Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092

Events DC

Single purpose account Arickford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes these changes delete references, adds unsourced and possibly copywrite protected text, and includes language that is promotional and unencyclopedic ("the venue is great", "a premier event experience"), has not engaged on talk. Bangabandhu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I just protected separately from this report as I saw the reverting back and forth on my watch list and then saw this report in your conitribs, @Bangabandhu: . I have not explored the merit of Arickford's edits, but will do so now and take action if needed. Star Mississippi 20:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions that infringe on copyright and think they probably need to be partially blocked from the page. Thanks for flagging this. Star Mississippi 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Bangabandhu (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation by Venkat TL

Venkat TL is frequently referring an individual who died recently as a 'terrorist'[1] even though the person in the question never engaged in any 'terrorist' activity. This comes even after he was notified of his misconduct [2] and was asked to strike the BLP violation he is doing on the talk page,[3] but he is clearly doubling down[4] thus proving his inability to edit this subject in a neutral manner.

Note: this user was already informally warned for disruption in this area on ARE this month.[5] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The sole purpose of existence of this account is to file false cases against me on admin boards, in addition to copyright violations here and there. This guy will not stop till he is blocked or banned from admin boards.

Before posting on ANI, CapnJackSp did not discuss the matter with me on my talk page.

No terrrorist word was added into the article. He is putting diffs of talk page discussion thread, Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row#Violence_section and this has been in news already.

"CIA declares VHP, Bajrang Dal as terrorist organisations". www.thenews.com.pk.

"Bajrang Dal activist killed in Shivamogga a 'terrorist', says foreign journalist; Karnataka DGP reacts". India Today. 21 February 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have never filed a report before. Your first source does not mention Shivamogga (or the person in question), and you have been already told here that CIA once called Bajrang Dal a religious militant, not terrorist. They have a different category for terrorists. CIA removed the mention of Bajrang Dal ages ago. To say that a tweet from a 'foreign journalist' justifies your BLP violation shows your utter ignorance of Wiki policies. I am sorry but your comprehension issues are not salvageable at this stage. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are proving my point that this is a fake report. Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG.Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am unconvinced that the OP is WP:HERE. Looking at their contribs, they are practically all either in contentious areas or contentious themselves. There are ten notices on their userpage about concerns with their editing, and they've only been contributing since 10 January. Even if half of them are unfounded, that probably gives you an idea of their modus operandi. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have been contributing since December 2021, and have made more than 600 edits. I have got only 2 valid "notices" but nevertheless I have taken care to ensure that my contributions are unbiased and constructive. I hope you comment on the cited BLP violation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Dismiss: The diffs concern a (needless) qualifier in an otherwise-valid argument on content at the talk-page. NPOV etc. does not apply in its strictest sense at talk-pages and we allow a fair degree of liberty to editors. I am not convinced that this is a BLPVIO either. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• CapnJackSp you said that Venkat is not being neutral, but I really don't see you being neutral either on the talk page of that article. Per TrangaBellam, this looks like a content dispute more than a behavioral issue. When content disputes get heated, otherwise good users make mistakes.VR _talk 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

For starters, BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. Per WP:BLPSTYLE we do not label people with contentious labels like Terrorist (unless it is a common label in sources, and even then use attribution), so this is a BLP violation. However, it appears to be currently limited to the one discussion section, so I'm not sure that anything other more serious than a warning that calling someone a terrorist is not acceptable per BLP is warranted at this time. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• You know, Venkat TL has faced a lot of BS from editors in this area and I'm not entirely convinced the OP is WP:HERE. But at the same time, the OP is right. Venkat, you can't call a living person a terrorist without a citation. That is probably one of the most WP:contentious labels there is in the English language. It implies criminality, it implies being dangerously violent, it invokes connotations of terrorist attacks, and so much more. WP:BLP is clear on this, "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". You didn't source your contentious claim and that's a BLP violation. The first cite about the organization is WP:SYNTH, as it needs to actually call the person in question a terrorist. Just because someone is a member of a designated terrorist organization doesn't mean we can call them terrorists. The United States Armed Forces are a designated terrorist organization by Iran. I can't use this to call individual people in the US military "terrorists". The second cite is better, but you should've provided it at the start.

Even if this wasn't a BLP violation, calling someone a "terrorist" contributed nothing to the discussion. At no point did you actually propose including information about this person allegedly being a terrorist in the article. All invoking that word did was inflame an already heated discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chess, I understand your point. The actual dispute was not about adding the word terrorist into the article. So I did not add a reference then. I did when asked. This was a non issue, over my comment. If someone would have asked me to remove the word, I would have removed the word. No one brought this issue to my talk page. But OP thought it was a good chance to try some sniping at ANI. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 4

Special:Contributions/219.77.210.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 14 August in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a relatively benign IP range. Does this guy have a filing on WP:LTA? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No,but this user have a filing on zh:WP:LTA.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 14:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/1.36.224.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 7 June in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• +Special:Contributions/42.2.137.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 14 November in last year (only 42.2.137.41 is not),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ping User:El C.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year, all. El_C 09:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/219.77.217.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 9 January in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year. Heh, you might need a dedicated thread, MCC214. ;) El_C 15:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/220.246.194.0/23,this LTA use this IP range after 13 July in last year (only 220.246.195.29 is not),zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also,please protect Backpacking (hiking),start at 20 in last month,spam and DE.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done and Done. El_C 13:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/218.250.200.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 5 April in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Another one bites the stardust. El_C 08:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/42.2.168.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 24 April in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also,please protect Tourism,start at 22 in last month,spam and DE.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ping User:El C.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

K. El_C 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/42.3.188.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2016,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL: diffs as proof of WP:PAID work

MCC214, it's possible that the link spammer is providing diffs as proof of WP:PAID work (or maybe they're playing the Google indexing lottery, doesn't matter). Could you compile a list of the affected pages? I'd like to revdel the lot of em. Thanks! El_C 08:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• So many......,

1. Backpack,FIFA 22,2002 FIFA World Cup (video game),FIFA 16,NBA Live 15
2. NBA Live 16,FIFA 20,FIFA 15,Davilex Games,Sonic Adventure 2,Sonic Adventure
3. Sonic 3D Blast,List of Pokémon,Fjällräven,Bag,Dora and Friends: Into the City!
4. Polly Pocket,Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle,Bubble Symphony,Ape Escape 3,Virtua Cop 3
5. Rampage World Tour,Sonic the Hedgehog 3,UEFA Europa Conference League,The Incredibles (video game),Doll
6. Dragon Ball Z: Idainaru Dragon Ball Densetsu,Dragon Ball Z: Sagas,Rilakkuma,Spyro the Dragon,Dynasty Warriors 3
7. Virtua Cop,FIFA 17,2006 FIFA World Cup (video game),Uno (video game),2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil (video game)
8. 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa (video game),Bomberman Land (PSP),Sonic Heroes
9. Mario (franchise),Angry Birds Blast,Tourism,Donkey Kong 64,Crazy Taxi (video game)
10. Super Monkey Ball Touch & Roll,Bomberman World,List of Dora the Explorer episodes,Dynasty Warriors 4,Bust-a-Move DS
11. FIFA 19,Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game),Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga,Thuwaini bin Said,Pro Evolution Soccer 2019
12. Jewel Master,Pro Evolution Soccer 2014,Bomberman Land (Wii),Lego Duplo,UEFA Europa League
13. Care Bears,Columns III,Bomberman 64 (2001 video game),Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars,Crack Down
14. Bomberman Wars,Super Bomberman,Puzzle Bobble 3,Pro Evolution Soccer 2015,Rampage World Tour
15. Patrick Kong,Sonic Team,Bomb Jack,Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Zero,Metal Slug 4
16. Sonic & Knuckles,Neo Bomberman,Kids (MGMT song),Jigsaw puzzle,Bomberman 64 (1997 video game)
17. Diddy Kong Racing,Gran Turismo Sport,FIFA 18,The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 video game),Cars (video game)
18. Crash Team Racing,Lego Worlds,Sonic the Hedgehog 3,Pro Evolution Soccer 2012,Super Monkey Ball Jr.
19. Nike Vision,Bomberman Kart,Bomberman Generation,Pro Evolution Soccer 2018,EFootball PES 2020
20. Gran Turismo 6,Gran Turismo Sport,Gain Ground,The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014 video game),Bust-A-Move Bash!
21. Ape Escape 2,Ape Escape (video game),Golden Axe,Ristar,2002 FIFA World Cup (video game),Ribbit King
22. In the Hunt,Crypt Killer,Pro Evolution Soccer 6,Golden Axe II,Sonic Generations
23. Lego Star Wars: The Video Game,Teddy bear,Winnie-the-Pooh (1969 film),FIFA 21,Puzzle Bobble Plus!,Gran Turismo 4. --MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Exterminating Angel

Following on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements, The Exterminating Angel (talk · contribs) has been told repeatedly and often not to add journal editors or other irrelevant parameters to cite templates. He has consistently and repeatedly refused to stop doing so, e.g. [6][7][8]. I now ask for an indefinite block for persistent and intransigent disruptive behavior. DrKay (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Seconded, to get the editor to stop doing this with citations. The Exterminating Angel received a polite note with explanation from Rjensen on 8 October that his use of all available parameters in journal citation templates was inappropriate. On 17 October he raised the above-linked complaint here, in which multiple editors again attempted to explain to him that not all parameters are to be used in every citation, and he repeatedly objected to the information: if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place; If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?; Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The discussion also brought out factual errors in his work. After the edit containing that third quote, he did not edit again until 21 January, when his edit summary was Added new sources, cleaned up the text which was full of assumptions (such as that MBS prefers to kill people rather than locking them up because it's more convenient, which might well be true but it's personal conclusion from whoever wrote this originally) and updated the existing sources with missing parameters, and that first edit adds editors and place of publication for Al Jazeera. He also responded to DrKay's warning (in a section started by Nil Einne reminding him of what was said in October, and making specific points): I'm sorry buddy, I had no idea I was forbidden from using the parameters that are available for anyone to use and which are described in the official Wikipedia guide for sources templates. The note of condescension may be caused by language problems, but this is bald WP:IDHT. He's causing a mess that needs clean-up, and isn't stopping even after this statement; see his most recent edit, to Old Major on 22 February. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've done my best to assume good faith throughout this whole business, though I never shook the idea that he might be someone's bad-hand sockpuppet. Either way, I think we've about run our course here? Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Exterminated. GiantSnowman 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation

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.

---

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

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

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

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

We love you Wikipedia

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.

---

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

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

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

Historiantruth WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

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

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

More recently they started to remove sources without explanation [11] [12] or with rather more aggravating edit summaries such as:

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

There's also a legal threat: [16] "Wallahi yall have agenda on Samaale and Hawiye lineage! Im literally in Somalia and asked Hawiye traditional elders and said they never claimed arab and that they are not! Wlh legal actions will be soon taken if this propaganda edit will not stop! Lying about lineage and origin of my people will not be tolerated!"

They seem to have a specific issue with the idea that Somali clan genealogies generally claim origins among early (Arab) Muslims, a fact about which scholars are univocal. They have repeatedly inserted or restored a line ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) instead claiming that Somali genealogy "dates back to their Cushitic ancestors 5000 YBP", in blatant contradiction with what the source cited after the line actually says (Ioan Lewis, pp. 11-12 here).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tolu io

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spamming autobio across multiple wikis

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

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

Highly embarrassing rename request of article about ongoing Russian invasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

User:Alpaps, copyvio and promotional editing

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

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

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

Civil POV pusher on Peter Dinklage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kitty Is Not a Cat disruptive editing by IP hopper

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

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

They use the following ranges:

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

And the following IP addresses:

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

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

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

Removing awards and honour, Persistent disruptive editing

This SaNaNtha Hegde sockpuppet of [[25]] is back reverting and vandalism with disruptive edits over the pages. At Meena (actress), Vani Bhojan

with unsigned IP 27.61.27.250 at Meena (actress) - [[26]] at Vani Bhojan - [[27]]

with signed IP SaNaNtha Hegde at Meena (actress) - [[28]] at Vani Bhojan - [[29]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.88.20 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of talk

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS campaign by IP 37.111.219.223

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

1. IP tried to remove the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies) from the Badi al-Din article, to add Islamic honorifics in violation of MOS:ISLAMHON, and to add the deprecated "shattariya.blogspot". Edit summary: "last reliable version"[30]
2. IP tried to revert XlinkBot at the Badi al-Din article, in an attempt to restore the same edit. Edit sumary: "last reliable version"[31]
3. IP tried to remove Brill/EI3 referencess from the Badi al-Din article, calling it "link spam" and "reverting paid link promotion" in their edit summary[32]-[33]-[34]
4. More attempts by said IP at restoring doing the same material at the Badi al-Din article.[35]
5. Comment by IP at my talk page "I see you are promoting, paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it<, because paid link are usually not cited as reference. Since Wikipedia is not the vehicle for promotion. Thank you. "[36]
6. Comments IP left at Talk:Badi al-Din, in reference to Brill sources "I see someone spamming paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it?" and "Since most of the content is based on Brill online, I am restoring it to last stable revision"[37]
7. Issued IP warnings on several occassions[38]

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

More: It is interesting note that IP 37.111.218.109,[39] which is clearly operated by the same user, tried to add the exact same "shattariya.blogspot"[40] to the Badi al-Din article, but was likewise reverted by XlinkBot[41]. The same user then, used another IP to revert XlinkBot yet again.[42] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

More2: Now they've started to use even more IP socks as we speak[43] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is terrible that the editor or his/ her sock/ meat [44] do not wait even few minutes to revert, even though the article was tagged with inuse, it clearly explain their COI. I will again remove that paid link and will try to add better source relevant to Sayed Badiuddin, against Wikipedia:Spam 37.111.217.215 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Brill Publishers is the single most high-quality publishing house for anything related to Middle Eastern history, as well as classics and some other disciplines. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the standard reference work in the field, and as reliable as it gets for an encyclopedia. Anyone who would think that adding references to this is unduly promoting Brill has a very serious competency issue. Being confronted with such editors is rather daily grind on WP, but when combined by such a severe lack of AGF as seen here, it really gets aggravating. On top of all this, the IP is clearly not a new user, so it's not like we could regard WP as a place for them to learn about Brill et al. I recommend a temporary range block, to be extended when necessary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• The IP must be the same person as the disruptive IP who used IP socks at Tariqa, where also attempted to do something akin (and also starts with the IP number 37.111), including the use of shattariya.blogspot [45] [46]. I did already report him but to no avail [47], even though he kept attacking me in the very thread as well, just like what he is doing now to LouisAragon. Think it's about high time a range block is made. He does not bring anything to Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block evation

Long term abuse blocked user [48] has again being evading block with new IP [49]. --C messier (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

@Ymblanter: Now he uses a new IP [50]. --C messier (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Onel5969 recent behaviour includes:

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

The situation started when I spotted a dubious claim on the article Kayako Saeki and asked for verification on the talk page: [51]. For whatever reason, Onel5969 responded by redirecting and slapping notability templates on as many poorly-written Ringu and Ju-On articles as he could find (compilation). The edit summaries weren't clear to me whether he was following WP:ARTN and several of the articles he templated/redirected were questionable at best. A few examples include the original Ringu novel, the protagonist of the original Ring, and even Kayako Saeki (Kayako and Sadako are the two biggest J-horror icons). He also admitted here to not following ARTN and that some of the articles can be fixed with rewrites.

I reverted most of them so that he would gain consensus (WP:ATD-R) and also replied to him on the talk page: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]

The next day, Onel5969 signed into his account and reinstated several of the templates and redirects: [64], [65], [66], [67]. I reverted him again, advising him to take the matter to WP:AFD ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72]). I also took the discussion to his talk page: [73]. He responded by claiming that all of his templates and redirects were backed by WP:BURDEN and made another round of reverts: [74], [75], [76]. There are a couple of problems with his reasoning here:

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

I reverted him again ([77], [78], [79]) and he reinstated his edits again ([80], [81], [82], [83]). At this point, I dropped an edit warring warning on his talk page ([84], [85]).

Someone else opened a third talk page discussion to encourage discussion and curve the edit war: [86]. However, Onel5969 showed up simply to make spurious allegations and claim that he wasn't really edit warring because his edits are correct ([87]). I responded to the thread and told him he had a single day to engage in dispute resolution or I would report him for edit warring. He instead kept responding (or rather, not responding) by repeating the same point about WP:BURDEN over and over without saying anything new, no matter how many times it was refuted. I could say literally anything and Onel5969 would go right back to Point #1.

The following day, Onel5969 decided to canvass his peers at the unrelated WP:NPPR to gain supporters, with a notification that wasn't even neutral: [88]. It's likely that he engaged in stealth-canvassing even before that, because the only previous support he got was from two other NPPR reviewers who simply repeated his claim without actually responding to the counterpoints anything: [89], [90]. One of them is actually a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's who engaged in obvious tag-team behaviour, including filibustering of his own, accusing me of Onel5969's canvassing ([91]), replying with generalised (sometimes non-sequitur) platitudes instead of responding to what I actually said, and trolling to goad me to keep replying.

Additionally:

• Evidence of weird policy gymnastics: [92], [93], [94]
• Onel5969 ignoring more advice to open an AFD per WP:BLAR: [95], [96]

This was resolved when another user intervened on the Kayako page ([97]), and I stopped replying to the stonewalling and simply demonstrated what I was saying about WP:BURDEN (while adding a new section for good measure): [98], [99]

I left an additional warning on Onel's talk page about engaging in disruption in the future and was prepared to let the situation be. However, he wasted no time making personal attacks and continuing the exact same behaviour elsewhere: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]

Darkknight2149 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering that, apart from other policies and guidelines, the article actions of Onel are in line with WP:V and the actions of DarkKnight (e.g. here) are directly opposed to what WP:V states (e.g. "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.", I think that at least for this aspect a boomerang trout for Darkknight is warranted. I haven't looked at other behavioural aspects by the different people involved here. Fram (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang

I came close to bringing this to ANI myself after Darkknight2149's totally unfounded insinuations of canvassing by email[106]. However, as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with WP:BURDEN, I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally and there was no point in rekindling the flames. Despite warning from myself[107] and Insertcleverphrasehere[108] that going to ANI may boomerang, the OP refuses to drop the stick.

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

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[109]. This seems to be an appropriate notification and calling this canvassing is incorrect. Although the post linked to the discussion on the article talk page, the OP took this as an opportunity for a further venue to attack Onel5969[110].

The OP refuses to WP:AGF on the part of other editors. When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs[111].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally

So did I, until Onel5969 continued the same behaviour elsewhere ([112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]). I didn't want to have to file this report.

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

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

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[118]. This seems to be an appropriate notification and calling this canvassing is incorrect.

This is frankly dishonest. The canvassing wasn't neutral at all, Onel's exact words were "Interesting pseudo-discussion I've had over at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, regarding these two policies. Thought reviewers might benefit from checking it out." Onel was then advised to take the dispute to WP:AFD per WP:BLAR ([119]) and his response was equally dismissive ([120]). The dispute was also 100% unrelated to WP:NPPR. Onel was attempting to canvass his editing group for supporters, which is a form of vote-stacking.

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

This wasn't an accusation, I suggested that the two of you may not have read through everything. The reason for this is that, after Onel continued filibustering by simply repeating the same point over and over (without responding to anything I was saying), you and Buidhe replied the next day simply to repeat his one already-addressed point ([121], [122]). Other editors above have noted this: "Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying" and I myself pointed this out to you several times at WP:NPPR. See also: [123], [124] (which you didn't reply to).

would accept consensus

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

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

John, I didn't accuse Buidhe of tag-teaming. I accused you of tag-teaming and only after your actions had demonstrated that. You showed up to Onel5969's canvassing at NPPR specifically to accuse me of his forum shopping ([125]) and your responses after that weren't constructive either: replying with vague generalised platitudes, nonsequitor accusations, trolling to goad me to keep responding, ETC. Your claim that Onel's canvassing at WP:NPPR was "neutral" is even more evidence of that. The User Interaction tool also revealed that you are a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's, which normally wouldn't mean anything by itself. But coupled with everything else.

Meanwhile, this is relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Removed a question from my talk page and answered it in an edit summary.
• Said I would keep a cursory glance on Onel5969 to make sure he doesn't engage in this behaviour again elsewhere (which he immediately did: [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]).
• "Wiki-lawyered" by citing policies correctly.
• "Stonewalled" by addressing all of Onel5969's points, even as he kept repeating the same thing over and over no matter what (without responding to anything I said). Something that others here have also pointed out.
• "Edit warred" by attempting talk page discussion multiple times.
• Simply complained and made threats instead of... Taking the matter to WP:ANI?

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

Per WP:ATD-R:

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

Per WP:Dispute resolution:

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

Per WP:ATD:

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

Per WP:Edit warring:

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

Pertinent

Per WP:PRIMARY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

IP editor doing something weird with repetitive edits going nowhere

IP editor 98.16.48.211 has added and removed a single full-stop more than 25 times at Melissa Perry (epidemiologist) here: [132]. I have no idea what they might be up to? Elemimele (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Re-creation of deleted articles by OE1995

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP 31.15.188.144, Russian POV pushing and disruptive editing.

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

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

To defend him, unblock the UTRS pending user.

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

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

Could an admin please escort someone to the door?

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.

---

See this page, and specifically the posts here and here. Background information, if it really matters, is available here. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR IP back to previous pestering/annoyance

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

There have been previous discussions here regarding this IP, including 107.146.244.150 - disruptive editing, hoax articles/drafts, etc. and Disruptive IP- persistent hoaxes, draft/page protection removal requests, etc..

They were previously blocked by admin Acroterion (talk · contribs), "...on the basis of WP:CIR". Following their block, the IP pestered Acroterion on Commons hoping to try to get unblocked early. Now the IP is constantly edit warring on my own talk page, despite how many times I try to revert them, they just continue to bring back what I reverted anyways.

Clearly there is still a WP:CIR issue, and clearly they haven't learned from their previous block. Thinking a block longer than the previous 6-month block is required at this point. If the IP attempts to go to other Wikisites (such as Commons) asking to be unblocked early, I think a global blockage may be needed (is that done for IPs? Not sure, lol).

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

DONT BLOCK ME. I DONE WITH IT!!! 107.146.244.150 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have learned from my previous block, and no blocking me again. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Your behavior since the previous block ended obviously says otherwise. Magitroopa (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No blocking me, or else I will be mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.146.244.150 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I created an account. MarioBobFan. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You didn't create such an account & your being angry if blocked, is irrelevant. Also, you don't seem to have a strong knowledge of english. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, your capitalization could use a bit of work there, matey. EEng 07:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to create an account for my whole life, and I am 107.146.244.150. I will most likely rarely do edits here. MarioBobFan (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Both your account & IP should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I reverted a comment here by MarioBobFan as it was disruptive, and have blocked the IP again for six months, this time as a hard account block -- TNT (talk • she/her) 00:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: 'MarioBobFan' is the newly created account of the same IP (107.146.244.150)- should that be blocked as well, or should that get blocked if they continue their disruptiveness/annoyance from that account following the IP block? Magitroopa (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: The IP was hardblocked, which automatically also blocks any accounts that attempt to edit from it. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I'd opted not to block that account for a number of reasons, one of which being that I try to keep away from anything that looks like linking an IP and account 🙂 I see Acroterion has dealt with it now -- TNT (talk • she/her) 00:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not being a CU, I can't technically link the IP and account, so I am going on the assumption that their assertion is accurate, or that somebody else is trolling us. Either way, they're blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User: ZaniGiovanni

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) Not sure what you're trying to say when I removed the BLP myself today when an IP tried adding it back, and which other Azerbaijani users removed too [133] including 3rd party editor from BLP discussion [134]. I'm actually in talks with the 3rd party user trying to reach consensus in their talk page.

6) ??

I'm actively trying to reach consensus both in DRN and in talk, meanwhile this user edit-wars and removes HRW sourced info, basic POV push and JDLI [135], [136]. They don't provide any valid arguments in talk either, see Talk:Lachin#HRW. I do believe this user to be on a sole WP:SPA journey and pushing their single POV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) No you don't and the talk discussion is evidence for it Talk:Lachin#HRW, what is this "strong" argument I've yet to hear about? It's very straight forward. We have the HRW source, you kept removing it and citing "ONUS" without actually giving your argument for it. You can't just cite random guidelines as a reason for your edit-war, it's just abuse of guidelines. You have to have an actual valid argument for removing sourced content by a very reliable source [137], [138].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said, I'm not the only one thinking that you're on a single purpose journey [139], [140], [141]. I don't mind 3rd party giving their input in talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from a Non-Mediator

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

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

Personal attacks by User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro

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

Hi all, I feel that this user is becoming a bit of a problem and resorts to very unpleasant attacks, particularly relating to two recent AfDs for Lelo Sejean. In this incident, he calls another user an imbecile and a racist and tells them that they're not allowed to edit any articles relating to Paraguay. Sejean was sent to AfD again this month and their response was to tell The-Pope to stay away from Paraguay football articles as well. What then follows is three posts which are clear verbal abuse. It's all in Spanish but I don't think that you will need a translator: [142] [143] [144]. This verbal abuse appeared to stop for a bit but there was one more incident. Please note 'hdp' means 'hijo de puta' (son of a bitch). If you look at this user's talk page history, they have had a plethora of warnings and have made no improvement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add canvassing for AfD.[145][146][147] Their behavior in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lelo Sejean (5th nomination) is out of line. Their comment there indicates they are using machine translation to write in English. Has made no comments on article talk pages since 2020. Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurel Lodged at WP:AN

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that it's a bit rich of @MJL: to jump in on comments about neutral users. He himself declares that he has a personal page on Azeri Wiki: [148]. In it he has lots of nice things to say about Azeri proverbs. I don't see the proverb about "Those in glasshouses should not throw stones". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did watch that WP:AN thread, and while I certainly think some of Laurel's remarks were a bit too much, I do agree with him regarding The Banner's WP:POINTY comments. I've only interacted with him once, and that certainly wasn't a positive one [149]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

El C I'll address your concerns. Firstly, I checked previous threads regarding Solavirum, in all of them, MJL was involved: [150], [151], [152], including the appeal yesterday. Secondly, I thought it was already being discussed that Laurel isn't really uninvolved, so I gave my 2 cents regarding MJL and their involvement, which wasn't being discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unarchived

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

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

User:Sergecross73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Martinevans123 ignoring discussion & instigating edit war

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

---

Can an admin please do something about Martinevans123 and his behavior on the page & talk page of Martin Heidegger? He is constantly changing the article without any form of consensus, without any form of discussion, even when there's a discussion active on the talk page of the article. I'm really tired of this stupid behavior. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please be wary of WP:BOOMERANG because this [153] and this [154] were personal attacks against a good faith editor. Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have also now removed this "notification", about this discussion, from my Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I note that the OP is 56 edits into their Wikipedia career and this is their second appearance at ANI attempting to get another editor sanctioned (for no good reason that I can see), whilst as noted above throwing around at least three personal attacks themselves. I suspect a collaborative editing environment such as Wikipedia may not be a good fit for them. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to complain about Martinevans' behaviour, it would be helpful to provide diffs; looking at Talk:Martin Heidegger and Special:History/Martin Heidegger it isn't at all clear to me what Martinevans is supposed to have done wrong, but you do seem to be being unnecessarily fighty. (e.g. in this edit, calling Martin "a nasty piece of work" in the edit summary seems like completely unprovoked incivility) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to raise this on WP:AN#(Talk) page Martin Heidegger [1] and ANI simultaneously. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the feeling that Martin is (once again) calling on to some friends to help him out. Apart from that, to continue editing a contested section is contrary to all customs here on Wikipedia, you all know this! Secondly, Martin is far from being a 'good faith editor'. And this is my point: his lasts edits were - apart from being unjust, since there's still a discussion going on - absolutely not in good faith whatsoever; and everybody who saw the edits knows this! Last but not least, I would really appreciate an objective and above all neutral admin to react on this matter, not Martin's friends from his edits on cities in Wales. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What a wholly ridiculous suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans will doubtless be heartbroken to learn that although I am sure he is a lovely person, as I have never met him, I have never interacted with him onwiki, and as far as I know I have never even edited the same articles as him, I am not his friend. Just casting vague aspersions against good faith editors is not going to get you very far here. I repeat my previous advice: if you want anyone to take your report seriously, you need to make specific claims with diffs to support them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion was not made by me in the first place, but by an editor in the previous incident I reported about. Martin apparently befriended some admin who decided to react on this matter. That seemed absurd in my opinion, why would you do that? Just as absurd as the comment made by Black Kite here above, about my 56 edits, whose name I did encounter on Martin's page. Therefore I repeat: I would like a neutral admin to react to this matter. Firstly on his edit of 11:47, 28 February 2022‎: 'Polish philosopher Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz has said he is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial."' which is an absurd edit. And secondly the fact that he's editing this at all, since there was consensus about the sentence on the TP and he didn't bring anything up about this at the TP. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That edit, far from being "absurd", was 100% accurate. That's three absurds in one single post there. I've brought all of my concerns to that Talk page multiple times. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Black Kite has made three edits to Martin's talkpage over the course of the past five years, all of which are standard notifications. That's hardly smoking-gun evidence of close friendship. The admin who was apparently friends with Martin in your previous report was Richie333, who hasn't commented in this discussion at all, and so I have no idea why you are bringing them up. The edit you mention is this one, which is by no means obviously "absurd", and your objection to it is a content-based one. ANI is for behavioural problems. And the claim that Martinevans hasn't engaged about that sentence at the talkpage is not true: he started this long thread about it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Like Caeciliusinhorto, I've never knowingly interacted with Martinevans (except, y'know, we've both been on Wikipedia for over 15 years and have a quarter million edits between us). And like Caeciliusinhorto, I've looked over the talk page in question and wonder what the fuss is about. Martinevans is occasionally testy, but far from egregiously so. But the OP, well. Definitely boomerang territory. The OP, in his short career on Wikipedia, is frequently nasty and combative, on talk pages and in edit summaries, ready to cry bias and bad faith at the drop of a pin. He would be very well advised to sit down, pipe down, and tend to his own uncivil and nasty behavior before he launches another complaint against another editor, especially over content disputes that have no place at ANI. Ravenswing 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If I have been at all "testy" in any of these discussions I wholeheartedly apologise, but respectfully request you point out where this was. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, we must be great friends as we both live in the UK and everyone knows that the whole population of a tiny group of islands like the UK are all best friends (rolls eyes). Seriously, User:Cornelis Dopper, you've got 56 edits, you've caused two problems at ANI already, and you're throwing insults at other people. You're not a net positive at this point and I am leaning strongly towards suggesting that you aren't able to cause a third issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And this [155] is yet another personal attack. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite (talk), I said very clearly that I was referring to a remark made by another editor at an earlier incident. Is it very weird that I demand neutrality? Is it very weird that I take offensive when someone is still changing the content after an agreement on the TP? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You literally posted "I have the feeling that Martin is (once again) calling on to some friends to help him out". Please feel free to provide evidence that I'm not a neutral admin here. As pointed out above, I've posted three times on Martin's talkpage in the last five years (all of them standard ITN notifications) and the last time Martin posted on my talkpage was 2018. As you can see from edits even today, I regularly patrol WP:ANI. You're not helping yourself here. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Cornelis Dopper, I've been surprised quite a few times now by your unsuitable choice of words. Am I right in thinking that English may not be your native language? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong, what's personal about that? We had a discussion on the TP, there was an agreement, the sentence was published in the article, and after a week or so, Martin is changing the sentence again. What else is that but untrustworthy? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The content was, and still is, contrary to Wikipedia policy. The source says: "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial". Your rendition of this, in the lead section, is " He is among the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not recall ever having a conversation with Martinevans123 before. I am an administrator in California and I believe he lives the the UK. I am completely uninvolved. I have read the relevant discussions and my assessment is that Cornelis Dopper is way out of line here, unnecessarily hostile and tossing around personal attacks like "nasty piece of work". I see Martinevans123 engaging on the talk page and asking relevant questions to try to improve the article and being met with an angry, hectoring tone and a barrage of personal attacks from Cornelis Dopper, who seems unsuited to participation in a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I supported your RfA here five years ago. Not sure if that counts as "befriending". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

But then, who didn't  ;) SN54129 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What, this stuff again, from the same OP? I said at the last ANI on the exact same matters – oh, a few days ago, I think – that there are WP:CIR issues about Cornelis Dopper, and I think this repeat complaint bears that out. I'm edging close to proposing a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm wiki-friends with Martinevans, and he is sure that I'm a lovely person. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who have been fortunate enough to have missed the previous discussion (closed 5 days ago), here's a link: [156]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, so I'm out of line for reacting on his action to change something when there already was an agreement? It's always the same: user a. is behaving underhand & ignores everyone else, user b. gets pissed and user b. is the bad man. I can't believe this. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Cornelis Dopper, I am not saying that you are "a bad man" because I have no way of knowing anything about any aspect of your character except for your Wikipedia editing, which has been highly problematic to date. Let me advise you that statements like Martin, stop bullshitting! You KNOW you're edits are ridiculous to the point that they're just a provocation. You also know that it goes against the very principle of Wikipedia to change things without discussing it first. So stop lying and act as if you acting in good faith, because you're not! are simply unacceptable and you must abandon that style of debate. Have you noticed that no one else agrees with your characterizations of this dispute? You better believe it if you want to keep editing. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a single diff that I have "behaved underhand" or have "ignored everyone else". If you cannot, kindly strike out that accusation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh please, stop acting the saint here. You know damn well there was an agreement, and suddenly you began changing the formulation in the lead without any form of discussion; THAT'S underhand behavior! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've now claimed multiple times that you and Martinevans had an "agreement" that he broke – care to provide a diff? I'm not seeing any consensus on the talkpage that he is editing against. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just looked at the talk page and at the page edit history. I see no evidence that "there already was an agreement", but I do see C Dopper reverting Martinevans, and not the other way around. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was no agreement, and you are describing yourself in your second sentence rather than Martinevans123. Can't we just block Cornelis Dopper rather than continue this time-sink of a discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Having read through the discussions at Talk:Martin_Heidegger, I think Martinevans123 has shown exceptional forbearance with repeated and frequent baiting and personal attacks by Cornelis. Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, exceptional forbearance? By starting a discussion with making sarcastic remarks? By revealing my location? By changing the formulation after an agreement was reached? Are you kidding me? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to apologise here for all the uncivil remarks you have made towards me? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, you started a discussion by making sarcastic remarks (i.e. not taking it serious at all). You then proceeded to publish my location, I'm still wondering why this was necessary. And on top of that, you proceeded to change a sentence that resulted after a long discussion with an agreement. And now you have the audacity to ask for an apology? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Mr Dopper, but I don't see that you have any place at a collaborative project such as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, no the person who doesn't know anything about philosophy and yet is contributing to Heidegger's article; if such a person has a place at a project like this, then the project like this is doomed to fail. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be incapable of responding without including a personal attack. This is really only serving to emphasise the point I just made. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This RfC just popped up on my watchlist: [157]. On the plus side, Cornelis Dopper is seeking more input; on the other side, it would be hard to imagine how anyone could more egregiously disregard the RfC instructions to provide a neutrally worded question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for Cornelis Dopper

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.

---

Per the discussion immediately above (where there increasingly seems to be WP:SNOW) and per the recent previous discussion: [158], and on the basis of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, I propose that there be a community site ban for Cornelis Dopper. (Alternatively, an admin might want to save us some time with an indef block.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Cornelis Dopper's ongoing insults, battleground behavior, and apparent inability to understand that Wikipedia's policies forbid such behavior no matter whatever provocations he's imagining happened, combined with his lack of productive edits and utter inability to recognize when he's digging himself a hole of impressive depth, make him a poor fit for the collaborative environment of this encyclopedia. He states below that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, but I think we're doing him a favor by site banning him. That way, he gets to rage and scream at everyone he knows about How! Awful! Those! Wiki! Fascists! Are! For! Banning! Him! For! No! Reason!!! Ravenswing 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for reasons that should be obvious to anyone by now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What reason then? For critiquing someone who is making changes after an agreement was reached?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornelis Dopper (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support calling other editors fascist should be reserved for actual fascists. Otherwise, it is an egregious personal attack and sign an editor is here to win, not collaborate.Slywriter (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter, excuse me?!? Where did I call anyone here a fascist?! Have you lost your mind? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In the sub-discussion immediately below this, where you accused everyone who disagrees with you of being fascists. You seem to be the one who is losing your mind, as it's less than an hour since you wrote it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading is an art that not everyone possesses. I stated that it was pure fascism if I were to be given a ban (I literally said: 'And now I deserve a ban? Unbelievable & pure fascism!'. I didn't accuse anyone of being a fascist. Again: stop falsely accuse me of things I did not say! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So we're guilty of fascism but not fascists? I don't think that's much better. Hyperbole is one thing, but once you start saying something on Wikipedia is fascism unless it really it, you've gone way too far. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Pure Fascism" is still written below. As Wikipedia is edited and administered by humans, this line can only apply to the humans who edit Wikipedia. Bonus points for your "reading is an art..." personal attack. But keep digging.Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support for all of the above, plus excessive use of exclamation marks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sub-discussion

Propose this on what basis? For reacting against his arguments & behavior that contradicts an earlier made agreement? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw, this agreement was agreed upon here: 'But I don't see an important difference between it and the formulation "...is regarded as one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century". You may go ahead with the change since I am in the minority on this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)' And I wasn't even the one who made the change in the article!

Yes, I think you are correct there, Phlsph7. Although I myself did not agree, obviously, and the agreement of all other parties wasn't clear to me. Besides this, I argue that a general statement of this kind should not be manufactured from the opinion of a single commentator. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that's not Phlsph7 commenting here at ANI. It's Cornelis Dopper copying an earlier comment from the talk page in lieu of a diff. I went and found the diff, and here it is: [159]. According to Dopper, this is the agreement that established consensus for his edits. In fact, it's one editor in the midst of a discussion among several editors, saying that he is in the minority but has no personal objection to the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, many thanks for pointing that out. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I couldn't care less what everyone else thinks. My reactions so far - with one exception - have only been opinions on statements that were being made. The only exception was when user Martin suddenly began changing a sentence that was the entire reason for the discussion. And now I deserve a ban? Unbelievable & pure fascism! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you really believe that you can dig yourself out of the hole that you have dug yourself by using the word "fascism"? That's what's unbelievable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, and now all of a sudden you're reading it? I really don't understand this. You started the discussion on the TP of Heidegger yourself. But evidently weren't following the discussion at all. And also: 'the opinion of a single commentator'. It's Martin Heidegger, it's generally known he's one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Why on earth are we having this discussion at all! It's really crazy. It's like discussing if Albert Einstein is one of the greatest physicists, or J.S. Bach one of the greatest composers. I don't need 10 references in order to make that claim! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, material at Wikipedia has to be based on actual sources, not on what individual editors personally believe is "common knowledge" or is something that "goes without saying". I have now made this point many, many times, but you seem wholly oblivious. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martin, there IS a source. In fact, in virtually every philosophy textbook you will find the exact same formulation. You can look it up yourself. You can add 10 citations behind that sentence that would support it. Everybody who has the slightest understanding of philosophy knows this! Hence, one source would suffice as pars pro toto. But you can add 10 more for all I care. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"In fact, in virtually every philosophy textbook you will find the exact same formulation." I don't think that is "a fact" at all. I think that's a wholly ridiculous claim with no foundation in reality. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Martin, just admit it, haven't read one philosophy textbook IN YOUR LIFE! I can detect that from the way you're talking about this. Which makes this discussion all the more surreal. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr Dopper, what utter rubbish is this? I studied philosophy as an undergraduate, for which course I had to read a great many textbooks and primary sources. I still have many of them on my bookshelves. But this is not some kind of "I-know-more-about-Heidegger-than-you" competition. It's a simple question of Wikipedia policy on how statements are supported by WP:RSs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The civil user Phil Bridger said 'Fuck off' to me!

After giving me a lecture about civil behavior on my talk page, Phil Bridger decided to falsely accuse me of fascism and after I respectfully demanded to stop spreading lies about me, this was his reply:

No it isn't. Fuck off. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)]

Is this his version of civil behavior? Moreover, is this also going to result in a ban for him, like he demanded for me? @Cullen328, I'm sure you have an opinion on this as a completely neutral admin from the United States of America! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say something about this being a good time for everyone to lower the temperature, but given [160], I'll just link to WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, Yes, that's nice. First you incite everyone to ban me, then you give me a facepalm when someone says 'fuck off' to me, and now you want to 'lower the temperature'? The hypocrisy, unbelievable! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

We literally had an RFC about this. Fuck off isn't inherently uncivil. Perhaps consider doing so when someone asks you to leave them alone. CUPIDICAE💕 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

'Fuck off' isn't uncivil? That's a new one for me. I have been accused for being uncivil - not in the least by Phil himself - for lesser things. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The "fuck off" RfC, courtesy link. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Cornelis Dopper for disruptive editing and personal attacks. I do not use the "f bomb" myself, but there is no consensus that its use is forbidden, especially on an editor's own talk page when someone comes to provoke. Cullen328 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. I just closed the part for which I'm responsible, but maybe now someone can close the whole thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And now the indeff extended to a CU block for abusing multiple accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Zabbix / Afd for Zabbix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beneficial Canvass

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

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

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

User:Aardwolf68

Aardwolf68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned that professional wrestling is under general sanctions (WP:GS/PW) after an edit war in October.[161][162] His edits remain unproductive; this one is obviously fake and defamatory,[163] others are dubious and unsourced.[164] It's worth noting that there's a discussion on WT:PW regarding how ineffective these sanctions have been since they were implemented four years ago. This particular case seems like an obvious WP:NOTHERE.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't want to bump this thread again, but I'd like my talk page protected. It has been at the epicenter of this and I got hit twice more this morning.[165][166] I'll note that the SPI page is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso, where I reported one IP. I know ANV is quicker but I find that they sometimes deny blocks, citing insufficient evidence.LM2000 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

So you barge into ANI, link someone's contributions list, refuse to elaborate further, and leave. I'll look at some of these diffs since you won't link them. For instance, on the article Erich Honecker, they replaced the word "regime" in many parts with "government". [167] While obviously this user likes Honecker given their avowed "anti-revisionism", the term "regime" is loaded language so it would seem like they are removing bias (even though they did misuse the minor edit functionality). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:NadVolum

Over at Talk:Julian Assange a dispute has arisen over the issue of whether or not something should be included. This user has resorted to WP:BLUDGEON, and mocking when asked to actually explain how this is about the subject of the article [[168]]. This is an ongoing issue and represents pretty much their whole style and attitude on the article. They (to be fair) are not alone in the snark. But it is getting frustrating when they derail their own RFC with it. There is zero attempt at AGF from this user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

OK some other examples (from the same topic, but not the RFC) [[169]], [[170]] they are not serious violations, but they do represent a general tendency to be dismissive. and a few others [[171]] [[172]]. It goes back further (and indeed I have raised it here before) than this, but they would be stale.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add they launched an RFC after only 10 hours of "discussion", rather than actually discussing it (after deciding that this [[173]] was not worth answering [[174]]).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes there was, as I have done before. Hell I did not even oppose, I just said I was unsure. I only opposed when the only reasons was given was A. "Well it was 54 million" and B. "And if you can't see why that is about him I can't tell you why it was". In fact, I note that some of the context from this source [[175]] was explicitly opposed by you, a context that might have made the inclusion of this acceptable (who knows, you offered no compromise it was your way or no way).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE by Osman ibn Ali2001

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

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

Since November 2021, user has attempted to change the ethnicity of this person to Uzbek, completely disregarding the cited sources; [176] [177] [178]

[179] 27 February 2022 - Replaced the Persian spelling with Uzbek

[180] 27 February 2022 - Replaced the Persian spelling with Uzbek. Added "Uzbekistan" as birth place, even though it first came to existence after the Soviets fell.

[181] 27 February 2022 - Replaced "Persian" with "Uzbek"

[182] 27 February 2022 - Added three non-Uzbeks in the article.

[183] 27 February 2022 - Replaced "Iranian" with "Uzbek"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

blocked. GiantSnowman 16:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil abuse from Ronherry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only thing I would like from Ronherry himself is an apology for using the wrong pronouns and misgendering me.

I know you guys may be assuming that he just missed my pronouns, but please see it from my point of view- if this is someone that has already thrown multiple personal attacks at me before, being "accidentally" misgendered by the same person is very hurtful and quite suspicious. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, I added the pronouns to the introduction in bold just in case as well. shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I would be personally interested in an interaction ban, as interacting with Ronherry has been nothing but mentally distressing for me. I don't see any good that can come from continuing to interact with him and I'm really not interested in more insults being hurled at me... shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You could have brought up the article's content and whether it belonged there or not, but instead you just hurled baseless allegations of bias against me, and saying that you are "protecting WP:NPOV when, not to point any fingers but you've also had accusations of bias against you, particularly against BTS.. shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

CarlosYif and WP:V

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

The user was persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced info in the articles related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I had a conversation with them at their talk page (please read it), trying to explain them WP:V, and their position seems to be "If I know the information is correct, it can be added to the articles". For an example, see the history page of Pechenyhi (currently protected). Probably a block is needed at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And this is disinformation. The city is not part of Russia, not de jure, not de facto, even if it under Russian control (which I am also not sure about).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• What I mean is that sometimes I can know if a city is under partial Russian control by watching a video on Twitter of a town square or something similar. If you can't provide reliable sources, you shouldn't be adding content. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Okey, it's understood. But my contributions about Novhorod-Siverskyi were referenced, and everything was according to the article Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It doesn't matter. As I have already told Ymblanter, I'm not going to continue making contributions, so there's no need to make this any kind of conflict or for the administrators to have to decide. I understand what you are saying and you are right. I think a blog or Twitter is more appropriate for me. God blees you! CarlosYif (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the page you mentioned, you did not provide any reference either. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the reference I was referring to: https://suspilne.media/210832-icnanskij-vijskkomat-sogodni-zranku-pereihav-do-priluk/ but I certainly don't think I added it in that editing (I think I did it later). It is complicated to follow the actual situation on the ground, of each Ukrainian town and city and then change it on Wikipedia. You are right in what you state about my editions and my mistakes, and as I said, I will no longer be making any contributions. CarlosYif (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted all edits that were unsourced. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Callmemirela, I understand that Wikipedia has its rules and ways of doing things. CarlosYif (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

CarlostheJackal01

CarlostheJackal01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has jumped into the "List of terrorist incidents by year" articles and is ignoring the explicit inclusion criteria, which are detailed in each article and were determined by the Rfc at Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 2#RfC: List criteria.

• 1991. Adds Amiriyah shelter bombing, a US Air Force bombing
• 2004. Adds Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, a US Air Force bombing of a village. Edit wars repeatedly to add back after it's disputed
• 2005. Adds Haditha massacre, a series of killings by US Marines. Edit wars repeatedly to add back after it's disputed
• 2007. Adds Nisour Square massacre, killing of civilians by Blackwater Security Consulting. Edit wars to add back after it's disputed
• 2017. Adds 2017 Mosul airstrike, a US Air Force bombing

They've been warned about post-1992 US politics discretionary sanctions and I've tried to discuss with them at User talk:CarlostheJackal01, to receive the reply "Do your best, American bastard. Of course, you were disturbed when you wrote about the massacres you committed. I will keep writing, you can't stop me. FDW777". FDW777 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s my understanding that you're a Scottish bastard; CarlostheJackal must be reined in for this churlish attack. Less seriously, I have also had to revert a number of inappropriate mass category edits by CarlostheJackal01 (removing Al-Qaeda from battles involving Al-Qaeda). There is no evidence of constructive contributions from this user, as far as I can tell. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I found a grand total of one clearly constructive edit: a fix to a date for an event that was already in a table. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on this, I'm inclined to believe they are not here to contribute and want to push POV. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

He was offended that I wrote the massacres of the Americans on the list of terrorist incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Uhm what???. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

answer me, let's see if the massacres are included in terrorism or not? He was offended that I wrote the massacres of the Americans on the list of terrorist incidents. The massacres committed by the Serbian army in Bosnia are also included in the list of terrorist incidents, why doesn't he mention it?

No one is offended. If there's a criteria for these pages, it's for many reasons. If you can't satisfy such criteria, they shouldn't be mentioned. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the massacres are on the terrorist incidents page, it means that the criteria are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They do not magically meet the criteria just by you adding them to the incidents list. If the article does not call them terrorist incidents, and no reliable source is listed as calling them terrorist incidents, they fail the criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as the massacres committed by the Serbian army in Bosnia meet the criteria when being included in the list of terrorist incidents, the massacres committed by the Americans must also meet the criteria when being included in the list of terrorist incidents. Callmemirela — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain the criteria, I wonder what these criteria are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Find such sources. After you have found them, adding content can be discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@CarlostheJackal01: :They were listed very clearly at the top of List of terrorist incidents in 2016 when you edited that page: must be notable and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorist". Terrorism related to drug wars and cartel violence is not included, and ongoing military conflicts are listed separately. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Then, what criteria does the Markale massacre carried out by the Serbian army in Bosnia meet in the list of terrorist incidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a content question; I've raised the question at the related list's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

drug wars and cartels what — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlostheJackal01 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked CarlostheJackal01 for disruptive editing - the blatant insult, the battleground approach, the behaviour here that looks like trolling, and the obvious lack of interest in learning how to edit here convince me that trying to engage with this person constructively would be a time sink. This is an ordinary admin action, not arbitration enforcement, anyone who thinks they can get through to them is welcome to unblock without consulting me. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: While I agree with your block, isn't naming one's account after a famous terrorist (see Carlos the Jackal) a violation of the WP:Username policy as well? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe? Naming yourself after historical folk and/or fictional characters isn't generally seen as a problem; if it was obviously intended to cause offence that would be a different matter though. Not sure I'd have insta-blocked based purely on the account name - it was the editing I acted on. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP originating from Philippines

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:Newslinger keeps on issuing me bogus warnings

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 few days ago, I edited a page (RT News) and left an edit that Newslinger disagreed with, and immediately reverted. I was then given a very hasty warning from User:Newslinger and had this warning put on my wall. The admin realised their jumping to conclusions, and then issued this apology.

I infer the point on the RT:News talk page that I feel they're attempting to intimidate me off Wikipedia with the way their editing is against mine, using the rules and bureaucracy of wikipedia in an attempt to portray my edits as misleading or false (I probably could have been more polite, but then I notice these 'mistakes' always work in one direction, so I tend to be less forgiving these days). I imagine that didn't create any good blood, so I'll take responsibility for that. Needless to say, I took a break off wiki for a few days in an attempt to diffuse the situation.

However, A user recently changed a massive amount of content on the page BBC World Service without consulting the talk page (which was already established in discussion), without reading the references or citations (you can see this on the talk page for BBC World Service), and generally just removing lots of cited sources for no apparent reason except they interpreted them through wikipedia bureaucracy to be insufficient. I revert the edit once (it wasn't even an edit war--I merely reversed the content once, first real edit I made in the last few days. And yet? I immediately got this absurd 'edit war' warning that happened within less than 10 MINUTES of me making that edit.

This is all the more concerning considering that they are actively involved in editing the very article (as well as other related articles like RT News etc.) he reverted my edit on. I feel like this admin may possibly be using their position to enforce a position on articles through the sort of intimidation I demonstrated right here.

I don't feel this user is being impartial, and at this point, I feel like they're just issuing me with constant bogus warnings in an attempt to stifle my edits (and coincidentally, they're all related to the articles that Newslinger zealously edits). PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please explain what's "bogus" about Newslinger's warning, and why you declare that you won't accept an apology from them [184]. From what I see, you're the one trying to be confrontational. Administrators may give warnings in areas in which they are involved, they are only restricted from using administrative tools in such cases.And you should be aware that editors can be sanctioned for fewer than three reverts - that's one point of warning you. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why I was issued an edit war warning? I for the life of me cannot figure out how making an edit to a page I've been involved in that reverts large amounts of removed content is 'edit warring', especially when it was the first real edit I made to wikipedia in days. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Does it warrant an edit war warning every time I revert someone's content, even if it actually isn't an edit war? I guess that's the jist of my complaint. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please explain what's "bogus" about Newslinger's warning, and why you declare that you won't accept an apology from them

For precisely the same sort of behaviour that is happenening now. I'm being given edit war warnings for literally no reason, seeing as I wasn't edit warrning on any page to my knowledge at the time that warning was issued. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm can't see where there is any edit warring going on... Am I missing something? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish BBC World Service Renat 19:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish:(edit conflict) I think this is about the repeated attempts to insert disputed content now being discussed at Talk:BBC World Service#RfC: Propaganda descriptor in infobox? Not a 3RR violation, but still an edit war. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The edit warring in question appears to be related to these diffs: [185], [186], [187], [188] EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Administrators, do you think that my edit on PeaceThruPramana26's talk page is vandalism? I just wanted to help. See edit summary of this edit - Diff. I think the problem here is not with Newslinger. --Renat 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not vandalism, but users are allowed to remove most things from their own user talk page (WP:UTP). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, allowed, but I was surprised to see this kind of edit summary. Renat 19:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    This obviously isn't vandalism and shouldn't have been described as such, but is it surprising that an editor would react negatively to being given more warnings (about some rather minor stuff I might add) when they've just started a ANI about how they think they've received incorrect warnings from an admin? Is this really the best time to be pointing out their violations of indentation norms? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    It's not pointing out violations of norms, but merely a piece of good advice. People who characterise advice as vandalism are unlikely to make good encyclopedia editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    It is good advice, but was it really necessary to give it in that tone and at that time? I can 100% see how it could be taken as trolling - PeaceThruPramana26 came here to complain that they felt they were being harassed with warnings; I can see how receiving a curtly worded message/warning that you hadn't formatted your complaint properly could provoke a negative reaction. This needs de-escalation - IMO all this needs is someone explaining to PeaceThruPramana26 that 3RR != edit warring and that giving out warnings is not an administrative action. I feel that message was just unnecessarily pouring fuel onto the fire. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• While editing the RT (TV network) article, I noticed that PeaceThruPramana26 (talk · contribs) had repeatedly attempted to add a long three-sentence quote into the lead section. PeaceThruPramana26 made the first addition (Special:Diff/1073485065) on 22 February; it was moved to the article body (Special:Diff/1073544804) by another editor. PeaceThruPramana26 then re-added another copy of the quote into the lead section (Special:Diff/1073677725) on 24 February, with the edit summary stating that the edit was "to show that the propaganda hasn't had any effect". In response, I started a discussion about the content at Talk:RT (TV network) § E-International Relations in lead section.
  While trying to verify the content, I made a mistake and searched through the first edition of the book cited in the edit (No Illusions), whereas the citation was actually for the second edition. Based on my search through the wrong edition, I had incorrectly concluded that the citation did not support the content that was inserted into the article, and stated so on the talk page (Special:Diff/1073723707) while issuing a level 2 {{uw-nor2}} original research warning on User talk:PeaceThruPramana26 (Special:Diff/1074343775). Three hours later, I recognized my error. On the article talk page, I retracted the relevant part of my comment (Special:Diff/1073750444). On User talk:PeaceThruPramana26, I retracted the warning, apologized to PeaceThruPramana26, and invited them to participate in the article talk page discussion (Special:Diff/1073749334).
  After it was announced earlier today that RT would be banned in the European Union, I was concerned that articles about other news organizations that received state funding would be subject to retaliatory edits on Wikipedia. I searched through prominent news organizations of this type and saw that the BBC World Service article had the propaganda descriptor in the infobox. Looking through the article history, I found that PeaceThruPramana26 had edit warred to include this content into the article, in Special:Diff/1072695223 (20 February), Special:Diff/1074334233 (27 February), and then in Special:Diff/1074335784 (27 February). Based on these edits, I issued the edit warring warning {{uw-ew}} on User talk:PeaceThruPramana26 and recommended the WP:BRD process to PeaceThruPramana26. On the article talk page, I then started an RfC at Talk:BBC World Service § RfC: Propaganda descriptor in infobox.
  I am sorry that my talk page warnings have had the effect of upsetting PeaceThruPramana26. I am not trying to intimidate PeaceThruPramana26. However, based on their edits to the BBC World Service article, I do believe the warning for edit warring is justified. To be completely clear, I am editing these articles in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator, per the policy on administrator involvement. User talk page warnings can be issued by any editor to inform others of policy considerations. — Newslinger talk 19:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am not quite sure what we can ever do as a community to help users heal from the violent psychic trauma of having been warned. If we don't stop this now, curt disagreements are sure to follow. The horror! Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This should be closed before it escalates. The OP was simply unaware that warnings from an administrator do not count for any more than warnings from any other editor, but should now be aware of that. Any sanction that needs administrator privileges would be imposed by someone else who is uninvolved. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Blue Square Thing

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

---

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Lives Matter, I've just removed the following off-topic text about behavioural grievances:

long rambling spiel

Good afternoon. I am seeking advice for what my friend User:Michri michri and myself believe to be racist comment [189] against Bengalis in particular and against Indian people as a whole. The responsible person is User:Blue Square Thing who has refused to discuss matter User talk:Blue Square Thing#Edit summaries and talk page comments raised at his talk page. There have been discussions by myself with others because I am not confident in how to approach Wikipedia processes like WP:ANI and I have been seeking advice. Please to see also discussions at User talk:Nthep#Police threat and long-term abuse by an editor and at User talk:Michri michri#Blue Square Thing. Also please to see [190] at teahouse page but I was not part of this discussion. Besides racist comment, Blue Square Thing breaks WP:LEGAL saying he has reported other person to Kolkata police. This is sort of thing to rebound on Wikipedia if other person claims provokation. I agree with Michri michri that other person must also be blocked for comments on Blue Square Thing talk page. Abuse like that is wrong but is no excuse for racist retaliation or for telling Kolkata police and reporting IP address. I was editing Pat Cummins article. I studied its history and found several posts by Blue Square Thing which demonstrate his insulting comments and dubious actions on that article: [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199]. In these, he is at turns sarcastic or extremely rude. He tries to belittle other editors and discourage them. He removes valid, useful information for no apparent reason other than his own dislike. In the second one, he flagrantly insults the Kolkata Knight Riders franchise. In the last few, he claims to be writing better English and proceeds to make four very clumsy errors including '2105 season', a broken link and 'Kolokota'. He asserts that a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (used by the site for redirection) is something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. I believe this is another insult directed at Indian people. He refers to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. On his own talk page, he talks to User:Krish edits675, who is a new member (a 'newbie'). There has been disagreement and, I suspect, reverting each other's edits in cricket biographies, again about IPL. User:Krish was obviously concerned about edits being reverted and wrote to Blue Square Thing about it, though he was perhaps less polite than he could have been. Even so, there is no justification for [200] this insulting response, calling User:Krish a 'dick' and so on. It is, as I have found, a typical reaction by Blue Square Thing. It was suggested to me that Blue Square Thing has long time record of abusive comments in edit summaries. I looked at contributions and there are bad comments on every page. I managed to view December 2018 contributions as random date to use for samples. I saw all of the ones I listed, the 'diffs', at other discussion pages and I repeat them here as they prove Blue Square Thing is guilty of long time abuse. Please to see: [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210]. They are variously hostile, sarcastic, condescending and they are not as required by the WP:CIVIL page. I do not like Delhi Capitals one because I found that the person being addressed is a young Indian editor. The tone is condescending as if Blue Square Thing is some kind of 'superior'. This reminded me of a line I saw on WP:CIVIL page which is 'Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully'. Please to note that it is not only his comments that are a problem because he is always removing content too, even content that has sources cited, and useful things like further reading sections. I have seen many times here that editors must help to build the encyclopedia but he is doing opposite. I can see that in some of these examples and in recent ones. I have also noticed he objects to use of crore and substitutes other currencies like Australian dollars [211] even when they are not mentioned in a source like 'Hindu' newspaper. Surely that is what you call original research and is not Wikipedia:Verifiability? About crore, please to see the comment by Michri michri that in the article Mohammed Shami where Blue Square Thing converted crores into USD and removed a large chunk of stuff with the least replacement. What can be wrong with specifying crore except that it is Indian currency? His objection to crore is most revealing. I am sorry but I only have little time for this fine site and I am hopefully thinking I might one day have much more. I do not want to see the site being ruined by abuse and absolutely not by racist abuse. This is why I must seek help from experienced editors who know how to use processes like the ANI. I must be thanking you for your time if you have been reading this and if you can help with persistent long time including racist abuse by Blue Square Thing. 79.73.31.28 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC) The anonymous user has wonderfully explained the issues raised against BSF. Now as a conscientious Wikipedian, I'd just ask if one is not blocked for this much of abuse, then when would one be? Would not it be a shame and scandal of Wikipedia? Want only one thing--- the toughest punishment, the longest possible BLOCK of BST.Michri michri (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing wrote on their talk page yesterday, I really need a break and the sun is out. I don't know how long I'll be but the start of the season is a good benchmark in my mind, although I may pop by before then, it depends. I apologise to them as ANI is a horrible headache. Nonetheless, we need to at least investigate whether any people need to be sanctioned for their harassment of Blue Square Thing. — Bilorv (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This does indeed look like harassment of Blue Square Thing. The mock offence is palpable. The original supposed "racist" remark was BST calling an IP user a sad little boy from West Bengal when removing a pretty nasty talk page message [212]. I mean, it's up there on the yikes spectrum. The reference to West Bengal looks to me like BST was telling the IP that their IP geolocates to West Bengal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/79.73.31.28 raise some questions of how independent they are from Michri michri. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The diff shown above (this) shows ongoing harassment of BST. Whoever is the editor behind the IP edit, they have been doing the same thing for a while now against BST, and myself, and others too. This is one of their IP accounts. Notice how all their edits have been rev-del'd. If an admin would care to look at any rev-del edits from BST's talkpage, or mine, from the past couple of weeks, you'll see the same "Black dog , you son of a nasty bitch" rubbish. I don't know what Michri michri's involvement here is, but maybe a check-user would be needed before things get really bad. And stuff like this from Michri does not help one bit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, BST does tend to spend a lot of time reverting IP and editors edits to certain cricketing articles which all go against either Wikipedia's manual of style, or against the style set out by the cricket WikiProject, or adding unsourced and inaccurate information to articles. BST always comments in his edit summary on why he's reverting. He's also spent considerable time improving some of these articles that he's made reversions to, such as the Mohammed Shami article. It all just seems like these editors who have made these allegations are upset that the edits are being reverted (and in the majority of cases I'm guessing correctly so) and so are using anything to try and discredit BST, and taking edit summary comments out of context. Constantly having to revert the same issues on the same pages is frustrating, such as on the Pat Cummins page, and this can lead to some edit summaries or talk page messages that maybe weren't necessary, but those that revert the same thing regularly will know how frustrating it can be. I've also got concerns on whether there is Socking going on here as has been mentioned above. Personally I feel that BST has done now wrong here, and that the accusations from the other editors involved here should be removed. Also why was this posted on the Black Lives Matter WikiProject? Can't see any connection there unless it was a canvassing attempt. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Also why was this posted on the Black Lives Matter WikiProject? Can't see any connection there unless it was a canvassing attempt. The complaint is that BST has used racist language, but the canvassing intention is clear. 92.31.3.96 wrote at Michri michri's talk page, I am not confident of taking this to the ANI page. You call that a hornet's nest and I can see why. I regularly complain that ANI is a cesspit, but in this context I think the comment reeks of attempts to avoid scrutiny, as they know making an ANI report would lead to a boomerang. — Bilorv (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• 79.73.31.28 and Michri michri have also been canvassing at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bengal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Premier League. The addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Lives Matter is evidently an attempt to get BST blocked for racism [213]. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think a boomerang for Michri Michri is in order. BST spends a fair amount of time trying to keep cricketing articles in some sort of compliance with good editing practice and have yet to see any behaviour from him that is worthy of investigation. Spike 'em (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BST and I both had interaction with MM at Talk:Mohammed Shami and were trying to offer them some guidance on the right level of detail to include and how to follow main / cricket MOS. I've found MM a little difficult to deal with in the past (quite possible the feeling is mutual), but I'd never seen problems such as those exhibited in the past few days shown above where he and other editors seem to be targeting BST, and even suggesting We can trap BST in the charge of breaching the norm. Spike 'em (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Clear WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I also think based on the editing at Talk:Mohammed Shami that MM is a sock of the blocked Soutut. Spike 'em (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Final unblock appeal from Soutut failed on 3rd December 2021 with suggestion he came back in six months. Michri michri registered his account on 4th December 2021... WP:QUACK. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I have long suspected Michri michri of being a sock, but haven't really paid much attention to them to look more into it. I've had a few runs in with this user myself, which I have brushed off. They are often abrasive and don't react well to their edits being reverted or criticisms levelled, so the behaviour matches the above. BST is one of this sites best editors and his contributions to cricket articles are top-notch. StickyWicket (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggest this is taken to SPI. StickyWicket (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just commenting, that Michri has dealt in WP:NPA against BST as shown here. Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper 22:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This was also posted at three other venues by the IP, from where I have removed it since it's now here. I would also be tempted to take this to SPI - there are far too many suspicious accounts and IP editing going on here. This, posted by the IP that canvassed all the above pages, just makes you look at it and think "really?". Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michri michri Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Michri michri blocked indefinitely as sock of Soutut. Fairly obvious why he wanted to avoid ANI. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:AndyTheGrump

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Yes, there was a previous ANI thread. [214] Which seems to have had no effect whatsoever, given that CycoMa1 is now engaged in creating another semi-literate poorly-sourced content fork of the article discussed there. [215] Not that I consider writing vacuous furry-fancruft drafts to be remotely as damaging to the project. It the rest of the furries amongst contributors (there seem to be a few) are happy with such drivel, I'll agree to ignore it, if you like... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Perhaps. I have other concerns after looking through their contributions, like editing numerous articles about intersexuality and gender identification after making a statement like this [216]. Yikes. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to think that 'civil warnings' would get anywhere. Can I ask how you arrived at that conclusion given CycoMa1's history of making excuses, saying it won't happen again, and then going back to doing exactly the same thing? (See also [217]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think a warning for AndyTheGrump is the bare minimum that should happen here. It's one thing to politely say to an editor "I think this set of contributions is problematic" either directly to the editor on their talk page or at one of the relevant noticeboards, it's another thing entirely to say Stay the fuck away from articles on medical topics.[218] WP:WIAPA is very clear on this, as is WP:5P4. If Andy cannot bring himself to being civil to other editors, and past history may allude to this being a long standing issue, then something stronger than a warning is warranted. The issue that caused the outburst is in no way proportional to the message left on CycoMa1's talk page, nor the contributions between Andy and Equivamp in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical articles topic ban for CycoMa1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I warned CycoMa1 for copyright violations recently (not just unattributed use of public domain content, but copying from an obviously copyrighted source [219]). Looking at the cancer recurrence article, I quickly found another instance of unacceptably close paraphrasing (article: local recurrence after surgery with curative intent is regularly observed within 2 years for a majority of patients; source: Local recurrence after resection with curative intent is frequently observed within 2 years for the majority of patients)... just a trivial swap of two words. I worry that the issues with this user may extend beyond their editing of medical articles. Spicy (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support given the unwillingness to voluntarily step away from the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Too many excuses, not enough maturity yet. Miniapolis 01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can't read the underlying diff that led to this dispute so I won't give an opinion on this topic ban (perhaps the diff [220] on tubular carcinomas changes everything). But from the evidence I can see here, CycoMa's problems aren't related to medical topics in particular. They are deeper than that and as someone who commented at the furry fandom thread this seems to be an ongoing problem that won't be prevented or addressed by t-banning from medical topics. All that will happen is the disruptive editing will be displaced to other topic areas. CycoMa needs time to become more mature and understand what they are and are not competent at doing. They also need to understand when to stop talking, give up, and apologize because they thought they knew more than they actually did. This is a life lesson that will likely not be taught by a medical article t-ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum, though I share Chess' concerns. Given the issues with copyvios, misuse of sources, original reasearch/synthesis and poor quality English it would not surprise me if we were back here in a few months. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Block for AndyTheGrump

• This was just on this notice board two weeks ago.[221] Given the diffs here, his behavior in this discussion, and the various previous discussions on this noticeboard I am purposing AndyTheGrump receive a block. Please comment below with thoughts on the issue and a possible duration. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dangerous misinformation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support as previous warnings about this behavior have gone unheeded. A minimum two week block should be instituted. ––FormalDude talk 01:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose AtG's heart is in the right place, I think, and I've seen too many civility crusades like this used to string good editors up. Miniapolis 01:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support. I don't have an opinion about duration - previous blocks of similar length have clearly not resolved the issue, but the last one was some time ago, and I'm not familiar with how such a thing would normally be handled. I am frankly appalled at the number of editors who seemed to think AndyTheGrump's behavior is justified because my reporting it lead to additional eyes on CycoMa's edits, or worse, because a misrepresentation of CycoMa's stub cancer article as dangerous, fringe lunacy is so terrible that he deserves verbal abuse from someone wikihounding him. This has surely contributed to AndyTheGrump's continued insistence that he acted unassailably and less than a block will merely reaffirm such an idea. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The previous two-week block for uncivil behavior (vandalizing a user talk page, multiple times, to call someone a "homophobic turd" [222][223][224]) obviously hasn't worked. I suggest at least a month minimum. The next violation should be indef. Also, I think the closer should discard Oppose votes like the one above that basically says "Incivility is a perfectly reasonable response", which clearly contradicts a fundamental policy (and pillar) of Wikipedia. Consensus cannot be based on arguments that violate policy. Modulus12 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

  And frankly I disagree with that block. The "victim" there was indeed a homophobic turd [225]. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-close

@El C: Is it normal to close a block discussion only 16 hours after it was opened, on the weekend, as "no consensus"? Obviously WP:NOTAVOTE, but the current situation looks 50/50 after five Oppose votes arrived this morning. Discussion hasn't slowed down, and so I don't see how a close is appropriate when it's not a SNOW-close. Or is your closure statement claiming it is impossible for a consensus to block to form at this time (i.e. WP:SNOW)? Modulus12 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I just thought I'd save you the embarrassment. El_C 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't apply sanctions to popular editors. NPA doesn't apply once you have over 1000 edits. 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:4 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh huh. Embarrassments: you, IP, with an un-evidenced claim RE: intellectual disability. Modulus12 with a one-sided presentation of diffs from... 2012. Dronebogus with whatever that was. But to clarify: yes, near-impossible after I had sanctioned CycoMa1. Also, there seems to possibly be a misapprehension that one is immune from sanctions in the course of a discussion that proposes sanctions against someone else. That is, of course, not the case. Anyway, if there's an admin that wants to do the 72 hour thing wrt the ATG sanction proposal, I won't stand in the way, though I think it'd be dumb. El_C 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

there is no problem with a sanction on cyco. The mean things said were true. My only concern is that when righting great wrongs, it is OK to drop slurs or be otherwise plain hateful. Just drop a warning, take them to ANI, don't make a small part of wiki nasty. It isn't helpful. I expect myself to get a ban for bringing this up though. 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:4 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

RE: "slurs" — what part of un-evidenced did you not understand, IP? El_C 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ATG used the term "trolltard". This was covered in a previous ANI. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Must have missed that one. Who'd have thought that fuckwit would actually be an improvement! El_C 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Trolltard has been regularly used on the internet since the dialup BBS days with no reference to intellectual disability. The derivation is probably from bastard rather than retard.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What was once is no more — -tard seems rather unambiguous, in any case. El_C 23:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would you be banned? There was also significant WP:BLUDGEONing from CycoMa1 going on, and the majority of support !votes were calling for punitive or cool down blocks despite WP:NOPUNISH and WP:CDB. Blocking is supposed to be preventative per WP:BLOCKP and there was no danger of disruption from ATG. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The last time I commented here on Andy calling some one the r-slur I was blocked by you without warning. You can explain it better than me. User:2600:387:F:4011:0:0:0:1 if anyone wants to check it out. There is a message on your talk page from someone else about the length of the block. 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:4 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Were you the same person that Acroterion blocked? user:2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, else I would have noted your block was a potential conflict of interest since that other IP was banned for saying the r-slur is offensive and you disagreeing. So back to this Ani... In what cases are personal attacks allowed? If I call cyco a fuck wit is it OK also? Do we all have permission to call cyco a fuckwit, or can only some of us use righteous anger? 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:4 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies then... I had assumed you were the same person given the similarities of ISP and IP. It's unusual for an IP editor to storm into an ANI discussion for his first edit. No COI involved if you're talking about block evasion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Modulus12 with a one-sided presentation of diffs from... 2012 That was used to illustrate that AndyTheGrump had already been blocked for two weeks, and WP:CIVILITY doesn't say you're allowed to be extremely uncivil once per decade with no increasing consequences (in this case, no consequences at all, besides a meaningless warning). Also strange that you attack my reasonable policy-based argument but not the Oppose arguments that outright argue "Let's ignore policy". And I just thought I'd save you the embarrassment is a rude reply to an honest question about your role as closer and your closing statement. You don't need to "save" me from anything; if this discussion was open for a few days and then closed as no consensus, I know how to quietly move on. So I will repeat my question: Is it standard practice to close 50/50 discussions after only 16 hours (meaning half the globe, plus everyone who does not edit on weekends, does not have a reasonable chance to participate)? Modulus12 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Modulus12, right, 2 weeks 10 years ago. Anyway, I do think your conduct here has been an embarrassment, sorry to be so blunt. But you're free to think the same of mine, I suppose. As I already said, any admin may re-open, but I'm not gonna do it myself. Anything else? El_C 00:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's 10 years ago because atg has had civility issues handwaved in the intervening years. Look at the oppose comments here. Look at the oppose comments from a couple of weeks ago. [[226]]. He wasn't warned then, it was a freebie. Two times in two weeks, but nobody will say it is a persistent issue that isn't getting better? He apologized a week ago. He didn't even apologize this time, saying he simply didn't care. I don't see why anyone would be blocked for personal attacks in the future if these attacks don't meet the sanctionable threshold. If you don't agree with my response, feel free to attack me instead of my argument. I don't mind being embarrassed 😉 2600:387:F:4013:0:0:0:4 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

El C, no, I can see you don't want to provide straight answers. I'm starting to learn that immediately abrasive attitudes from admins when their role is politely questioned is more common than I thought. I don't understand how my vote, or my post-close question, deserves to be immediately labeled an "embarrassment", by the supposedly neutral closing admin no less. So much for Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner. Modulus12 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, IP, you've had your say at length now (hopefully, otherwise comparable to your contributions to the project). Another recent incident is not necessarily indicative of 10 years of handwaving in the intervening years. And I assure you that my warnings are not, as Modulus12 claims, meaningless. El_C 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Modulus12, I'm sorry you lack the self-awareness to feel embarrassed when being so one-sided (then excuse that one-sidedness as an "illustration," what?). And sorry that I haven't expressed that through niceties, but I honestly think being blunt in this instance is for the best. Anyway, back to the matter at hand: you want to go through the motions, I get it. I've laid out how that can happen. I'm not sure what else you want me to say. El_C 00:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I try to never reply past 7 indents anyhow, and we are there. I don't care about what modulus says. My final tl;dr is that if calling someone the rslur and then someone else a fuckwit over two weeks and going to two ANIs in the same month isn't enough to get a block to stop disruptive behavior, we should probably get the entire NPA thing removed. Big good old boys club vibes here. Some people can use personal attacks and slurs, some people can't. You will know if you are in the club pretty quick. I was banned here with 1 edit, still unexplained. ATG is using hate speech with impunity. Do what you think is best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:f:4013::4 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm starting to understand your argument now: the "embarrassment" is that I provided (one-sided?) diffs of AndyTheGrump's incivility from 10 years ago, but not the other user's behavior that triggered the incivility. To that, I would reply, it doesn't matter what AndyTheGrump was frustrated over. The fundamental policy in this case makes no allowance for personal attacks in any situation. So my "one-sided" presentation is all the proof needed to show a prior policy violation (that resulted in a two-week block). That's a fair, policy-based vote, IMO. I would have said exactly this to the question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish, but you closed the discussion before I could reply. And no, I am not looking for anything from you now. We can sit and wait and see what happens like you say. Modulus12 (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, IP, respectfully, this is feeling circular at this point. I have to weigh a number of things when I act on threads such as this on this board, not least of which is having all this turmoil for naught. My decision RE: ATG can be appealed (this is it), and it may also be reversed by any admin as they see fit. I need not be consulted or even notified about that. El_C 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Modulus12, I would remind you of WP:NOTBURO. Otherwise, your logic doesn't strike me as fair. Fact: I've warned CycoMa1 recently, they ignored it, now they've been sanctioned. Fact: I have warned ATG (in this closing). Likely fact: if they ignore it, they'll be sanctioned. El_C 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I don’t know if this is intentional but you’re coming across as very condescending here. The users have legitimate concerns and shouldn’t be treated as so pathetically incompetent they can be laughed out of the room without controversy. Dronebogus (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, yet more hyperbole from the editor who earlier in the day, in this very noticeboard, had said to a user in good standing You aren’t an admin and nobody asked for your opinion. Can't say I'm surprised. El_C 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I was… less than tactful. But you aren’t really helping your case by bringing it up. Or insulting me over it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus, the reason I brought it up is because I find your misconduct to be consistent in both threads. El_C 06:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t really know why I bother coming here anymore. Hell, I’m not even sure this board really should exist in its current form. It’s a magnet for flamewars and unnecessary drama, and it’s on a technical basis not very well set up since you can’t easily monitor it and have to slog through walls of text to find anything. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I’d recommend someone with authority close this and hat it before it attracts any more attention. The discussion’s over, complaining about it won’t solve anything. Dronebogus (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Christ, this is why I stay on Commons. The most “drama” we have there is some troll grossing people out by posting scat porn. I still think it’s crappy that AtG gets to seriously violate our most fundamental policies because the other person is perceived as “deserving it”, either 10 years ago or now. He should’ve at least been given a brief block to show the admins aren’t willfully looking the other way. Dronebogus (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In the thread above, you accused me of making 'legal threats'. [227] Provide a diff to back that claim up, or I shall call for action to be taken against you - where your trolling on my talk page [228][229] will no doubt also be considered relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• What I meant by legal threats was you threat to contact the WMF here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CycoMa1&diff=1074108397&oldid=1074103952 which struck me as over the top intimidation, though “legal threats” probably isn’t accurate or acceptable. And also, I explained my comments WERE NOT TROLLING. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So no, I hadn't made a legal threat. And if you weren't trolling there, it certainly looked that way. As does this. [230] And as does your comment about people uploading porn to Commons above, given your own uploading history there - which I won't link here, since it is easy enough for anyone to find for themselves (NSFW obviously). AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And I think we can add this clear and unambiguos violation of policy (unjustifiable removal of other people's comments at ANI) to the list of things to discuss regarding Dronebogus's behaviour. [231] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for my out-of-order actions, but half of your points are grossly misconstruing wholly unrelated, innocuous or irrelevant actions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If nothing else I just assumed the scat incident was just an amusing anecdote and not “trolling”, and I don’t really see why me uploading pictures with boobs is related to the deletion of an image someone on Commons described as “making Goatse look tasteful and reasonable” Dronebogus (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The porn thing was unrelated, certainly: which is probably why it was unwise of you to bring it up. As for the rest, I think people can decide for themselves. Or maybe you should consider a strategic retreat... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Apparent sock calling random users a Nazi

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.

---

[232][233][234]; clearly WP:NOTHERE. LearnIndology (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

AIV material. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably Ubermenich (talk · contribs). Blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Millions Miller

Millions Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has, I'm sure, made some constructive contributions but their talk page shows a clear pattern of concern. They have had 6 (six!) level 4 final warnings for various disruptive edits just this month. One of the main issues is persistence in adding WP:NOTDIRECTORY violations and generally unsourced content to Bucksburn. I reverted some unsourced edits to Graham Leggat claiming that he was born in Bucksburn and have just done the same at Tunji Kasim. In spite of all these final warnings, they also felt it appropriate to create a blatant hoax Bucksburn Republic. On top of this, they also haven't communicated once on their talk page in response to any of the guidance/questions/warnings and only very rarely use edit summaries so it's impossible to see inside their head. It would be nice to understand why this person keeps persisting in the same behaviour despite being asked not to. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I was just coming here to flag up the same, but @Spiderone beat me to it. FWIW, my gut feel is this user probably means well, but they're not going about it in the most constructive way. What's worse, they don't seem to take any notice of their talk page warnings, but as their edits are all done on a mobile, I'm wondering if this is just a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? If there's any way of getting their attention, this could still be resolved amicably... because otherwise I reckon they're headed for an imminent block. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless they show some willingness to change, I imagine a temporary block is the only thing that might help them to get the message. Constant reverting just doesn't seem to stop them. You'd have thought that if your edits kept getting reverted that you'd know that that means that you're doing something wrong? In fact, have any of this user's edits actually not been reverted/deleted? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Some edits haven't been reverted (yet), but that's partly because I didn't want to start hounding too much...

Their talk page does look pretty scary for someone who's only been registered for c. 5 weeks.

Funnily enough, they deleted AfC and maintenance templates from an article I had draftified, and when I rolled this back, they thanked me. Which I thought was nice. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Going to agree with the temporary block. Multiple level 4 warnings defeats the purpose of them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - DoubleGrazing it looks like they are able to access their talk page after all - see this edit. Also they wrote the comment If you see no evidence of something search for it on google instead of perfuming it’s something unsourced. at User:Millions Miller so clearly they are aware that they are getting warnings for making unsourced edits but they just don't see that it's a problem. Millions Miller, please read WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Spiderone — yeah, it does look that way... maybe I was foolishly assuming goodwill where there wasn't any. Then again, that talk page edit was made only recently. Anyhoo, I'll crawl back into my box now. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Tbh it was only really when they started posting stuff like Bucksburn Republic that I started to consider that they might not be acting in good faith. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Millions Miller I’ve now stated correcting thing am doing them properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.239.191 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment/Note: The above IP (31.185.239.191) has made similar edits to the Bucksburn article and is by far among the top two editors of the article along with @Millions Miller:. This is why I posted a less urgent warning re adding lists of shops, facilities, etc. to city/town articles. About a month ago, I posted there about heeding feedback. They seem to be two different editors who share an interest in the article, but it could be one editor acting both logged-in and not. Anyway, from a behaviour perspective, you might consider them both to be the subject of editing concerns expressed here. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This user is taking the Michael now. 3 more final warnings at User talk:Millions Miller today. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Calton (1961-2022)

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

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

What. Oh no. Calton was an idiosyncratic editor with a passion for getting things right. I am going to miss him very much. User:Jpgordon, thank you for letting us know, and I am sorry for your loss also. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough one, and he'll be greatly missed. Calton was always willing to do the hardest things on Wikipedia, even when what was right wasn't what was popular. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Σύμμαχος

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

Keeps replacing "Persian" with "Afsharid" [235] [236] [237], even when it is sourced [238] [239]

This is apparently his reasoning behind this; "It is ridiculous to say that the afsharid empire is a Persian empire.. This is a falsification and contrary to reality." "the reliable sources called it afsharid empire... Stop rewriting history for chauvinistic nationalist goals"

In other words, WP:JDLI and seemingly WP:TENDENTIOUS as well. Moreover, because I reverted him earlier, he made a clear WP:HARRASS edit by randomly reverting one of my edits [240].

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I will warn the user and post a WP:AC/DS notice. I'll also encourage the user to use RS when making claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, user Σύμμαχος has a long history of making disruptive edits.[241]-[242]-[243]-[244] Due to their habit of making occasional edits every now and then however (50 edits in 7 years) they have managed to jump the gun. Their latest persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS attempts at Nader Shah's invasion of India, aimed at labeling WP:RS written by historians and published by I.B. Tauris and ABC-CLIO as "falsifications" and "chauvinistic nationalist goals", attests yet again to the fact that they are not a net worth to this project. Take a careful look at the contributions of said user and tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Now blocked temporarily for their unacceptable comment on that article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD tag removed and then article renamed

• Nang Nandini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Priya Ragini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rajen Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajen Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AfD tag removed at Special:Diff/1074461824 and article then renamed at Special:Diff/1074463419. Suggest indef both for disruption and ask question afterwards. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priya Ragini.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point I'm starting to suspect some poor attempt at digital propaganda by the terrorist group that these AfD's are related to. There certainly seems to be meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry combined and the article subjects are very obscure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

My guess is some sort of meatpuppetry between Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priya Ragini, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeverTry4Me, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeezGod, I think the early guess of GeezGod joe-jobbing NT4M may have been off the mark. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Well Priya Ragini has continued to make unsummarised edits "Rajen Sharma" Special:Diff/1074479307 and ignoring this without giving any explanation for a move that could be designed to disrupt AfD. I'm beginning to wonder for my sanity if I need to !vote to keep the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Priya Ragini:, I have reverted all of your changes to this article for similar reason to my previous reversal. You are continuing to add information that is either uncited, cited to a non-WP:RS (a poetry and fiction hosting site), or you cite a source that does not actually support the claims you added to the article. These are serious violations of the Core Content Policies. If you continue editing in this manner, I will ask for the article to be protected until the discussion ends. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Supergenius22 mass references removal

Diffs

• Special:diff/1074430056
• Special:diff/1074431086
• Special:diff/1074409433
• Special:diff/1074432336

This user is currently removing multiple references to various articles, without providing edit summaries. Please take action on this, as the articles he edits are BLPs. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked Supergenius22 (talk · contribs) to stop changing articles until this discussion is complete. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Supergenius22 resumed making significant and unexplained changes with no response on a talk page or here. I have accordingly indefinitely blocked them and explained on their talk that the block will be removed as soon as they engage with other editors and agree to not edit against consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

COI and disruptive editing

• Дејан2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Дејан2021 has repeatedly recreated European Supercentenarian Organisation, an article speedily deleted and now salted for lack of notability. It seems clear user Дејан2021 is pushing the European Supercentenarian Organisation, a breakaway organization from the Gerontology Research Group, which was part of its own ArbCom case here years ago, and is also creating reams of disruptive content.

• diff 1 Pointlessly added this self-published organization as a source to an existing description it has nothing to do with at List of supercentenarians by continent.
• diff 2 Warned by an administrator against adding copyrighted material copied from other websites.
• diff 3 Admitted they used material copied from gerontology.fandom.com to create articles and used another fan forum the110club as a source.
• Created (via copying information at gerontology.fandom.com) List of oldest people from Serbia, List of oldest people from Croatia, List of Montenegrian centenarians, List of oldest people from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and many individual biographies like Jelisaveta Veljkovic.

All of the list articles created were riddled with largely overlapping issues, from not following the agreed-upon standard of only age 110+ for country age lists, added WP:OR designations of "Pending" and "Unvalidated" for entries, included long-agreed-discarded by country "emigrant" sections, added WP:OR sections of "Chronological list of the oldest living person in country x since xxxx", and violated both MOS:COLOR and MOS:FLAG. Articles like Jelisaveta Veljkovic also include WP:OR "Successor" and "Predecessor" listings for the title "oldest x" in the infobox.

While all of the list articles were made re-directs to List of supercentenarians by continent by @🐔dat, in a good faith effort to combat the flood of WP:NOTHERE, none of their dubious content is even mentioned in the article. An indef block of Дејан2021 for their flagrant abuse of Wikipedia is warranted, before their disruption metastasizes into another ArbCom case. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what the problem is. Every change I made was cited by the source. I don't understand what the problem is.Дејан2021 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Дејан2021, I’m sorry what is it exactly that you do not understand? The report? What I’m deducing is you have been engaging in disruptive like editing, violating policy on original research and engaging in copyright violations which aren’t so good, do you see the problem now? Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the gist, I hope the problem is solved now. I did not cite any original research, but only what is available in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Дејан2021 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 and rollback

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.

---

• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · logs)

I recommend reading the preceding (very short) discussion on Bbb23's talk page.

Bbb23 does a lot of rollbacks, and too many of them are rollbacks of good-faith contributions which fail to meet the criteria listed at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Standard rollback may be used ... To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. The reason for reverting is not absolutely clear to these mostly brand-new editors (and sometimes not even to me). Bbb23 claims he is "preventing disruption", but apparently cannot be bothered to warn or inform these editors of what exactly makes their edit "disruptive" in the edit summary or on their talk page; he just rolls back their edits without comment. I believe the diffs below, all from the last three weeks of February, are enough to illustrate a pattern of rollback abuse. These 31 diffs over three weeks makes for 40 per month. Even half that is too much. Who knows how far back the pattern goes; I stopped looking at February 5.

• [245] Rollback of neutral statement about a nearby metro station
• [246] Rollback of edit that actually improves the link targets; not just a bad rollback but a bad/careless revert in general
• [247] Rollback of neutral content addition because... it's unsourced? Or something else? Bbb23 doesn't tell us. Typical behavior from them.
• [248] Rollback of edits updating factual content with new references. Bbb23 may suspect conflict of interest, but can't be bothered to inform the editor or explain the revert.
• [249] Rollback of good-faith disambig entry. (So disruptive!) Bbb23 can't be bothered to explain the rules of disambiguation pages.
• [250] Editor removes unsourced content with explanation in edit summary; Bbb23 rolls it back with no explanation
• [251] Don't you dare try to add a reference in a slightly wrong format, because Bbb23 will rollback it without explanation
• [252] New editor gets their article speedy-deleted for promotion, and then tries to add the subject to WP:Requested articles, but... rollbacked. Is there even a rule disallowing this?
• [253] Rollback of what looks like good-faith change to make dates more precise. Bbb23 then blocks this editor for "not here to build an encyclopedia". Maybe that has something to do with the speedy-deleted articles, but the non-deleted contributions do not look that bad. Was this a good block?
• [254] Rollback of good-faith contribution that was worth keeping. Bbb23 actually fixes this one after another editor calls them out on it. Bbb23 ignores the question on how it was a valid use of rollback and "closes" the discussion. Bbb23 did make some sort of apology to the user, but in the same comment also made sure to remind them to please be more careful because Bbb23 is a very busy admin who will rollback your edits at the slightest hint of perceived "disruption" when he glances at it, and you, poor editor, are taking up too much of his time.
• [255] Rollback of simple WikiProject page layout change because Bbb23 doesn't like it. Blatant abuse. When called out on this one, Bbb23 ignores the question, reminds the editor that they're a noob in an insulting manner, and disappears. Awful behavior from an admin.
• [256] [257] [258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275] These are all run-of-the-mill, mostly sub-par, but still good-faith, contributions that Bbb23 rolls back with no explanation. The proper behavior would be to revert normally with an explanation.

I think there's also an WP:ADMINCOND issue here. There's what I mentioned in the bullet-points above, and also their behavior when I confronted them about this. First, they ignore me, and I have to play the WP:ADMINACCT card to even get a response at all. (As the two instances above show, if you don't play that card, Bbb23 just ignores you. Very disappointing that an admin refuses to follow policy unless regular editors are smart enough to bang them on the head with it.) Their first reply immediately attacks me with questions about why I would possibly want to question their edits. I never get a straight answer to my questions before they go back to ignoring me. Abysmal behavior from an admin.

What does the community think? I think if Bbb23 wants to keep their admin tools, they need to promise to start using rollback correctly. And promise that they will not ignore or dodge reasonable questions about their actions, but will reply to them in a respectful and civil manner.

Modulus12 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't make this comment on Bbb23's talk page because I was hoping this would de-escalate, but I'm remarkably unimpressed by the way Modulus12 has handled this. Regardless of the diffs in question, this was handled very poorly by them. Typically when someone comes at you with 18 diffs, the standard reaction is to become defensive since we are all human. This is even more the case when the follow-up is a formulaic citation of policy. Regardless of the merits of this thread (I have not looked at the diffs) this seems to be a very heavy-handed approach to what is generally speaking a fairly minor policy violation that's in part a pre-twinkle artifact. Yes, people shouldn't misuse rollback, but Twinkle has features that do the exact same thing that aren't covered by the policy and typically 'please be more careful' is the response when these threads are raised. I'll let others sort out the actual merits, but I do think this could have been handled much better before being escalated here. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously Bbb23 went back to ignoring me, and like you say, none of the 221 page watchers jumped in to provide a guiding hand, so what is a man to do? Of course I have to come here. Typically 'please be more careful' is the response when these threads are raised. That's literally all I'm asking for: A specific acknowledgment from Bbb23 that they have performed poorly in these diffs and will do better in the future. They refused to provide it on their talk page, and so we are here. The burden to de-escalate was entirely on the admin's shoulders (as it should be in a simple, polite WP:ADMINACCT query). Modulus12 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It probably would have been more effective if you had explained what your concern was without diff-bombing, adding more ALLCAPS, and direct quotes from policy pages on his talk page. When I saw the thread my first thought was that you were setting up for an ANI, which was probably his first thought too. The format you used on his talk page was more akin to an ANI warmup than a request for clarification/asking him to be more careful. When I was more active in the AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom dramah boards, I would typically start threads like you have here, so I don't really fault you for the format of this thread, but I do think the talk page thread that proceeded this wasn't ideal, and asking one person to respond to 18 diffs doesn't come off like you claim you intended it to. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Two of the bullet points above (here and here) illustrate that Bbb23 is unwilling to respond to a single diff of them abusing rollback. The exact nature of my concern was obvious to anyone capable of passing WP:RFA and using the admin tools. And as I said before, I only had to recite policy because my valid questions were being ignored. In a later reply, I narrowed it to three diffs with explanations of why they were unacceptable rollbacks, and all I got was pushback and dodging from Bbb23. I think it makes this community look bad when someone brings up a genuine admin problem (no matter how minor), and the first instinct is to say "I haven't looked at the diffs" and start criticizing the reporter for daring to speak up. It creates a chilling effect. Modulus12 (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • You're not being questioned for daring to speak up. You're being told that you did so in a way that makes it look like you wanted this outcome, and that if you had changed your approach this might have been avoided. ANI reviews the behaviour of everyone involved in a situation, so how you approached it is absolutely relevant as well, and is part of the way this board is intended to operate, because it makes people consider the best way approach these situations. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • I think Bbb23's behavior on their talk page refutes the assertion that I created this outcome. But I don't want to keep creating a wall-of-text here, so I won't say any more and will wait for some other people to provide their thoughts. Modulus12 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • My thoughts are that your post at Bbb23's talk was typical of a troublemaker trying to trip up the recipient. Do you really think Bbb23 should examine ten unexplained diffs from yet another unknown person with a complaint? Wait until Bbb23 uses administrator tools before triumphantly quoting WP:ADMINACCT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
              • WP:ADMINACCT covers all Wikipedia-related conduct, and although rollback has been unbundled, it is still an admin tool. The rollback guideline clearly says an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools. Bbb23 has now made 15 more edits while ignoring this discussion. They delight in leveraging the blocking policy to its fullest extent, but can't be bothered to fulfill the basic requirements of their role, as laid out in the WP:Administrators policy, even after being dragged to ANI. Modulus12 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been concerned for a long time about Bbb23's lack of communication and hence failing to appropriately comply with WP:ADMINACCT. Even saying things like "I've deleted this per G11 because phrases like 'x' and 'y' are not appropriate for a global, neutral, encyclopedia, and previous experience has shown it is better in the long run to rewrite this from scratch" or "The block is because we have first-hand evidence you have been using three other accounts, and using them to avoid scrutiny - pick ONE and we'll leave the rest blocked" would suffice and resolve my concerns. This is what culminated in their checkuser rights being revoked by Arbcom some time back.

If Bbb23 wasn't an administrator, I would wait a day or two for their response here, and if I found it unsatisfactory, I would revoke their rollback flag. I am particularly concerned about "As an administrator, I'm more interested in preventing disruption than I am in being "nice" to disruptive "new editors"" when it is clear that being CIVIL (as distinct from "nice") to disruptive editors causes less disruption as it tells those editors they aren't getting to you and they can't be fed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Unlike my colleagues above I took the time to look through the diffs and I'd encourage them to do likewise. At least half the rollbacks I don't grok, and the linked interactions, in isolation, do not speak well of Bbb23. I would welcome their participation in this discussion and further explanation. Yes, it's irritating and time-consuming to justify your actions, especially when there are good and decent explanations that require lots of context, but no one forced us to become administrators and that's the price we pay. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• And beyond that, pardon this non-admin for raising a hand, but are people seriously alleging that gosh, the OP brought too much evidence to the table? If looking through "too many" diffs is too much to ask (and, after all, as with any other issue on Wikipedia, those for whom such a task is too onerous are not compelled to participate or register an opinion), what prevents anyone from glancing at a half dozen?

  "Too many" diffs shouldn't be less indicative of a problem than just tossing in three or four ... and certainly not in this case. Wouldn't a mere three or four blown rollbacks be a petty issue, something that'd be expected and shrugged off for an anti-vandal patroller? Wouldn't you want there to be dozens before you'd agree that there was a genuine issue with how Bbb23 handled rollbacks? Ravenswing 12:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit from Bbb23 today, using rollback on something simply because it is "unsourced" (although not likely to be challenged and easily verifiable) is clearly inappropriate. The rollback policy says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning". It is depressing to illustrate basic policy to administrators, when a lack of knowledge on RfA candidates would cause opposition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm not sure that's a great example. The point of that section is in the first sentence: Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected.. The next line after the one you quote says: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. (my emphasis). If the word "unsourced" was added to the rollback edit summary, which can be done through the rollback API and various tools that use it, then this isn't "standard rollback using the generic edit summary". That isn't to say that we can't take issue with the edit summary being inadequate, but I don't think that's an example of misuse of rollback, since a custom edit summary was provided. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

But the "Tag: Rollback" presented to the reverted user is a link they can click on, which will take them to the guideline page. If the guideline page is wrong, out of date, or misleading, either the page should be changed or it should be marked historical. Or perhaps we should deprecate the rollback feature entirely as being archaic and confusing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the guideline page you think is wrong, out of date, or misleading? It seems pretty consistent in defining "standard" rollback as rollback with a generic edit summary, not a custom one--including in the lead--and going on to define restrictions on when "standard" rollback may or may not be used. But non-standard rollback is still rollback, and I don't see why it would be a problem to tag them as such. The reason that we have those restrictions on standard rollback is because it *doesn't* leave any kind of summary of why an edit was reverted. It's not "you're arbitrarily not allowed to use this tool to revert a GF edit ever", it's "using standard rollback on a GF edit leaves no indication to the reverted editor about why their edit was reverted, so you shouldn't do that", and if someone is using a custom edit summary while using the rollback tool, then that restriction no longer applies. Again, I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't take Bbb23 to task for insufficient edit summaries generally, or that most of the diffs provided by OP (which *do* appear to be using standard, generic rollback) aren't a problem. But that edit is not a good example of rollback abuse, because it's not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is not egregious, or taken on its own merits, anything to worry about (other than to note that Bbb23 appears to be in a content dispute on Colin Morgan and had already reverted with a good-faith explanation earlier). However, given the other instances posted above, plus Bbb23's lack of commentary in this thread, that means there may be cause for overall concern. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting, Writ_Keeper, that the OP has presented ~30 other diffs for your delectation. SN54129 17:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No doubt, and apologies for the sideshow. I've been leafing through the provided diffs, and at a glance, they definitely don't look good. Lots of unmodified generic edit summaries, no obvious bad faith in the reverted edits. I see TonyBallioni's point that this is perhaps an overly heavy-handed approach by Modulus12, but it's a real, persistent issue nonetheless, and I think that Bbb23 should substantively respond to this thread with either a justification or (better) a commitment to not use rollback without a descriptive summary in non-obvious cases. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree that it should be responded to; nor do I think there was an issue with providing a lot of diffs for this thread (said that above.) My comment was more that the way it was initially handled was probably more aggressive than needed, and that gets people defensive. Obviously now that it is here, all the diffs are fair game. I was just hoping it would have been resolved on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Going forward, I will "commit" (the word WK used) to not use Rollback incorrectly. Although I haven't looked at all the diffs, I accept that my use of Rollback was wrong. As Modulus requests, I will try to be more careful, meaning either I will not revert edits at all or revert them with an edit summary that explains the basis for my undoing them. That doesn't mean I'll stop using Rollback completely, but that I'll use it only when it complies with policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that! I for one fully trust you will do as promised.

  Perhaps the following may be helpful in this context: I have this little plain text document that I keep with 'common edit summaries' to copy-paste in common revert situations, like "at Wikipedia, we cite reliable sources for everything we add, so the information we give can be verified by our readers", "please do not change any text that is already sourced without also replacing the source", "at Wikipedia, we do not add our own point of view, but report the points of view given by sources", etc. Often though I'll just use "rv unsourced and unexplained changes". The point is that copy-pasting these edit summaries is really quick and easy, even while informing editors why the edit was reverted. You might want to try something like that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  To expand on Apaugasma's reply, you can also install a user script to put a "custom edit summary" box below the edit summary field, so you don't have to swap back and forth between the document and Wikipedia. This obviously won't be useful for rollbacking, though, but it will be useful if you use the standard undo feature. —GMX^(ping!) 22:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting . But I guess the advantage of a plain text document is that the edit summaries can be copy-pasted into whatever tool: I also use this with Twinkle rollback, both the regular and the AGF version. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• A more important issue now is the Ritchie333 problem. This is not the first time he has erroneously taken Bbb to task for this (see the "Closing off topic discussion" part). And that was nine months after I had explained it to him. He falsely accused me of abusing rollback in 2019, and I tried to explain the correct guideline, but he refused to listen, just giving me replies which demonstrated that he doesn't understand how rollback works, and telling me to "Get over it". I finally just gave up, telling Xeno, who had backed me up, that I was afraid Ritchie's lack of understanding would lead him to erroneously issue further warnings or revoke rollback from somebody. Unfortunately, this did happen, with tragic results. Last December, using the same bogus reasoning, he revoked rollback from a user, who promptly retired, saying "After ten years of service, it just takes the actions of one admin!" Ritchie was very correct in a very ironic way when he said above that "It is depressing to illustrate basic policy to administrators". I and various others have attempted to enlighten him about basic policies, to no avail.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  22:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand what Rollback is supposed to be. I’ve never used it, and it just makes it difficult to know what people are trying to do. Why are they undoing an edit, and what’s the reason for doing so? As I said in 2019, err on the side of over-explaining. Communication is the important thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are they undoing an edit, and what’s the reason for doing so? But you have been repeatedly complaining about edits in which people are explaining their reasons for reverting: "Not notable", "please don't alter a quote", "unsourced". The Robvanvee XRV thread was closed with a consensus that your revocation of rollback was inappropriate and that your understanding of WP:ROLLBACKUSE was (is?) incorrect. DanCherek (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the follow are all equivalent in terms of what they communicate:

• Remove unsourced claim; rumors are flying on Twitter but no reliable source has picked up on this yet.
• Undid revision 1111111111 by 42.42.42.42 (talk) Unsourced claim; rumors are flying on Twitter but no reliable source has picked up on this yet.
• Reverted edits by 42.42.42.42 (talk) to last revision by Alice; Unsourced claim; rumors are flying on Twitter but no reliable source has picked up on this yet.

That's good communication. Then next three are equivalent to each other, but not the above:

• rm unsourced
• Undid revision 1111111111 by 42.42.42.42 (talk) unsourced
• Reverted edits by 42.42.42.42 (talk) to last revision by Alice; unsourced

That's mediocre communication. Not great, but everyone does it. The next three are, again, different from anything above, but equivalent to each other:

• rv
• Undid revision 1111111111 by 42.42.42.42 (talk)
• Reverted edits by 42.42.42.42 (talk) to last revision by Alice

That's poor communication, unless the edit is clear vandalism, in which case "because this edit is clear vandalism" is implied.

Now, in no case does it matter which tool the person used. Did they 'splain themselves, or not. Rollback doesn't enter into it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely think it would be worth starting an RfC to clarify this once and for all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Rollback is WP:HUGGLE authorization as many anti-vandalism tools are gatekeeped behind rollback permissions. Why anyone would ever use plain rollback when Twinkle does the same thing but better is beyond me. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Murder of Ahmaud Arbery - clear-cut racism giving the benefit of the doubt to white convicted murderers

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.

---

We have a serious issue at Murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Several users have attempted to present the murder victim in a false light and have watered down the factual description of the crimes committed against Arbery.

• Here, AzureCitizen presents Arbery's murderers' alleged belief that Arbery looked like a burglar without clearly discussing the fact that this belief was objectively false - there is no evidence presented in any venue that Arbery burglarized or stole anything, and hence their belief was determined to be objectively unreasonable in a court of law as a necessary component of their convictions for murder.
• Here, Iamreallygoodatcheckers declares that it is objective to describe Travis McMichael's aggravated assault of Arbery with a shotgun as merely confronting him, and to describe Arbery's lawful self-defense actions as a physical struggle. Both of these changes are neither objective nor accurate - McMichael was convicted of aggravated assault and Arbery's actions were not a mutual "struggle" but lawful self-defense against a murderer who unlawfully, feloniously, and maliciously took his life. Per the trial court, it is an objective fact that Travis McMichael's actions that day constituted felonious aggravated assault and Arbery's actions constituted lawful self-defense.

This is a clear-cut case of treating Arbery's convicted murderers as if they deserve the benefit of the doubt, while presenting Arbery - the victim of a savage and unprovoked murder - as responsible for his own slaying. Disgusting, unacceptable racism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick look suggests this is a content dispute, with the editors who disagree with you doing so on the basis of how the sources present the content; Iamreallygoodatcheckers says The RS cited in this paragraph do not correspond with the changes made. This paragraph is mainly there to describe the events that happened in a very raw and objective way. We get into convictions later on in the lead. and AzureCitizen says Undid good faith revert by NorthBySouthBaranof. 1) Read WP:BDP, it's "two years at the outside." 2) Someone can't "falsely believe" that someone looked like someone else. 3) This is the phrasing that most closely resembles the source citation, which states "...they thought Arbery looked like a burglar who had been plaguing the neighborhood." None of the sources say "falsely believed", which is problematic writing.

However, I note that you have violated WP:3RR, having reverted four times in the past 24 hours, and have not provided the required notifications; I have done so now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Those sources were old and outdated, particularly being from before the trial, let alone the conviction. I have provided two sources which state that police told the McMichaels Arbery had not committed any burglaries or thefts. Whatever Arbery's murderers believed, their belief was objectively false. Arbery was objectively neither a burglar nor a thief. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said, it's a content dispute. I see you opened a discussion on the talk page a few hours ago; give the other editors time to discuss with you, and if you can't reach an agreement, open an RFC. However, I would suggest that you self-revert your most recent reversion, on order to bring yourself back into compliance with WP:3RR and avoid a block for edit warring. I would also suggest retracting the accusations of racism, as I don't see sufficient evidence for such a serious charge. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is a content dispute that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, and one that is based on how the event/situation is described in "lay terms" first in the lede (without any legal/court conclusions) and the followed up with the court/legal result (rather than starting with the court result first) so there's actually a reasonable stance here that can be debated. It is far from the clear-cut problem given here. --Masem (t) 05:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no neutral "lay terms" here, Masem. "A confrontation" sounds largely harmless - what actually happened is that Travis McMichael threatened Arbery with a shotgun, committing the felony crime of aggravated assault. "A physical struggle" suggests some sort of mutual combat - what actually happened is that Arbery fought for his life, unsuccessfully, in justifiable self-defense. These are no longer questions - they are objective facts determined in a court of law. To present them otherwise is to present a violent, premeditated, racist hate-crime murder (crimes all three defendants have been convicted of) as something else entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The lede is written mostly as a chronological discussion of the events, similar to how a court decision would be written, In that manner, the discussion of the events usually do not incorporate any type of judgement on any of the actors of the events, since that will be resolved with the decision part of the lede. If the lede was written differently (focusing on the conviction first and foremost) that might change things, but the current structure leaves these as fair changes that should be discussed on the talk pages. And I do agree that calling edits here as "racism" related is troubling as that assumes bad faith. --Masem (t) 05:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a issue that should be Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, not here. Also, NorthBySouthBaranof needs to understand that claiming that an editor (or any person for that matter) is promoting or upholding "clear-cut racism" is among the most serious claims that can be made, pretty much up there with murder and rape. This editors conduct was beyond inappropriate and a warning at the very least should be given. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahmaud Arbery was the victim of an anti-Black hate murder. This is no longer in question - it is objective fact, determined where those facts are determined, to wit, courts of law. You've attempted to water down the description of what happened to the victim of said hate crime. I have not accused you personally of being racist - but it is undeniable that your edit has a racist effect, in that it presents the Black victim of the crime in a false light. "Confrontation" and "physical struggle" imply mutual responsibility or culpability, which is factually false - what actually occurred was a felonious, racially-motivated assault to murder by Travis McMichael, and a desperate act of lawful self-defense by Ahmaud Arbery. These are objective facts now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

When you have a dispute on Wikipedia, we assume good faith. You brought this to AN because you believed that there actively was racist edits being made on the Murder of Ahmaud Arbery page. How about this. If you weren't suspect that individual editors were POV pushing racism, why did you feel it was necessary to bring it here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think because the language reflects that used by apologists for the murders and obfuscates that Aubrey was lynched. Those 3 men didn't confront him, they pursued him, falsely imprisoned him, assaulted him, and murdered him (in that order). Their motives were based on racist beliefs, not impartial comparisons to descriptions of an alleged burglar. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: that does not excuse this behavior towards editors and directly violates standards of conduct on Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but it might explain the behavior. Editors are human and this specific topic and case can reopen wounds. Hopefully NBSB will disengage and make amends. I know I had to do the same recently. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: you have violated WP:3RR, will you please do revert you edits and let this be discussed in the talk page. You've been editing a while, and you know edit warring and hostility to other editors is not how we improve an encyclopedia as a community. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This conversation on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page is relevant, as it appears to be an explicit accusation that AzureCitizen was acting in bad faith, rather than that the edit had a "racist effect". BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I must say it's a surprise to wake up this morning, glance at Wikipedia, and discover I'm being accused of racism on ANI. My appreciation to the editor who left a note on my Talk Page, as I would not have known this was going on. For NorthBySouthBaranof, how might you square your thinking that I'm editing for racist reasons to support "white convicted murderers" with recent diffs in my contribution list a dozen edits ago where I reverted an IP that tried to remove a hate group listing, and restored content (plus added sourcing) that a founder was a white supremacist? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear-cut racism. It's subtle racism, but easily identified as such, and therefore should not be tolerated. Jacona (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, AzureCitizen, before we go any further, I'd like to hear you agree with the facts, which (as EvergreenFir outlined it) are that "Those 3 men didn't confront him, they pursued him, falsely imprisoned him, assaulted him, and murdered him (in that order). Their motives were based on racist beliefs, not impartial comparisons to descriptions of an alleged burglar." Yes? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the facts of the case, including that Mr. Arbery was falsely imprisoned, assaulted, and murdered in an anti-black hate crime. At this point this discussion needs to be shut down because it's content dispute and nothing else. It should have never been here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

I'd like to ask the administrators to appropriately sanction User:Jonny84 in order to prevent further disruptions, as the user continues to add disputed material to the Zabierzewo (a small village in Poland) article. This includes statements such as: "" [276], "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [277], and "Till 1871 it belonged to different German States and was Part of Prussia." [278]. What makes this behavior paritaulariy problematic is that this village has a population of only 150 and apparently the only thing that matters to user Jonny84 is the need to highlight that this area belonged Germany at some point in the past. This is a clear POV push to add all this to an article which originally just looked like this: [279]

Also, when I informed the user of that this type of controversial subject matter is under discretionary sanctions he removed my message form his talk page writing: "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [280]. --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-1945 Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

  54129, when someone says to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [281] I take it as an insult, I am not a "nationalist" and I do not wish to be labeled as one. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• 
• 
• 
• 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tino Cannst, so the "kingdom of the Germans"... officially called Kingdom of the East Franks (a.k.a. East Francia), which lasted form 843–962 and was superseded by the Holy Roman Empire form 962–1806 (notice how the sourced dates match nicely), no separate "kingdom of Germany" existed between that. Latin: regnum Teutonicorum "kingdom of the Germans", regnum Teutonicum "German kingdom", regnum Alamanie "kingdom of Germany" were just informal names thrown around to refer collectively to the Germanic Stem Duchies. More importantly, please note that Pomerania was never a Stem Duchy, as it was Slavic at this time and later during the early middle ages became part of Poland. Also Pomerania-Stolp was part of the the Kingdom of Poland during the late middle ages (you probably forgot this part). So, apparently these facts did not stop you form trying to muddy the waters and confuse people, who may not be familiar with the facts, by only highlights the germaneness of the territory. Finally, please just READ the Germany article, Germany was founded in 1871 (and for a reason, because the Austrian Hapsburg emperors were Holy Roman emperors in the past, and Prussia who unified the German speaking states and took over some which were not, did not have that lineage), the article and reference sources say this not me or some "Polish claims". --E-960 (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Kite, but add what, more historical and unsourced POV nonsense like this which user Jonny84 added: "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [282]. Lets try, because of the Yalta Conference. I ask the admins to carefully look at what user Jonny84 actually added, none of its sourced, and like user Phil Bridger stated: "Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania." It's all about context, accuracy, balance and due weight. --E-960 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Which brings me to my main complaint when Jonny84 wrote this in response to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [283]. I think at least a formal warning is in place, personal attacks and name calling are not ok. --E-960 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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 Beshogur accuses me of being a vandal, reports me to the vandalism noticeboard without notifying me and gives no reasons

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:Beshogur reverted some edits of mine without giving any reasons, then he reported[284] me to the vandalism noticeboard without notifying me whatsoever, accusing me of “adding Arabic transliterations to every Kipchak-Turkic related articles” which is not true as seen in my discussion with him. I initiated a discussion with him and he gives a vague answer of telling me to stop doing “revisionist” edits, after which I asked him to answer my question of how I was a vandal, to which he did not reply as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by آدم قازاق (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: Borderline edit warring going on. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Your Stale AIV Reprt on آدم قازاق at WP:AIV has been removed by MDanielsBot, it was a stale Report. Chip3004 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note how the user is a SPA adding only Arabic text without any proper source + adding Arabic text to other unrelated things like Nogai language, Bayan-Ölgii Province where Arabic alphabet is not even used. Also see his edit on Tatar language removing Arabic alphabet as "formerly" (script) as if Tatar people are using Arabic every day. This is revisionism and POV pushing. There had been similar edits in Kyrgyz related articles before. Beshogur (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest a boomerang. Adding Arabic Kazakh script to the articles of the 14th century, when the script was not in use, is disruptive. Additionally, this is not the first SPA doing this aggressively, they show up and then disappear when challenged.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

See also User talk:ED2J. Beshogur (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I don’t any affiliation to that account nor any other accounts. This is my first Wikipedia account, though I have edited on Wikipedia before through an account of a past friend of mine’s previously a few years ago. I don’t know how adding Arabic script to 14th century Kazakh articles is “disruptive”, it was the script used at the time and not the Cyrillic one. See: https://www.dw.com/en/kazakhstan-rewrites-its-alphabet-to-shed-its-soviet-past/a-49434285 where it says at the “shedding soviet skin” section. Also, you claimed that I was disruptive by editing out that Arabic script was formerly used, but Arabic script is still used, see[285][286]. I am not pushing any “revisionism” or “POV pushing” — Preceding unsigned comment added by آدم قازاق (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have source how Kazakhs wrote Arabic in the 15th century? Which modified letters they used? You do not even add a source and interpret it by modern Kazakh alphabet used in China. Similarly, Nogais do not use Arab alphabet, Bayan Olgii province has no Arabic script. This is not a playground. Why are you surprised with cyrillic? Those people use cyrillic today. And most of those Kazakh khans' names are not even their full original names, but how they're known today, so it doesn't matter if you add Arabic script. Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not using the Kazakh alphabet used in China. I am using the historical Kazakh Arabic alphabet[287]. Also Nogai did use[288] the Arabic script. I will admit I made a mistake with the Bayan Olgii province, but I could say the same thing about the articles you said about the Cyrillic script, why are you surprised that Arabic script is being added to the article of those people? The people in question used it during that time and I did not remove the Cyrillic script from it, if anything, it should be questioned why Arabic script is being removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by آدم قازاق (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of socks here... Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HJBV6 is a start. HJBV6 isn't actually the oldest account I found, but it's close enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Socking, block evasion, vote stacking, copyvio, BLP problems, ...

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 User:Outdoor-Bro / User:Bestof2022 display a large range of problems, which need action.

• Socking: apart from many other clear signs, the most obvious evidence comes from yesterday: Bestof2022 adds text on 18.37, removes it on 18.38, and then Outdoor-Bro readds it on 18.39 (with correction 2 minutes later. This is not just collaboration, the post is about what Outdoor-bro did, where he took information from, written in the first person. User:Norbert Eb is most likely another sock as well (see e.g. the history of Felicity Ace)
• Block evasion: Outdoor-Bro was blocked from 12 to 26 January 2022 for copyright issues. Bestof2022 was created and started editing on 22 January, i.e. during the block of the master account.
• Vote stacking: Heiko Schrang is created by Outdoor-Bro. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heiko Schrang, the two defenders of the article are Bestof2022 and Norbert Eb
• Copyvio: Outdoor-Bro has been blocked for copyvio / unattributed translation problems after many warnings. Since this block, Bestof2022 has also racked up a number of copyvio warnings / speedy deletions, which if they had happened with the already blocked account would probably have led to a longer block. See e.g. the history of Stefan Magnet or League of Free Youth.
• Blp issues. The editor writes mainly about neo-nazis, but too often crosses into BLP violations. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive335#Narcis Tarcau was started by Liz, and most experienced editors at that thread agreed that it was a clear G10 attack page. It was stubbed and then deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcis Tacau. Draft:Lisa Fitz was created in the mainspace, I moved it to draft for BLP reasons. A comedian with a 50-year career is reduced to "She is best known for spreading right-wing and anti-semitic conspiracy theories." based on a column / opinion piece[289]. See e.g. also the history of Draft:Sajid Mir (alleged terrorist), started in the mainspace as Sajid Mir (terrorist).
• Poor machine translations. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelika Willing, and the problem that the article should be at Angelika Willig, but as "Willig" is the German for "Willing", it was created at Angelika Willing instead...

Considering the many issues with these accounts, I think it is time for a block of considerable length. Fram (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hello, I created a second account, that is true, to write more about military issues and didn´t want it to mix up. In fact, I was not consistent in the themes. If this is a problem to have two accounts, I will delete Bestof2022, not to mix up.
• I have been open for any correction, if there are complains about what Frame is said a copyvio. I learned in that field.
• If Frame has a problem with the content of my articels or that I right about far-right activists, he or she could contact me. I am appreciate any correction, but it make no scence to put small peaces of articel to proove something.
• At Angelika Willig I was in a hurry, that is true. But if other people beside of Frame thinking, I lack to nmuch of quality - delete the articel.
• The user Fram is following me for some month in a let´s call it "not so good way". --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Norbert Eb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another of your accounts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't pretend you don't know that multiple accounts are frowned upon. You were banned from the German Wikipedia (as de:User:Friedjof, see de:Benutzer:Outdoor-Bro and socking was discussed multiple times. LTA here: de:Benutzer:Seewolf/Liste_der_Schurken_im_Wikipedia-Universum#Friedjof. Many common interests, see also Excursionsflora for Germany or de:Wikipedia:Artikelwerkstatt/Friedjof if anyone doubts that Outdoor-Bro is related to Friedjof. —Kusma (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I would support an indef block. I first encountered his work when reviewing drafts at AfC, an unattributed translation from de:Wikipedia:Artikelwerkstatt/Friedjof and made him aware of the issue here. My advice was apparently ignored, because the unattributed translations continued. Given that the Bestof2022 account was created after a block for exact same problem and given that this issue was among those that led to an indef block at dewiki, I don't see how any improvement would be possible. 15 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Even ignoring the socking, copyvio, BLP problems etc, it seems pretty clear to me that Outdoor-Bro lacks the basic fluency in the English language necessary to be able to make useful contributions here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban, too many issues and incessant socking on top. They've had the chance to be better than at dewiki but have chosen socking and block evasion. No need to drag this out further. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Clear WP:CIR issues. Outdoor-Bro is editing here because he is banned from German language WP, but is not sufficiently skilled in English to contribute positively. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Friedjof. If you speak German, you might be able to find some more. My German skills are mostly limited to singing along to heavy metal songs. Du... du hast.. du hast mich! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Latest CU for Friedjof is de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Weimer_Schrader,_Htt70,_Friedjof#Entscheid_und_Ergebnisse from Nov. 21. I could check again if needed. Then there is from Jul. 21 de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Friedjof, Vordermann, Grand Jux usw. and earlier 21 de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Friedjof,_TheOneAndOlli#Entscheid_und_Ergebnisse --Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 5

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.

---

Continue this, Special:Contributions/203.218.67.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 3 March in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one yeargg. Silly kitty. El_C 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user keeps reverting without valid reason

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:Ytpks896 is the user in question. An article called Pashtun name existed which I removed/redirected to Afghan name because of a severe lack of references and structure. The information on Pashtun name was already on Afghan name which is well referenced and laid out, hence I merged it as per BOLD. A week later, User:Ytpks896 restored this article despite its state, only for them to be reverted back by User:Onel5969. Two days later, Ytpks896 reverted once again, and once again Onel5969 came to the rescue and warned the former that they could be blocked for disruptive editing. After this, Ytpks896 changed the redirect target.

Ytpks896 also removed content from my "merging" on Afghan name. The removal was reverted by User:Hv3f5, but once again Ytpks896 reverted back. For the next 18 days nobody realized this disruption until I saw it and reverted Ytpks896's edits, and I made a warning in the edit summary. Once again Ytpks896 has reverted. This happened 6 days ago and again, it went under the radar until I just spotted it again.

Ytpks896 is involved in an edit war and is removing content from Afghan name in favor of restoring Pashtun name which fails Wikipedia standards because it lacks sufficient sources and quality anyway. The user has already been warned by me and by Onel5969, but keeps going their way and has been well under the radar most of the time in doing so. --WR 13:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - my issue was with Ytpks896 adding uncited material, but one thing is that they have not been notified on their talk page about this discussion as required. I've added the template. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did make a notification although for some reason it did not create a heading for it, so it is listed in an existing section above it. --WR 13:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Twitter alert: Hindu-related articles

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.

---

Bishonen told me to post here.

I am very active in twitter and multiple times, I have seen many posts against Kautilya3 in past one year. He is projected as an enemy of Hindus, while he is not. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See [290] and [291]. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've skimmed through those and they have confirmed me in my belief that I am better off going nowhere near Twitter. I'm no great expert on inter-communal strife in South Asia, but I saw one post that decribed Jimmy Wales as a communist. You couldn't get much further from the truth than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The person starting all this is Sanjeev Sanyal. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• My only comment:

  Right-wing politics across the globe have empowered neonationalists who feel threatened by scholars whose work shatters the national myths they promote. Those they attack often focus on historical violence against minorities, aligning with the neonationalists’ own prejudices. Scholars in countries governed by neonationalists, and those who travel to them, can face physical and legal harassment—even imprisonment—for pursuing responsible historical inquiry. When neonationalists can’t physically intimidate scholars, they resort to online threats.

  [T]he rise of Hindu nationalists in the government in India have emboldened those who espouse the ideology known as Hindutva. These Hindu nationalists "are highly sensitive about a range of topics in South Asian history, especially caste-based discrimination, Indo-Muslim rule, and the internal diversity of Hinduism," explained Audrey Truschke (Rutgers Univ., Newark).

  Harassers also target the institutions that support or employ those they disagree with, often accusing historians of racism. Hindu nationalists, too, have "leveraged the conversation around social justice in academia to silence academic scrutiny of their ideology or of the current regime in India," said Ananya Chakravarti (Georgetown Univ.).
  — Levy, Alexandra F. (14 February 2022). "Trolling History: Social Media Harassment from Abroad". Perspectives on History. American Historical Association.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Dr. Audrey Truschke doesn't seem to be a neutral author to quote. She seems to support colonial British rule in India as the Indian freedom fighters (following Hindu religion) who fought with the British are not Hindu terrorists. Knight Skywalker (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Many conflicts have had terrorists on all sides. Saying that they exist does not mean that someone is supporting a particular other side. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC) The British rulers in those days, not now, might see American war of Independence as terrorism or Nelson Mandela as terrorist. But they are wrong. Knight Skywalker (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC) This is tangent to the discussion but there is a consensus among scholars of S. Asia to use the label of terrorists for a certain class of political activists. The label is not intended to convey any derogatory meaning; consult Peeter Heehs. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC) I am not discussing how terrorists are described everywhere. I am discussing Audrey's views. The tweet she made as part of a thread. She is mixing Indian freedom fighters fighting with the British, with Nathuram Godse killing Mahatma Gandhi and other Hindu right wing. Those who use twitter knows about Twitter thread is actually continuous comment. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is an LTA issue [292] (13 November 2021), could be more earlier. I was tagged in a reply and thus came to know about. Wanted to post to TB, V93 and K3 about it, but forgot it. — DaxServer (t · c) 16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• At the risk of sounding ungrateful; let's not give this more attention than it's due. Bringing this here allows us to be cognizant of the heightened risk of disruption, and that's a good thing; but having flagged it, let's move on, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  +1 - Archive. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

A hard block for user:ClintonGutsfʉck

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 keeps attacking others using his userpage after being blocked, requesting a hard block. Pavlov2 (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Scottywong. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! archived. Pavlov2 (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Discospinster keeps reverting my edits

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:Discospinster was all reverting my edits. I need you to block him temporarily. --RandomGiratto127 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that Discospinster is an admin right? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I've looked at your edits; they were unconstructive and needed to be reverted. Schazjmd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf and Schazjmd: They were constructive! And yes, he may block me for vandalism. --RandomGiratto127 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverts were appropriate. I'd say this might be a case of WP:CIR, as some edits appear constructive, but considering this edit summary, a WP:BOOMERANG might just be needed. Isabelle ^🔔 22:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This account is a possibly a sock of globally locked vandal Giratto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on this exceptionally weird post on meta [293] and similar edits to recently confirmed sock ExpositionLaner2835 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the username i would say it's a duck. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Heh, @92, I should really consult with you before I block users. I indeffed the new account for disruption before I saw your comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That's very suspicious if you say that you aren't a globally locked person because you just happen to share a username with them, especially if you're a brand new user. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Waste of time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I would assume there's no reason to open an SPI against them? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You would assume correctly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not so much "no reason" as "no need" Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

NLT at Atla

Wikipedia:No legal threats says, "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Please forgive me if this isn't the correct place to report this edit by 82.41.120.210 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Atla. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, he's going to set Santander on us!  :) Flee! Although the email address should probably be scrubbed. SN54129 18:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That was garden-variety vandalism, and given that it occurred previously from the same IP address, I just blocked them. --Jayron32 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Scrubbed, but not sanitized --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, that's clean! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 6

Special:Contributions/218.250.190.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2020,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. I mean, okay! El_C 11:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Indonesian-Destroyer doing disruptive editing

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

---

I noticed Indonesian Destroyer was pushing an anti-Azerbaijani POV with their edits, and reverted one, [294]. Indonesian Destroyer then began making unhelpful warnings and personal attacks on my talk page, [295] [296] [297]. They have also continued their POV editing [298]. Please take immediate action, as this disruption might fall under WP:AA2. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

IP Adress in San Francisco, America doing disruptive editing

This user is pushing an anti-Armenian POV, please help me with his edits.

All of a sudden he commented on my page. He deleted the content and acted like administration. Please help me with his attacks

[299] [300] [301] [302] [303]

Indonesian-Destroyer (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

then on Khojaly massacre in popular culture I wrote:

This is a list of representations of the Khojaly massacre in popular culture, mostly by Azerbaijanis.

Before there said "many monuments had also been made"

But what does monuments have to do with movies and songs?

The IP has no reason to remove anything and act like Wikipedia police, impersonation Indonesian-Destroyer (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I misinterpreted. Still, I think it's best if you assume good faith and withdraw this report. I'll also withdraw mine, and then you can work it out on the talk page. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

To all uninvolved admins, please note that the following diffs are just attempts to warn the user about their disruptive behavior. These do not constitute personal attacks. As for "acting like administration," anybody can warn a user about conduct issues. Also, I am not trying to push any POV here. I just encountered what I saw as problematic edits and decided to revert them. If the user has any issues with the content, they are welcome to work it out on the talk page. User:Indonesian-Destroyer, communication is required. Without communication, misunderstandings can easily happen. That's all I'm going to say. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting this is an extension of the thread above. I've blocked the account as a sock of User:ClassicYoghurt. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I can now go back to editing peacefully. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Weird personal attacks on user talk

I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but it bears some investigation by those with better tools.

• 11:46, March 2, 2022 a new user account for Uyuyioiop is created automatically
• 11:51, March 2, 2022 their "first" edit is to my talk page accusing me of creating sock puppet accounts to harass them
• 22:21, March 2, 2022 their "second" edit is to repeat the accusation

These are the account's only global contributions. If I am harassing them, then they are using a sockpuppet to be terminally ironic. I have zero idea who they are or what my supposed socks are or what I am supposed to be doing to harass them but I'd appreciate it if a passing admin could take a look. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. This is harassment and seems like obvious block evasion to me. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. That was commendably fast. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Eggishorn, occasionally, I drop in at this noticeboard when prompt action is obviously needed. Happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that it's GeezGod messing about again. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

MrBoldBald/DohnKapow - addition of bogus content

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

Both accounts (presumably the same person) continue to be adding completely made-up information regarding The Loud House, specifically regarding a character named 'James Aohn'- which is entirely made up. The editor first began trying to add the bogus information onto The Loud House and List of The Loud House characters from account 'MrBoldBald', and now is continuing to try on Draft:A Loud House Christmas and newly-created draft Draft:James Aohn from account 'DohnKapow'.

All 'sources' the editor continues to try using are all entirely fake URLs that lead to error/404 pages, including [304], [305], and [306].

Whether the same (which I believe is the case) or different people behind the accounts, both should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE- Wikipedia is not a place for blatant hoaxes or to store made-up information. Magitroopa (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the vandalism is sneaky.
  • Special:Diff/1072090503 — inamongst the apparently real set of executive producers, an extra one is snuck in
  • Special:Diff/1074556227 — the name from the source is replaced by a different name, both in the article text and the source title in the citation
  • Special:Diff/1060111297 — quite a lot of falsehood, but there's that name again
  • Special:Diff/1060299213 — and again
• I also notice that fandom.com has been suffering from the same hoax vandalism

  Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That same vandalism on Nickelodeon Fandom appears to be coming from user accounts 'PepsiCoke379' and 'AshlanKhan', so don't be surprised if those accounts (or similarly named accounts) are here in the near future. Magitroopa (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the accounts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

W4HRNG issues

I've noticed another Wiki-campaign similar to that of #WPWP that is causing a lot of problems. There are thousands of edits to hundreds of articles under the guise of #W4HRNG that I'm sure are well intended but wholly against our norms and policies. This includes utterly poor sourcing to BLPs to the likes of websites like this and similar "celebrity net worth, height, weight, husband, wife" mirror style variety, to blatant adverts for products, unrelated content that shares a name among other things. Then we have issues with excessive overlinking which can't be fixed easily as well as inserts of plainlinks, urls in the body, and often completely nonsensical dead links. I'm at a loss for what to do since this is to the tune of thousands and thousands of edits. Here's a small sample:

• An example of overlinking, nonsensical additions, poor sourcing
• linking to essay depot
• replacing citation needed tags with completely dead links
• I'm honestly not even sure how to dive into this one, which includes overlinking via a basic dictionary definition, off site with plainlinks, actual overlinking (this imo is one of the most ridiculous and egregious)
• more poor sourcing to mirrors, plainlinks, overlinking
• copyvios, overlinking
• copyvios, overlinking

Again this is a very small selection of a very large problem.

I have also asked one of the editors that has been adding particularly problematic stuff to please stop and familiarize themselves but my request has been met with silence and they've continued editing, though it's not limited to just that user and the scope of this problem is beyond my ability to go to every editor participating and explain how to identify sources, properly format, not overlink etc... Not all of the edits are bad, some are useful but there are far too many inherently problematic edits to fix.

I want to say I appreciate the idea but the follow-through and education for these new editors is severely lacking and actually damaging articles that already don't have a lot of eyes on them. CUPIDICAE💕 16:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Ptinphusmia and James Moore200, who are listed as organizers at Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights_2022_in_Nigeria, could give their input? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a quick note, it looks like filter 1073 was set up to track #WPWP edits from a previous editing campaign, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335##WPWP #WPWPARK and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive336##WPWP is back. Perhaps that edit filter can be either duplicated or redesigned for help track these edits. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Tracking isn't going to be an issue, today is the last day. Cleaning up and engaging the organizers and editors imo is the feat here to prevent it from happening again. A lot of this should be restored back to the last good version because I don't think anyone has the time or energy to go through each of the thousand+ edits. CUPIDICAE💕 16:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed this and removed extensive copyvio from over a dozen articles related to this event a few days ago. I brought this up to the organizers at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria but it seems like the issues are persisting. DanCherek (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you CUPIDICAE💕 and DanCherek for bringing this to my notice. I can imagine the pain of cleaning up the problematic edits and I totally understand. The campaign is set to have physical events in Ilorin and Owerri; online events with participants from Lagos and later online Edit-a-thon for all participants. Currently, the ilorin event is happening in the moment which is facilitated by the ilorin based coordinator, James Moore200 and his team. I have quickly reached out to James Moore200 to halt participation in the moment. And I'm hoping the advice will be heeded to as soon as possible. It might interest you to know that a good number of the participants are not new editors and that's why its disheartening to learn about these mistakes. But I also understand that not being new is not a guarantee of experience. We have seen cases of new editors who showed diligence and understanding after being taught. I am currently taking measures to limit participants to simple tasks to avoid a repetition of such mistakes. I truly appreciate the work you are doing. I plead for your patience to enable us work to correct this. Ptinphusmia (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Plutonical

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

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

Going through some potentially problematic edits in reverse chronological order

• 18th Feb - They show up at the talk page of a user that was CU blocked for joe jobbing, demanding to see the SPI that lead to the CU block [307]. There is of course no requirement for an SPI to be held for the use of checkuser tools. They follow this up with the ridiculous statment Remember, the duck test is not grounds for a CU-block. [308].
• 15th Feb - They show up at the ANI discussion regarding a user who was blocked for genocide denialism POV pushing saying that they hope they get a second chance to edit here [309]. Drmies points out that the user isn't listening [310], which obviously means they are not a candidate for an unblock.
• 8th Feb - They start a poorly thought out RFC proposing that we bulk delete all userboxes related to DS topic areas [311]. This is naturally heading towards a snow oppose [312]
• 7th Feb - A user brings a case to ANI regarding misuse and misrepresentation of sources. Plutonical jumps in incorrectly declaring this to be a content dispute [313] then gives out two completley innapropriate trouts [314] [315].
• 6th Feb - A poorly thought out bot proposal that would have spammed users with warnings about battleground behaviour if they used certain words [316].
• 3rd Feb - They show up at the talk page of an obviously upset user that had just lost some user rights at ANI (and received a short block for being uncivil in response) to warn them that content on their talk page may be inappropriate [317]. The warning itself isn't wrong, but it was completely unnecessary "pouring fuel onto the fire" when dealing with an already obviously upset and annoyed user.
• 31st Jan - they show up at the talk page of a user banned for copyvios, advising them to use synonyms and swap the order of words around (i.e. engage in WP:Close paraphrasing, a form of copyvio). They also state that they should use earwig to ensure they've moved the text around just enough to avoid detection. [318]. They return a few days later to state that they had "No idea" that using automated tools in this manner was not a good idea [319].
• 31st Jan - an attempt to join a community ban discussion after the discussion had already been closed with a largely unhelpful comment that was mostly unrelated to their editing on Wikipedia [320].
• 28th Jan - During this MFD [321] Plutonical decides that they like the page, and they attempt to unilaterally move it to their userspace - this predictably makes a mess. Once the page is put back where it's supposed to be they perform a cut and paste move of the content, resulting in a copyvio [322].

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Given that the user already acknowledges that have room to improve, would a Wikipedia mentor be helpful in terms of navigating the more administrative areas in a way that isn't disruptive? If the work in the article space is good and the only issue is the more arcane areas, I feel like this would be more narrowly tailored towards prevention than a block. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the best navigation advice that can be given at this time is to steer clear for a while. Plutonical has been extraordinarily active in projectspace, and especially at ANI, for someone with their level of experience (as I write this comment, 37% of their undeleted edits were to the Wikipedia namespace, and about 10% of their undeleted edits – 84 out of 830 – were to this board). I don't think venturing into the internal workings of the project early in an editing career is a bad thing per se, but it can lead to friction when it's too much too early, and I agree with the OP that that unfortunately seems to be the case here. However, the fact that they seem to be open to working on the issue makes me hopeful that this can be resolved without severe sanctions. Plutonical, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would strongly recommend that you focus on mainspace editing for a few months and steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I had previously given a friendly warning to Plutonical about high activity in ANI-space and attempting to reach conclusions in ANI discussions that aren't warranted by the evidence, precedence or policy on Wikipedia. Such ill-directed contributions, although made in good faith, can inflame tempers of already-degrading situations and further drag out the conflict in a manner that requires more time and effort for an admin to clean up. As I said before, I'm not going to be throwing stones on this since I also have a high level of project and Wiki-space contributions. I think Plutonical generally means well and that they ought to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that don't require a very high level of experience and understanding of Wiki-culture. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Plutonical seems to be looking for negative attention, given they just nom'd Main Page for deletion. This needs a clear CIR/NOTHERE block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I am not seeking negative attention, and I have been working on reverting vandalism and staying out of wiki-space (save for UAA and AIV reports) per the advice I have been given. If you see this is still needing a block, I'm okay with that, and it was my mistake. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Seriously, stop screwing around. I know you're having fun, but it's a bit of a pain for the rest of us having to clean up your mess. Take the project seriously or find something else to do. No one is amused. --Jayron32 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I have clearly warned them on their talk page that one more occurrence of something like this will result in a sitewide indef block. If another admin thinks this is too lenient and blocks them now, they shouldn't feel like they need to talk to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon

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

• It seems that a more correct statement of this is that a New Pages Patroller has several times pointed a new pages creator to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries and disputed whether the map pin for Craigie (Perth, Scotland) should be in the area where the Craigie school, Craigie post-office, and Craigie church all are (where the Ordnance Survey map on Bing Maps puts Craigie, I observe) or over by Upper Craigie. Uncle G (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The coordinates edit was two days after the article was created. How many pages of "new" articles would that be, roughly? Seasider53 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Likely one, as the current extent of Special:NewPages is 500 entries in one and a bit days right now, and back then was Christmas Day when things are slower. Special:NewPagesFeed is of course infinite scroll and doesn't come in pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree; it seems highly unlikely. Seasider53 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        • @Seasider53: This is what new page patrollers do; they review new articles to see whether anything's obviously wrong with them. They're instructed to look at the older pages as well as the newer ones, in case there's something lurking there and it drops off the back end of the queue. It isn't just Tagishsimon; I looked at the history of your talk page to see whether they'd been leaving you a lot of notifications, and I only see 3 in the first page, which goes back to 22 January, but that led me to this snide edit summary by you, and then to Ari T. Benchaim, who says on his user page that he's a recent changes patroller, PROD'ding Wetter House 9 minutes after creation (I note you are now starting articles with "in use", and I agree that was a bit fast, but the article was very unprepossessing when you first saved it). I didn't see Tagishsimon anywhere in the history of that article, so I looked at it. It had an enormous gallery, no Commons category; and I started seeing other things, beginning with the huge biographical section, and wound up checking most of the references on the house and discovering you'd misunderstood/misrepresented what the books said. So then I looked at an article where Tagishsimon had flagged the gallery issue to you, St Serf's Church, Dunning (I got it from your list at Tagishsimon's talk page, since checking a page 24 hours after creation didn't seem offensive in itself), and not only had you reverted their edit removing the gallery without giving a policy-based reason (and as my edit summary shows, I consider only one of those images useful; and again, you hadn't added the Commons category), but the Dupplin Cross is mentioned twice, and there was more info about the church in one of the sources. You're giving us articles on some good topics, and I know what it's like to create an article and have somebody come along and carp about it, especially if I've had to do a hurried save (I created some articles on down-time at work, living dangerously), and some of the MOS rules are very picky (and many of them there's disagreement about), but throwing in a bunch of pictures isn't a substitute for actually writing up the information that's there in the sources (and it's important to get it right!), especially when the Commons category is available to send the reader who wants lots of pictures to a collection of all the ones we have, viewable at full size. That isn't one of the guidelines that's worth fighting, especially not for Historic American Buildings Survey shots from every angle. (I reduced the gallery for the Wetter House to 3 different views, but someone's probably going to come along and replace it with one captioned pic of the balcony ironwork.) If you were doing a great job with your articles, I'd recommend you apply for the autopatrolled right, which removes your articles from the unreviewed category, but based on those two, your work still needs checking. And remember, new page reviewers—and recent changes patrollers—have no idea what they're going to see when they open a new article. It could be an attack page, it could be copyvio, it could be written in a foreign language; we need those folks, they do a hard and necessary job. And your edit summary that I've linked above was uncivil and uncalled-for; as I've shown, not just Tagishsimon, others are checking your work too, this is a collaborative project. This edit summary that they complained about on your talk page is assaholic, too. I think you owe them an apology, actually; they've linked to the policy in question and have not picked apart your articles, as I wound up doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
          • I mostly just wanted to document his/her following me around. I will add to the list of examples as necessary, but I think their feathers have been sufficiently ruffled, for he/she hasn't responded to my communications before now. Progress, at least. As for apologising, you'll note that he/she gives as good as he/she gets. (I know, I know: "That was ten years ago. Let's assume good faith," etc., etc.) Seasider53 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
            • @Seasider53: if you want to keep documentation of someone allegedly following you around, do so privately. Doing so on-wiki unless it's only a short term thing for a case your about to bring isn't acceptable and will lead you to being blocked for personal attacks. If you're digging up something Tagihsimon did 10 years ago, this shows you have absolutely zero legitimate complaint. Also I have no idea why you said "I agree" above since you're clearly not agreeing with Uncle G said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
              • I'll do it as I have been doing? Don't know why you're implying otherwise. Seasider53 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
                • @Seasider53: Because you opened this nonsense thread, after writing a nonsense complaint on Tagihsimon's talk page, and said it's because you wanted to "document his/her following me around". You then said you "add to the list of examples as necessary". Where you planned to do this was never stated, but since nothing else so far has been private, you can forgive my concerns you planned to continue to do this on-wiki. If you do keep a list privately, well that's none of our concern. But just note that once you bring threads like this, or post on Tagihsimon's talk page, or on your user page, or your talk page or otherwise post it on Wikipedia, it does become our concern. And it's important you understand if do keep up with this nonsense, you should eventually expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
                  • It was a legitimate concern, which has been skewed by assumptions that it's all just a coincidence. What's the point of this page if investigations are basically "there's a Special:NewPages that people watch", even though, as I stated, out of the hundreds of new pages per day, mine just happen to the one Tagishsimon has a concern with? I'll communicate via the user's talk page, as I have been doing. Thank you for the threats, though. Seasider53 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hmm. I was looking at Ammi Ruhamah Cutter (physician) and saw it was marked as checked automatically; it turns out Muboshgu gave Seasider53 the autopatrolled right on 22 January, at the request of I dream of horses. Perhaps the fact that some of their articles are still being checked is the source of some of the animosity? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Right, because I created 504 articles (plus a couple thousand more under old accounts) without feeling the need to apply for autopatrolling, nor did I partake in my nomination. It means that much to me. (Your hounding of my edits in a thread about the hounding of my edits is not an endorsement of the WMF, though, correct?) Seasider53 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Nothing I do here is an endorsement of the WMF, and I hope I remember to note that in my summary for this edit; thank you for reminding me, I sometimes forget since the primary purpose of edit summaries is information for the rest of the community. But by using the term "hounding" for my looking at your edits and seeking to understand your incivility, I'm afraid you're justifying Nil Einne's use of the word "nonsense". I had wondered from the first version of your user page whether you were a returning editor, and therefore I guess we owe you our gratitude for even more articles? (I used to create articles, too. I miss doing that.) As I wrote above, you're giving us articles on some good topics (and that was why I didn't tag Ammi Ruhamah Cutter (physician) as "one source". But from my work and your work in response, Wetter House has gone from inaccurate, uninformative, and crammed with little pictures showing very little to acceptable. That's how Wikipedia works; we collaborate. By participating on the project, you accept that other editors will scrutinise your work. I won't be the last to do so; I gave an example above of a recent changes patroller PROD'ding an article because your first save wasn't fit for mainspace. If you can't distinguish between that feature of the project and hounding, which seeks to discourage your participation, and as a result you sling insults at someone politely advising you, you devalue the concept of hounding. I'll leave it to others to determine whether that attitude, plus the defects in your articles, make it inadvisable for you to retain autopatrolled, but yes, I think you should be doing a better job given that most NPPers will now not be checking your articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Looking at the history of my userpage in an attempt to understand my incivility. This is amazing. We should probably take "This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight" out of WP:HOUND at the same time we add "Hounding is permitted because there's a Special:NewPages that people watch" to this page, to make things more accurate. Seasider53 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Seasider, you really need to dial back the rhetoric. When you open an ANI, your own edits will be scrutinized as part of the discussion. That means Yngvadottir is not "hounding" you, the people here are doing their due diligence to investigate your claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Bellayu781 vandalism

Hello, this user has been vandalizing Kamila Valieva. Endwise (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: You should warn him first, to be able to track his mistakes, and if action is really needed. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Action's certainly needed; Bellayu's been deleting content and replacing sections with "She's a DOPER" with the repeated edit summary of "The truth." I'll toodle over to AIV. Ravenswing 16:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Support for Endwise request for corrective action. The edits from Bellayu are making accusations of doping against a 15 year old skater, before investigations are assigned and completed. Bellaya Talk page has already been notified by another editor for edit misconduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Could Kamila Valieva be protected? Valieva is a controversial figure and there has been a lot of disruption and vandalism on her article as a result. Endwise (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've requested it here. Maybe it'll be faster there. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belayu stopped after the edit warring notice. I gave them a BLP DS alert as they had a previous reversion of an edit to a BLP. I don't recall seeing an ANI notice. I'll check on that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

51.6.138.25

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

---

I think this is BKFIP. Any thoughts? Cutlass^Ciera 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Which part of "This user can be considered banned" do you not get?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think you should not undo edits which improve articles, nor look for spurious reasons to justify your vandalism. 51.6.138.25 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC) That page, by the way, is hilarious. Are you really spending your time looking for edits on topics that "vary widely", by IPs which resolve to "pretty much anywhere", and which are "good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits", just so that you can revert them? 51.6.138.25 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC) "A typical first edit will remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov"." - I mean, what??? That is considered a hallmark of "long term abuse"? 51.6.138.25 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Also, hilariously enough, this "defining characteristic" has nothing whatsoever to do with the edits that I made that this user for whatever reason wanted to revert. 51.6.138.25 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a case of a banned evading editor, who's now edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, article-in-question will need to be semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Not as of yet, other IPs have not been used to cause disruption to this article. If the block works, there's no need to protect the article. --Jayron32 17:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like they were blocked by Bbb23 about 15 minutes ago. Any reason not to close this thread down? It looks handled. --Jayron32 17:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just one: I need to know if everyone else mentally pronounces it as "bick-fip." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  I say "bee-kay-fip". But that's just me. --Jayron32 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Subject of James Reston Jr. editing own page with at least five different accounts

• James Reston Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Restonj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• James Reston, Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 96.241.71.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.191.91.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1003:b100::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

James Reston Jr. himself has edited this page twice through an IP account that is now blocked by User:Yamla for as yet unknown reasons. He has identified himself as the subject of this page in two edit summaries here and here. He has also edited the page through at least four other accounts User:Restonj and User:James Reston, Jr., User:12.108.114.67 and User:71.191.91.244 each time identifying himself in the edit summaries. The article is full of puffery, but I honestly don't think he's doing this maliciously. I just think that an administrator needs to warn him somehow about neutrality and sockpuppet policies. And please review my own edits on the talk page summary to justify the neutrality tag I added. I added four "connected contributor" templates towards the top of the talk page, but I don't think I did that properly. Advice is sought. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that I extended the block on 2600:1003:b100::/40 but that range has been blocked by five separate admins. My block extension was not related to James Reston Jr. but instead, to continued trolling of unblock requests, including possibly via UTRS. I'm not totally sure about UTRS. There's been other bad behaviour, too, but I can't reveal that due to WP:CHECKUSER. None of that is relevant to the topic at hand, though. Here, we have an editor unrelated to the target of the range blocks and unrelated to the bad behaviour I talk about. If there's a way to get this particular editor to understand our policies, we should take it. Looks to be primarily WP:AUTOBIO, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:SOCK here, which is a lot to spring on someone at once. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Reston appears to be currently editing the page from this account 96.241.71.32 now. He appears to identify himself as "James Reston Jr. himself" in this edit summary on a related page Elliot Cowan. I don't see a talk page on that account, so I don't know how to warn him about this discussion. Kire1975 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I've WP:PBLOCKed 96.241.71.32 permanently from editing the James Reston Jr article. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kingshravan04

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 in question: Kingshravan04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the 5th of February, I came across the Kayamozhi Wikipedia page, which was full of unsourced information and basically was a perfect example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I removed all of the unsourced and (in my opinion) unneeded information that I deemed not notable or worthy enough for inclusion. A few hours later, he came onto my talk page and insulted me and attacked me for it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpha_Piscis_Austrini&oldid=1069901211). He was basically told that he could not add unsourced information.

When I went back to the Wikipedia page earlier today, he had readded some unsourced information, along with what I had removed, but with references (I was being generous and did not remove the sourced information, even if it did look like a directory). He then proceeds to attack and insult me again (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpha_Piscis_Austrini&diff=prev&oldid=1074874757). I told him to look at the rules, but he basically does not care. Any resolution would be appreciated. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Another user User:Njd-de was involved in the first round of attacks on me, not sure if I should notify them of this though... Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1060386480 made me laugh. Special:Diff/1069913794 is a problematic attitude. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Uploading copyrighted publications to web host, using for refs and links

DavidESpeed has been looking through decades of past publications to supply interesting links and useful references, but in some cases, DavidESpeed uploads copyrighted pages to the web host mediafire.com to serve as a reference or link. I think some admin action is needed, to revdel the links to copyrighted works.

There might be a good reason to host pages from defunct publications, but DavidESpeed has uploaded copyrighted pages from active publications such as Variety magazine,[323] the Los Angeles Sentinel newspaper,[324] The Hollywood Reporter magazine, Down Beat magazine[325] and The New York Times.[326] There's also a page of album liner notes copyrighted by Verve Records, the screenshot showing that it was scanned from archive.org before DavidESpeed uploaded it to mediafire.com.[327]

Otherwise, DavidESpeed has been perusing past publications at newspapers.com and archive.org, along with various other archives. These hosted pages are not the problem. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

NemesisAT disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thinking @Scope creep: may have meant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969 given it's also about redirects. I don't think Nemesis' !votes are always made in policy (worthy of an article, routine doesn't apply to biographies, Young player at the start of this career so likely to receive more coverage in the future.), but nor do I think they're in bad faith. There's definitely an issue with AfD wars back lately, but at least in the ones I've closed, Nemesis is more indicative of a the symptom of the issue and not the problem. Star Mississippi 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hmmmm. Seven minutes after writing here, Scope creep commented on an AfD that appears in the first page of my recent contributions. Talk about following people around. NemesisAT (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear NemesisAT's good faith explanation as to how the J. Albert "Tripp" Smith article they restored meets our policies and guidelines (like NOTRESUME and NBIO). Levivich 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• I have found myself frustrated at times with NemesisAT's less than policy compliant votes at AfD, a few examples of which were provided by Star Mississippi. I am also dismayed at how often NemesisAT responds to their article creations being draftified by NPPers for being extremely short and not ready for mainspace by simply moving the articles back into mainspace with zero improvements (or reverting redirects), with edit summaries like "railway stations generally presumed notable". Such a rationale is not a valid excuse to shove barebones stubs into mainspace such as Taipingqiao station (Beijing Subway), Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi) (which was much more barebones before being AfD'd), Fenglingdu railway station, Dianjiang railway station, and Yuncheng railway station (Shanxi), just to name a few. These are largely sourced to databases and would utterly fail WP:THREE in their current states. If memory serves, NemesisAT also restored To the Beat! Back 2 School from a redirect, which was subsequently deleted by a clear margin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To the Beat! Back 2 School. I believe they need to better take note of policies about notability going forward, sometimes NemesisAT acts to keep things (be it through AfD participation or reverting redirects) based more on "I like it and don't want things to be deleted" than any genuine argument towards possible notability.
  With that said, I don't think NemesisAT is following scope_creep around. scope_creep is active at NPP, and NemesisAT creates a fairly large number of articles, it is no surprise their paths cross fairly often. NemesisAT is certainly following a political agenda, if you could call being a radical inclusionist a political agenda (and I make it no secret I lean exclusionist). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  We all have different interpretations of policy, I'll try and explain my thinking better but I'm not going to pretend I'm not an inclusionist. For example in the case of NSPORTS, our policieis contradict each other and while I've had some opposition to my views that either GNG or NSPORTS can be used for presumed notability, I think my interpretation of the guidelines is valid. The guidelines are just contradictory. As for railway atations, stations where verifiable information exists are almost always kept at AfD, here's a few:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahi railway station
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llandinam railway station

  So personally I don't feel that creating railway station stubs is a problem. NemesisAT (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to needlessly add to the pile on or whatever, but you saying in the AfD for List of hospitals in Algeria that the article should be kept because it's likely that over time many of the hospitals on the list will have articles created for them isn't just having a "different interpretation of policy", it's utterly disregarding them. There's zero way to interpret WP:LISTN as saying that it's OK to create or keep a list article because it might be notable at some theoretical point in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to needlessly split hairs, but there's a difference between not having an article and not being notable. If it seems like a subject has the right coverage to qualify as notable, but no one's gotten around to actually creating an article (if even a stub), it's perfectly appropriate to include the red link on a list (and to have the list, even if most of the links are red). It's part of how we encourage article creation. EEng 00:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure but NemesisAT specifically brought up the theoretical future creation of articles as a reason why for the list article should be kept. Which ultimately has nothing to do with notability. Nor is it a valid reason to keep an article. Anymore then it would be to argue that a normal article should be kept because maybe someone will write about the topic someday. While I'm aware that it's perfectly appropriate to include red links in list articles, I disagree that most of the links can be red. WP:LISTPURP makes it clear lists that only or mainly serve development purposes should be in either the project or user space, not the main space. In this case there's no reason the person who created the list couldn't have put in the project space for hospitals. While aware the guideline uses the term "entirely", I don't think the intention behind it is to allow lists with hundreds of items where only 2 of them are blue linked to stay in the main article space indefinitely just because someone might eventually get around to creating the articles. Otherwise there would be zero point in having the notability guidelines for lists in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and uncivil behaviour

DallasFC2001 in 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Second Round: tried to replace Russian flag by ROC flag,[328] which was wrong because WADA ban against Russia does not apply to this qualifying competition, in which Russian team were still allowed to play under their name and national flag.[329] Later he/she tried to revert Island92's and my corrections.[330][331] Responded badly to messages in his/her talk page from Island92 and JalenFolf.[332][333] Centaur271188 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive edits made by previously banned user Rebroad

I've noticed that User:Rebroad, who was previously banned for disruptive recently made a very questionable edit. Normally this would not be sufficient justification for an ANI report, however I notice that this uses has had multiple blocks and also has a habit of blanking their talk page which makes it harder for a casual investigator to get an impression of the interactions they have been having with the rest of Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

And I just reverted this edit which is complete weasel words frequently seen in less reputable sources to try and dismiss things. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I notice that Rebroad has reverted a warning and also an ANI notification that I put on their talk page. While I think we all agree that users should have the right to remove anything they like from their talk page, I think on this occasion it shows that this user has shown themselves unwilling to take part in any kind of corrective discussion related to their editing activity. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This single edit linked to by Salimfadhley appears to be to be questionable and looks like an attempt to whitewash a conspiracy theorist. But the edit was made 3-1/2 weeks ago and was reverted. The editor has been blocked (not banned which is different), but the last block was 12-1/2 years ago. So, I think that the best outcome is a warning: Rebroad, do not try to whitewash well-referenced articles about conspiracy theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Salimfadhley, since the removal of a post on an editor's talk page is evidence that they have read that post, and is permitted as you admit yourself, why are you bothering to mention it here? Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

My main concern is that a previously blocked user seems to be engaging in behaviour similar to that which caused them to be blocked previously.

Blanking of talk pages is a secondary concern, because (as previously stated), it shows a refusal to engage with the normal process of receiving feedback for unhelpful edits. It was this unwillingness to engage which led me to escalate the matter to ANI. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:ApricotBeach

Personal attack on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320

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

---

I think another admin needs to take a look at the talk page, and current unblock request, of User:PlanespotterA320. They were indeffed after this discussion and all of their unblock requests to date (bar the current one that's been open for several days) have been declined. They don't seem to get what they did wrong and are not particularly interested in addressing it in the unblock requests. However the requests are now mostly about why they, they in particular, NEED to edit Wikipedia to prevent vandalism and false information. They're currently now claiming that they'll be forced to resort to meatpuppetry and socking to protect the article's they've edited. There's a huge disconnection going on here, and I've already declined one of their requests so I think another admin needs to take a look. Oh and I didn't notify PlanespotterA320 because they cannot participate in this discussion due to their blocked status. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, this is their comment directed at me for opening this section to draw some attention to their non-reviewed block request. No comment. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also threatening sockpuppetry. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Maxorazon and their edits to Ukraine invasion-related topics

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

---

Maxorazon has made disruptive edits to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, attempting to promote their soapbox "portal" page. I suggest something be done about this as this behavior is clearly disruptive. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I will stay available for critics. Maxorazon (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: You have received the WP:ARBEE notification (diff) which applies to the topic of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I will block you if you again attempt (diff) to add Portal:Go and see, my love! without consensus on article talk. No further warning will be given, and there is no need for any further discussion here. In addition, unless you quickly get consensus on article talk (which is very unlikely), you must not repeatedly press your case because wasting the time of other editors is disruptive. You will have to accept consensus and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've further observed their behavior, and they've edit-warred, don't see the problem and are unfortunately no longer here to build an encyclopedia. --Firestar464 (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

...and they spammed on Jimbo Wales' talk page. --Stylez995 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A topic ban from anything to do with Ukraine and/or Russia in any namespace seems the gentlest solution. Fram (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest a simple block for WP:IDHT and edit-warring. Firestar464 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

this user is may WP:NOTHERE. HurricaneEdgar 09:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attack at AfD

I've removed the PA.
That's me on the right. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC).

[This personal attack directed against me by @Nweil: was, I thought, fairly egregious. I warned the user and directed him to remove the comment per our policy. That does not seem to be forthcoming and the user Nweil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since then. I would appreciate it if an admin would remove the attack from the page since it seems he will not be doing it. jps (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Will respect any admin decision. Please note that I was calling for civility given that the person I was responding to was WP:OUTING. If I need to create an incident for that as well, let me know. Nweil (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see evidence of outing, only obvious on-Wiki information was used. —PaleoNeonate – 23:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Where is " noted white supremacist...who is a colleague Woodley's" revealed on-wiki by the accused user? Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Calling for civility by attacking another editor is a pretty bold strategy, I will give you that. jps (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The fact that jps has been suspended multiple times is also on-wiki for what it's worth. This was petty Nweil (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Pity that's not the wording you chose (although you might have a hard time explaining the relevance of this on-wiki fact to that particular conversation). jps (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am having a hard time following this. Nweil, where's the outing? I see that Cullen328 already warned you. This kind of comment is very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the comment about B Pesta? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with this user, but it didn't take me long to find Bpesta22 stating explicitly that they are Bryan J. Pesta: [334]. So there's clearly no outing going on here. Whether publishing articles like "Does IQ Cause Race Differences in Well-being?" in Mankind Quarterly [335] qualifies someone as a white supremacist I will leave to others to judge, but he is clearly a member of the same small race-and-intelligence circle as Woodley. Generalrelative (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind there's already been Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, which Bpesta was a party to all the way back in 2010. If editors want to get involved in that shitshow they can but should likely be aware that arguing over whether people in the race and intelligence area are white supremacists is practically a WP:PERENNIAL proposal at this point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the PA. I never like to remove these things — I prefer they stay and embarrass the poster — but since the target requests it, I will. Sorry if I'm thereby making your warning less apropos, Cullen328. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC).

No problem, Bishonen. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The image of the PA system used by rock group Os Mutantes seems somehow quite fitting? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion and politicized or disruptive edits/editors ban request

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

---

Hi,

I have just edited Russia–Switzerland relations with reliable Swissinfo sources and I would like to ask some good-trusted editors/WP-Admins to review them for neutrality as it seems 2 editors want to suppress this public info from view (see WP:censorship). Given the situation in Russia at the moment, it is somewhat worrisome some editors with WP sys-op privileges like this are roaming free (see recent article edit history for info).

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.236.36 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• You could try starting a discussion at Talk:Russia–Switzerland relations, see WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Sounds like WP:CANVASSING to me. Additionally, you neglected to inform the users in question of the ANI thread. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• For clarification, all I did was put repeated citations in a reused ref format. I'm not sure what the IP is talking about when he says we "want to suppress this public info from view" when it's still on the article. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 18:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am guessing Special:Diff/1074866416 and Special:Diff/1074848842, both of which remove paragraphs, and are Twinkle and Huggle edits with no explanatory edit summary. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Only one of the people is an administrator, and replied at Special:Diff/1074860729. The non-administrator did Special:Diff/1074866756. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• What happened was one of the edits was a helpful one. The next one was some commentary about why Russians visit Switzerland “for ski vacations and shopping” which was rather unhelpful. Twinkle automatically reverts all the edits by a user in a row. Cutlass^Ciera 23:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Grotesque comments by IP at Talk:Disability Day of Mourning

An unregistered editor, Special:Contributions/2401:7400:4008:81cf:bf6a:9675:e994:52f8, made an apparent call to genocide at Talk:Disability Day of Mourning. I wavered over whether AIV or this was the more appropriate forum, but the comments patterned less closely to routine vandalism than to...well, what they are. Vaticidalprophet 22:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

IP /64 blocked a week for trolling. Probably just a gesture, no edits in the last 10+ hours. I'll revdel it too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CRS-20

A persistent editor which has violated the manual of style many times, mostly on spaceflight articles. The editor has also been warned many times but did not respond to them promptly. Recently, the editor is blocked and apologize for the mistakes, however it seems like the editor is not learning from that. Notifying User:Leijurv because he has dealt with the editor many times. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

My general input on their talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have anything new to say, as I haven't yet looked into their recent contributions (since the block expired a few days ago). My summary from the last time at ANI can be found here. Also, pinging @Rosguill: as they blocked CRS-20 last time. Honestly I'd just suggest taking a scroll through their talk page. Even since this most recent block I have had baffling communication issues, just as before. One strange repeated occurrence is that someone might link to a policy (e.g. MOS:NBSP), and CRS-20 simply replies with a copypaste from said page, in a way that makes no sense in context. Leijurv (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this is so perfect you'd almost think I planned it. Nine minutes after I wrote the above ^, about CRS-20 copy pasting policy pages into unrelated discussions as if it were a response, they did it again, see this diff. Leijurv (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I second any motion to block CRS-20. His contributions, such as they are, are of dubious value, and the headaches aren't worth it. --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I blocked CRS-20 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Some of their work appears helpful but the amount of disruption and the inability to collaborate is not sustainable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tempted to be lenient earlier based on the amount of editors working on the same topics as CRS-20 (including Leijurv, among a few others) who seemed keen on trying to help CRS-20 be more cooperative, but I agree that they've been given more than enough second chances. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I mentioned on the talk page of CRS-20 that I noticed that they added spaces on either side of text in a section heading on STS-126 and it was previously mentioned to them that this was considered disruptive. That change was reverted by FlightTime and CRS-20 was blocked. Their latest post block edit (see User_talk:CRS-20#Inserting_spaces_in_section_headings in reply to my note appears to indicate that they still wish to apply their view of style to pages. Gusfriend (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NORACISTS by Kurdo890

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.

---

Please check his edit summary[336]. WP:NORACISTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsynylmztr (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Three ethnonationalist edits in a half hour period nearly two months ago? This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is kind of stale. Cullen328 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It's also obviously a completely retaliatory filing in response to the #WP:NOTHERE by Hsynylmztr section above, see also this bogus 3RR report [337]. OP needs a block here, they don't seem to have made a single useful contribution and are unable to edit here without resulting to POV pushing and edit warring. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 192.76.8.86 If you think this is just another nationalist edit and does not require any administrative action, you are as much as racist as him. It is not 'ethnonationalist', it is racist, discriminative, and hateful. Did you read his edit summary? Can you, as an admin, please inform me about where should I report him?Hsynylmztr (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Hsynylmztr. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

request a hard block for User:Qamom

After being blocked in Wikipedia, this user kept attacking others in his talkpage, harder block requested.Pavlov2 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Qamom is already indefinitely blocked. We don't have any way to block them any harder than that. If you're asking for talk page access to be revoked, Qamom's just posting vaguely trollish rants that aren't really hurting anyone. If you take their talk page off your watchlist, you won't see it any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.I used to believe that Talk page access to be revoked meaning hard block... Sorry. Pavlov2 (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Harald.Hardradã.1015 - disruption and personal attacks

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

---

Harald.Hardradã.1015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user is very much engaged in great disruption [338] and simply won't heed to content written within MOS standards, then goes on to accuse Ab207 of following him around and reverting his edits.

I've warned the user explicitly of not making any personal attacks [339] and on his talk page Special:Permalink/1075387430#Civility. The user acknowledgingly dared me to go to ANI [340] and continued attacks [341] [342] [343]. He posted something in Tamil in reply to my edit warring warning [344], perhaps someone who speaks Tamil could translate?

At the end, the user posted that he understood what his mistakes are, which I believe are referred to the article Etharkkum Thunindhavan and certainly not related to civility and personal attacks [345]. I only wonder what and who comes next in his path to face his wrath. — DaxServer (t · c) 14:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd would ideally want to leave this issue since the user has admitted to their mistake. But their final comment "I will not come in that way. And you should also do the same." does not inspire confidence. I or any other editor working in Tamil cinema-related articles would likely cross paths with Harald.Hardradã.1015 in future, and they would not want to go through this with Harald.Hardradã.1015 all over again. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Hello I'm Harald, you guys were talking about me. Ab207 has no problem with me. I removed some statements because it doesn't have reliable sources. But now I realised my mistakes on Etharkkum Thunindhavan, it was my fault. We all are humans, some times we make mistakes and You guys/administrators have to forgive me. Hey DaxServer i saying sorry for my mistakes, and those attacks. Ab207 brother, Theoder2055 kid what i said to you was against wikipedia policy and I'M SORRY GUYS. And it will not happen again. -- Harald.Hardradã.1015 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr Harald here has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so whoever knows how to close these things (I tried to do a non admin closure using copying but couldn't work it out) can probably do so. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Unprofessional behaviour

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 issue keeps cropping up and seems to be getting worse! Criticize an editor for what they did, NOT what they have done well? I’m a WikiGnome, so I never really look for praise (for from it, often I feel unconfinable being given that sort of attention). However, I would prefer that to being ridiculed and insulted for mistakes I have made when not intentional. I’m dyslexic and have had issues with mental health over the past few years. While I’m not expecting people to treat me any different, nonetheless, when I have complained and told the editors of my issue when situations have arisen, I have been met with statements like “get over it” or “stop whining”. Wikipedia is supposed to be a “mental health aware” site, or maybe some of these editors did not get that memo.  The Emperor of Byzantium  (talk) 15:26, 05 Mar 2022 (UTC)

@The Emperor of Byzantium: ...i don't think this is what ani is for. if it is a issue with a specific user/users, mention that. 晚安 (トークページ) 15:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Per 晚安, no mention of users involved or incidents in question. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to a discussion they had with Fram at User talk:Fram#Revert status of Church of Our Lady of Zvonik.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not want to name names, but this issue is making it difficult to use, work and enjoy this site and I feel I have no recourse? The Emperor of Byzantium  (talk) 16:47, 05 Mar 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you came here, to ANI, for your boomerang. Many editors need reminders about WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY and this time I didn't have to issue such reminders on a user talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

But you did come to ANI, which requires detail about the issue at hand. You can't expect to get it resolved with something so vague and it borderlines to a rant. Just a reminder. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see where they're coming from... @Fram: was unnecessarily rough/insensitive/cruel there, but I don't see it really being the sort of issue thats appropriate to bring here unless its part of a larger pattern of behavior. If The Emperor wants to be excused for having a bad day I think we should extend the same level of understanding to Fram. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I had tagged one article as a blatant copyvio, and moved another to draft for a number of reasons (including but not restricted to unattributed copying). Their reply on their user talk page assumed that this was something "personal", instead of standard new page patrolling. They then came to my talk page complaining that they were "treated like moron or retard", which was a completely over the top reaction to what had happened. Dropping in a mention of their "long term health issues" as if I should have known about these or as if they are an excuse for copyright issues and the like didn´t help in getting my sympathy or cooperation, never mind the indication that what I had done so far would get me sacked in a professional environment. Apparently not taking these comments in good grace was somehow bullying (or even "cruel" according to another commenter here!). Fram (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The mention of "[...] having long term health issues it would be nice not to just be treated like moron or retard every time I make a mistake [...]." seems to me as irrelevant unless there was a prior interaction where it was an issue. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Jafaz accusing me of POV-pushing and making editorial threats; POV-pushes

The user @Jafaz: has falsely stated here that :

• I am guided by [my] Russophilia and I was disruptive since I constantly delete files from the article with unfounded accusations of their unjustified use in this article
• I am part of Russophiles who want to hide the existence of this kind of fascism. Due to recent events, they probably do not want to cover their position.

On my talk page, the user has made the following threat: I can also undo your edits by unreasonably requiring sources.

Furthermore the user has been POV-pushing:

• by putting an article in templates where it should not be: [346], [347]
• by putting the hyperlink for the same article in "See also" sections of numerous unrelated articles between 16:12, 1 March 2022 and 20:14, 2 March 2022.
• by trying to promote one political scientist's opinion on two articles: Putinism, Russian world

Veverve (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the all too common personal attacks, I am quite concerned about this threat of "unreasonably requiring sources" to block edits. I see Ymblanter had warned Jafaz about the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions last November. Jafaz, these comments are entirely inappropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to vandalize files many times that are directly related to the topic of the article, and which I did not even add personally, and to distort the facts, especially when the concept of "rashism" is not my own fictional term. One or two political scientists do not talk about it, look in Google Schoolar "рашизм". So far, I'm supposed to be "threatening" (although I've just given the example that it's not acceptable for a user to delete files that are directly related to a topic that is obvious. You really think I'd go vandalize someone's article like you do, dear user?). Separately, if you really thought I was going to vandalize articles like you do, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scare you.Jafaz (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this dear user is once again continuing his favorite task of deleting files for unknown and illogical reasons. However, I am a villain here.Jafaz (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jafaz: And now you are calling my behaviour vandalism (vandalize articles like you do); you are making a serious accusation, not to be thrown lightly. My complaint in this ANI has nothing to do with the notability of the concept of Russian fascism ("рашизм"). Veverve (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example where I specifically deleted someone's work? After all, from my observations, you did it yourself, unjustifiably deleting files because of your, as I can guess, beliefs. This is where our conflict came from.Jafaz (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jafaz: Then you have not read the complaint message I wrote above against your behaviour. Veverve (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• "I have already killed a classmate from Kharkov with my whole family" has to be a translation error of some kind. Very poor grasp of English might be one root cause of the problem here. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will not argue about that.Jafaz (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why Jafaz is still allowed to edit Wikipedia. This is a highly disruptive POV pusher, whose edits sometimes border vandalism. I blocked them twice in the past. It is time to stop it. Russian invasion of Ukraine does not mean a license for disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

And they keep calling me pro-Russian which is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I was leaning toward an indef block but I'm going to err on the side of caution and do a t-ban on Eastern Europe... I'm hoping that the Jafaz can redirect some of that editing to something constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

They do not speak English, on top of other problems, so I am doubtful, but I would be fine with a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam and sock

@Ymblanter and EvergreenFir: almost all the versions of the article Russian fascism (ideology) on other WProjects have been created by the same user, Jafaz, who has been recently banned from editing pages about Eastern Europe. Of course, all those versions the user created contain the version with POV problems and FICTREFs (see here). See the article creations at WP es, be-tarask, bg, pl, pt, tr, ro. The only exceptions seem to be articles from WP yi (creation by an IP in 2015), uk (created by an IP in 2014), ca (created by Kvitka Cvit in 2014), and en (created 26 February 2022‎ by User:Tsans2); however, since Jafaz is a kown sockmaster it is possible those were created by them, especially the one on WP en.
Indeed, Jafaz has also used his sock @Adam Darque: (see here) to vote twice to keep the article in this AfD, and attempted to hide it.
I think a global ban is needed for the user, as well as a deletion of all the versions of Russian fascism (ideology) the user has created over the past few days. Veverve (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the sock and struck their vote.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: what about further sanctions such as those I proposed? Veverve (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

First, I can not act as administrator in this topic area and against this user, unless in very trivial situations as the above one. Second, we do not have an authority to site-ban users, only the community may do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess this means we are waiting for EvergreenFir or any other admin to impose at least a local indefinite ban on Jafaz for socking+previous behaviour.

As for the global ban, it appears Jafaz has not been banned from the Italian WP despite its sock being banned there, so I think a global ban proposal is likely to end with a disapproval. Veverve (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I indef blocked for using sockpuppet to violate their topic ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Cartergishere

• Cartergishere (talk · contribs)

I feel like I've seen this user before and this is a sock of a previous ANI guest who insulted editors removing false information on children's network articles and saying for some reason only preschoolers are allowed to watch those shows and edit about them; I reverted a longtime issue on Vme Kids, where false children's shows like Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig and Sofia the First and are added to the article of a Spanish language network which both has a limited subscriber base and isn't owned by Disney or ViacomCBS/Paramount whatever. They then asked 'why do you like preschool shows', then what I think was a minced 'f you!' attempt, before telling me to leave Wikipedia because I'm apparently two years old because I have an interest in preschool shows, when I'm merely reverting their false information and restoring the network's known programming. Given final warning, because they seem to be an SPA just here to insult anyone reverting their false edits. Nate • (chatter) 21:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've full protected the article for 3 days. If Cartergishere keeps up with the rude comments and editing warring, they will be blocked, no further warnings will be given. They are about 1" away from it now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User: Wmh1978 making biased and bigoted edits

User: Wmh1978 frequently discovered making edits with a heavily biased nature in favor of conservative views, going so far as thinly-veiled racism. Activity was first discovered after an edit to the [[348]] page, in which he highlighted the irrelevant criminal record of the black founder of the holiday. Frequent topics of editing include conservative phenomena such as the "Lets Go Brandon" chant, in which he engages in whataboutism. Suggest further examination by someone more qualified to handle this than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorkmax (talk • contribs) 10:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look at his recent editing history and couldn't see anything particularly problematic. If you proved diffs for the edits you found objectionable it would help. You also need to inform the editor of this discussion... I've done it for you this time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I could find was this bit of partisan trivia sourced to a completely unreliable and deprecated source, but that was four months ago and hardly the worst thing in the world, so we're hardly going to take any action now. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

... never mind that the OP's made all of ten edits since last summer, something that's always a leetle bit suspicious in someone running to ANI. Ravenswing 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I recognized the username Wmh1978 from comments made at my Talk page [349] (hatted under WP:TALKNO). Beccaynr (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC) And it appears the OP is referring to this addition [350] to the Kwanzaa article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I missed that - agreed, that's not good. On the other hand I'm struggling to add that to the edits pointed out above and get to "racism". Having said that ... Draft:Obamunism. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and I should have been more clear that I believe generalizations like "racism" are best avoided without extraordinary evidence, and I was not trying to support such a generalization with my comment. It may be relevant to note that as of 13:59, 26 October 2021, Whm1978 is aware of discretionary sanctions for post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, as well as articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that adds up to sanctions. A couple of questionable edits over several months, including one that was factual but WP:undue. As for Draft:Obamunism, I don't see a problem. He started a draft article, likely saw it had no legs and abandoned it. Meh. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Roger 8 Roger

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:Roger 8 Roger has rather shamelessly allowed his talk page to grow to over 200 KB in size - when WP:TPG clearly states, "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has numerous resolved or stale discussions."

He has allowed his talk page to grow to over two and a half times the stated maximum size, with over 140 discussions on it stretching back to late 2015 - the vast majority of which can be justifiably described as resolved or stale.

The impression I get is that his attitude is "I can do what I like with my talk page and I don't care what anyone else thinks" - even when there is a clear and agreed-upon rule regarding how big a talk page can become before old discussions should be moved into archives.

It's a pretty bad attitude to have, IMHO - and it's also disappointing to see considering that Roger 8 Roger has been editing Wikipedia on a regular basis for seven years. After that length of time, he really ought to know far, far better than that.

It's a great shame that I feel compelled to bring up the matter here on ANI - but if Roger 8 Roger is going to continue not to see sense, then I'm afraid I have no choice.

80.233.33.58 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from Roger 8 Roger's talk page: IP, who are you? Normally, it doesn't matter, but an IP with four edits, three of them on this talk page, requesting an editor get punished for a long talk page suggests a relevant history BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

An obvious situation of a grudge holding evading banned editor, looking to get R8R blocked. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. What a waste of ANI space. WP:NOTTHERE. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• No. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• See [351]. Looks like there's been a pattern of harassing R8R from this range. The last block on the /19 range was for six months, and it expired a few days ago. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ouch. Block evasion and harassment. Poor Roger. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also Special:Contributions/PrincesRoadDA1. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow, is there an SPI investigation for this one? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not that I can find. Pinging the last three to block User:80.233.32.0/19: Drmies, Yamaguchi先生 NinjaRobotPirate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can no-one see that Roger 8 Roger is breaking the rules by shamelessly allowing his talk page to grow to over twice the stated maximum size? Why should he be allowed to keep getting away with this? 80.233.33.58 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

We can see that you're not suppose to evade your ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong, see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Personal_talk_page_cleanup, The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. Glad to see we're done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP's talkpage will likely also need blocking, or he'll just keep rambling on. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Already done. I'm keeping the page on my watchlist for the time being. This goes back to 2019. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know the mechanics of the process, but I guess the next step is Arbcom if Geschichte is non-responsive, per a very recent (and similar) case on the AN board? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Geschicte's silence is disquieting. And heck, I think dePRODding is seriously abused generally, but it's also unrestricted and unregulated. Getting mad about how another editor uses them is one thing; administrative action over it is another matter altogether. Ravenswing 10:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - Geschicte might be on vacation, but the user must know about this discussion if they replied to it... --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Geschichte, there has been a disturbing pattern as of late, when admin misuse the tools, they disappear for awhile. As of late, Arb has a new tool called "desysop and suspend case", which has proven to be very effective. I'm disturbed by you blocking someone you were in an edit war with, obviously. It isn't enough to say "oh I didn't know" or whatnot, that is core to having the tools; knowing when you can't use them. The other is WP:ADMINACCT. Now, if I seem like a snippy asshole, it's because I am. At least when it comes to admin ditching once they've been questioned about their tool use. It's been long enough that I'm about to go file at Arb if someone doesn't beat me to it, purely for the lack of accountability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, they've found time to edit Norwegian Wikipedia in the last few days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE I have filed a report with ArbCom. Suffusion's helpful diffs was enough to push me over the edge and file. Anyone interested in viewing the process may at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Urgent attention to end harassment campaign

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.

---

Will an administrator, please put a stop to User:JayBeeEll’s campaign of harassment against me, borderline canvassing admins to try and get me blocked and attempted censorship of reliably sourced material they do not like. I have done nothing wrong other than engage in robust discussion on a bizarrely highly contentious request move, introduce into the discussion a question whether Wikipedia is *solely* restricted to reflecting national laws on any number of topics as implied by multiple editors. My words have subsequently been misconstrued (I will assume good faith and not say deliberately). This all derives from a controversial undiscussed move request I contested by politely asking for a Request Move where the user (who was not JBL) could present the evidence, I subsequently got reported to ANI. I will not support a ban but this needs to end, I fear if I add a harassment warning to JBL’s talk page that would be viewed as inflammatory so this urgently requires admin intervention. Thank you. - dwc lr (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Hsynylmztr

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.

---

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

It seems that this user is on a WP:TENDENTIOUS mission to Turkify articles in Wikipedia. Before I even had contact with this user, he wrote this WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS comment on the talk page of the article as a reply to someone whom I reverted; Same, user HistoryofIran keeps deleting other edits. Obvious vandalism and edit warring. He deleted the research of Cambridge University without giving any reason at all.. This suggests that he may have edited here on another account.

Some diffs of his edits;

Added "Turkic-speaking" to the lede, completely disregarding the vast amount of sources in the article disputing this

Made several attempts to remove "Turkish claim", disrupting the neutrality of the article

Attempted several times to add the Turkic origin of this figure into the lede, even though it is already mentioned. He is essentially sacrificing the quality of an article to mention "insert something Turkic here" twice.

Some more of his personal attacks/aspersions;

You are the only liar here. Turkish people kicked your colonial genocidal country out of Anatolia. And your unjust occupation ended. Nothing will change this fact.

You keep being malevolent....

It seems like what did you not like here is the word 'Turkoman', since you do not want to acknowledge the Turkoman roots of the Iran Empires.

Every non-biased people can clearly see that both of you are one-sided rather than being honestly neutral. I mentioned a quote from Ali Kemal and I cited his newspaper from 1921. How come this source is not reliable because it is from 1921, it is the date when he wrote these sentences to his newspaper. What should we do then, ask Ali Kemal to write the same thing today ?? And none of the books are outdated, all of them are from either the 90s or 2000s. How is it outdated? I don't know if you believe in karma but this black propaganda you do on the internet will seriously backfire one day.

Some of his WP:FORUM/WP:SOAPBOX comments, which clearly shows his mindset (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot), considering everything "100% Turkic" and completely disregarding the huge amount of WP:RS;

Persian influence in the empire doesn't change the national identity of the country. Just like British Empire had an Indian population, Turkic Seljuks had a Persian population. Seljuks are Turkic.

According to anyone that has common sense. Western Göktürks --> Oghuz Yabgu --> Seljuks --> Ottomans --> Turkey. It would be absurd to think that a shariah law country(Iran) can have a decent, neutral history education. Iran was ruled by Turks for 1000 years. Wikipedia is not a neutral place, at least for now, so all these information are the result of edit warring and vandalism. Persian people don't want to admit that they were ruled by Turks for 1000 years and their 'heroes' were Turks. Safavids, Afsharids, Seljuks and many more were Turkic Empires. Tuğrul and Çağrı beys founded Seljuks, Alp Arslan and Kılıç Arslan were most famous rulers, just by their name, one can say the were completely Turkic. But of course, shariah says otherwise doesn't it?

Based on all this, I would say that Hsynylmztr is WP:NOTHERE. Countless users have been banned for less. His talk page is full of warnings [352]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I support all these edits. If you check the previous edits you can see these users attacked me previously. Allowing different opinions is the main idea of Wikipedia. Remember it is the internet, not sharia court.Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• "I support all these edits. (...) Allowing different opinions is the main idea of Wikipedia. Remember it is the internet, not sharia court. "

Thanks for admitting:

1. Hsynylmztr: "Turkish people kicked your colonial genocidal country out of Anatolia. And your unjust occupation ended.")[353]
2. Hsynylmztr: ""You are the only liar here""[354]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it is safe to say that user:Hsynylmztr is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have issued a WP:AC/DS awareness notification for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan primarily for this edit EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Hsynylmztr. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed on Italian IPs... block evasion

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

---

• 109.52.240.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For the past 11 months, every single edit from the range Special:Contributions/109.52.240.0/21 has been performed by User:Giubbotto non ortodosso evading his block. The situation has devolved to personal attacks.[355] Can we get a lengthy rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeated unsourced additions in the name of paleontological advocacy

• 98.18.209.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 in archosaur paleontology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A week ago, an anonymous editor added a seemingly fictional dinosaur taxon to the page 2022 in archosaur paleontology, without adding a source. Obviously, I reverted it, but then they re-added it, with an edit summary that indicates they are "punishing the lazy paleontologists" who have not made an expedition to the rock formation where the fake dinosaur in question was reportedly found, which I believe to be a broad personal attack and advocacy; they later posted on the talk page of the formation itself demanding that we "need" and expedition there "RIGHT NOW" (caps not mine), which proves the latter point. Despite this, they have continued to add the fake taxon and even invented several others to go along with it.

As I was writing this, I noticed they have written on the talk page of another editor who warned him, saying that it's a "crime against humanity" that there are no paleontological expeditions to said formation, which makes me believe they are WP:NOTHERE to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.

On a tangentially-related note, two other IP addresses geolocating to the same city have edit-warred WP:Original research about the relationships of an unnamed armored dinosaur on the Allen Formation page. However, unless strong evidence can be found linking them to the expedition advocate, I will refrain from formally including them in this report, only mentioning them here for convenience. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I blocked them all for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Atlantis536, that was the most amusing report I've read in a while. I didn't know paleontologists were so ... passionate. Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC).

"[...]with an edit summary that indicates they are 'punishing the lazy paleontologists'[...]" i'm dying. 晚安 (トークページ) 15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyhow, Source-based additions are much more acceptable anyway. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Long-term abuser IP sockfarm User:WorldCreaterFighter

It is to bring to your attention that banned LTA User:WorldCreaterFighter seem to be at work again, especially in this article. Uses Austrian IPs/Proxies which seem to be one of the behavioral patterns of the LTA which coincides withh the LTA's interest in genetics. As well as a pro Dravidian/East Eurasian and anti West Eurasian bias. As can be seen here. A look into the various IP edits is a testament of that in the article, not to mention large changes to content without discussion [356] [357].

I would request the admins to protect the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia (possibly extended since the LTA had created IDs in the past) and take stringent actions against the proxies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging editors and admins who are familiar with this LTA @Bbb23, RoySmith, Austronesier, and Callanecc:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. I know, that's not much, but it's a start and we can take stronger steps if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Agreed. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Whether it is bias or sheer incompetence, mostly it is a blatant misreading of sources. My principle is: banned means banned, so don't fix, don't engage in discussions, just revert (it's a bit harder when they use proxies and we can't be sure if it's not someone else just being incompetent in good faith). Note that Peopling of India has been similarly targeted. –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I agree. But they made so many changes, utilizing WP:GHBH tactics while I was gone, that it is kind of difficult. Anyway, I'd try to fix them up this week. Also have a look at these articles [358], [359]. I believe User:Ksgshinobi is also a sock and I wouldn't trust this user either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Austronesier: Another set of articles to bring to your notice. While this IP → [360] [361] seems to be from Austria, the edits/reverts it is making looks more balanced and less of a SE Asian POV unlike the French IP which reverted it [362] but settled for a 'better formulation' here and [363]. Though these two may be different people (only one being the LTA), I wonder if it is a case of WP:GHBH, so as to confuse us with edit wars usin diverse IPs, ultimately settling with a presumed compromise through edit summaries and a better formulation of content in in accordance to the POV of the LTA? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Although this is outside the concerns of ANI: these pages loudly cry out for a TNT-cleanup. They're a big WP:UNDUE-fest like most articles about human haplogroups. Look at Haplogroup P (Y-DNA): it has a blockquote in the lead from a 2015 paper with 13(!) citations until 2022 (according to Nature's own metrics). Whether it's sock edits or GF contributions by both registered and IP editors in good standing, our readers deserve better than just an indiscriminate amassment of just anything that has been written about a specific topic. –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Mahdplus

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

WP:SPA acount who's sole purpose is trying to add "Ahvaz is the capital of the Arabs Iran" to the lede of the Ahvaz article. He's tried this on six occassions so far. No edit summaries, explanations and/or sources.[364]-[365]-[366]-[367]-[368]-[369] They have never bothered to respond to the warnings that were issued either. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

K. El_C 16:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring (and possible sockpuppetry) by Anonymous130112

Anonymous130112 has been edit-warring at Saadi Sultanate since March 1 ([370], [371], [372], [373], [374]), in addition to making problematic edits elsewhere. They have been given multiple warnings on their talk page. Moreover, this account is almost certainly related to multiple other accounts and IPs that have been making the same edit over and over again (reverted every time) on that article since February 25 and intermittently before that (see history). Because of that, a request to semi-protect the article was accepted (report can be found here), but this account seems to have slipped through with just enough edits to be autoconfirmed and is now continuing the exact same edit-war. R Prazeres (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. I see it is already semi protected, but we may have to look at more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixing a talk page archival

Hello! Apologies if this is the wrong venue, but I'm not quite sure where to go for it. Talk:Film censorship in China was manually archive by moving the entire page to Talk:Film censorship in China/archive 1. Naturally, this is not ideal as it's also moved the entire page history, and it's not among the appropriate methods suggested at WP:ARCHIVE. I'm not certain this necessarily needs specifically an administrator because it's a just round-robin move, but I'm not experienced enough in round-robins to really tell, especially since the now-main talk page has been edited since. I'm wondering if it's possible to get the talk and the archive shuffled so that the bulk of the history is at the correct page. Note: this is not a complaint. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Took a couple of stabs, but I think it's fixed. Ping me if not. I also left a warning on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I felt it was an honest mistake on their part! I restored the newer discussions that got swallowed in moving around, but other than that and waiting for the bot to eventually come around and archive it properly, it all looks settled. Thanks ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  It probably was, but you shouldn't go around moving pages if you don't know what you are doing, so I felt a warning was due. If in doubt, ask someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Flybd5

• Flybd5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Flybd5

I'm calling for an indefinite block against User:Flybd5 because they are WP:NOTHERE and have blatantly contravened WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and others. The editor added [375] to A total and unmitigated defeat which seemed on first glance to be irrelevant and, when I saw that their source is a blog, I reverted [376] per WP:RS. The editor went to the article talk page [377] and initiated a discussion which, thus far, complied with WP:BRD. However, before any discussion could get under way, the editor restored [378] the content with an additional piece that is completely out of scope and is from a very dubious source. Restoring without consensus breaches BRD. They then came to my talk page [379] and told me after I had done just one revert with a reason, to "stop blindly reverting my edits" and "avoid starting edit wars". After I read this and looked again at the article, I was reminded of a similar case last year involving User:Westerhaley who was soon proved to be a HarveyCarter sock. While I am aware that the Flybd5 account was opened in October 2006, there have been only 570+ edits in all that time and I wondered if it might be one of Carter's sleepers, so I've opened an SPI to make sure.

I told Flybd5 of the SPI and they posted [380] this, curiously prioritising their account's longevity despite having made only 570-odd edits in all that time. They stuck to this theme [381] in answer to the SPI notice saying that I have been here "a mere three years" against their 15 years. Meanwhile, I had been looking through their past edits and I noticed an ANI case last year which resulted in the editor being told by a sysop to self-revert per BRD. The same thing was happening again and, although I should not have pinged the sysop in question (I'm too used to using the ping template with userids), the sysop did respond [382] and again asked Flybd5 to self-revert. Flybd5's response [383] was a refusal to comply with BRD and seek consensus. In the meantime, I had written a polite reply to the length of service point at Flybd5's page and they answered that [384] by asserting that I am an "editorial fascist" with less capability than "a gaggle of monkeys" and I am suffering "personal grief" because I have reverted their edit and tried to establish if they are connected with Carter. Actually, I am extremely fond of monkeys (and apes, too) – they are incredibly intelligent creatures and we always make a point of visiting them whenever we go to the zoo we support – so, in a way, being compared with them is a compliment, ha!

I haven't mentioned the BLP breach yet because it was way, way back at the end of 2006 when Flybd5 became involved in a dispute over Saddam Hussein and posted [385] this – blatantly insulting President Bush. They should have indef blocked for that edit at the time but somehow it escaped notice and was routinely reverted. They also claimed that the image of Saddam during his trial is "insulting". The image that Flybd5 kept posting has apparently been banned from the site. They kept refusing to confirm the image's source so presumably there was a copyright violation?

Despite making only 570-odd edits in his long membership, Flybd5 has also been involved in various confrontations at Talk:Boricua Popular Army and Talk:Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, here telling [386] User:XLR8TION to "stick to the playground". At the end of 2006, they made their ANI debut which ended [387] with no action, though some of their comments are hardly constructive. A dispute over Pedro Rossello became protracted and Flybd5 posted [388] this at WP:RFI including a personal attack over a spelling mistake. In 2007, there was another drawn-out argument at Talk:ITIL v3. In this, they exhibited WP:OWN and the whole thing ended up at [389] where they were accused of adding autobiographical claims and the closing admin said: "I am amazed at the allegations by Flybd5 about harrassment and stalking". In 2008, they were warned in [390] about adding their own site to articles as a source, thus breaching WP:NPOV and creating COI by advertising. Moving on to April 2021, Flybd5 used the Healthline site [391] as a source in Canola oil. This was reverted [392] by User:Zefr who referred Flybd5 to WP:MEDRS as Healthline is unreliable. This became an edit war, although Zefr tried to forestall it [393] by rightly asserting: "WP:BRD - go to the talk page and make your case to gain consensus, WP:CON; also do not edit war, WP:WAR". Flybd5 ignored this and came to ANI trying to twist the situation but, as mentioned [394] above, was told to self-revert and gain consensus; they didn't.

Flybd5 may or may not be a sock but that is immaterial, really, given their appalling record and I have to request an indefinite block because it is a definite case of WP:NOTHERE. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Take a deep breath and go and do something else. I don't believe there is anything you have raised that should have been brought to ANI. Nobody is going to block anyone for vandalism that took place 16 years ago. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "editorial fascism" was today (allowing for my clock being an hour off ☺). Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And some of the other edits linked above were recent. Mentioning that an editor has a long history of abuse doesn't invalidate the claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The recent links aren't that problematic as far as I can see. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel like the SPI investigation should run its course before going to ANI? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• The SPI does need to move foreward first. I've left a comment there, after doing some digging. Interesting case, but far from conclusive at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Intriguing. I'm ready to be proven wrong but I saw no commonalities... a 16 year old sleeper sock seems unlikely to me, but I'd like to know what you saw as suspicious. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Email me. I never give too much info in public. It isn't my job to teach them how to be better socks next time. It isn't anything giant, but it is enough to get a CU to poke around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that, and what's said about trolling, Churchill, and misrepresenting sources in the case page, I think that this is pertinent to the behavioural evidence.

    The source used in Special:Diff/1075076556 is Langworth 2009 and it is sad that No Great Shaker did not read it, because it's being used to support the exact opposite of itself, as it states outright that Churchill "has often been quoted out of context to suggest that he was an admirer of Hitler". And here's a Wikipedia account (ab)using a source that is arguing against quoting Churchill out of context to do exactly that.

    So yes, I think that you can add purposely misrepresenting a source as the exact opposite of what it directly states to the behavioural evidence. No, not accidentally. This is directly claimed to be "the cited conclusions of a historian", when it is very clearly not upon actually reading it.

    And for goodness' sake, No Great Shaker, read a book some time. Not only could you have read the cited source to find that Langworth says the opposite of what Flybd5 was abusing it for, you could have found Langworth 2017, pp. 115 et seq. from 8 years after the 'blog post, where you'll find Langworth talking about a sentence "used for years to prove that Churchill was pro-Hitler" that was "culled from Churchill's article without context" and that reads very differently in context. Then you wouldn't have written Special:Diff/1075180042, when the source is directly about the speech and only controversial inasmuch as it counters a widespread quote-out-of-context, the very quote-out-of-context in the edit by Flybd5.

    Uncle G (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    • Langworth, Richard M. (2009-06-25). "Did Churchill Praise Hitler?". Richard Langworth Blog. Retrieved 2022-02-26.
    • Langworth, Richard M. (2017). "Hitler as a 'Great Contemporary'". Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said. McFarland. ISBN 9781476628783.
• The SPI evidence is inconclusive. CU data is too old, and while I can see a lot of similarities, I don't have definitive links to make a block. So please take action here, based on behavior, and don't wait for SPI to make the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User: BlueGhast making edits on page of Neonazi group that advocate the group and imply Jews are not human

This user almost exclusively edits Joy of Satan Ministries, a Neonazi group. He has been making edits that cast their views and practices in a more positive light, and has been fighting to force the inclusion of links to hate sites on the page. Recently he edited the page to change a line stating that the leader concluded that Jews were not human to a more universal claim, simply saying "it was concluded" that Jews are in fact the product of reptile aliens. When this was undone and challenged, he changed it back, then quickly made another edit with a false explanation to correct the offending line. While this could be read as an innocent mistake, I am reporting this based on their edit history, as well as their aggressive use of vandalism reports and threats of bans (like the ones they made on my page) when they do not get their way. This page does not even need to exist - the group is not particularly noteworthy. The group does push their hateful message on various social sites, and their leader has in fact specifically called for edits on Wikipedia in their forums, particularly focusing on foreign language pages. I did see the same edits made in English, though they were quickly reversed.Bluefin9 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• It doesn't look to me like they were promoting the theory, it looks to me to be just a minor grammatical oversight ("Maxime derived the theory [...] after it was concluded" vs. "she concluded") which they rectified in their most recent edit. Endwise (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • While I agree that it generally would be something we would ignore as an oversight, their history and the way they hid the edit is what I find concerning. I don't see why the page should exist at all, anyway. Bluefin9 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To add to my point on their lack of notability, the page is made up of stitched together sources that make basic mentions about their surface level beliefs. This is very much a Neo-nazi group, but this is only briefly noted (and for whatever reason the lines pointing this out were changed to National Socialism by a certain user, which while being a synonym is a much softer sounding term). A quick look at the group's forums shows that they are more concerned with antisemitic conspiracy theories (with claims like Putin being Jewish and plotting with Zelensky to start a new World War to kill white people, claims that covid and the covid vaccine are Jewish plots, and many other such nonsensical claims) with a good bit less focus given to Satanism. Even their Satanist beliefs are out there, with discussions going over their belief that Hitler did not die but instead ascended into literal godhood. The group is insignificant - nobody is covering them, and the picture the few sources that do mention them paint is based on their somewhat tamer recruitment messaging, such as the claims on their sites (which this user insists need to be linked on the page). There is no way to accurately and objectively cover this group because of how limited the material is. They are already mentioned in articles about Satanism - why does this insignificant fringe group require its own page? Bluefin9 (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • This is something for a deletion discussion, not the administrators' noticeboard. Administrators only get to unilaterally decide this in limited circumstances that are not the case here. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• In fairness, neither of the two of you at Special:Diff/1075484587 has a sound grasp of grammar. One of you hides behind the passive voice and mixes present and past tense. The other of you uses a comma to end a sentence. And the both of you aren't even blinking an eye at the grotesquerie that is "In the early 2000s, began the creation of Joy of Satan Ministries by Maxine Dietrich.". Don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by inexpert writing skill.

  And where you said that "This user almost exclusively edits Joy of Satan Ministries, a Neonazi group." and "aggressive use of vandalism reports", were you referring to Special:Contributions/Bluefin9, your "Reverted vandalism by user who insists on adding links to hate sites to the page." edits, and your Special:Diff/1075511776 vandalism report? Likewise, you are both single-purpose accounts who mistreat each other as vandals. You both match your description. Should we do to you whatever it is that you want done to another?

  Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  • If that means the Neo-nazi friendly material is removed, go right ahead. Minor point but that text was not written by me. I simply reverted it to the previous language. Bluefin9 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've posted the mandatory notice of this discussion to BlueGhast's talk page. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• The Joy of Satan Ministries article is a joke. From the beginning, BlueGhast has downplayed the ministry's ties to Neo-Nazis, excluding anything from the History section but finally mentioning some "sympathies" in the Criticism and Controversy section (now Reception). The article was based almost entirely on the ministry's own primary sources, other spiritualist and Satanist sources, fascist publishers like Consul Press, and authors tied to CESNUR (a pro-new religious movement, anti-anti-cult advocacy organization). When I brought the sourcing issues to RSN, the consensus was that these were mostly unreliable. GenoV84 rewrote much of the article based on reliable sources on 24 January (there's too much back and forth for individual diffs, but the history shows the changes) but it was reverted by another SPA who just happened to return after 2 months. And that's a major issue: there are serious core content policy problems with the article—and behavioral issues with editors who whitewash mention of Neo-Nazis—but it's impossible to get consensus because of SPAs. It's clear that some kind of meatpuppetry or off-wiki coordination is going on, but I don't have the time to find it. I did find some threads about Wikipedia on their forums—probably NSFW links, plenty of swastikas, SS symbols, anti-semitism, etc.—but nothing suggesting reverts. This report (and article) could use more attention. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't there already an ANI thread about this (started by BlueGhast)? I commented at that one to keep discussing on the talk page. [395] If I remember correctly, the "fighting to force the inclusion of links to hate sites" was resolved by an RfC (that I started) which decided that linking to the Joy of Satan Ministries website is OK (one of the "hate sites" you wanted removed), and that other external links may also be appropriate. [396] That issue is resolved and you need to drop the WP:STICK. On the other hand, since the last thread, much of the POV-writing in the article has been discussed and removed by other editors. You should consider

What is stopping you from just discussing things on the talk page? Good articles on controversial subjects are made when editors from different viewpoints negotiate neutral wordings on talk pages. I get that you really don't like BlueGhast and that Joy of Satan Ministries is not exactly a paragon of virtue & tolerance. But pretty much everything you're complaining about can be and has been resolved by people discussing content while figuring out alternative wordings. There has never been a serious underlying behavioural issue beyond you two constantly accusing each other of having one.

If you really don't think there can be a good article written on Joy of Satan Ministries due to bad sourcing, bring it to WP:Articles for Deletion. There is a tool called WP:TWINKLE. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, enable it, and you get a tab at the top of the article that'll let you nominate it for deletion pretty easily. Type in your belief that there aren't enough sources to write an article/satisfy WP:NORG and a discussion will happen and resolve this issue. Either the article will get deleted or it won't. You won't be punished if the AfD doesn't go your way.

But what will get you punished is just continuing to complain and snipe at BlueGhast without using the processes that Wikipedia has been using for over a decade to constantly resolve issues exactly like the one you're having. Start an RfC, start an AfD, start whatever you want except for more useless ANI threads. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Past ANI discussions: 1, 2, 3. --JBL (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial derogatory redirects

IvanCrives (talk · contribs) has created derogatory redirects to a couple of Sri Lankan ruling party politicians including the president. Eg. Gommanpila, Gonta. In Sinhalese, the word "Gona" refers to Buffalo, when it refers to a person it is very offensive and means a low intelligent person. The user has been warned previously for creating a similar English term redirects, Dumby. Another article the user created, Slumdogland was deleted by @Drmies: by saying "G10: Attack page: racist swinery". Kindly take the necessary steps to rectify the situation. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked IvanCrives indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil for your swift actions. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sun worshipers

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 claim at [397] that most of us are Sun worshipers is highly offensive. Please give them time to rethink their position. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• facepalm* SN54129 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of some dimly-remembered conversations from my freshman dorm. I'm happy to call it silly nonsense, but I don't believe it deserves a sanction of any kind. Just a non-admin opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

silly nonsense seems to be their specialism, judging by their user page and their own talk page. See e.g. User:Jaredscribe#Sun and the Moon: Signs of the Times and Seasons and The article ignores the primary sources - the prophets entirely. Other than Moses/the pentateuch, there is not a single hebrew prophet quoted inline. Of the 102 footnotes, not a single one cites any of the hebrew prophets or Jewish sages. There's nothing wrong with an article on the pagan pantheon, or on Wellhausen's discredited documentary hypothesis, but they shouldn't masquerade as an article on the Jewish God. This article should be deprecated and merged with the articles on baal, ashtoreth, biblical minimalism, the documentary hypothesis, and anti-jewish propaganda. It doesn't even bother to quote a Jewish source post Moses as a minority opinion on the Jewish God. It is not encyclopedic - it is IGNORANCE. Jews will recognize this immediately and avoid the article, but the typical gentile reader will be confused, and our readers deserve better. at User:Jaredscribe#Current Content Disputes.

And Of course, there is a separate article God in Judaism, as I recently discovered, covering the post-exilic and patriarchal conception of God. Although the disambiguation link described as a "Modern theological discussion" in yet another denial of Jewish history and text, coming from wikipedia's systemic anti-Jewish bias. I changed that to "post-exilic and primordial", and added mention of Noah, Adam, and Eve - whom Torah law and Judaism hold to be universal human ancestors. Heavy on Maimonides .. I credited Aristotle. Needs more on the Prophets' conception of God.

Since they are the sole editor of their own user page, I don't need to provide diffs for the two quotes. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu, I think you really need to (1) notify the user of this conversation; and (2) specify exactly what it is you are seeking, because it seems quite unclear to me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I want them to stop their rants from being published at Wikipedia. I did notify them, see [398]. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my obliviousness! Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Burn the heretic! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't belong to any religion. Yet I do not like to be called "Sun worshiper" together with some billions people.

Most Christians get called "Sun worshipers", and Muslims are no longer "Moon worshipers" but "Sun worshipers". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you drunk? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm telling what they mean. Dumuzid agrees that they spew out nonsense. They mean that everyone who follows a Sun-based calendar is a Sun worshiper. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you substantively here, but quite disagree with bringing it here. Until they are tendentiously forcing these opinions somewhere other than their talk page, I don't understand seeking some sort of official sanction. While it's probably a bit off the way talk pages are meant to be used, I would suggest withdrawing this unless and until there are problems elsewhere. As ever, just my opinion. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of Sun worship, anti-jewish propaganda, and wikipedia's systemic anti-Jewish bias must stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you been sitting in the sun too long? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you say the same about Dumuzid? Since Dumuzid substantively agrees with me, as told above.

For Christ's sake: I did not write those claims, the reported user did. If I am making this up block me. If I read them correctly, then block them. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for someone to be blocked for being wrong on the internet. I don't think that is against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not only wrong, their are proffering insults like "Sun worshiper" towards billions people who have never worshiped the Sun. And they basically say that the article Yahweh This article should be deprecated and merged as anti-jewish propaganda. And they claim that Wikipedia has a systemic anti-Jewish bias. Well, that means that Wikipedia is antisemitic, and that I am also antisemitic. It is not just wrong, but offensive.

If you don't think that's an insult, I can assure you that for rank-and-file monotheists it is highly insulting. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In order to be insulted by something, one has to be aware of it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's akin to calling ethnic or religious groups dogs and bitches. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a competition in obscurity? The obscurity of the insult v. the obscurity of the offence taken. I feel I should be outraged. Could someone tell me what I should be outraged by? DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right: their writing style is highly obscurantist, so it's hard to parse those words. And I guess that my own style is not much better. At least Dumuzid understood what I mean and agreed with me substantively. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I'm one of the most fundamentalist Christians who regularly edits Wikipedia, and I at most find being called a "sun worshipper" mildly amusing. I'm willing to wager that his criticisms of how Jewish sources are used in articles on Old Testament topics are essentially correct, although I'm sure it's a systemic bias issue rather than a deliberate NPOV one. A quick glance at his contribution suggests that he is a constructive, if perhaps sometimes a tad eccentric, editor. Perhaps instead of calling for a block over a one-off slight, we should with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bear with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2)? I mean, did you even discuss this with him before bringing it here? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• This edit is two weeks old, and I don't see any evidence of further disruption or any discussion of this prior to bringing it to ANI. I don't think this warrants any admin action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

EvergreenFir: Political suppression of productive discussion on Talk page

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

---

A discussion that was advancing forward in a civil manner was locked at a depth of four by EvergreenFir here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir#Political_suppression_of_discussion_of_racial_politics

I see no justification for this other than attempting to suppress discussion to preserve a political outlook on the site. There were substantive points being made and differing viewpoints being clarified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:D43D:DF69:30B1:AD1 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The justification is however there, and is perfectly valid: This is not a forum for users to express their personal views on who can(not) play in certain roles--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The discussion in question is at Talk:Whitewashing_in_film#Article_has_anti-white_progressive_racist_bias. Ping me if there are questions. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-mobile diff of EF's close. Looks like a good close to me. I doubt the opener would ever have led to productive, article-improving discussion. By the time it was closed, it was definitely getting into forum-style discussion about the racial politics of casting. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close, no action needed. I also don't see how the discussion was aimed at improving the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close This IP claims I have an anti-white bias. I don't consider that WP:CIVIL. This thread was not going anywhere constructive. Godwin's law likely to be invoked within a few posts. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Russian State TV might have out-Godwin'd Godwin: Joe Biden is a Nazi. Nazi European Union. EU leaders are Nazis. The German chancellor is a Nazi. https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-state-tv-just-blew-up-putins-nazi-ukraine-bullshit The age in which we weave. El_C 22:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close per WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close to quote a wise man I once knew, ayuh. Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The "discussion" seemed more like virtue signaling than anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from OP The above comments misinterpret the discussion. There were no opinions expressed about whether certain actors should or should not play certain parts. The dispute is that cross-race casting is interpreted differently and framed differently on wikipedia depending on whether the actor is white or non-white. That shows a racial bias that is consistental with some contemporary political outlooks and should at least be highlighted as such or removed and more neutral language used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:34C9:D531:3076:3450 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  You can try to do this, the article is not protected. Remember about WP:RS though.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also note that the article is specifically on the subject of casting white actors in non-white roles. There are separate articles on color-blind casting and racebending, which cover casting roles outside of the race in a broader sense; the former article has blackwashing as an inbound redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Seems like someone wanting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from OP Thank-you for the wide feedback and suggestions. I will consider how to propose edits to improve the neutrality of the articles / possibly propose they are merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:34C9:D531:3076:3450 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:PublicEnemy54321 making bizarre edits to inflate the edit count

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 noticed PublicEnemy54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making bizarre tiny edits in a way similar to TheLanchKellfruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in order to increase their edit count. For example, they are changing "Thachokhali" to "Thayokhali" [399], then reverting themselves [400]. They are also editing in the sandbox by putting in a phrase [401], then removing letters one at a time [402] [403]. They have also edit-warred at Valimai [404] [405] [406], and have been warned for this [407]. Subsequently, they removed words from the warning, one at a time, [408] [409] [410]. Given the nature of the edits, and the extended confirmed protection put on the article following the severe edit war, this could be attempting to game the system in order to edit Valimai. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've revoked their EC user right, to start with. El_C 04:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've warned them about the revoking of EC. Given that it is an ECGAMING issue, we'll probably need all admins on deck to scrutinize their edits more closely, and block, if necessary. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac, ProcrastinatingReader, and Drmies: Pinging people who have dealt with ECGAMING in the past. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, it would be helpful if you could reset "those" edits so that I can know the actual number. After all, you have no other job. @El_C.

(PublicEnemy54321 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC))

You should be lucky you weren't flat-out blocked. Trying to game AC or XC is generally itself grounds for an indef, especially XC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(pinged reply) Unfortunately, because your edits were to Wikipedia- and mainspace pages, we cannot delete your contributions like if you had edited your own sandbox. However, if you choose to make legitimate and helpful edits going forward, it should not be an issue to demonstrate that you can have the right back. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. PublicEnemy54321 has been edit warring while logged out quite extensively, and when they don't get their way, they make violent, misogynistic threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 148.170.140.83

148.170.140.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a clear legal threat in this edit summary: [411] Adakiko (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours by Girth Summit. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

IP user creates inappropriate draft

There is an IP user, their username is 202.124.178.186 and they are creating a draft called Khiran Srikrishnamenan. The draft itself looks inappropriate and is opinion-based. What should we do with this draft? Meltdown reverter (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've G10'd the page. It should be deleted quickly.2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I got it. I dropped WP:EMERGENCY a line since the word "kill" was used, but as I've noted to them (like I have many times in the past), it's probably just high-schoolers messing about. In any case, IP blocked one week with everything disabled. El_C 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my edits for no reason

Chipmunkdavis has recently made random reverts without apparent reason on some of my edits 1, 2, most of which are me dealing with WP:COI accounts. However, these include cleaning up vandalism/original research from IPs 3, 4 and 5 as well as a COIN report 6. I haven't reverted them back, as I'm not entirely sure as to what their intentions were.

Digging further I realized that they are under the assumption that I am a sock account and had reported me to SPI of a sockmaster. Based on them, they stated that it stems from my previous "feuds" or "support" in relation to a bunch of IPs. I'm not sure as to what these IPs even connect to me to that account, as it was the result of random, routine anti-vandalism work from a few months ago. Even so, the examples seems broad and hardly tangential too; they even bought up me reverting an actual blocked sockmaster which just makes this all too confusing.

Nevertheless, could an admin or a checkuser expedite their report because I feel like I can't really continue making contributions until that is over. Thanks. Razali Osman (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this is a new tactic. Anyway, could some admins please semi the articles that are part of the current vandalism spree such as these ones. And I assume there will be more. CMD (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OP  Blocked without tags per the evidence presented at Special:Permalink/1075851570#07 March 2022. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User: Neha.thakur75

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.

---

• Neha.thakur75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Raghuvamshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What had started with a simple edit-warring issue has gone completely off the rails. User has a concern about the spelling of Raghuvamshi, and the edit-warred to attempt to change the article. Requests for English sources with their preferred spelling were stonewalled; the best response we got was to Google it, which one of the other users involved had.

User has repeatedly shown bad faith, calling other editors vandals. I woke this morning to a message that included a mention of "report[ing] this Indian cultural vandalisation to Indian organisation".[412] I left as neutral and good-faith a non-templated message I could, expressing my concerns that this could be viewed as a threat of off-wiki action.(my message) Their response accused me of supporting "vandalisation" [sic].[413] I find myself feeling that this user no longer represents a net positive to the Wikipedia community, but the personal attacks directed at me leave me too involved to take further action. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• What started as a simple edit of misspelled changes has become very complicated because of C.Fred. Tired to make this user understand that this is such a common word in India and Indian culture that even simple google results will give you the evidence. But C.Fred instead of the understanding the problem and recommending a proper way to solve it went on blocking me to edit the content on the page. I have explained this user to understand that I have merely join wikipedia user to correct the spelling because I cannot let people miscommunicate my surname and my lineage. How would C.Fred feel if I change his name spelling? Neha.thakur75 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "I have explained this user to understand that I have merely join wikipedia user to correct the spelling because I cannot let people miscommunicate my surname and my lineage." I'd read up on WP:COIEDIT. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neha.thakur75 originally started a separate section with their complaint about C. Fred. This was merged into a single section. Neha.thakur75 tried to undo that, which was reverted. Singularity42 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think that we can do without a single-purpose account that behaves like this. C.Fred has of course chosen the prior status quo in an edit war as The Wrong Version, and (as usual) become the target for the disputer. I'm not seeing anything wrong with C.Fred's actions, as, as xe said, xe has stayed out of the content dispute

  As to the content dispute, the vague handwaves at Google search results are ridiculous, as is the citing of the spelling in a 1832 book that was written in Latin. It's well known that Google searches are a stupid idea for deciding how something is correctly spelled. As I said, we can do without this.

  I leave you with a professor of history in a 2011 IUP book, an a 1933 letter from the maharajah of Alwar, both spelling it "Raghuvanshi".

  Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @MrOllie Neha.thakur75 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011). Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India. Contemporary Indian studies. Indiana University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9780253222626. The author was a lawyer in Aligarh […] and by choosing the surname of Raghuvanshi, he sought to underscore his learned status.
  • Copland, Ian (2002). The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947. Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9780521894364. Alwar […] believed that 'My family is descended from the Suriya […] Dynasty […], coming down to Raghu, after whom the dynasty is called Raghuvanshi […]'

• I'd just like to note that it is incredibly common for south Asian names to have multiple variant spellings when rendered in Latin characters and our job is to name the corresponding article about the most common one and to also note others common spellings, making redirects when appropriate. It is not our job to arbitrate the "correctness" of these spellings or to pander to anybody who believes that their spelling trumps a more common one. Nobody is trying to denigrate any particular person's surname or perceived lineage because that is simply not something we even care about. As far as I can tell, the (rather confusing and uninformative) article is about legendary figures rather than historical ones anyway making this dispute even more inexplicable. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Two points:
  • Conduct/admin issue: Neha.thakur75's edit-warring and aggressive talkpage conduct has been subpar, to put it mildly, and C.Fred actions (including the page block) have been completely appropriate. I'll drop Neha a note on their talkpage but unless their conduct improves they are looking at a block; fwiw I don't consider C.Fred too INVOLVED or conflicted to take such action.
  • Content issue: the transliteration issue is debatable (rather than being plain right/wrong) and ideally should have been debated before Getsnoopy moved Raghuvanshi and {{Suryavansha}} to their preferred transliterations on Feb 19. This can be discussed further on the article talk page and perhaps the status quo ante restored while the discussion takes place (I am fine either way).

Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see Abecedare has posted most of what I'd say while I was researching this, so I'll be brief. Transliteration is complicated; determining the best transliteration to use on en.wikipedia should be done through careful consultation of sources. Neha.thakur75 has also been belligerent and rude, and hasn't listened to advice. This could be resolved by them simply committing to being civil and to resolving this via talk page discussion. Absent such a commitment, I would recommend an indefininite block, which I would be willing to place myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare Thanks a lot, This is all I wanted to revert the change to its original form. I joined wikipedia to correct those changes, I am not familiar with ways of working of wiki. I have only heard about people vandalising content over wikipedia. C.Fred Gave a very bad impression and his actions of blocking my edits made me think he is one of those vandalising entity. I appreciate your action. Thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update. User returned from his partial block and immediately reverted the article, inserting a broken move template in the process. On the fourth revert, I partial blocked the user again, this time for two weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it time for an indefinite block?

In this message, Neka.thakur75 said, "I dont know what is edit warred. I also dont care what other user are editing or updating. I just care about the wrong changes done on suryavanshi and raghuvanshi pages by getsnoopy. My only scope is to get theser changes corrected. I am not a wikipedia editor nor I intend to be. After I get this miscorrection fixed I am not going to login to wikipedia."

This certainly explains some things, like the user's inconsistent signing of posts. I am also wondering if they're just here to right great wrongs or for some similar reason which is not being here to build an encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well is getting the wrong thing fixed is not a right thing to do ? Do you think it is not a contribution ?

It might be a very small contribution, but nobody devote there time and energy so much to get the things fixed. It is definitely important to me. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can only update about things where I have knowledge like every other volunteer. Some users get paid for their contribution or propaganda on wikipedia. Other contribute when they have time or when they have knowledge. I am contributing because someone vandalised something that relates to me.

And here is C.Fred continuous blocking my attempts to fix it. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "fix" is neither supported by the community nor by reliable sources. You've already been informed by this thread to drop it; you refused, and thus you have been partially blocked twice. You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass already. You are absolutely not going to force it by edit warring, especially immediately after your block has ended.

Also, I don't know how C.Fred would think, but I would recommend that you do not use signatures to ping editors, unless they have said that it is fine. Use the {{ping}} template instead, which is the standard way of notifying editors of a reply. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The edit warring, lack of consensus building, general attitude, and lack of English proficiency make them a poor fit for the project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef. If all they're interested in is to bludgeon their own version of a transliteration that is not supported by sources nor the community, and calling everything against their belief "vandalism", then I don't see how they could possibly be here to build an encyclopedia. Couple that with very poor talk page posts with a somewhat battleground mentality, pitting them and their "correct" version versus everyone else's "wrong" version that we simply enforce because we take a personal dislike against it, rather than consensus and sources being against, and we've got one perfect storm for non-constructiveness. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:NOTHERE. ––FormalDude talk 04:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. User has stated they will continue to ignore consensus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Indef block applied. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Revdel

This, please and thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 18:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and blocked. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)