indications it dates to 2012, unremitted. Some samples:

Nov 2021 first line of Fatigue is cut-and-paste, I looked no deeper [309]

Nov 2021, “Pitavastatin was the only exception” is cut-and paste at Statin, I looked no further [310]

Ditto at Atorvastatin [311]

Primary studies everywhere, eg, adds a 1999 primary study at alcoholic polyneuropathy [312]

Oct 2021 Cut and paste as well [313]

Odd that many edits indicate knowledge of need to paraphrase, but that is interspersed with cut-and-paste. Sorry, that’s all I have time for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. On reflection many of your points are valid. I intend to go back and repair faults in my past edits. Copyright errors I think are a very recent occurrence only, and I will change or delete them. Apologies to all. JCJC777 (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you have taken this decision, JCJC777, but seeing your request to Ritchie333 to lift your ban partial block at MS,[314] I wanted to suggest another path forward.

First, it is critical that you understand that your copyright issues are not “a very recent occurrence only”; they are documented on your talk page history going back to 2012, and represent a serious concern. You cannot cut-and-paste, and neither can you just overquote text; you must learn to paraphrase in your own words from WP:MEDRS-compliant sources (which means rarely should you be using primary studies). Also, when you don’t use correct sources, you do place a burden on other editors, who have to clean up after you.

You asked Ritchie333 to temporarily remove your “ban” at MS. Multiple sclerosis is a high pageview article and while it is currently dated, it is not a good place to begin correcting your established but less-than-optimal editing habits or to learn better editing. This graph of the pageviews at MS, compared to a few other articles you have recently edited may help you see the wisdom in Ritchie333’s action.

I will place on your talk page a list of concrete suggestions for how you can better edit, but suggest that you start by demonstrating proficiency on lower page view articles. Once you do that, you may then find it easier to convince Ritchie333 and other admins to remove the ban partial block at MS. I know you are probably anxious to contribute to the much-needed update of the MS article, but if you were able to first demonstrate knowledge of the proper use of MEDRS-compliant sources, and better communication on user and article talk pages, and that you will properly paraphrase content in your own words, I’m sure you will find a greater inclination from admins towards removing the ban at MS. I will next post several concrete steps to your talk page,[315] and appreciate that you have expressed a willingness to continue contributing, and look forward to seeing you become a solid medical contributor. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• You guys are much nicer than me. I would proposed a topic ban on all medical articles. They are core articles here, and the standard for sourcing is much higher. If you can't learn that in 10 years, you probably aren't going to learn that in 11. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown I chose this approach out of concern that many of the talk page messages were of an automated nature, and didn’t seem to engage in depth even when the same editor was leaving their gazillionth warning. Mystery as to why this went on for so long without more strident responses or action. We will find out quickly whether a different approach yields a different result; if it doesn’t, we would then be concerned about all editing, not just medical. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Followup on today's editing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ban proposal of User:Jellywings19

This user continues to make similar edits to similar articles using numbers of similar IP Address over the last few months which it adds unsourced content many times. Is it time for the English Wikipedia to propose ban against this user? I think it is time for sure. EricSDA (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

He was blocked days ago. Do you mean someone else? Dream Focus 02:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus This is the same user who has made similar distruptive edits over the last few months but using different IP Address all the time. That's why I called this user to be banned from Wikipedia. EricSDA (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@EricSDA: Could you please provide the accused IP addresses so that administrators can look over it? Darkknight2149 04:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Here are the examples of unsourced edits in the last 24 hours are similar which all are unsourced to me: [316] and [317]. EricSDA (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: This user won't stop his distruptive editing all the time. EricSDA (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Argonne73 / 2605:A601:AF43:BA00:0:0:0:0/64

Argonne73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2605:A601:AF43:BA00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I came across the article List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps because it had a cite error. Fixing the cite error should that there was another error hidden by the first. Basically the article contains notes with no contents, which is the current state of the article. I did remove them, but they were restored by the user Argonne. I left a message for them trying to explain the situation, and corrected the issue again with a summary pointing towards user Argonne73's talk page. This lead to the notes being added back by the IP with the summary Restored pertinent repertoire info. I removed them again, which I probably shouldn't have by this point, and the IP restored them again with a comment point towards 力.

As well as the IP restoring the edit of Argonne73 here they also requested page protection for Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps. They believed the article was being vandalised by having its content deleted, something Argonne73 had already tried to reverse. The article had infact been merged by User:力. This is why I'm assuming user Argonne73 and the IP are the same person.

At this point I'm not sure whether this is trolling of some sort directed at 力 or simply a matter of competency, so I brought the matter here. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given the username and the importance attached to 1973 in the Argonne Rebels section of the list, I suspect we are dealing with a conflict of interest. The section comes across a someone blowing their own horn and is at least partially based on a self-published source. In the mean time, I have restored the non-erroneous version. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Yngvadottir has found the details of the notes, and add them as plain text to the list article. Hopefully this should satisfy Argonne73/IP and close the matter. (With my thanks to Yngvadottir). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this needed to come to ANI, but it seems like it's sorted out. Various recent AFD discussions have found consensus to merge Drum Corps International articles where the coverage is either DCI fansites or local interest (and to remove some of the UNDUE detail); I reverted the new editor once but a new editor doing something once is obviously not ANI-worthy. I thought I checked all the footnotes when I did merges; apparently I missed one and it has now been fixed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry my fault. My changes are generally rather non-controversial, so I became slightly unstuck when faced with someone who would absolutely would not communicate. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe ActivelyDisinterested was just too quick. I just got two barnstars from Argonne73, with captions of poo and doo doo. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Forty-Eighters - nasty WP:AGF violations

IP User:80.77.163.200 is calling other editors "dwarf" and using language like stop baseless agression now - it's idiotic and nasty, STOP OFFENDING INTELLIGENCE, you disgusting swine, any rape of logic, any hypocrisy, any lie or preposterous demand are allowed. WHAT IS THE POLITICAL AGENDA BEHIND THIS? WHY IS A DWARF ALLOWED TO OFFEND INTELLIGENCE? WHY A NOBODY HAS POWERS TO DENY REALITY? and the like. As one of the dwarves/nobodies in question, it would not be appropriate for me to take any action against the IP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:46.44.41.15 and User:46.44.52.181 may be the same editor as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• That is some… interesting language. Very colorful. But I think that’s obvious indef block material per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, etc. Dronebogus (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  No one is going to indef an IP, but at a minimum they're edit-warring way past 3RR, and the grounds on which they've been reverted are clear and straightforward. A short-term block and/or semiprotection would be good. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPs, which are all from the same region. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikicontributor318 and User:Alphamotorcorporation

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.

---

COI edit warring and socking on the Alpha Motors Corporation page. [318], [319], [320]. WP:NOTHERE. Mako001 (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Strange account...maybe compromised?

A strange account left a message on my talk page, so I thought I'd report it here. Virginia beltan (talk · contribs) first edited in 2013...and came back this month to spread a bit of gibberish around the encyclopaedia. I don't know the meaning of this, but I'm pretty sure either someone should keep an eye on this account, or just block it as WP:NOTHERE for avoidance of doubt. RGloucester — ☎ 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Truthfully seeing the edits from 2013, they could have been blocked back then. Blocked now however for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(158.255.212.162) IP user vandalising

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

• IP user 158.255.212.162 (talk · contribs) is creating spam articles, please delete all. - *•.¸♡ ℝ𝕒𝕞𝕛𝕚𝕥 𝕋𝕦𝕕𝕦 ♡¸.•*^{𝕋𝕒𝕝𝕜} 07:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. The IP in question has no edits here, and is in fact blocked from editing. The link you provided goes to the Santali Wikipedia, which is a separate project. You need to report the problem overt there as nobody here is equipped to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ramjit Tudu: You may want to try meta:Global sysops/Requests as well. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And while you're here, please note that animated GIFs in your signature are generally frowned upon. I suggest you remove the bouncing Wikipedia logo.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:KigToons

Hi. This user has been adding copyrighted material, in this case plot summaries, and removing reliable sources by deeming them "unreliable". They have been warned for edit warring, unconstructive editing and copyright violation multiple times recently, and were blocked last month for edit warring. Their contribution history include suspicious edits such as utilizing IMDb as a reliable reference. ภץאคгöร 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was about to raise this as well, having just reverted another copyvio. I would also add that this editor has a habit of blanking their talk page, which to me suggests that passers by tasked with tidying up after their edits don't always get a clear picture of how persistant they are in this behaviour, possibly thinking they're the first people to warn them. It may have allowed this to stay below the radar longer than it should have... EditorInTheRye (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. User is refusing to learn. Going through now and reverting any remaining plot summaries that haven't already been reverted. Wizardman 16:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor disparaging improvements as 'vandalism'

Sapedder is regularly disparaging improvements to Religion in the Punjab as 'vandalism'.[321][322]

I told him a couple of times that he should stop,[323][324] strengthening his commitment to continue calling my edits vandalism.[325]

His contributions on Talk:Religion in the Punjab#Requested move 28 October 2021 can be described as WP:BLUDGEONING.

I should not even mention the general incompetence in understanding sources since this person is restoring unsourced sections and using Notion Press (self published source) for their content. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This is projection. This IP is operating under a personal dogma that folk religion is some kind of imaginary, even separatist concept (not kidding, no other user has even come close to agreeing with this), and has gone on a rampage. They have upended weeks of careful discussion over the article title, not the content, and unilaterally reinstating POV that does not adhere to sources (which favors their ingroup). They are not, as they are trying to imply, trying to improve the article but crusading against folk belief in favor of their own religion. And see this regarding the one self-published source. They have not discussed any of this in the slightest. Sapedder (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The user has also broken WP:3RR by stealth. Sapedder (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, when someone objects to being called a "vandal," maybe don't respond to them with ...you alone don't like it, vandal (diff). That looks bad. Have you read WP:NOTVAND? El_C 12:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, That's fine, I accept the distinction. But this is certainly disruptive editing, and reinstating POV content without discussion that does not match sources, repeatedly replacing sourced content to do so, comes awful close, no? Sapedder (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, seeing as the page is locked, can you at least revert to the last stable version in the meantime? I am also preparing a report for the IP for breaking 3RR. Sapedder (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother with that WP:AN3 report. You've warned the IP about 3RR after their last edit to the page. I'm not currently in the position to determine whether that ("certainly disruptive editing") is so. At a glance, it seems like a content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk page or at WP:RSN, without you attacking your content opponent by calling them a vandal repeatedly. Let me also ask you this. Yesterday, you said rv unsourced pov vandalism by ip sock — who do you claim is the master or otherwise 'socking'? Sorry, I don't see a convincing reason to override the imperative of m:Wrong version atm. El_C 13:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C The edits and combative conduct of the IP were identical the user EditorKamran from the previous discussion, though perhaps I jumped to conclusions in the heat of the moment, though I would certainly not rule it out. I submitted the report already, but you can do with it as you see fit. The stable version of the article is the one that the weeks-long discussion in talk in based on. The IP has disrupted the careful discussion with their undiscussed edits, in order to disrupt the voting. Sapedder (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, I already declined it. Please don't WP:FORUMSHOP further, either. Unless you have a convincing WP:SPI to make — but Editorkamran (first edit Dec 2018, last edit Oct 15 2021) isn't nor have they ever been blocked, so I'm not sure how editing logged out helps them. IP, are you them? If so, please login. El_C 13:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Strike: I see that the IP denied this accusation already previously: accusation → denial. El_C 15:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, just for the record, I did not deliberately "forumshop." It had already been prepared when you told me to not bother. I've only filed one report. I've been on wiki for three years and have never had to do anything like this, as I am not in the habit. Anyway, would you at least restore the stable version, as that is the version that the talk discussion is based on? Sapedder (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, I already said that I'm not gonna do that right now, so I'm not sure why you'd ask again. El_C 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C I was under the impression that you had declined the report, not the request. You had asked for a "convincing reason," to which I mentioned the ongoing talk discussion. I couldn't do it myself, to not violate 3RR. It's based on that article version and has been going on for 3 weeks, fruitfully. I just don't want it derailed. Anyway... if/when you are inclined to look into it, not demanding it right now. Sapedder (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, 'see talk page' is not a convincing reason. El_C 14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an open vote under way there. Does it not matter? sigh... Sapedder (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. Just because there's an RM to change the title from Religion in the Punjab to Folk practices in Punjab does not mean that editing about folk practices (or lack thereof, whatever) are not allowed in the meantime. El_C 14:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It reintroduced considerable self-glorifying OR that does not follow the attached sources, specifically in reaction to the RM. This disruption to this old page started in June and has intensified. The original page move in June did not even go through RM as it should have. I suppose I ought to have moved the page back to its original title "Folk religion in Punjab" just as unilaterally, instead of being the sucker whose careful consensus-building procedure is now compromised. What's more, if the RM was closed after a week as it should have been, it would have been successful and closed by now. And now, an IP shows up, suddenly starts edit warring, breaks 3RR, and gets rewarded, and actually minding policy is again meaningless. But it looks like the disruptors keep catching breaks, all without having to discuss any of their changes beforehand, or follow any procedure, or secure any consensus. Sapedder (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, you've expressed naked hostility against the IP so many times, it really takes me back a bit that you're still unaware this isn't okay. El_C 15:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Just giving you the background to all this, it's just the latest in a series of events. To everyone in the RM that disagreed respectfully, I reciprocated. Did you not see this IP's behavior and "arguments" in the RM? No reasoning based on policy, just "folk practices are a lie!" and "the article is garbage!" Some IP lurker can sweep in, do as they please, act as they like, and get their way, whereas if my restraint finally falters momentarily, I get told that I think it's "okay," whatever that means. When did I express whether I thought it's okay or not? What does it matter? There's no recourse anyway. Sapedder (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The recourse is this very thread where you're welcome to make your case (with evidence in the form of diffs). But the IP is entitled to express their position vigorously without you attacking them. Also, please attach diffs to quotes. I couldn't find where the IP had said "folk practices are a lie!" El_C 16:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Irrelevant, ZERO followers" [326]. These are arguments worth a vote? I think one could be forgiven upon reading such ravings for momentarily making a connection (whether true or not) with someone who said that there was "no such thing" as folk beliefs in a similar hostile tone, and called me a secessionist for talking about their existence in the prior discussion. This is the level of "discourse" that I've had to deal with, from people of a certain worldview (I'll leave it at that, lest I have to explain myself for calling a spade a spade) who feel threatened by the existence of folk belief for daring to remaining distinct from their religious tribalism. What discussion can possibly be had here? And yes, some can utter "positions" as freely and vigorously as they like and benefit, while others get to offer thoughtful arguments and subsequent long explanations all for nothing, that's clear. Sapedder (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, the IP's !vote reads (in full): Oppose Per everyone above. Irrelevant 'folk practices' with ZERO followers deserve no parking on Wikipedia. Aside this, the article read like garbage. One should compare it with the earlier versions. I have added the Cleanup tag so that problem can be addressed (diff). I'm not quite sure what that means, tbh (perhaps it isn't a factual observation, possibly even grossly so, I dunno), and I concede it isn't the friendliest tone, but that works both ways. Regardless, please only use quotation marks for, well, quotations. It's confusing. Use apostrophes to 'paraphrase.' Anyway, if you refuse to engage in discussion with the IP based on the available sources, as you appear to be (diff), then you can be seen to effectively have forfeited your position (until such time when you're willing to engage, at least). El_C 17:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: quotes and paraphrase: Noted.

Re: factual observation: "perhaps"? Where's a hint of fact? It's strident ranting, which apparently qualifies for a vote.

Re: RM: It's closed now anyway (weeks after it should have been while there was hard-earned consensus from neutral editors leaning my way, for which I have had to carefully formulating arguments for the better part of a month). An old, unique article is now overridden due to foot-dragging apathy. Why wasn't the RM closed punctually after a week, did anyone care or would it have dragged on until a flare-up was noticed, keeping whichever version landed last by breaking 3RR, because wgaf?

Re: my comment: If you've read it, I ask again, which of their "points" can I engage with exactly? How would they engage ('I know there are zero followers and it's a conspiracy because....' 'The article is garbage because....')? If anyone has intellectual curiosity, or gives a hoot about saving the article since its hijacking in June, go through the sources of my version and the current "version" and see what has happened. It's not forfeiting, but I can only do so much while others can stomp all over the article and never answer for it, facing no adversity.

So one slaves away under procedures like RM and careful discussion like a sucker and establish topic notability with sources properly used. While others can move the title without any consensus (check the edit history since late June), they can glorify their in-group while attaching sources that say nothing of the kind, they can re-add contested additions without discussion, they can do whatever they like, say 'nah it's fake, it's garbage, it's a conspiracy,' edit war, break 3RR, and now we are equal peers in encyclopedia-building, using their version as default? Sapedder (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, you call the IP's comment strident ranting, but what is much of your post above if not that? I'm not saying it wasn't said in exasperation, but it's still too much. Either way, you do not WP:OWN this page and there are no shortcuts, like getting the IP off the board, which it looks like is what you're still trying to do. The IP said that the article needed cleanup (and added the cleanup tag), so now they need to explain that (i.e. what is it that needs to be cleaned up). If they fail to present this, methodically, then they forfeit their position. But you saying off the bat: 'I will not engage, there is nothing to engage about and no one serious to engage with — that's a dead end, too. El_C 21:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, did you read the so-called "cleanup" tag? It reads, "The article is mostly about irrelevant 'folk practices', contrary to the article's title." So first the article title is changed from its 11-year-old title "Folk religion in Punjab" to "Religion in Punjab" without consensus or RM in June, and now they seek to purge the article of its folk content by pointing at the new title, in favor of glorifying their own specific religion. The article is in the grip of a bizarre agenda against the existence of folk beliefs, with no interest in making a good article.

Take a look at the "Background" and "Historical religion" sections. They use the exact same sources almost in the same sequence, but are completely different. That's because "Background" is an reinstated old POV version of "Historical religion." I implore you to check those sections and see for yourself, there are only a few sources to check. The lead as well. The article is now a mess. That is what the IP did. Not sure how else to convey the dishonesty of what is being done, or if anyone cares.

And yet again, how would I engage? "No IP, the article is in fact not garbage and lies as you people have so rationally pointed out, because these sources and that content etc..." They are trying to purge said content entirely. My good-faith efforts have been going on for weeks, and are now obliterated by those who have now shown up, broken like every rule, and have it their way. Sapedder (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sapedder, I'm trying to get across to you that your broken like every rule approach works against your own interests. Try to stay dispassionate and avoid hyperbole. I'm not that familiar with the study of religion or folk traditions, in general, certainly not in that part of the world. Nor can I turn back time, though had you reported the undiscussed move (like on this noticeboard), you'd likely had seen the original, longstanding title retained (at least pending an RM for the contending version). But, for whatever reason, you chose to conduct an RM, one which saw 2 supporting against 5 opposing. That can't be helped. It is what it is.

Anyway, about the "cleanup": it comes down to the details. The specifics of what should be added/removed/modified need not be aligned with the (new) title in the way that the IP's tag contends. That's up to the editorial process; through collaboration with editors who (unlike me) have a grasp of the material. If, in the end, two clearly competing versions crystalize, then an WP:RFC can be held about which is the better one. The regulars at WP:RSN could be consulted about disputes over sources. But you need to dial it down, from "lol" dismissals to "vandal" attacks. Above all else, it still feels like you're looking for a quick fix —that certainly how it appeared when you filed the report at WP:AN3 while this thread was still live— but I just don't see that in the cards. Best then to be realistic about that and to fortify yourself to what, from your perspective, needs to be done (what can be done, how it should be done). HTH. El_C 00:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I understand that you may not be familiar with the topic and such, I know you are trying to help and it's not apathy. But it just seems like the ip can just blow in like a tornado, wreak havoc, and come out on top. Even now, have they been typing away trying to explain their reasoning as I have? Their engagement has been limited to calling the article "garbage," then going in to restore POV without discussion, then filing a report and dipping out, while we're stuck to explain the convoluted situation to each other. They haven't demonstrated a grasp of the content either, they are seeking to get rid of it because it offends them. Honestly, given their few RM contributions, do they seem like they're here to engage in good discussion? Seeing that the page now has divergent duplicate sections from the exact same sources (which the IP didn't even write, it was just the version they favored from earlier), how is the page not harmed? Point taken about "vandal," but was it so off the mark, given the state of the page now?

Also, I initiated the RM at the word of the original page mover (in the discussion before the RM). I could have simply went and undid his move when I learned of it (probably should have), as it had no consensus or RM itself, but in deference to the right way of doing things, and not risking a revert war (that turned out great...), I opted for the RM. I managed to maintain majority support for not one but two weeks, but it dragged on and degenerated as the early neutral, reasonable editors gave way to ideologues, instead of ending punctually.

I'm not a noticeboard denizen who knows my way around these parts. Discussion usually yields good results and works well for me the vast majority of the time (some might think that's a plus). If I could develop a stronger instinct to cheaply run to a noticeboard at the first chance (unusually familiar with wiki ins and outs for an IP, no?), point fingers and file reports, entangling users and admins in long discussion while I stay quiet, and have it work, sure why not. But I had never had a need to figure out my messageboards and file a case on anyone before in my three years here, so that option went unused. Oh well. Sapedder (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You both broke 3RR though. Mvbaron (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron It doesn't look like I have. Perhaps check the dates, if I am not mistaken? I think you may be counting one from yesterday, which was separate from the reversions just now.Sapedder (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. 4th revert was just outside the 24h period. --Mvbaron (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Zippybonzo appears to have the same problem, user has only been here for only 1 month and he looks suspicious when he already seems familiar with the tools and policies. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a sock also. 119.203.157.44 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I am immune to irony, IP with zero edits outside this one comment. El_C 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I have closed the RM as not moved (diff). El_C 15:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits reverted

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

---

Admin with username Fowler&fowler: a) reverted edits b) has not responded to dispute resolution via Talk

Request left on Talk page is below: Seasons' Greetings & Namaste.

I am encouraged to engage you in a discussion. You are a prolific editor here and I am honoured.

This pertains to your removal of one of my edits on the Hindutva page. The sole point of contention is: 1) Furnishing a context: My only submission relates to furnishing the context of the British Colonial Rule during which Hindutva as a political idealogy is deemed to have been formulated. Please note that this is consistent with the Idealogy sub-section of the History section of the wiki. Therefore, its inclusion is suggested as an edit.

I do appreciate you considering engaging me in a talk.

Best, wirefree101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirefree101 (talk • contribs)

Fowler&fowler isn’t an administrator. You haven’t notified them as is required, nor did you take the basic step of asking again before coming to this noticeboard, which is for significant and intractable problems. This is not a matter for ANI. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 22 November 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 BilCat's claims of false personal attacks

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

---

BilCat has repeatedly accused me of personally attacking him, saying I directly called him lazy, saying I attacked him by asking him to stop reverting my edits without proper reasoning, saying I falsely accused him of following me etc. On top of that he's threatened to have me deleted if I "don't stop taking reversions personally and don't stop personally attacking others [here]. He's has me banned once already for edit warring even though my edits were determined to be legitimate anyway. And his edit history is just full of unjustified reversions and pointless content removals [here], [here], [here] . His superior status on Wikipedia compared to mine I feel is putting me at a severe disadvantage when it comes to defending myself or accusing me of breaking Wikipedia rules. If this report is unsuccessful I'll probably be banned anyway for false claims myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GansMans (talk • contribs) 09:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are required to notify the user you filed a complaint about. I have done so for you. On an unrelated note, beware the Australian airfoil. Kleuske (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Here's a thought that doesn't appear to have occurred to you, you have one of the most prolific editors on military topics offering you help and advice. Now imagine what an awesome wikipedian you could be if you listened instead of convincing yourself you're being persecuted. No one has a superior status on wikipedia, we just like to write an encyclopedia for fun, without constant interruptions from people who let their ego get in the way. WCM_email 10:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, this PA immediately following an offer to work constructively together. Perhaps a WP:NOTHERE block might be appropriate until this user gets it? WCM_email 10:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been going over both his edits and the edits others have made to him: [327] [328][329][330] ... GansMans is being routinely caustic, combative and nasty to others, and seems to believe (from his vast experience of 39 edits over a few weeks) that the rules don't apply to him, because, reasons. WP:NOTHERE indeed. Ravenswing 10:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that User:GansMans is just disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. We need to thank him for bringing the issue here, but he needs an indef block. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:GansMans#Indefinite_block. El_C 13:24, 22 November 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.

Similar account, similar commenting about Egyptair Cargo

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

I don't know what to say but, this user has a similar name, but the edits are quite similar to the comment of this Zyrrrrr talk comment which is quite interesting because both or (one) user defending himself/herself about Egyptair Cargo terminated it flight to Cologne/Bonn and was transferred to Düsseldorf Airport. I mean, this two user which is possible to have 2 accounts that the names are similar. This is what I comment tho but I mean, having multiple accounts is not allowed. So yeah, I hope y'all check it. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins are unlikely to do anything if the user has simply stopped using the earlier account, Zyrrrrr (talk · contribs). The account with the longer name, Zyrrrrrrr (talk · contribs), has been editing since November 5 while the other one has been inactive. In effect, Zyrrrrrrr is a successor account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per the above, if the accounts are not being used abusively, are not trying to hide the fact that they are the same person, etc. then there isn't any need to do anything. --Jayron32 13:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

edit war brewing over overblown hidden comment being mass-added to articles without consensus to do so

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.

---

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Th78blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Relevant discussion: user talk pages of WilliamJE and Th78blue, and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people sections of towns/cities all across the US.

So, today I checked my watchlist to find that quite a number of articles I watch on places in Alaska had had this added to them: [331]. In the example linked, the hidden comment is quite a bit longer than the list it was added to, which consisted of exactly one entry. The article has no history of problems in this area. So, I removed it from that article, and from several others, and commented on Th78blue's talk page about it. As of this writing they have not responded, but it seems likely they are using the above-linked discussion as a rationale for adding this ...thing... that they are calling a template in a robotic fashion, along with adding {{dynamic list}} in the same manner. WilliamJE reverted all of my removals without further discussion, including here [332] where I had been very specific about why it did not belong, and where the exact subject has been under discussion on the talk page for some time. Drmies, reverted WilliamJE, and he restored it again [333]. He seems particularly upset that I said the hidden comment was obnoxious, as if I'd insulted someone personally by saying so.

I do not think orders from on high in the form of a repetitive, overblown, badly formatted hidden comment are helpful in any way, and I do not believe there is a consensus to mindlessly spam any such notice on every article on a named place. I also don't want to edit war, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No explanation? See here[334] which Beeblerox fully knows of. Use of obnoxious in violation of WP:ESDONTS in edit summaries by an administrator who should know better and then filing this incorrect complaint. Why shouldn't there a boomerang headed back here? Is this really the behavior expected from an administrator and arbitrator?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is why I mentioned WP:BRD on your talk page. You only joined the conversation after you reverted me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Another incorrect edit from the complainant. I took part part in TH78's thread long before Beeble and even got a barnstar for it. Oh and notice how Beeble avoids taking responsibility for his actions. Does ESDONTS apply only to the little people and not to administrators?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Not to get off topic, but would you please fix up your signature? It's tad distracting the way it appears. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - whilst WilliamJE's signature is a little unconventional, it complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and has been in use for a long while. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This notice is clearly overkill, and should not be added pre-emptively. If a "notable people" list is a frequent target for problems, it's fine to add a small, neutral notice. The length of the notice and its giant capital letters and asterisks smacks of WP:POINT-making and these kinds of notices should only be added when needed, and not spammed across articles willy-nilly. --Jayron32 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wouldn't an edit notice be sufficient? In addition, there's also an Edit filter that catches a lot of this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• I think the spirit of the notice goes against Wikipedia's core policies, and is creating a de-facto policy which is stricter than WP:CSC. Editors shouldn't be discouraged from adding people to lists with sufficient references, anyone deleting their entry should surely check whether an article exists, and make a good faith search to see if the person added is likely to be notable first? JeffUK (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! I will not continue to use this template! Was just trying to help, but obviously I stepped over myself here and for that I do apologize to all involved for wasting all of your time. I will not use this template again, and will undo it anywhere that I placed it! I will continue to update just the birth and death year on "Notable people" lists if that is alright, since that was the core and original piece of information that I wanted to be helpful in adding. If it is cited and can be found on the original article with a RS? Can we all take a moment to breathe while we are at it? Remind me not to run out and grab groceries mid-edits! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 19:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• (ec)Agree fully with Jayron32's comments. I would much prefer to see a general clarification on the requirements for inclusion on any lists of notables, that can be linked to when necessary. rather than a piecemeal spamming of articles with a heavy-handed notice such as this. I take a fairly hard line about proof of notability for such entries, but it's simply not correct that an article must exist. Even I accept that there are some cases of presumed notability where it is clear that the subject would qualify for an article if one were written. Meters (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm mildly amused that William s insisting that describing an edit as obnoxious is appallingly egregious behavior not befitting an admin. Obviously I do not agree, I described an edit, not a person. Th78blue seems to me to be entirely reasonable, responsive to criticism, and even agreed with my point. As far as I'm concerned the only matter left is William's aggressive reverting to add it back in. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• As a general rule, a hidden comment is only needed if there is a history of problematic editing in that area. If there is persistent addition of non-notable people to a list against WP:CITSTRUCT's guidelines, then a hidden comment can be added. However if there is no observed issue, then lets not presume there's a problem and put it in. In general they're only added anywhere in the encyclopaedia after an observed pattern of editing against guidelines etc. Canterbury Tail talk 20:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure explicitly requires an article for inclusion in lists of notable people. Thanks for the link. Meters (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time (work tomorrow) to peruse the revision history for how, when and why this changed, but it contradicts long-standing consensus that either a standalone article or reliable source would suffice. WP:CCC shouldn't provide an easy excuse for people to change consensus on a whim to suit their personal POVs, yet it's happening and it's happening a lot lately. Creating these sections everywhere further skews our coverage for several reasons. They're already often clogged with people who were merely born in one place while the entirety of their notability revolves around another place, which often goes unacknowledged. Case in point: the main page currently contains an RD link to Young Dolph, who was born in Chicago and moved to Memphis at age two, where his career and death (the sum of his notability) occurred. Going over that article, we're still attempting to give the greater weight to Chicago in terms of categorization and talk page tagging merely because he was born there. Bringing up a current example being afforded lots of attention is ultimately a waste of time, because this exact same thing has been going on for years and years and years unchecked (I'm met with the usual passive-aggressive bullshit whenever I bring it up) and there are innumerable examples throughout the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as this project has made no progress in recognizing or tackling the breadth of notable biography, these sections are also clogged with people who are not contextually representative of the community's history. Anyone reading any given section and familiar with the topic will easily deduce that it's the personal opinion of a person or persons who edit Wikipedia instead of anything remotely credible. The current effort seems to amount to ensuring every article has such a section, even if the article is little removed from boilerplate census data from 20+ years ago and obviously could use attention on more important facets. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• (ec)Completely agree with the above (Meters, JeffUK, Jayron32, &c). Also think, for what it's worth, that WilliamJE has over-reacted a little (which i think was the point of Beeblebrox's original post); apart from anything else, he's incorrectly accused Bbx of being in violation of WP:ESDONTS multiple times, whereas the word "obnoxious" only occurs in Bbx's summaries once, and it's not a violation of ESDONTS anyway. It's fabulous to see Th78blue respond so positively here; i hope WilliamJE can take a small lesson from it. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How is a word defined as 'odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive' neutral? Beeble also used it here[335]- "I cannot stress eoiugh how extremely obnoxious I find the attempt to plaster this "template" all over articles about places in Alaska." Again he called an editor's work disgusting. Even extremely disgusting. How does that not violate CIVIL which reads "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")"? Calling another's edit extremely obnoxious fits the bill...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Like many words in the English language with multiple definitions, context is important. "Obnoxious" is also a synonym for "very annoying" and that is clearly the context in which it was intended here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) From what I can see, Th78blue obviously acted in good faith and was responsive to objections. WilliamJE may need a WP:TROUT for the weirdly confrontational behavior and incivility on the project talk page and here; you should be discussing edits, not editors in an edit dispute. WP:BOOMERANG for Beeblebrox is obviously off the table. Now, could you all please go back to the talk page to iron out consensus for this edit dispute? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing, his objections feel oddly personal. For example, getting on my case because I forgot to sign a post and implying it was deliberate, and repeatedly bringing up that I am an admin in a discussion about content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You're accusing me of personal? I didn't refer to another editors around here as obnoxious. Not once, but twice. You have made multiple misleading comments about me above and you can't be bothered to admit that you violated CIVIL but you want to turn this against me and you have support for being in violation of civil....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's troubling that you are apparently unable to see the obvious direction this discussion is going in, and that you seem unable to grasp the equally obvious distinction between criticizing an edit and criticizing an editor. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies to all for starting this mess, but maybe, just maybe, I can end it?! How about we all just bury the hatchet and go about our day or night wherever we are? We are all working to build the best darn encyclopedia that we can, and I think that a great encyclopedia like this must be built with love. So how about it? I'll bake "digital" cookies and send each participant on this thread a cookie if we can agree to disagree, agreeably, and go about the rest of our respective business amicably (wherever we might be)? ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I see now that all of this behavior fits a very long-term pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So unfair -- he didn't get blocked even once in 2015! --JBL (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I know, but nothing's ever done. I can't even get the community to give me a two-way iban with WilliamJE, and I've tried several times now.—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• There's a template called {{List criteria}} for this (which could easily be modified so it doesn't specify "stand alone" lists). Levivich 18:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So when is one of these discussions formally closed and I can "bake" and hand out "digital cookies" to all involved (see my above comment to this end)?? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 02:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• AN/I discussions last for a completely random amount of time depending on the number of impassioned pleas, passive-aggressive walls of text, images with humorous captions from people who think they're funny, and five-line poems which are usually formatted like the Burma-shave adverts on US roads in the middle of last century but their content will be the moral from an Aesop's fable expressed in ghastly doggerel. After it seems to a self-selected person that the discussion has died down, they will enact what appears to them to be the consensus, which in the case of established editors, is always either "no action" or else a mildly-worded application of the frowny face and waggy finger of administorial disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

AESOP'S FABLES,
WHERE TO BEGIN?
PERHAPS WITH THE ASS IN THE LION'S SKIN?
THE LION GROWN OLD
BECAME THE MISER AND HIS GOLD—
IT'S LEVIVICH THE MISCHIEVOUS DOG AGAIN!
Burma-shave

— Levivich 13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Wikipedia person page for Chelsea_Rustad

Hello,

I originally created a new dispute on the dispute resolution page, and was advised that this would be the more appropriate venue for incidents involving clear vandalism of a page.

The page in question is Chelsea_Rustad. The user SneaselxLv94 submitted a deletion request of the page based on the following false claims: - That the page is written from a non-objective POV. This is false as there are no opinions on the page; only cited objective facts. - That there is no public interest in the page. This is false as there is public interest in the subject matter because this person, Chelsea Rustad, was featured in the new 48 Hours film "A Killer in the Family Tree" which debuted last night, and clearly the SneaselxLv94 user googled it themselves due to this public interest and is now obsessed with targeting and defacing the page for unknown reasons. In addition, there are plenty of other pages on Wikipedia about individuals with fewer link citations and/or less notoriety than the person described on this page. - That the person described in the page just wants attention as a "celebrity" and thinks Wikipedia is "social media" because there is a photo. These are false, sexist, unfounded claims and personal attacks from the user SneaselxLv94 who is not acquainted with Chelsea Rustad(Personal attack removed). Plenty of Wikipedia pages about individual people have photos, and this photo has already been properly verified as being permitted under Wikipedia's copyright in the page edit history.

I'm not sure what courses of action would be available, but perhaps a warning to the SneaselxLv94 user who is using the "delete request" function to try to have a page removed for false reasons, and to defame and personally insult a public figure whom they are not acquainted with, would be appropriate. Or some kind of edit protection against this particular user SneaselxLv94 for the time being.

Thank you for your attention.

Nemesis 03:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachelsea (talk • contribs)

There is no "vandalism" inherent to suggesting that a page be deleted, or nominating the page for deletion. Personal comments about the motivation for creating the page are not necessarily helpful and should be discouraged, but also do not constitute vandalism. Having reviewed the page, I also don't feel the subject is a candidate for an encyclopedic biography - seems to me a classic case of people notable for only a single event. Thus, I have nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Rustad. Your comments are welcome there, but do not remove the deletion nomination tag until the discussion is closed by an uninvolved administrator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)[...] and has been before on multiple occasions for the past 3 years since it was not a "one time event". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachelsea (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the personal attacks, Pikachelsea, or you'll find yourself on the receiving end of sanctions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I haven't seen an episode of 48 Hours in probably two decades, so no, how about not?

Judging by your username, you are the article subject - is that correct? If so, I would strongly suggest you read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:ABOUTME, and WP:COI. People writing about themselves on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as that creates an obvious conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutrally-written, based upon independent reliable sources, and are not intended to be promotional of the person in question. Article subjects are not entitled to control content on their Wikipedia biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

They have admitted to being the article subject, if you look at the trail of the photo in the article it's clear and stated that the OP is the article subject and is therefore just self-promoting. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Original Poster filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, stating that another editor was vandalizing the page by requesting its deletion, and also that the other editor was trolling. I said that DRN does not deal either with deletion disputes or conduct allegations, and told them to read the boomerang essay, and that idle allegations of vandalism and trolling are personal attacks. I then advised them either to report the vandalism and trolling here at WP:ANI or at the vandalism noticeboard, or not to report it. I apologize to the community if I did not sufficiently caution them against making a useless report. I think that I did already warn them against personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Did the OP aim at a kangaroo that doesn't exist? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Happily, the OP's vanity article is racking up a SNOW delete at AfD, and perhaps she'll seek out other sources of self-promotion other than Wikipedia in the future. Ravenswing 16:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade Attack

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

---

I haven't found a source yet that describes this incident as an attack. The media uses "plow" to describe the incident. Using "Attack", especially in the article's title, seems to me to be very inappropriate. I've made note of this on the article's talk page, but it hasn't attracted much interest. Ordinarily I'd let this matter run its course as a matter of routine, but I'm especially concerned that this unsourced and speculative description has made its way into the article's title. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• My thought is that this is a content matter unsuited for ANI. Nothing prevents you from a page move to a more neutral title, such as using "incident" instead of "Attack." Ravenswing 05:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: the on-going RM makes moves immediately challenged. I do think BLP is at issue here because "attack" suggests motive. We have no info that this was an attack. I think " incident" should be used until we know more. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely and obviously needs to be renamed. --JBL (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I was reading an article earlier that said the guy was fleeing a prior incident, went the wrong way, and then decided to go through the crowed instead of doubling back into whatever he was trying to escape from. So the articles title should be renamed. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  The article has now been renamed to the embarrassing but BLP-compliant 2021 Waukesha car crash. (Actually first it got renamed to 2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade incident, but I assume the close timing of the two moves indicates that Fuzheado didn't see that.) --JBL (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  The article has been renamed, and the BLP issue closed. The requested move has been closed as well without prejudice. As noted in the close, notable articles with similar names are not unusual, such as 2017 Times Square car crash and 2021 Imperial County car crash. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is already posted here, I think it would be helpful to have some additional admin eyes on this article's talk page. Because the article itself has been semi-protected, at least one troll has turned their attention to the talk page and I suspect there will be more, as is usually the case with any event like this. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, lots of rev-delling needed; semi-protection wouldn't hurt, either. --JBL (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

HonestWikiCitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE; see the user's attack draft page plus comments being left on the talk page. --MuZemike 15:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

+1, obvious trolling. Levivich 15:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:HonestWikiCitizen#Indefinite block. El_C 16:09, 22 November 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:51.6.138.90 reported by Alexander Davronov

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.

---

All of sudden the British IP popped out of nowhere in a WP:MOS discussion (below) and blatantly attacked me for no reason. I didn't care until a day later when he reverted 2 of my edits under pretext of bad grammar. Not sure what's the point but I suspect that this behavior has nothing to do with the grammar, language or anything.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Request

I request to consider WP:IBAN or any sanction at your discretion.

Pages involved

• Wikipedia talk:WTW#MOS:AWW example (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Coco/R (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rasterisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

ANI Notice on his talk page: [14:04, November 22, 2021]

User who is reporting

Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's misbehavior

• WP:UNCIVIL / WP:NPA violation:

  22:51, November 21, 2021 - «‎MOS:AWW example: comment on the user who added the absurd "example"»

  14:29, November 22, 2021 - «‎User:51.6.138.90 reported by Alexander Davronov»

• WP:UNCIVIL / WP:HARASS violation (the diffs belong to different articles)

  12:02, November 22, 2021 - «Undid revision 1056516782 by Alexander Davronov talk) try again in actual English, if you can»

  12:07, November 22, 2021 - «undoing edits which introduced multiple grammar and syntax errors»

Your English is extremely poor. You are harming articles by adding text that is full of grammar errors, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility. Meanwhile, "this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Your post does not seem to be an appropriate use of this noticeboard. 51.6.138.90 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h, WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 22 November 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.

Agathyrsi page

The user LuUkus has been carrying out disruptive editing on the Agathyrsi entry by constantly adding information rejected as ideologically-motivated historical revisionism by researchers on the topic and is now edit warring with me. Can I please obtain help to prevent them from doing so again? Antiquistik (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I am copying my comment on this issue from your other report. I also wanted to ask the same and had the same concern about you. Deletion of sources is truly a bad habit. And declaring them as belonging to ideologically-motivated historical revisionism even more. You cannot prove your words and you are mixing to much up. This is also a bad habit. (last edit I wasn't logged in) --LuUkus (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

LuUkus your source was removed because it is contradicted by the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue, which is contained in the numerous citations I have added to the article. It's not a question of habit or of my opinions, but of whether your source holds when compared to the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue. Antiquistik (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@other editors, this page confirms my point. It's not certain that Agathyrsi were one of the Scythian tribes, they are described as non-Scythian: https://books.google.com/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA103 (there is no consensus among scholars)--LuUkus (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but a member of related peoples of the Scythian cultures. The sources on the Agathyrsi page, especially Olbrycht and Batty, which are more recent that the Cambridge Ancient History, do confirm that and attest of members of the Agathyrsi having personal names in an Iranian dialect belonging to the Scythian group. Antiquistik (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What I see, on that page, is that Herodotus claims they're non-Scythian, but that scholars are not convinced they're in fact non-Scythian. I don't know if that is a distinction without a difference, but when you say "they are described", it seems to me that you are eliding the fact that it's Herodotus who does that describing. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: The article at Agathyrsi contains more recent published information gained from further linguistic and archaeological research in the years and decades after the Cambridge History of Early Central Asia was published. The present consensus is that the Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but were nevertheless still a Scythic, and therefore Iranic, people closely related to the Scythians, which is what the info in my edits say since they use the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue as source. Antiquistik (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiquistik, this edit is so huge you need to explain what parts were removed on which grounds. Removing Herodotus, cited as if it were proper historical information, I get that, but there is more in that big edit. LuUkus, it seems to me you are not being very precise here or in your edit summaries: take it to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In addition of quotations Herodotus, the rest of the article consisted largely of similar direct quotations of Pomponius Mela and Ammianus Marcellinus, which in the context of this article are pieces of raw data. I removed these citations because the information based on that raw data was already present in shorter condensed form in the information from Olbrycht and Batty. As for the section on the Akatziri, it contained too many details not relevant to the article, so I trimmed it and kept only the parts relevant to the Agathyrsi. I will of course re-check if anything important was deleted during my edit and I will add the information back with the proper sources in that case. Antiquistik (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiquistik, ANI is not for arguing content or explaining edits; that should be done on the talk page. If you want US to help enforce an edit you made, that edit should be well explained, preferably on the talk page, and should really have gotten consensus on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Alright, I am adding an explanation on the article's talk page. Antiquistik (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)