Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091

Persistent edit warring by 56FireLeafs

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.

---

56FireLeafs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently edit warring against the consensus of multiple editors to remove bison species from the Bos article, despite the American Society of Mammalogists including bison species within Bos. 56FL has been engaging in OR and appears to have no understanding of how scientific consensus works, see this post on @Kevmin:'s talkpage: diff. they were previously the subject of the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#User:56FireLeafs_-_questionable_edits a month ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

-"American Society of Mammalogists including bison species within Bos". The fact that a certain group of people place Bisons within Bos does not make it valid. Bisons as a whole are still placed in their own genus by the vast majority of scientists and biologists. Not to mention that during an edit war all participants in the conflict must be called out. Yet apparently i am the only one, which proves the bias of Hemiauchenia. It takes multiple studies to confirm the classification of organisms. And genetic analysis already found genetic similarities between American and European Bisons. Not to mention the morphological and genetic differences between Bos and Bison species (extant and extinct). So my edits are justified. The bias of Wikipedia users is the reason why so many information in articles is incorrect. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked 56FireLeafs for 72 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing, and warned them firmly. Four editors disagreed with them, and they have removed content nine times in two days without bringing forth a single reference to a reliable source in support of their significant changes to the article. Talk: Bos exists for a very good reason but the most recent comment there was made last August. Debating content issues in edit summaries is suboptimal. "Take it to the talk page" is always good advice. The misconduct of 56FireLeafs was egregious enough for a block, but the other editors involved in this dispute are reminded that they too have the obligation to make their cases on the talk page, instead of just reverting several times. I find the content dispute facinating but lack the expertise to express an opinion on that. I am competent enough, I believe, to address the behavioral issues. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Thanks. They were more responsive when I made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Edit_warring_at_Bos, hopefully the block should be a reminder to be more collegial, if they choose to return. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:20, 10 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.

Legal threats by User:2A00:1FA0:829:619C:0:54:87E9:F01

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:2A00:1FA0:829:619C:0:54:87E9:F01 has been telling people to email them if they want to sue Wikipedia. The vast majority of their edits are identical legal threats. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also related and unblocked: Special:Contributions/194.186.207.157 Special:Contributions/185.79.101.65 —PaleoNeonate – 22:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

this and this are exactly the same as User:2A00:1FA0:829:619C:0:54:87E9:F01's edits. This may be sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Severestorm28 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like User:Okip, who was global-banned last week. WP:RBI applies. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 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.

• Adding more recent Special:Contributions/46.138.130.250, —PaleoNeonate – 05:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lightsektoor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B018:E061:61B5:3DA1:9FD8:68DF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.161.55.46

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:13F0:8110:1844:C49F:A88C:8AF5

Obviously WP:NOTHERE, block em all.

The last one might need redevving as it features a personal attack that goes beyond the level of “big stoopid doodoo head” Dronebogus (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to remind you that the correct way of notifying users of an ANI discussion is with the {{ANI-notice}} template. I am currently sending the proper notice to the users in question. Other than that, your concerns are valid. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For general vandalism reports, consider WP:AIV instead. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you should use WP:AIV. However, I blocked Lightsektoor (talk · contribs). The IP edits are not sufficiently recent and bad to need a block. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Persistently using boldface in the content

This user Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persistently used the boldface in the content, I have warned the user but they continued.[2]

The diffs: [3]; [4]

STSC (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits on this article since I started a discussion on your talk page / talk page of the article. Boldface is used in lieu of section headings that clog up the TOC. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

To add to this, Sportsfan1234 is also adding unnecessary line breaks and unnecessary font size tags to various articles, which likely contravene the MOS as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Line breaks are removed, wasn't too familiar with the rules surrounding them. Also, font size adjustments are used in related Olympic articles such as [5] and [6]. I don't understand why we are discussing this here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I am unaware if using the font-size property is an issue in terms of the MOS per se. I can see the benefit of making the table fit, but of course not everyone has the same screen dimensions; indeed, the small text looks particularly small on my end. Also, I am concerned that there may be some accessibility issues when the text is made smaller than that of the rest of the article. I will defer to someone else who is more knowledgeable on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Boldface is used for the article's title in the lead, and the section headings using section heading markup (equals signs). STSC (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fontsize shouldn't be smaller than 85% of the default font size - WP:FONTSIZE. It's helpful sometimes with larger (wider) tables. Ravensfire (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oh yay, I see STSC and Sportsfan 1234 both did that thing where they leave vandalism warning templates on each others talk pages. My desire to help resolve a dispute just vanished completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This dispute over styles belongs on the article's talk page, where Sportsfan 1234 began a discussion but nobody else has participated. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam does not want to get involved and so I will. STSC and Sportsfan 1234, both of you have been here for many years and have made many thousands of edits. Both of you should be familiar with the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, in brief, editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia. Both of you should know that there was no vandalism here, but rather that this is a garden variety content dispute about the Manual of Style, which is not a policy but rather a guideline, and which is subject to occasional exceptions. STSC, you made a mistake handing out that vandalism warning and bringing this petty matter to ANI; do not do that again. Sportsfan 1234, you made a mistake in rising to the bait. A false accusation of vandalism is a form of disruptive editing. Stop that, both of you. Go develop consensus about these MOS trivialities at Talk:2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony, and stop arguing unnecessarily at drama boards. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would of course settle the issues on the article's talk page. As shown in above diffs the user had reverted 7 different edits from 4 editors[7],[8],[9],[10] in just one revert without giving a reason or valid reason, and the user reverted them twice. Those reverts seem to me a vandalism? STSC (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Global Block Request

Please block this IP range https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2402:3A80:1C46:D09C:3926:B13B:5ADE:6A75

See this unknowingly removing cast from Article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2402:3A80:1C46:7BFB:9503:1856:4375:C868

See this also IP unknowingly removing cast from this Article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1069844585 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.106.26 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you need a global block?

The first edit is indeed a good edit. It reverted an edit by what appears to be a series of edits by the same LTA on an article, judging by the edit summaries.

As for the other edit I am unable to come to any conclusion. Either way I don't believe a block of any kind is required here. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't see anything warranting a global block either. Surely a global block would only be warranted for cross-wiki abuse, not English Wikipedia only. (Non-administrator comment) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Journalist usmaan

Please block this user. Clear WP:CIR issues. Continuing to make edits after being told (by Ivanvector no less) not to make that kind of edit [11]. Blanked a whole template doc page for no reason [12]. Then after getting a level 3 (immediately) warning (which I consider appropriate for the latter, due to the very disruptive nature of deleting that sort of page, and the difficulty of finding it), made a personal attack [13], got a level four for that, then decided it was a good idea to do "censored" cursing instead. [14]. Mako001 (C)  (T)  10:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

hey@Mako001 i shall reporth the user to admins Mstae12 (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday I came across this user adding news references without context beside the bolded titles of articles (e.g. [15], [16]). I suggested they should not do that and tried to give some advice on what citations are for. To their credit they didn't make any more of that kind of edit after my message (the one Mako001 linked I thought was okay). I wouldn't call any of the edits intentionally disruptive, just ... not helpful. Competence may be an issue, and the personal attacks are not great but they were being tag-bombed. I'll leave this up to another admin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I had sent two tags for successive edits, but the blanking of the template doc caused substantial alarm, as it is something usually only done deliberately. Hence why they got the level 3 warning, without intervening edits. I overreacted and tag bombed as you said, however they really have no excuse for asserting that someone has mental health issues, and should go and see a doctor and "get medicine". Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

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

---

Can someone revdel this blind nationalist? Thank you.[17] - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done and IP blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:40, 10 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.

Loverofediting

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.

---

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

The majority of this users edits have been reverted. Those edits have mainly been changing/removed sourced information because said user didn't agree with the statements. He has just recently been blocked for edit warring at Dhu al-Qarnayn, where he attempted to do the very same. Actually, he just started edit warring there again [18]

Some diffs of this behaviour:

[19] "Chinese-held territory up to Kashgar, but this claim is dismissed by modern scholars." -> "into Chinese-held territory and conquered Kashgar, but this claim is dismissed by some modern scholars." Mind you, this is a well-sourced GA article.

[20] "alleged" -> "reported" Not what the source states.

[21] "alleged" -> "reported" Not what the source states.

[22] removed "though the tide turned against the Arabs toward the end of his reign and he sued for a truce" Removed info in a FA article.

And so on.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time. I suspect the next one will be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 9 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.

Ella G H Peters' repeated copyright violations

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 talk:Ella G H Peters has over four months demonstrated repeated violations of copyright, some of which they have been notified of on their talk page (most related to image issues, but including plagiarized text as well), all to no response or evident change in behavior. The most recent instances include yesterday at David Hepher (see Special:Diff/1070673235) and Aleah Chapin at Special:Diff/1070626443 (if not already REVDEL'd). Keeping in mind WP:DONTBITE and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, I submit that a non-permanent block may still be justified in drawing the user's attention to the issue and thereby altering their behavior, and in the very least, preventing it from reoccurring in the coming days, as may be likely. Whether or not that assessment is correct I leave up to administrators, of course. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week. Hopefully they will respond. If it continues after the block expires, it will probably need to be longer. --Jayron32 19:09, 9 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.

My Magic Pet Morphle 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've got a user, Grecobull 5th disruptively editing My Magic Pet Morphle in the same manner as this IP range in Peru: 190.237.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The disruptive editing includes attempting to replace the episode list. AIV is backlogged to hell and I can't deal with this user's antics any longer. wizzito | say hello! 00:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've temporary protected the article and blocked the editor. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Kinu, blocking the range or at least the most and most recently used IP on it 190.237.1.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) may not be such a bad idea either (but what's currently done is still fine) wizzito | say hello! 00:36, 8 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:Premysl orac

Premysl orac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

pretty obvious WP:SPA in Pavel Tykač, maybe undisclosed paid editing, also active on cswiki and dewiki (indefinitely blocked now there for undisclosed paid editing and whitewashing). should also be blocked here as his edits clearly aren't compatible with the goals of this project: e.g. [23] and [24]. --Icodense (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Gaming extended confirmed protection

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.

---

Not exactly a major incident, but didn't really see a better place to put this.

There's some patent gaming of extended confirmed, following by editing that would require the permission, at Rooster0626 ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 16:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sock it to me! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 13 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:RocketBill

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

---

This user is adding inappropriate words and nonsense words into user's userpages, such as [25], [26], and [27]. Calling me a "cuck" is inappropriate, we may need action on this user. Severestorm28 21:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Their non-userspace contributions aren't exactly constructive either, so I've indeffed. AIV would've probably been a better venue for this report. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the indef block on RocketBill, and for the advice as well. Severestorm28 22:10, 10 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 Vandal

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

---

2001:16A2:C70F:5B00:99FB:5566:C89A:9AF2 has repeatedly been vandalising the article Babar Azam and have received several warnings on their talk page. I request that they receive a temporary ban so they can hopefully learn from this and make constructive edits to Wikipedia. -  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 20:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hamza Ali Shah: the right place to report vandals such as this IP address is WP:AIV where similar reports are issued every day. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 9 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.

Leofrancis355

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.

---

Leofrancis355 is a prolific editor focusing on India television related articles. They've created a lot of articles, but a lot of them have been moved to draft space (see their extensive talk page). My main issue (now) is they like to move those draft articles to entirely new names to create "new" articles, causing significant history issues. See this example from today, and another from two days ago. This isn't a new issue - from August 2021. They've been warned about this on July 30, 2021 and again Aug 10, 2021 and again Sept 1, 2021 and fairly recently on Dec 15, 2021.

In over 4000 edits, two have been to use talk pages. Their list of warnings is way too long, they keep producing poorly sourced articles and moving them from draft space without waiting on review. The hijacking is just the final straw. At this point, I'd like to see them blocked from editing and only unblocked if they agree to several conditions - no more hijacking, no moving articles from draft space, only creating new articles in draft space, responding to messages left on their talk page. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for disruptive editing; let's see if that gets their attention. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 10 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.

Mass moves of "African American" articles to "Black American"

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.

---

Vegan dog lover 1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new user, is rapidly moving a large number of articles. From "African American" to "Black American". Adakiko (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They did not respond to my warning on their talk page, and continued with these undiscussed moves. I have blocked them for 24 hours. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They moved more than 50 pages (excluding talk pages). I volunteer to restore them one by one. But before I start, I'd like to ask if there is a more efficient way of doing it. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I've reverted them all without issue. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've CU-blocked this as a globally-locked LTA (Utah 1985, Cocoa 1980, Gorilla 1981 etc.) They are also  Confirmed to:

• Honeybear1995 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• White girl 1981 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Indian doll 2022 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

pinging Bsadowski1 as they seem to know who this is based on the global locks placed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe this LTA is HipHopVisionary. --Bsadowski1 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please note: Honeybear1995 also created dozens of partly superfluous (e.g. Ugandan Canadians -> Black Canadians), partly detrimental (e.g. Boyash Romanian -> Romani language, the only info about Boyash being contained in the article Boyash) redirects, which are still there. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirects/drafts that met G5 criteria. There's a half hour of my life I won't get back.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

But you get the sincere thanks of a hundred users who won't lose their time following those redirects ;-) Rsk6400 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• To note, " Ugandan Canadians -> Black Canadians " actually changes the meaning of the text. First, not all Ugandan people are black (yes even if most are), and second black is not the same as Ugandan, because a rectangle is not a square. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 11 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:Venkat TL

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.

---

• Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2022 hijab row in Karnataka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I never wanted to take Venkat here, but here I'm. There's a discussion at Talk:2022 hijab row in Karnataka § Background where Venkat provided some citations. I've reviewed and commented on them. Venkat later took the discussion to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § 2022 hijab row in Karnataka. Since I've already reviewed the references very recently, I've copied my comments (attributed as such) to NPOV thread [28]. Venkat has removed my comments from the noticeboard stating The talk page discussion thread has been linked. Dont recycle. Let NPOV noticeboards review. You said this already at the talk page in the edit summary [29] and posted on my talk page as well [30]. I'm not so sure where Venkat is going with this. There's no such thing like "one should not comment on a noticeboard because they already commented elsewhere on Wikipedia". — DaxServer (t · c) 20:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ. Revert me if you disagree with my revert. Is this ANI necessary? The WP:NPOVN says on the top "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.". The link to the thread with your comment [31] was already included, following this instruction and yet you copied [32] the same comment on the NPOVN too. I felt it was unnecessary. What is the point of going to NPOV when you are going to repeat the same discussion thread once again, when a link suffices. I think I had read somewhere WP:DRN or someplace, that said you do not need to rehash what has already been said on the talk page discussion thread. And you simply copied your comment to the NPOVN page. Venkat TL (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, I just reviewed the news articles and since it's fresh in my mind, I copied my comments over. I do believe that others who would review them, would arrive at the same conclusion as I did. Instead of reverting me, you could've replied to me. My edit was not a "vandalism" to "revert"; nor is on the mainspace to revert if you disagree with it. It's just as simple as not your comment to remove from the noticeboard. I actually wanted to reply to the 3RR report on you right now, but I brought this to ANI as this seemed to be a better venue to resolve. — DaxServer (t · c) 21:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting that DaxServer has already restored his duplicate comment that he made on the talk page at 2022 hijab row in Karnataka#Background. Venkat TL (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, just don't remove or change other people's comments in a discussion where you are involved, even if you think they shouldn't be there. Leave anything like that to uninvolved people with lots of experience. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

ok. ANI page says, "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page", and yet, DaxServer did not even raise this with me on my talk page, or his talk page [33]. Had DaxServer raised this on user talk, I would have agreed to self revert. But he posted on ANI first. I am still not sure Why DaxServer failed to discuss this with me on user talk? And What his intentions of posting this here on ANI are? Sniping a content dispute opponent? Venkat TL (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an active 3RR report on you (linked above) related to the same page. Discussing on either of the talk pages regarding another revert (within the same context) doesn't seem convincing — DaxServer (t · c) 21:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The ANI page says on top, "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page" You still have not answered why you ignored it even though I posted about it on your talk page, and I wont ask it twice. You skirted the question and your response above makes it even clearer to me that your intention in bringing this trivial stuff here was "Sniping a content dispute opponent". Venkat TL (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to do another copy There's an active 3RR report on you (linked above) related to the same page. Discussing on either of the talk pages regarding another revert (within the same context) doesn't seem convincing to me. Also maybe you want to trim down on personal accusations (here: me sniping you out of the discussion)? You were just told not to [34] — DaxServer (t · c) 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And no, for the record, I wasn't looking to snipe you out. Like proposed below, I'd like to slim down things here if you are fine with. I understand you'd have self-reverted if I've replied [on my talk page to your post]. — DaxServer (t · c) 21:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer that fake 3RR case has got nothing to do with your comment on NPOVN or this issue you raised at ANI. It does not absolve you from the need to discuss the issue on user talk. When you brought this" urgent incident and chronic, intractable problem" here on ANI, What sort of action on me from the admins were you expecting? (Restoration of your comment cannot be the reason because you had already restored [35] your comment immediately, after posting this on ANI)

I was having content dispute with you and working for resolution in good faith. First one guy filed a fake 3RR report and within couple of hours you follow up and file this ANI report as a double tap for good measure. The intentions here are clear and very obvious. Venkat TL (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Can't we just close this rather than have further comments from the protagonists that might escalate things? Venkat made a minor mistake by removing the comment and Daxserver made one by bringing the matter here too quickly. Everyone makes the occasional mistake. Let's just discuss the issue calmly at WP:NPOVN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'd in principle agree with you in taking things down — DaxServer (t · c) 21:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer, you have brought this here far too early. With WP:AGF in mind I'm assuming you've made a mistake rather than raised the report in a vexatious manner. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. It wasn't any vexatious. Rather seeing a 3RR report and a revert of my comment didn't leave me a choice except bring it here. I agree to take things down with Venkat. — DaxServer (t · c) 21:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Awesome... de-escalation is a beautiful thing. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Been watching some of this from afar. Nothing sanctionable here, but Venkat, you need to take it down a notch. There's absolutely no reason to revert somebody else at a noticeboard; having done that, your repeated demands that DaxServer discuss matters with ring a little hollow. Unlike my colleague above, I don't see this report as vexatious, even if there's nothing sanctionable. I don't think a prolonged discussion here is going to be productive either, I suggested everyone return to the content issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• (responding as I was mentioned) Yes, I got it as I said in my first comment. I will keep my distance from him. Of course, as you say, there is nothing vexatious here with DaxServer bringing this "urgent incident and chronic, intractable problem", to ANI, without discussion. Even though I started a talk page thread on DaxServer's user talk [36], to discuss and explain my edit, DaxServer is completely justified in not responding to the user talk thread and instead posting his reply here on ANI. There was absolutely no need to respond to my talk page comment. At least a bunch of admins should see the edit and then propose block for this intractable problem. Right. Or tell that this was not actionable and was brought here too early. Even with all the good faith in the world, what happened here is obvious. Venkat TL (talk) 07:09, 11 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.

Topic bans for Protection decrease requests?

So, the Requests for Decreased Page Protection has had requests for the "Freedom" Convoy page to be unprotected repeatedly thrown at it. Not all of them were executed 100% properly, but still. Can something be done to quell it?--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife, I am the protecting admin. The protection was logged as WP:COVIDDS (diff), so even drive-by IPs aside, this wouldn't be a normal WP:RFPP/D request. Your header is a bit confusing, though. I presume you mean banning these requests, which I don't think would be called for at this point. Speedy closes should do the trick if the requests are obviously subpar. El_C 07:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear, but your presumption was correct, and thank you for the feedback.--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's all good. Happy to expedite any issues you might encounter with this topic, so feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the need arises. El_C 13:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

SPA setting up their user page as advertisement

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:Outdo.pk. Pretty obvious duck- first and only edit is to turn their talk page into an advertisement for the website their username matches. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 11 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:Jokkmokks-Goran

Edits across multiple articles trying to legitimise suicide bombings against Israeli military personal with edits summaries such as Undid revision. A "massacre" indeed. Of IDF soldiers. Not terrorism, A bus full of armed uniformed soldiers is a legitimate military target. Most of casualties military, A bus station serving a military base is a military target. The victims were all soldiers and The killing Israeli soldiers within the framework of the Israel-Palestine conflict should not be categorized by Wikipedia as terrorism or murder. Despite reliable sources calling these attacks terrorism and murder, this editor doesn't seem to accept this. This editor seems to be here with a political agenda rather than build an encyclopaedia. --John B123 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't try to "legitimize" suicide attacks on Israeli soldiers. I just think its wrong to call them terrorism or murder, as Israel and its supporters tend to do. Palestinian attacks on Israeli soldiers or other military targets within the framework of the Israel-Palestine conflict should not be categorized or listed by Wikipedia as terrorism or murder.

I don't mind if a certain Wikipedia article includes a credible sources describing a Palestinian attack as terrorism. But there are usually other credible sources contradicting this point of view. John B123 accuses me of pushing a political agenda. But I believe I'm in good company. Most proposed definitions of terrorism focuses on attacks on "civilians", "non-combatants" or "innocents", and explicitly exclude attacks on enemy soldiers. See examples in Definition of terrorism. Therefore I believe we should be very careful with using the terrorism stamp.

There have certainly been many Palestinian attacks on civilian Israeli targets that could well deserve to be labeled terrorism. Though I would prefer to call them war crimes. That also seems to be what most human rights organizations are doing these days. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You have been previously given an ARBPIA discretionary sanctions alert, please be careful. You could end up in a lot of trouble, very quickly. Cheerio. I'd rather not see your username struck the next time I drop in here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  05:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As the lead of Definition of terrorism states: There is no universal agreement on the legal definition of terrorism. To align WP with proposed definitions would require a WP:RfC, not just a single editor's beliefs. --John B123 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I promise to be more careful next time.

But it is unclear to me what the criteria are for the inclusion or exclusion of a given article into a category or list like "Palestinian terrorist attacks". Does it need an explicit credible source for each individual attack? How do you handle a situation where you have multiple credible sources, some supporting and some contradicting the terrorist claim? In the article itself, you can handle different viewpoints, but you can't be both included in, and excluded from, a certain category at the same time. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to give a definitive answer, just as there is no clear definition of terrorism. One approach would be to ignore Israeli and Palestinian sources and see what the majority of the independent sources call it. Another thing to consider would be, as in the case of Megiddo Junction bus bombing, if the attack is condemned by both sides then it can't be considered a legitimate act. --John B123 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor in Florida trying to change the meaning of Brinley

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.

---

Since 2019, I've been dealing with this IP user based in Florida who changes the sourced definition on Brinley (that I added, yes, it's not to the best source, but having the meaning "burnt clearing" with a bad source is better than having the fake meaning they keep trying to push, "beautiful flower", with no source). Other IPs have tried to change the meaning to the real one as well, but have been reverted by this disruptive user. They also had the audacity to personally attack me for trying to change the meaning to a sourced one, saying "Getting annoyed yet?". I think that they are simply doing this to get a rise out of people... why they would be at this since 2019 is a mystery of its own.

See the history of the page for what I am talking about.

They use the following ranges:

• 2601:880:c080:4430::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:1006:b100::/41 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I think a pblock of these 2 ranges from Brinley for a good, long time is needed here. wizzito | say hello! 01:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

They added the false meaning in March 2018, if you want to know how far back it goes. wizzito | say hello! 02:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I note that the Wiktionary entry at wikt:Brindley#English includes what might be a useful reference. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, but I doubt it will keep the disruptive editor off my tail. wizzito | say hello! 02:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm that bryne lēa means "burning/burnt meadow" in Old English. You could supplement the existing reference with one of a number of Old English/Anglo Saxon dictionaries. Sweet, Henry (1897), The Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon, Oxford: Clarendon Press is available online. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Since this is a very very long term thing from an IP, clearly someone who has a thing for it, and it's just a disambiguation page, I'd say just semi the page for a long long time and move on. It's not a page that will get much of any editing. Less likely for damage than blocking large swathes of IP addresses, especially since this is clearly someone willing to push on this for many years. Most edits are about this. And in fact I've just gone ahead an done so, any admin is welcome to undo or perform another solution, but this seems the safest and easiest response for the least damage. Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 11 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.

Uncivil edit summaries by User:PeeJay

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:PeeJay made a highly-appropriate revert of vandalism on Eric Bailly on 10 February 2022, which included a very un-WP:CIVIL edit summary "rv racist cunt." I sent PeeJay a friendly reminder to keep edit summaries civil, which I was expecting to be the end of this editing pattern by a longtime contributor. However, PeeJay reverted this with the summary "under no circumstances will I be civil to racist cunts." He also called another user a racist cunt here in January 2021 in a very reasonable vandalism revert unfortunately accompanied by an uncivil summary. Frank Anchor 03:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, to some degree truth is a defense here -- these contributors are racist cunts. But these are just driveby racist anons and of course you're going to get that, so why get upset enough to swear. User:PeeJay could maybe be advised that 1) it's just a an edit summary that nobody is ever going to read again, so why make an issue of it, why not say "rv racist troll" instead, 2) it's just generally degrading to create an atmosphere of crudity, and this adds a tiny bit to that, and 3) "cunt" is offensive to some, so why offend people (I personally dislike the use of "cunt" as a pejorative because it's vaguely misogynetic IMO). "rv racist troll" does the job just as well and maybe User:PeeJay could be advised to use that instead, in future. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No, do not say anything other than "rvv". I left a message at User talk:PeeJay indicating that WP:DENY is the best procedure because it does not gives them the attention and drama they were hoping for. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not "vaguely misogynetic" it's just "misogynistic". Having the worse thing you can call a troll be a word for female genitalia, yeah, it's misogynistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 12 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.

I am not commenting on this specific incident but rather on the general situation. WP:RBI gives some excellent advice, as does WP:DENY which says that trolls usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness. They seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Such users experience exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement. "Cunt" is an unusually problematic insult with a negative history here on Wikipedia that has dramatically different connotations on each side of the Atlantic, but it is not productive or useful to insult trolls in any way at all. Revert them and block them or ask an administrator to block them. Ignore them in any space they are likely to see. They revel in your condemnation. Do not give them the attention that they crave. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas up to old tricks

In September 2021 @Bruno Rene Vargas: abused move privileges as a means to spite and to put their name as first on draft articles. They fled the site for months by “retiring” but is now back and is attempting to force a redirect of my draft Draft:Challengers (film) to their version Draft:Challegners. I created my version well ahead of theirs, and in the correct name, while theirs came four minutes later, misspelled and lacking any content outside an infobox and lead sentence and reference. My version detailed a premise, the cast and production history. Bruno has redirected my draft and even stolen verbatim how I wrote my version and copy pasted it to theirs. Even reverting me restoring my draft as he redirected it. This is is disgusting behaviour and proved Bruno’s not learned anything during their time away. Rusted AutoParts 00:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sheesh…I can’t believe this is still going on. When will the two of you learn that no one cares who first created an article? No comment on what should be the outcome of this thread… and both of you should be TBANned from article creation for being a time sink for the community. DeCausa (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I’m making you waste your own time to provide feedback you didn’t have to give, and that having issues with someone who edits selfishly is a “time sink”. I was under the impression this is why ANI exists, to report problem editors. I reject the concept I need to be barred from making articles simply because of issues with one editor. I have been creating these pages for years with next to no problems, it’s only an issue with me and Bruno when he starts taking other peoples work away. Rusted AutoParts 01:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And what about you @Rusted AutoParts:? At least I have the history in my favor that all my drafts created this year were not created in a hasty and lazy way for the sole reason of taking the name of the draft before someone else does, as clearly can be see here and here, two drafts that he has created today and that show that you still have the same modus operandi as years ago. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 00:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So you’re just admitting now you just want to be first? I still actually build my draft, you don’t and still won’t grasp that was the problem, not that you created the draft first. Rusted AutoParts 00:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, this goes beyond credit, this is an editor acting in self-centred ways and going against the spirit of cooperative editing. You don’t redirect someone else’s work and insist they move their work to theirs, you request your draft be deleted and do what edits you think need doing there. Rusted AutoParts 00:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Do not twist things, none of this would have happened if I had not discovered the fact that you create drafts in a rush and with almost no content for the sole reason of occupying that space before someone else does. If only you had taken the time to add a brief introduction and a reference none of this would have happened. It doesn't bother me that you are first, it bothers me that under the excuse that you keep expanding your drafts you are creating them in a lazy and hasty way. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 01:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You’re acting like just having an infobox and a sentence is an article. Me starting the page as I do is not some credit grab, it’s me literally just getting things started. I still add in all the details that are required. You just leave the page once you make the infobox and lead. That was the problem I brought to you last year but you were so hostile about it it’s now to the point you’ll just steal the draft space or steal the contents of the page. Rusted AutoParts 01:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest that both of you take a deep breath and wait for someone more experienced in these matters to opine on the situation. (PS I'm not that person). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I do apologize to any admins for this problem flaring up here, it was something I had hoped was resolved multiple times. I won't be adding anymore back and forth with Bruno here, so I'm just going to bold the core issue I have: Bruno is doing something similar to what he lost his page move abilities for. He is redirecting other's works for the only reason of him not liking my method of page creation. This is the sole problem here. I really don't care who makes what when. I always check to see if a draft or article already exists before I proceed in creating one. I'm not sitting here going "Damnit, I wanted to be the one to make that", if it exists, I just move on. So I just really resent when I get referred to as a time sink, or inferred to care about being first when the issue is the uncivil practices I've illustrated here. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Both drafts are practically the same in terms of how developed they are. BRV's draft was started later and the title's disambiguation and spelling is incorrect. Then he went and redirected RAP's draft to his own, which is clearly uncivil, disruptive, and apart from that incorrect in terms of the benefit of each version. Painting this as a problem where both are equally at fault seems disingenuous. —El Millo (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Although it may be the case that Draft:Challegners was copied without attribution when it was initially created, I see two disruptive actions here which are this diff by Bruno Rene Vargas which redirects the draft to the draft created by them and this edit which definitely copies without attribution from the other draft created by Bruno Rene Vargas.

As has been mentioned here by other editors, who creates the page should not matter. Redirecting to the version which you created, which may be done in an effort to improve the encyclopedia, is likely to be seen as disruptive especially if there have been prior issues surrounding this.

Finally, @Bruno Rene Vargas:, you cannot be copying without attribution between pages as this is a copyright violation as you have done here. If you continue to do so you may be blocked to prevent further occurrences.

I have not reviewed the situation in detail, and my comments are from reviewing the two drafts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

For comparison as to why I say the edit by Bruno Rene Vargas is a copyright violation see Special:Diff/1071311300/1071287407 which shows no difference in the cut and pasted text from the other draft. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To add, Rusted AutoParts did also redirect to the draft created by Rusted AutoParts, which I would say is also up for review here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair, I would add once Bruno restored it I didn't touch it again. Rusted AutoParts 01:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, on review from the previous discussion Bruno Rene Vargas is banned from moving pages. They have conducted two page moves in the last month in violation of this ban. They were warned strongly about further violating this ban. Although not technically a page move, this essentially is a page move in all but name. I will be blocking Bruno Rene Vargas for violating the spirit of the ban, as in the closing statement the closing admin says Given the wording, this should be interpreted as broadly construed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week, given that they have not had a block before. This discussion may lead elsewhere so I will leave it open, but no objection to closing if another editor thinks the time is now to close. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Good block. My one experience of trying to work with BRV in this exact same area some point last year was unpleasant to say the least. FWIW, I'd support an indef if it comes to it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible further sanctions

I am wondering if further sanctions may be needed on User:Bruno Rene Vargas. Following up a draft creation by a user who they have had issues with in the past by creating a draft on the same topic is something akin to stalking, and, at best, poorly thought out, and at worst, deliberate provocation.

I suggest that User:Bruno Rene Vargas have an IBAN instated on interacting with User:Rusted AutoParts, as they seem to have some issues with collaborating with them. Rusted AutoParts would be discouraged from interacting with them as well, per the guidelines for IBANs.

Either that, or a ban on creating a draft, when a draft on the topic exists. However, the latter suggestion seems to have some significant issues, in that it seems likely to be open to wikilawyering, and the defence of "Oh I didn't realise, oh I am so very sorry, I promise it won't happen again sir/ma'am"🤞. Bruno can respond to this using their talkpage, and it can be copied here by another editor. I am not formally proposing this, but rather making a suggestion to avoid this sort of thing happening again. Remember, had Bruno not violated their pagemove ban, this would still be an ongoing discussion.

Both are generally productive editors, and it would be very unfortunate for this sort of thing to end up with one or both blocked long-term. I will possibly drop back shortly and say something further in an hour or two. Mako001 (C)  (T)  02:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems it would be for the best a barrier is put up between us. I don't like it has to be an option because I really don't like having conflicts with other editors but since it's been ultimately a year and we just do not see eye to eye about our issues, to spare further talk page spats or new ANI threads, an IBAN might have to be the solution. That being said, I consider perhaps barring Bruno from page creation could be an option too. I'm not the only one he had conflicts with over a draft, @Vistadan: experienced similar problems over an article when two drafts on the same topic were made by the pair. I don't just see this as solely being a Rusted and Bruno problem, if it isn't me it's somebody else. That being said, I would really rather try to salvage some sort of ability to work with Bruno in the future. I looked back at our first interaction from last February and found myself completely obnoxious and essentially poisoned the well from the get go. I failed to get across anything about my qualm about the sparse drafts and allowed the annoyance of being edit conflicted during my edits to bias my approach and immediately went in accusing them of rushing to be first. It doesn't and wouldn't inspire anyone to see one's point of view when I'm accusing them of rushing to be first and not assuming good faith. Now this doesn't excuse the moving around of pages and copy/pasting since then, but I didn't civilly open our interactions at all. Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would be concerned that barring them from creating pages might restrict their constructive contributions. The objective here is to stop the unhelpful behaviour, without stopping their constructive contributions. From what I can tell, they are mostly quite constructive. (However, I don't disagree with the current block, as they clearly violated the spirit of their pagemove ban with the copy-paste move). A broadly construed IBAN would mean that creating a page on the same topic a few minutes after you had done so would be out of the question. And from their comments on your talk page, I can see at least a tacit admission that they were aware of your page when they created theirs. Mako001 (C)  (T)  05:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring with multiple IPs

2A02:85F:F8FA:7600:B8F1:9DCF:2A5F:9A66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), new editor, is in an edit war also using IPs 2a02:85f:f83d:200:612a:2e5c:9076:8d13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2A02:85F:F83D:200:3DE3:5C15:5EC1:5C3A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He/she is fixated on altering the titles of former Greek Royalty at List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. The legenthy argumentative edit summaries suggest an agenda regarding Greek republic versus the former monarchy rather than an intent to build an encyclopedia. Four reverts today:

• Diff1
• Diff2
• Diff3
• Diff4.

Editor "9A66" has been warned to take the dispute to the talk page. Blue Riband► 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Silly idea, but since they are fixated on appearance changes like

[[King Constantine II of Greece]] -> [[King Constantine II of Greece|King Constantine II]],

require them to go through process to rename the article as they feel necessary. Hey, if they can actually _convince_ people rather than simply bludgeoning text... Until then they must stop twisting text to torture titles. Shenme (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have created a Report on these three ip's (2A02:85F:F800:0:0:0:0:0/40 Range ) at WP:ANEW since these three ip's did not learn thier lesson about Edit Warring. Chip3004 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Olrac625

This user was reported several times, and still no action. Repeatedly adding unsourced informations to BLP articles, and seems he don't want to participate in any discussions on his talk page and in ANI where he has been reported many times. Seems also that every contributions he made has no source. I think he never visited his talk page nor his user page. Blocking him seems to be a good idea to prevent him from doing those non-constructive edits, and sometimes, it's a good idea also to get his attention and so he can respond on the reports he received and realized that he made unhelpful edits in Wikipedia and for the future, he can do more constructive edits. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to notify them of the ANI filing even if it appears they don't read their talk page. Looking at the previous filings, they've been a little vague. It would help if you included diffs. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already notify him, just incase. Majority of his contributions/recent edits are addition of unsourced information in BLP articles so I think diffs are unnecessary, just look at his contributions, latest or past. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You've not really provided any context for this report. Not even a link to the editor. It makes it far more difficult to figure out if there is any case against them.

Olrac62

• Previous Report placed by Ctrlwiki on 1st February 2022. Very little information provided. Olrac62 was not informed about the discussion by Ctrlwiki. Look at the top of this page, this is something you absolutely have to do. There were no warnings on Olrac62's talk page subsequent to the prior ANI report:
• First report placed by Hotwiki on 16th October 2021.

I see some edits of theirs that you've reverted... they look fairly innocent... adding a cast member to some TV series. Google appears to verify the addition. Can you point out any behaviour that you can say is disruptive? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Google Search is not a reliable source. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, but it's a good way for finding reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. A lot of diffs showing that he is not really providing reliable sources, isn't that enough? Is there still no action? He received many warnings on his talk page still no action? Ok, if that's how Wikipedia policy works. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Throwing your toys out the pram because you've been asked to provide evidence isn't going to encourage a volunteer to look at the issue. Just saying. – ².O.^Boxing 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate another pair of eyes on this one. The edits that Ctrlwiki has identified appear to all be unreferenced film or television credits for Philippino actors, inserted into lists that are all unreferenced to begin with. In an ideal world, all filmography lists would be referenced as well as the likes of Robert De Niro filmography (which in itself is not fully referenced), but for less well known celebrities (from the perspective of en WP), poorer referencing is not unusual. The few diffs I checked appear to be verifiable and not deliberately disruptive. It appears that Olrac625 is being held to a higher standard than other editors of the articles in question. There is however clear WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU going on. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I remembered that I have linked in the edit summary his talk page when I reverted his one edit, and told him that he has talk page, still no response from him. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't guarantee that they have seen your edit summary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: If you want "action" to occur you need to provide evidence and make a proposal so an admin can judge consensus. I looked at your previous threads and I can see why no action has been taken. Not providing any WP:DIFFs and saying "I think there is enough action to be made into this user." does not make any sense.[37] What is the action you want to be made into this user? What does that series of words even mean? A topic-ban? Indefinite ban? Temporary ban? Same thing here which isn't a thread you started but no diffs and no request for action. [38] You need to post links to WP:DIFFs, which you've successfully done. But now you need to actually propose a course of action. Do you want this person blocked for 3 months because WP:IDHT? 1 month? A week? A topic ban from actor related pages? If you want something to happen make a subheading, call it "temporary c-ban proposal for Olrac625", and propose a 72 hour block for adding unreferenced content to articles. Either you get shot down or people agree with you but that'll cause something to happen. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nationalist WP:POVPUSH by User:Ulianurlanova

Tendentious editing based on Russian nationalist POVPUSH by User:Ulianurlanova relating to Balhae - examples: deletion of referenced content based on Russian territorial argument, accusations of Korean ultranationalism, deletion of referenced content based on the "position of Russian science".

Some of his deletion edit summaries are outright misleading or false. Example: he claims that content on the international relations between Balhae (the subject) and the Tang dynasty of China to be "internal Chinese history and not related to the Bohai state".

Section blanking and accusations of source unverifiability: [39], [40], [41], [42]. The source in question which he accused of being unverifiable: [43].

General tendentious and disruptive editing can be seen in the revision history of Balhae. The user took issue with my editing on Balhae and followed me to Liao dynasty, where he deleted referenced content with the edit summary: " I try to restore the article before the encyclopedic type, I remove fabrications without reliable and verified sources from the Qiushufang user". He then accused me of vandalism and said he had filed a complaint against me although I have not received a notice. Further accusation that:

"This user is engaged in falsifying sources - he writes his own author's text and, in order to confirm it, put a link to a source that is not verifiable, or an unreliable source, or even simply turns the article into a platform for his own position. A complaint has been sent to the administration, but I do not know all the procedures. I will do what I can."

As the revision history of Liao dynasty shows, I have been one of the primary contributors on the article for quite some time and nobody has taken an issue with my additions given that they are all referenced. Ulianurlanova's only prior contribution was accusations of Korean nationalism.

He also seems to believe that if a source does not have an ISBN or electronic version, then it is not a suitable source: [44]. However here, Ulianurlanova deleted content which cited Xu 2005, which can easily be found in the Sources section with an electronic link, publisher, and ISBN: [45].

On further inspection of his edit history going back to the beginning, I believe Ulianurlanova is not here to build an encyclopedia and only seeks to push a Russian perspective relating to issues surrounding Korean-Russian territorial dispute - Qiushufang (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary seems to be (intentionally) misleading, the reference is about Balhae, and the statement is in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I cannot read Russian so I have not tried to check those sources, however it would not surprise me. Here is another false edit summary: [46]. He claims that the source added does not say that Choe Chiwon believed the people of Balhae to be Mohe, but the referenced source he deleted provides a direct quotation: "As we know in relation to the origin of the Bohai people, when Gouli [Koguryo] was not yet destroyed, they [the Bohai people] were the useless tribe of Mohe, [and] many tribes were alike; its name was that of the small barbarian nation Sumo, and in the past [this tribe], being in competition with Gouli, moved to the inner area [China]." - Choe Chiwon ([47] Kim, Alexander. "The Historiography of Bohai in Russia." The Historian (SUMMER 2011), vol. 73 no. 2: 284-299, p. 292-293) - Qiushufang (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed a few troublesome edit comments from this user.

• Khabyarovsk was founded by the Russians in 1858 and only became a city in 1880. there were no settlements on this place before the arrival of the Russians. the rest is also well recognizable nonsense from Hwandan Gogi. Bohai never reached the size of the Amur River.

Our page at Khabarovsk appears to be well-cited, and the #Earliest record section clearly states that the location was settled in the 700s -- with self-rule by the Heishui Mohe tribes.

No explanation of how this is from the Hwandan Gogi.

The map at the top of the article at Balhae clearly shows that a portion of the northern border follows the Amur river. Granted, this appears to be our own graphic, but it is odd for this user to contest the text but not the map.

• Please do not touch this paragraph. The position of Russia differs significantly from the position of Korea and from the position of China. And if someone wants to know how, let him go and look at it in a specialized article. And please don't distort the Japanese position.

The "Please do not touch this paragraph" is a troublesome indication that the user is claiming ownership.

The user says "please don't distort the Japanese position", but the text the added (or restored) in the body of the article is itself a distortion.

The Russian scientific archaeological school has its own view of the history of this state, which has significant contradictions with the Korean, and different from the Chinese. Japanese official position coincides with the position of Russia.

I am reasonably fluent in Japanese. The ref on the "Japanese official position" comment is https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/china/pdfs/rekishi_kk_j-2.pdf. This is a long 305-page PDF, apparently a collection of papers by various authors. I find it unconscionable to throw this around as a "citation" without specifying any particular part of this document.

Skimming through for instances of 渤海 (Bokkai) or "Balhae" in Japanese, I also find nothing to suggest that the Japanese position aligns with the Russian contention currently described at Balhae controversies#Russian position, that Balhae is "the first highly organized independent state formation of the Tungus-Manchurian peoples". Balhae is mentioned most often in juxtaposition with Silla, for what that might be worth, as the two were viewed historically from the perspective of the early Japanese imperial court. I cannot find any instances at all of the term ツングース系民族 (Tsungūsu-kei minzoku), nor indeed of the term ツングース (Tsungūsu).

The user's edit also removed this text:

The Russian archaeological school views Balhae as a state of primarily Mohe people while Japanese scholars consider it a tributary state.

I have no particular comment on the Russian side, but this same PDF that I'm skimming through does indeed talk about the Japanese court viewing both Silla and Balhae as tributaries, as the Yamato (Japanese) court sought to project an image as on par with the Tang. This is from page 64 of the PDF, or page 6 of the section marked Part 2: 中国文化の伝播と日本文化の創造的発展の諸相 "The Stages of Chinese Cultural Propagation and Japanese Cultural Creative Development", Chapter 1: 思想、宗教の伝播と変容 "The Propagation and Transformation of Philosophy and Religion", of 日中歴史共同研究 古代・中近世 "Japan-China Historical Joint Research: Ancient, Middle, and Modern Ages", by Tsuyoshi Kojima. Translations are my own.

日本が独自に元号を定めたということは、唐における皇帝の徳から独立し、自分独自の帝国を形成することの意思表示であった。そして、擬似的に新羅や渤海を朝貢国として扱い、蝦夷を夷狄とみなすことで、天皇を中心とする世界を構築しようとしたのである。（日本国内では朝貢使節として扱われたが、新羅も渤海も自身の認識はこれと異なる。）

In setting up their own era names, the Japanese showed independence from the imperial virtue of the Tang, and showed intent to set up their own independent empire. As such, in similar fashion, Japan treated Silla and Balhae as tributary states, and viewed the Ezo as outlanders, and in doing so, they attempted to build a world with the emperor at the center. (While the treatment within Japan was as of tributary states, Silla and Balhae had their own different views.)

Just from my cursory investigation, User:Ulianurlanova does not appear to be in the right here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Qiushufangjust attacks me from the first day of my participation in the project. Taking advantage of the fact that I do not know the procedures for filing complaints. he distorts the text of the article in favor of the Korean position. he distorts the text of the article on the basis of either unverified and unreliable sources, or completely falsifies them. it undoes all my edits but ignores all requests for origins. it removes NPOV template about neutrality where there is no neutrality. Take a look at his professional accusation work here. This is clearly an employee of some Korean agency to promote the South Korean version of this state and remove the prevailing non-Korean version from the article. He turned the article into a platform for Korean nationalist propaganda. And he himself is a violator of those rules of violation of which he accuses me. I looked at the history of this article and it is repeated there constantly. The Koreans or their employees will attack the Russians who demand reliable sources and not extortions and provide historical sources. And then all the Russians are blocked. The project is clearly engaged in propaganda directed against the Russian people, supporting the territorial claims of the Republic of Korea to Russia and the PRC. In fact, he is waging a propaganda war against these states. It does not engage in encyclopedic informing. The rules declared by the project are an empty phrase since the activities of such users as this one are allowed on it. What right does such a project have to complain that it is being blocked in some countries? Because he doesn't want to uphold his own rules.In the text of articles about different peoples and states of East Asia, chauvinistic statements from Koreans constantly appear. But the project supports them and does not allow them to be deleted.Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting block due to this user's intractable position and single-purpose account. See Talk:Balhae#Northern_border_of_Bohai and User_talk:Ulianurlanova#Targeting_the_wrong_editor. Accusation that I am a state funded Korean propagandist and complete unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion. Qiushufang (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• I will add that Ulianurlanova also re-reverted Qiushufang's restoration of content on the Balhae page earlier today here, without edit comment. They did add a comment on the Talk:Balhae page here, claiming (among other things) that "[e]verything that I deleted I deleted based on the fact that the edits were made without approval". I am not used to any approval requirement here at Wikipedia; rather, I am more accustomed to WP:BOLD, so long as the changes can be backed up with references. And, rather, the deletion itself has been contentious, not least as it was of content with multiple references, so presumably the deletion would need further discussion.

At any rate, massively changing a disputed article that is the focus of this ANI thread strikes me as poor form. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • support for Korean Nazism will end with nuclear strikes on your cities. Do you want that ?Ulianurlanova (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

      The above response should lead to an immediate block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • The atmosphere of the project is extremely toxic and justifies attacks on Russians, justifies Korean radical nationalism. And I just got tired of it. Since you do not want to listen to the voice of reason, you must be prepared for the fact that the propaganda that you support will turn against you.Ulianurlanova (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ulianurlanova (talk · contribs) again reverted to remove a large chunk of referenced material, adding as an edit comment the exact same text as above: "support for Korean Nazism will end with nuclear strikes on your cities. Do you want that ?". Not too long afterwards, Britmax (talk · contribs) undid Ulianurlanova's edit, commenting "Reverted inadequately explained changes." This appears to be WP:Edit warring. (Note: -- I meant, on the part of Ulianurlova. I do not think that Britmax is edit warring. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC))

Ulianurlanova's behavior looks very much to me like WP:POVPUSH and WP:NOTHERE, as well as problems with WP:COMPETENCE and an apparent unwillingness to play nice with others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• The account went dormant after their edits here, and, judging from their activity pattern, may remain dormant for a month and then continue disruption. If anybody wants to have action, it should be done now, otherwise we just let if go because there is likely no further response ongoing, and the response we got on this page is substandard.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ulianurlanova appears to be a new editor who is unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. A warning may suffice, unless they break with policy again, at which point an administrator may feel compelled to take action. I will be watching the page and responding to pings. Pious Brother (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Almanbet Janışev

Almanbet Janışev (t c) persistently adds non-standard transliterations of Kyrgyz language (which is written with a Cyrillic alphabet) names to articles about places in Kyrgyzstan. Recent examples are Kochkor and Tash-Döbö, but there are dozens more places where they did this (and which have been reverted, by me and by others). They have been asked repeatedly to stop this, but they don't reply and continue to add similar transliterations. In fact, they have no edits at all in Talk and User talk namespaces. Markussep ^Talk 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to attention here. I would like to add that I also brought this up at the Teahouse yesterday; there is some further detail available in my post there. — JThistle38 (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that the other contributions made by the user tend to be very good (even if the style of writing could use some work) - well-referenced, encyclopedic etc.. It's just the romanisations that are unconstructive, so I would be careful not to mass-revert the user's changes. — JThistle38 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have only reverted the romanizations, since I know they're not helpful. I haven't found a good reference for this PAU romanization of Kyrgyz, the only thing I find there is a Kyrgyz-Turkish online translator, that indeed converts Cyrillic text to latin text (but does not use the q for Kyrgyz к). Markussep ^Talk 13:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A comment about their other contributions: I checked Murat Salihov, this appears to be a literal translation (Google translate?) of the corresponding article in Russian Wikipedia. Markussep ^Talk 08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, Markussep is right, and Jthistle38 has said the same thing at the talk page, which I started with the required attribution template. Contrary to Jthistle38's statement, there's a lot wrong with machine translations and they require cleaning up and need to be strongly discouraged: they are hard to understand and likely to contain inaccuracies. I've templated the page as needing attention and reported it in the "rough translations" section of Pages needing translation into English. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Almanbet Janışev (t c) did it again, see [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. All have been reverted already by an anonymus. It's well possible that they don't respond to our messages because they don't speak English, so I'm going to try Russian. Markussep ^Talk 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

IP User:72.229.1.211 undoing redirects

User:72.229.1.211 has been undoing numerous redirects eg: [55], [56], [57] and [58]. Request immediate indef block. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Balkanite

Balkanite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sorry if this seems trivial. On February 12, 2022, Balkanite added three categories to their talk page:

• Add your stupid comments here:
• Tell me what article was edited incorrectly here:
• All comments that aren't in English should go here:

I had never interacted with this editor, and tagged their page with a warning about unsourced content, as nearly every one of their edits is unsourced.

Balkanite moved my warning to the "Add your stupid comments here" category, and left a response including "Now, go away and find someone else to bother."

I left a polite message asking them to remove my comment from this offensive heading, and to remove their offensive categories, but no luck.

My concern is that this uncivil behavior will continue with others. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that I was being antagonistic?

I clearly put a comment there stating that if it's not important, then there is no need to leave a message.

You left something on my talk page that was completely unimportant. Now, you're alleging that all of my other edits are unsourced, when CLEARLY they are (hence why I told you to check the article that corresponds to the edit I made).

Also, for context: your comment was re-added to the "Add your stupid comments here" category, because it was deemed unnecessary and a waste of time, yet you still wish to continue to accuse me of being antagonistic.

"I had never interacted with this editor, and tagged their page with a warning about unsourced content, as nearly every one of their edits is unsourced."

And yet you chose to interact on the basis of accusing me of not adding sources, which clearly were in another article related to the one I made an edit in. You simply did not wish to look at the sources cited in that article.

Clearly, as stated in WP:NPOV,

Impartial Tone

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

Due to this, you have chosen to engage in a dispute with me over an article that I deliberately left uncited due to the sources coming from the previous article that's clearly related to that article.

If you wish to keep going, go on ahead. You're simply attempting to make yourself feel right, which again, goes against WP:NPOV. Balkanite (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Balkanite:, I can't believe that I actually have to type this out but WP:NPOV is about article and article talk page content. It does not apply to user talk pages. The policies that you're looking for there are WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Designating comments left through community-approved warning templates in a "stupid comments" section probably violates both. Trying to justify it with quoting an irrelevant content policy that self-evidently doesn't apply raises WP:CIR concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking into the substance of Magnolia677's warning, you are indeed making large unsourced edits, such as this one and this one and this one, all of which are completely unsourced and to an article that is covered by discretionary sanctions. Why you would violate one of the Core Content Policies in an article while invoking another in a user page dispute, I can't begin to guess. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Warned. What Eggishorn said. El_C 01:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Bashir Iran: insisting on OR & incompetence

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.

---

Bashir Iran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 5 May 2021 for trying to edit war in this piece of original research (EW diffs [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]). They were doing the same here, considering the Shahnameh (written c. 1000 CE) to be an epic based on the facts of the last 3000 years, and making inferences from that. They were warned for this on 12 May, but had already stopped editing.

On 23 January 2022 Bashir Iran started editing again, adding undue info pushing the theory that Dhu al-Qarnayn in the Quran does not refer, as most scholars think, to Alexander the Great, but to the ancient Persian king Cyrus the Great ([64] [65]). In particular, there is an unpublished preprint advancing this theory which Bashir Iran has repeatedly tried to insert [66] [67] [68], continuing to do so [69] despite having being warned that preprints are not RS [70]. After another warning [71] they stopped adding the preprint itself but continued adding the preprint's theory (based on the appearance of a Persian king named 'Artaxor' on late medieval world maps) [72] [73] [74], sometimes adding text suggesting identification of 'Artaxor' with Dhu al-Qarnayn [75]. We come full circle when this identification is justified by reference to ... the Shahnameh [76].

After it is explained to Bashir Iran that Andrew Gow, a RS of which they are in fact well aware [77], contradicts this identification (Gow clarifies that 'Artaxor' is Artaxerxes I, the references to him being based on late medieval Christian speculations having nothing to do with either Cyrus the Great or Dhu al-Qarnayn [78], cf. [79]), they reply that we should not remove the evidence because a symmetry can clearly show the background of an idea and because deleting this evidence (and removing its citations from Wikipedia) will only help make the wiki more biased [80] (the 'evidence' being unrelated facts and unsourced inferences supporting Bashir Iran's/the preprint's theory).

This shows a fundamental failure to understand the no original research policy, despite multiple recent warnings about this [81] [82]. I am concerned that an editor who thinks that a work like the Shahnameh represents 3000-year old facts, and who –not understanding that medieval Latinized names are frequently corrupted– adds an explicit denial of 'Artaxor' referring to 'Artaxerxes' to an article [83], directly contradicting the RS cited just in order to push an unpublished theory, should continue to edit here. I'm reporting mainly because of the huge amount of time this user is taking up (cf. this concerning message at my talk). Given their combined insistence and lack of understanding, I do not think they will become a net-positive to the project anytime soon. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked for two weeks. Let's see if that has an effect, although I'm pretty dubious about it although they may disappear for a while again. If the same editing pattern continues if he returns, I think an indefinite block will be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 13 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.

Miami IPs falsely listing Tha Bizness

• 2607:FB91:1989:2853:11C2:9877:7F06:2BE6 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:586:8400:E160:D3D:D39:C3C:1593 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:586:8400:E160:53A:19EB:F89D:CC0C (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:586:8400:E160:A415:F862:16A6:826E (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone using IPs from Greater Miami, Florida, has been falsely adding Tha Bizness to multiple music articles, falsely asserting that the Seattle-based production team has been credited for working on the song or album.[84][85][86][87][88]

The IPs are in two IP ranges. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc.

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

As noted within the title of the discussion itself, it seems like there are some major/continuing problems with the edits of the user in question.

Edit warring:

As shown from multiple warnings over the past few months on the user's talk page (User talk:CreecregofLife#Edit warring, User talk:CreecregofLife#Betty White image, User talk:CreecregofLife#February 2022), Creecreg has been shown to constantly edit war with other users/on multiple articles, despite others' input. One of the current (possibly former?) edit wars is also occurring at Pokémon Legends: Arceus (see discussion here), which recently had to be protected due to this user edit warring ([89]).

Was also previously warned of edit warring in a previous case here, though that appears to have not been the last edit warring from them...

Edits against MOS:

As shown within the Pokémon Legends: Arceus edit war linked above, the user's edit war here is actually going against MOS:CAPS and MOS:SENTENCECAPS.

Usage of unreliable sourcing:

In another of the edit wars linked above, the user is edit warring over unreliable sourcing on The Fungies!, despite what they've been told within the talk page discussion about the issue. This is also not the first time the user has attempt to use unreliable sourcing/unverified social media accounts for sourcing, as shown in this warning.

---

Despite multiple explanations regarding why certain edits are incorrect, the user tends to disregard them and edit war over them instead, even attempting to accuse me of edit warring due to my own, "biases and arbitrary skepticism". There may be more ongoing issues apart from what I've listed here, but most of the above listed is making me believe this may be a WP:DONTGETIT case, which at this point, is becoming quite disruptive.

Hopefully this can be resolved soon, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This user is abusing their power to intimidate and frame themselves in the right while repeatedly reverting edits to how they see fit, framing lesser-experienced users as edit warrers while engaging in the exact same behavior. They have been disruptive about the issue for days now and clearly will resort to anything to get their way. They never assumed good faith nor did they ever try to be civil. As you can see, none of the above examples are actual edit warring. The PLA edits are the fulfillment of an edit request, which is not a violation. The disruptive editing policy clearly states that disruptive editors can be reverted, and every time that Magitroopa reverted an edit on The Fungies, it was disrupting what had already settled. They are now choosing to retry me for previous incidents I was acquitted on. Magitroopa is not above the policies they try to enforce on others. Implying that I did anything wrong by leaving an edit warring notice on their talkpage is a perfect demonstration of such overstepping behaviors.--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet that's the exact issue. You claim to be a 'lesser-experienced' user, yet when you are explained certain policies/issues with your edits, you refuse to listen and take to edit warring instead, as shown in the examples above. Also no clue where this claim of being uncivil is coming from- if I was uncivil somewhere and I missed it, I do apologize, but I think you're confusing 'civility' and 'trying to explain to you' together. You're also attempting to say that your edits on Pokémon Legends: Arceus are not against MOS just because it's answering an edit request, so you clearly still don't understand what you did wrong there. Magitroopa (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(multiple EC) @CreecregofLife: while you're right that at least in the case of The Fungies! the OP could be reasonably be said to edit warring as well, this does not excuse your edit warring. Importantly, I checked and confirmed you seemed to be edit warring at Pokémon Legends: Arceus and Spider Man: No Way Home which did not involve Magitroopa, and all of these were in less than 2 months. (Betty White seems a bit complicated since there was a lot of editing at the time, but I did see 2-3 reverts from you and over a single issue which it seems was already being discussed on the talk page.) In the Spiderman case, both you and the other edit warrior were warned [90] so besides the notices on your talk page, you've been told in clear terms you need to cut it out. So yes you really do need to cool it on the reverts.

Further, while we don't rule on content disputes here, in the Fungies case, it seems clear WP:consensus is against you [91]. Yet despite that you continued to reinstate your edit [92]. As I've now said on the talk page, if you're not willing to accept our requirement to cite WP:reliable sources for information you want to keep when there is dispute, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. And yes an unverified Twitter account is not a reliable source.

Also AFAICT Magitroopa has no power. Both of you are extended confirmed editors and that's it. It's impossible for an editor to "abuse" some power they do not have.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As someone who's had issues with this editor, I concur with Magitroopa's concerns. I also have my own additional concerns that this user is a sock, but even putting that aside, this user has clear edit warring and disruptive editing issues and is honestly bordering on WP:NOTHERE. It's clear they don't understand, or they are unwilling to. Amaury • 07:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t recall having issue with you Amaury. I am sorry. I am not a disruptive editor. I am very much here to be constructive and my edit history shows that. I promise to be better, but I still don’t like the attitude Magitroopa came in here with. I will say, the Betty White image thing was because consensus hadn’t been properly reached. Retaining the image wasn’t even made an option when no such elimination had formally been made. The person had jumped the gun. I was trying to keep it as it was until the discussion had actually concluded. --CreecregofLife (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Decided to look a bit into Amaury's thinking of this user being a sock, and found it interesting that their first edit was "More reference updates". Upon checking the history of that article, Star Lotulelei, it appears that this was their first 'reference updates' edit. No previous blocks on the IP (141.157.254.24), though the filter log and talk page are interesting, with my own previous history with them. Same sort of not understanding from the IP, including a claim of myself reverting based on personal issue rather than policy issue. And here we are, with the same claims continuing... Magitroopa (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not being a sock though, just an anonymous editor creating an account, and there's no overlap. The IP's last edit is on November 29, 2021, and CreecregofLife's first edit is on November 30. @Amaury: were you referring to this? Because sockpuppetry accusations are serious and shouldn't be made lightly or without presenting evidence. —El Millo (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There are about half a dozen edits that were made by me after the account was created, but those were basically made in ignorance of being logged out (such as having accidentally logged out on one device logging out all devices that were logged into that account), or having not logged in to such an avenue in the first place (such as the mobile app). That it’s still been over two months since that last happened shows they weren’t done out of malice or misuse.--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I was referring to an issue on another article that led to them being reported here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen/Archive#06 December_2021. While nothing ended up happening there, it doesn't mean they're not a sock, just that they're not a sock of that user or that the evidence presented wasn't compelling enough. However, note that I'm just saying I have concerns that they may be a sock, I'm not outright making accusations. Amaury • 08:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Just because you don't like a source doesn't make it a poor source" Yep... and here we are, still not understand what an 'unreliable source' is. Magitroopa (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Pokémon Legends: Arceus and The Fungies! cases, both the talk pages and the edit summaries, Creecreg is constantly being combative (as I already described them here at ANEW not too long ago) and acts arrogant towards other editors despite clearly not understanding or knowing of some basic policies, while accusing other editors of having biases such as considering an unverified tweet to be an unreliable source, when that's explicitly stated not to be a reliable source in WP:V, more precisely at WP:TWEET. —El Millo (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have made it no secret that I was an IP editor for about a month or so (or was it two nonths?) before joining. I am sorry for being combative. Yes, I’ve gotten into arguments, but that doesn’t mean I’m not here to be productive. In fact I very much have been productive. I’ll concede, maybe I should be calmer, maybe I have been stubborn. But I don’t think I should be blocked for it.--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: On a lighter note, it is not our goal/hope at all for you to be blocked and leave here forever. If these issues can be resolved and not be encountered in the future, that would be absolutely great. However, when it comes to this many warnings/incidents, and they continue to happen, there does come a time where the issues need to be addressed.

I hope you understand that we are not trying to make you mad/sad/etc. with this, but hope you can learn and improve as an editor from this. In the meantime, I would highly encourage you to read & understand certain policies. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: I personally don't think you should be blocked yet (unless there is something to the sockpuppetry claims but that's likely best dealt with at SPI) but as I said you really need to cool it with the edit warring. It doesn't matter who else is edit warring, unless it's covered by WP:NOT3RR then stop reverting so much. Even if it is covered by an exemption, most of the time the reverting should also only while waiting for a block which you've asked for.

As for the lesser-experienced editor thing, well here's my problem. If you are an lesser-experienced editor, then why are you so sure you're right? For example, when three other editors had already told you we need an RS to cover the cancellation claim and two of these had said a tweet from an unverified account is not a reliable source, why did you still insist on reverting/re-adding the claim?

You can't ignore what editors are telling you when it's backed by our policies and guidelines just becaused it's not civil enough for you or you don't like how they told you or you don't like one of the editors. And I looked at the article talk page discussion and while not perfect, the discussion seems civil and clear enough to me anyway. I did not look at what happened on your talk page or carefully at the edit summaries as ultimately they should not prevent you taking on board what you were told on the article talk page.

Frankly I feel the discussion on the article talk page sufficiently informed you of our policies and guidelines, but if you still had doubts, it was fine for you to continue to ask questions on the article talk page, or somewhere else like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. What you shouldn't have done is continue to edit war/re-instate your edit. Maybe it wasn't the best decision for Magitroopa to revert you either but it's always difficult when an editor seems to clearly be in the wrong (in this case due to a lack of reliable sources) as supported by other editors but continues to stubbornly re-instate their edit.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoke

Will an administrator please take action on User talk:Pee Pee Poo Poo99, because this edit was disruptive, opening up a lot of unblock requests. Severestorm28 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, all taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Croatia TX 2201 4844

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

---

Someone needs to revoke TPA for this block evading sock. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Pri2000

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.

---

• Pri2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

She is trying to influence the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Kalnawat by messaging on voter's talk page [93]. She has also commented/voted thrice.106.214.249.231 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Girth Summit just identified a similar IP making similar claims as a block-evader. And Pri2000 has not !voted multiple times at the AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See this [94].106.214.249.231 (talk) 16:09, 14 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 talk:AleDenshi

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.

---

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

I received an email from this user asking for personal information about blocked Lyanbox782 (talk · contribs), whose rename request I declined HERE . I replied on their user page. They say their account exists for contacting Wikipedia admins. I find this whole affair unsettling. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not following proper Wikipedia etiquette and not replying here earlier.

I was contacting Deepfriedokra (talk · contribs) about Lyanbox782 (talk · contribs) because I falsely believed that the former was responsible for the rename request of the later.

I apologize for my ignorance regarding this whole situation; I now know that this request was denied by Deepfriedokra (talk · contribs) and was imitated by a different user; this is all the information I needed. AleDenshi (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@AleDenshi: Ah, but that is not all the information you asked for. You asked about their real-life identity. Otherwise, I'd have not been concerned. You also asked how I knew them-- quite prying, I think. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

AleDenshi, the self-description on your user page IS a bit baffling. Why are you on Wikipedia? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my user page comes off weird, the reason I made it that way is because I only intend to use this account to discuss the Lyanbox name issue; I do not wish to contribute or edit Wikipedia.

Also, regarding the Lyanbox emails: I probably typed my mail wrong; What I asked was:

"but how did you know? Is this his real, legal name? Did he doxx himself?"

The reason I sent you that mail in the first place was because I had heard of the name "Martin Lavin" pertaining to Lyanbox before, and I had no idea how you or anyone on Wikipedia would know about that name, since I thought it was private knowledge in my internet circle.

I also said this in my email:

"Please reply with any additional information you are willing to share about Lyanbox as well."

The reason I asked for additional information "you were willing to share" was just in case you found out about this name (Martin Lavin) from some other source. I'm sorry if this is phrased in some doxx-y way, I definitely didn't mean it that way and I wasn't expecting any sensitive personal information regarding Lyanbox from you, I was just curious as to how someone who edits Wikipedia would discover the Martin name. AleDenshi (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"I only intend to use this account to discuss the Lyanbox name issue; I do not wish to contribute or edit Wikipedia." Given how fishy and inappropriate all of this is, I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order, and so done. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:05, 12 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:Greatyu

• Greatyu (talk · contribs)

Likely a hijacked account (has not edited WP since 2014, then starts to post link spam). Needs admin attention as this looks like some part of a bot network. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked indef, let see what happens now.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Rapid false editing by anon editor 76.30.143.210 on U.S. Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services (Xavier Becerra and Andrea Palm)

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

---

For reasons unbeknownst to me, 76.30.143.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing the pages of Xavier Becerra and Andrea Palm to make it that Becerra is no longer the HHS Secretary and that Palm has assumed the office. There are absolutely zero reports of Becerra resigning or leaving the position and Palm assuming the office of the Secretary. This user also changed the page name from Andrea Joan Palm to Andrea Katrina Palm even though it is clear in the congressional record that her name is Joan, not Katrina (see here.) This user has made nearly 20 edits to these two pages alone in the past two hours as of this message going up. They have in the past been blocked from editing other pages and may potentially need to be blocked from further editing, as most of the editing going on as of late from them is disruptive and false. Please look further into this. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked - next time it'd probably be better to use WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will keep that in mind for future instances. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 17:20, 14 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.

Users JoeDempsey66 and CoolGuySlate--request for IP ban and removal of edits due to vandalist

• JoeDempsey66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoolGuySlate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

This message concerns the Wikipedia users JoeDempsey66 and CoolGuySlate. I believe they are the same user, whom I know in real life. Unfortunately, he's been vandalizing the Chris Sharp page with spam edits that are demonstrably false. I believe that this qualifies him for an IP ban (to prevent further vandalism) as well as removal of these edits (as they are untrue and slanderous). Could you look into these users?

Thanks, Plinkachoo

I have linked the Chris Sharp and Carter Stanley pages, which are two pages that he's vandalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Sharp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Stanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinkachoo (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick look at Chris Sharp shows garden variety vandalism by JoeDempsey66. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, Plinkachoo is a single-purpose account who has only edited Chris Sharp and related articles, so this report may not be from a totally uninterested party. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

CoolGuySlate has not edited that article for almost a year, and has significant activity in unrelated areas. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see enough connection to warrant a SPI. I don't see recent vandalism by CGS, and JD66 has not touched the article since receiving his most recent warning. I don't think there's any action necessary regarding those two editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unreferenced content by Kzeeez100s2

Kzeeez100s2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding unreferenced content despite a level 4 warning. See for example this, this and this. FDW777 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Report this user to WP:AIV, not here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Blocked 31 hours by Spencer (talk · contribs). Any more comments about this user before I NAC this thread? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: they have been chaotically warring here as well. They do not listen. It looks like a Greek nationalist with pro-Serb sentiment. See here. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@OyMosby: That's what I thought, too, with edits like [95] and [96], though I didn't recognize the Serbian nationalism like in their diffs at Ustaše, and particularly [97]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) is not civil with multiple people

It started when I edited the Black people and White people page.

We both agree that scientifically race does not exist, but thinks that I am offensive by saying that black and white people don't exist, which is scientifically true, not black or white person exists. He requires me to have a reference and stop making forum edits, but you only need human logic to understand that black and white people don't exist. I desire to make it clear from the beginning that such concepts are erroneous and are a social construct. He thinks the article is clear enough that it is a social construct only, and not scientific. He thinks he fights systemic racism, but I think by not being clear enough that the articles are talking about a scientifically erroneous term makes them part of the systemic racism, where people think it's ok to use a concept such as race, white and black people.

He reverted all edits where I specified that black and white skin colour does not exist.

He contacted me to call my edits non-sensical.

Then a row of insults from him to me, based on the reverted edits:

• imbecile that should not be allowed to edit on Wikipedia
• trolltard
• full of shit
• threatened with WP:ANI

My insults to him:

• suggesting that he and Donald Trump have a lot in common
• that he is a true Wikipedia oligarch

Some comments are on my talk page, some on his, some on White people, some on Black people. No private messages.

On Andy's talk page, he is having a similar row with CycoMa1 (talk) Andy has another ANI notice with Govvy (talk) on 27th of January 2022.

TudorTulok (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@TudorTulok: You missed out that you specifically say "Your age explains it all, why you and Donald Trump have so much in common." and were linking to Quora. And you didn't seem to make clear that dispute started after you made utter nonsense edits like [98] [99]. Anyway I'm confused why you're here. Are you asking ask to block you? You could simply stop editing by yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that my edits are non-sensical but that he said that they are non-sensical.

I did not say I want so stop editing wikipedia.

You are missing the points on how Andy behave to me, Govvy and CycoMa1.

He calls Cycoma1 incompetence, he provkes me calling me full of shit, trolltard, imbecile, threatend with ANI, that he will have a good laugh if I report me. My compare with someone with Donald Trump is that I can't believe his grumpiness and attitude, how much it remind me of Donald Trump, called him an oligarch, as I can't believe how much power he has on Wikipedia.

Are you asking to block you? - is that a suggestion, insinuation that I should be blocked before the decision was made. Are you in favour of that decision before it was made. Are you suggesting that letting AndyTheGrump with his grmpy attitude towards 3 Wikipedia is a better solution than telling the truth? TudorTulok (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

you are telling me that an edit that say note that white and black skin does not eixst in non-sensical.

Have you seen a person with white or black seen? I have never seen black or white skin.

The Quora link is for opinons of people that don't believe in race, just like me. That was to back up the fact that I am not the only one that feels the same, that race is not a real thing and there is not need to be called imbecile, trolltard and full of shit by AndyTheGrump. TudorTulok (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• "you only need human logic to understand that black and white people don't actually exist" ← I think I need another coffee. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  have you seen a person with black or white skin in your life? From Black people Some perceive "black" as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result neither use nor define it, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation. Some have commented that labeling people "black" is erroneous as the people described as "black" actually have brown skin. Why would you need another coffee? TudorTulok (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's almost as if idiom didn't exist in your world. I'm drinking white coffee by the way. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Idiomising is what reductive is in the derogatory, outdated, reductive and otherwise unrepresentative label is. Wikipedia should not take part into its reductive nature, but explain that black and white skin does not exist, black and white people don't exist either, and that they are a form of oudated social terms. TudorTulok (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yikes, stuff from TudorTulok at places like Talk:Black people#Black people never existed show an extremely poor grasp of English (either that, or they are a troll). In this edit, TudorTulok added "(note that black skin does not exist)" to the lead of Black people (correctly reverted by AndyTheGrump). @TudorTulok: Wikipedia requires a certain level of competence and you should not edit articles unless you understand the basic concepts. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  it has not been decide that AndyTheGrumo is correct in his edits. You are making assumptions. You should not be on this thread to take sides. You should be here to comment and judge the behaviour of the two of us. This is not commenting if the original edit is correct or not, or my competence.

  I feel that people might come here to take Andy's side and endorsing him in calling me imbecile, full of shit, and trolltard, and make it an acceptable behaviour.

  You canot decide that I am troll from an edit alone. I have years of modest contribution on Wikipedia. TudorTulok (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) On AndyTheGrump's talk page, TudorTulok accused us of being a "team" and of "praying to the wrong God"[100]. Since I'm a Christian, I don't like that. Some of Andy's words are too strong (IMHO), but I can fully understand that a constructive and experienced editor gets angry when confronted with TudorTulok's nonsense. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is all about supporting AndyTheGrump to call other users imbecile, full of shit, trolltards and that this is acceptable as future behaviour on Wikipedia because of a minor edit that does not match your opinons, but it is scientifically accurate. This is a team, where eveyone thinks the same, that Andy is right, and I am wrong. The '''praying to the wrong God''' part is for Andy alone, that he thinks that black and white skin exists. I continue to say the same thing, you call it nonsense, but it is not. Black and white skin does not exist, it is an idiom, but you can repeat for a many days as you want, you will get the same result: black and white skin does not exist, it is erronous. Why is wikipedia going with the social construct, and not with scientific proof, calling black people an idiom and an erronous term from the beginning, I don't know, this is the discussion we were supposed to have after my edit, not calling my edits a '''non-sense, and then imbecile that should not edit on Wikipedia, full of shit, trolltard'''. I repeat, black and white skin does not exist. TudorTulok (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Whilst Andy should proably tone down the insults, he is undoubtedly correct that many of your talkpages posts are indeed bordering on the nonsensical, and more importantly they are not contributing to the improvement of any of the articles. Everybody is quite aware that those included in the social construct "white people" do not hve skin that is exactly white (#FFFFFF) and vice-versa. But that is how they are referred to (see WP:COMMONNAME). Either contribute in a manner that is not causing a time sink for others, or don't contribute at all. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

While I'd voice it in less earthy terms, I can't say I disagree with AndyTheGrump. There is a clear WP:CIR issue here that is leading to disruptive editing by TudorTulok. He needs to walk away from editing on racial issues or to be topic banned. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was uncivil. I had raging toothache, to add to my usual grumpiness. Possibly, without the toothache, I would have found more polite synonyms for 'imbecile', and 'trolltard'. For my lack of eloquence I apologise. As for the rest, I think TudorTulok's own comments make it entirely clear that I was right to revert their facile and offensive literalism. It should be noted that such facile literalism hasn't been confined to articles (and talk pages: TudorTulok made similar comments on multiple ones) concerning 'race' and skin colour. See also this example on the 3D film article ("they are not in fact 3D") [101], and their use of Talk:Democracy as a forum. [102]. Not to mention this example of vacuous amateur etymology at Talk:Democratic republic. [103] Confronted with such literalism (also demonstrated above), I think it should be fairly obvious why my patience was somewhat limited, having seen TudorTulok resort to adding such nonsense to articles, after failing to achieve whatever objective they had in posting it on article talk pages. I could no doubt have gone into more depth about 'race' as a social construct, about the usage of 'Black' and 'White' as descriptors of putative sub-groups of humanity rather than assignments based on spectral analysis, and on why belonging to a social construct actually matters to real people, and shouldn't simply be dismissed as imaginary, but it seemed evident that I'd be wasting my time. If I hadn't seen TudorTulok's earlier talk-page forum-mongering I would simply have reverted the article posts as vandalism. Maybe I should have done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I'm glad you have apologised here, because those were indeed blockable. I can appreciate how frustrating dealing with someone like this can be, but while there are edit warring exclusions listed at WP:3RRNO, WP:NPANO is a redlink: WP:NPA applies to everyone, including trolls, vandals and the merely incompetent. If you find yourself extra grumpy with toothache again, please consider stepping back and let someone else deal with it.

TudorTulok, I don't know whether there is a language barrier getting in the way, but some of your comments are so perverse as to be indistinguishable for trolling. I suggest you step back from this entire topic area and line of discussion, before you are prevented from editing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• No comment on Andy (already handled), but TudorTulok, you might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You are absolutely on the path to a topic ban or indef block if you stay on the path you are on. Wikipedia isn't here to push your world view onto the masses. We're here to publish what reliable sources say. Meanwhile, I'm going to go back to my black coffee (or is it really black?) and read the news. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Let's hope it's not Nescafé. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang block on TudorTulok is needed until it is clear they have understood the purpose of talk pages (to improve articles, not to discuss topics), and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia i.e. based on secondary sources (not the opinions of its editors). At first I thought a race-related TBAN would work, but we have tedious comments like "Muscles don't have memory" at Muscle memory (the lead makes it very clear that it's the brain that stores memories) and "Never existed" at Democracy. I can't see any productive contributions in 2021 or 2022 that the user has made. Engaging with them is a time sink.
  To spell it out clearly to TudorTulok, so they cannot feign ignorance, let's take the example of "Muscles don't have memory". If you think there is a problem in the article muscle memory implying that muscles have memory, you need to pinpoint specific passages and would be best off improving them yourself by editing them to more closely align with the facts from the references the passage cites, or adding more facts from additional reliable sources. If what you object to is the title then you need to search through biology journals, books and academic writings to find out what the common name for the term is. If it's not "muscle memory" then you can say "here are some sources that use the term X - should we use this in the article instead?" — Bilorv (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Given this and this provided as examples of similar behavior at other talk pages/articles, I'm convinced that this is either an issue with understanding common/idiomatic expressions or a long-winded way of wasting our time. A boomerang block might be the best option here. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Non admin comment. Throwing a wp boomerang at someone for reporting that they were called a "trolltard", even if the reporter is of marginal helpfulness, makes Wikipedia a more toxic place. It is essentially saying that it is OK to call people trolltards when there may be a language barrier. Is that OK? Is civility optional when you have more edits? Trolltard is what, a mentally retarded person who trolls? Calling someone a "retard" is demeaning, then banning them for reporting it sends the message "shut up and take it retard, new members are not welcome here"

Maybe we should address the abuse behavior reported on its merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's already been done. Addressing it was a very quick issue because its merits were minimal. We are now looking to address the problematic editing; far more damaging to the project and therefore requiring a more thorough approach. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has apologized, and in my opinion the apology is satisfactory. If another editor thinks that any action needs to be taken against him, so be it, but I won't be the one. Meanwhile, the complainant has doubled down here, with comments such as "I repeat, black and white skin does not exist" and "it is an idiom, but you can repeat for a many days as you want, you will get the same result: black and white skin does not exist, it is erronous [sic]." Also, don't put words in my mouth: I'm not advocating for a block of the complainant for their reporting AndyTheGrump's behavior, and no one is suggesting that they "shut up and take it" (to use your phrasing). However, blocking the complainant might be a necessary course of action to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, as a TBAN of race-related issues might not be sufficient due to this being a problem at other topics as well. If you have other suggestions, feel free to make them here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you propose OP get a race related topic ban for their views, should you suggest a tban on mental health topics for Andy calling people retarded? That is as serious as calling someone a racial or sexual slur. It is a slur against people with mental health issues and is 4chan discourse. It feels like calling people retarded is acceptable here if you have a toothache. Can I call other editors retards also, if I apologize? Is Andy also allowed to continue calling people retards? Or only on bad days? No warning, nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

In the circumstances, that feels unwise. Yes, there may be CIR issues, but they don't seem to be of any consequence as of yet. Theknightwho (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support boomerang. The OP's original query has been resolved, so now the focus has shifted to other problematic behaviors, his time, by them. SN54129 18:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How was it resolved? Someone called him a retard, and admins shrugged it off. It looks like the resolution is Andy is allowed to call people retards if he apologizes when called out. Cool, we are allowed to call each other retards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, "boomerang" is the wrong term. He came here with a legitimate complaint, no one questions that, and Andy even apologized. WP:Boomerang really doesn't apply. Second, I think TudorTulok understands, or should, that they are on notice for unrelated events, ie: their POV pushing. And now, due to this report, there are many, many more eyes on them. They have a very short piece of WP:ROPE and a block will likely happen rather instantly if they continue to edit this way. I think we all need to just let it calm down and go edit articles now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  WP:GLASSHOUSES may be a better term for OP's current situation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I consider TudorTulok to be also on a short rope concerning personal attacks. Comparing users to Donald Trump[104][105] is highly offensive. I'd rather be called a "trolltard" for my part, if I had a choice. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

Retard is a mental health slur that is equivalent to the big racial slurs. I work with the people who have learning disabilities, and the word is disgusting. So is it the case, on Wikipedia, calling people retards is semi acceptable? If my first edit was to call someone a retard, would I be allowed to keep editing? The number of admins rallying to defend hate speech here is a red flag. Wikipedia is not for /others/. This place is toxic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. I don't think anyone here is "rallying to defend hate speech" or condoning said word choice. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Read this comment thread. Someone above you said being called a trump supporter is more offensive than retard, which is hate speech. Bishonen popped in to defend the use of retard. He didn't need to, but they wanted to make it clear - they agree calling people "retarded" isn't very offensive. Sure, pick on people with mental health problems they can't control. It's the Wikipedia way right? Will you confirm, do you think there should be any consequences to calling people a retard, or (pick your favorite slur)? 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment Ctrl F indicates that "retard" (at this point in time) has been used 17 times on this page. Every time by you... and you have conflated it with psychiatric illness. Please don't do that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello hate speech Jim. *tard is used to indicate retard. It is hate speech. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur The exact usage of *tard is mentioned here. Sorry you are so hate filled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:300F:C948:B5E8:B730:4F44 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am more familiar with developmental conditions that have historically been lumped together as "retardation" than you will ever be. You work with people with learning disabilities and describe them as "mental health problems". I'm not going to block you. I hope someone else does. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already blocked the IP for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks... WP:AGF was wearing thin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's funny because I have an adult stepdaughter who is mildly special needs, went to special ed, and she grew up using the word "retard", with a family that jokes about the word, but never used it in hate, but they used it, and still do. It took the venom out of the word. Made it powerless to hurt her at school when the other kids used it on her, and lord knows, they were going to. I'm not a huge fan of artificially putting words in good and bad categories. People just invent new words. The intent is the problem, not the word. But I digress..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly... and fake outrage for the purposes of scoring points here is far more hurtful than slips in political correctness. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That IP was definitely a troll and it's good they were blocked, but can we stop saying it's ok to use a modified slur? Andy apologized, and that's good, no action needed, but defending the use of the slur is gross. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think anyone has done that. I find the concept of someone weaponising fake outrage about my "state of being" (not going to share beyond that) way more offensive than the use of "tard" Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• sometime lurker Comment: If someone comes into a library and puts books in the wrong place, the first thing we would not do is start abusing them. If fact, as anyone with a modicum of professional training knows (let alone human civility), the thing we never do is resort to abuse. I'm struck by how an editor who basically made some annoying mistakes is subject to offensive language, pile-on and blame-the-victim. Why behaviour essentially unacceptable in any public setting is repeatedly excused in Wikipedia continues to strike me as one of this place's greatest problems. We are not a bar or bazaar, for better or worse, we operate as a public service, we need to perform to standards that match that status. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The reason is that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to post whatever comes into their minds. We would prefer that those countering nonsense did so politely and maintained a polite facade despite all evidence that being nice wasn't effective, but what is more important is that nonsense is prevented from damaging articles. Anyone objecting to the reported language is welcome to monitor TudorTulok and make sure they don't damage the encyclopedia. Watching the articles mentioned in this report would also be desirable because clearly nonsense periodically erupts there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I have no quarrel with the identification of the problem (perhaps my library analogy was too obtuse?); it's a question of how we deal with the problem. There's a substantial difference. I don't see any reason why dealing with people in a civil manner, no matter what the circumstances, is a matter of "preference"; there's no zero-sum game between civility and stopping "damage". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• What we're more or less doing here is we're judging TudorTulok by a different civility standard because unlike AndyTheGrump, TudorTulok is doing a worse job at actually contributing to the encyclopedia. This is wrong and I don't believe we should exempt people from the rules for being productive editors and a corollary of that is not judging people harshly because they're unproductive editors. So what if TudorTulok made a bunch of shitty WP:NOTFORUM comments? Do we really indef for that without warnings? Because the only person who warned TudorTulok is the same person who called them a "trolltard" so I can see why they wouldn't take the warning at face value. Two people here are accused of misusing talk pages to write bad things and we should either block both of them or neither of them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  If I remember correctly, the ugly exchange of words began with this conversation on Andy's talk page. I saw some of Andy's edits before, they were always defending scientific standards against racist pseudo-science. TudorTulok attacked Andy's integrity as an editor without any cause, and now they are complaining that Andy overreacted. First you provoke somebody, then you take them to court, hoping they'll hang. Andy apologized and they are obviously here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not so sure about TudorTulok, and that has nothing to do with double standards. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, but the problem is TudorTulok successfully provoked Andy and he did overreact, so the ANI thread is somewhat merited. So rather than this being easily "editor is WP:NOTHERE and is personally attacking others" we have two editors that are personally attacking and only one that's doing a bad job at contributing ("He started it!" isn't a valid defence). Usually the standard is to warn someone before blocking them for bad contributions unless it's really egregious. The WP:NOTFORUM behaviour isn't "really egregious" in my mind. I think we should make it clear that TudorTulok's behaviour is also unacceptable and they'll be blocked if they keep it up. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are we? AFAICT, the only one who came close to suggesting a block of TudorTulok for something akin to civility reasons (more specifically NPA) is Bishonen and even they said "short rope" suggesting it wasn't quite there yet. In my first reply (which was also the first reply), I did mention the possibility of a block but I never comment on AndyTheGrump also being blocked. My comment was instead intended as a "what's the purpose of complaining about another editor's behaviour when your own behaviour has been just as bad or even worse". I correctly guessed that the thread was ill-advised since while AndyTheGrump's behaviour was a problem, so too was the OP's. (I should also mention that when I commented, I didn't make the connection between trolltard and retard so AndyTheGrump's behaviour didn't seem quite as bad as it was.)

  Several people have suggested a block of TudorTulok or a topic ban but AFAICT this isn't generally for civility reasons or at best that's a minor reason for why they feel it's appropriate. Instead it's because their silly soapboxing which they even put into article space and then kept repeating here. Blocking an editor for reasons unrelated to civility when they themselves drawn attention to this behaviour by opening an ill-advised thread dealing with some genuine incivility from them and another party is not judging editors by different civility standards since we aren't blocking them for civility reason.

  There's also some recognition of the fact AndyTheGrump has acknowledged wrongdoing which hopefully means they are less likely to repeat said behaviour whereas TudorTulok hasn't really. (Their initial response could sort of be taken as an acknowledgement that their Trump comment was incivil, but IMO their later responses suggest they still really don't get it. More significantly, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of the wider problems with their behave besides civility.)

  BTW, personally I'm opposed to a block or topic ban at this time. I think TudorTulok has got a clear message by now that their behaviour is unacceptable, mostly for reasons unrelated to civility. If they keep at it, we can consider a block or topic ban.

  Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur with above editors who recommend a close with a warning to the Original Poster. AndyTheGrump has already apologized. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• On the content issue I note that the original poster says "such concepts are erroneous and are a social construct". That is a contradiction. A social construct exists, so is not erroneous. Nobody is saying that anyone is literally black or white. On the behavioral issue I note that AndyTheGrump was provoked, and that he has apologised. As with many threads here this should have been closed many posts ago to avoid the possibility of escalation. And, by the way, I suffer from a mental condition and know several people with learning difficulties, but do not believe that AndyTheGrump used any word in such a grossly offensive way that the apology should be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• I want to apologise for everything, and how I spoke to Andy. Editing talk pages as if they are Quora pages it's not correct. Quora and Wikipedia are not the same places. I am not a troll and have been on Wikipedia for years, without much contribution in the last years. I am sorry for editing all the talk pages and imposing original research, not being aware that editing talk pages could be trolling or need references. I wasn't aware that incorrect scientific terms are acceptable by both the social and scientific worlds. I understand now that every word is socially acceptable. I thought that if it's scientifically not right, it's not real, creating confusion. I speak four languages and understand the etymology of most words. It is painful to see daily incorrect metaphors and idioms in the speech and thought that Wikipedia would be a place to have only scientifically correct terms. Or at least make people aware that they are idioms and only socially acceptable, but not scientifically accurate. TudorTulok (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I find this explanation stretching all credibility. That said, I think we can close this section as a warning to TudorTulok not to use Wikipedia for advocacy, and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat

User:Gounder parambarai Threatened legal action in this otherwise non-constructive edit: diff tw^sabin 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Good job. You left them a proper warning. Most likely they don't understand how this site works and we should see whether they follow the warning before doing anything more. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've left a note on their talk page that adds to your well placed template. I'm not inclined to block because it was vague enough to warrant a warning, but not so much to retract. If they double down and repeat something similar, come back and myself or one of my esteemed colleagues will be happy to swing the ban hammer on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• SPI filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gounder parambarai. Second account showed up after block: Tn Urali Gounder.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:68.169.141.35 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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.

---

Openly criticizing Wikipedia on my talk page. [106] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm.. how is this is an issue for an administrators? Is this issue the criticism? Criticism is perfectly okay - sometimes consensus changes, and even if it doesn't people are allowed to at least express their disagreement. Is the issue because it was on your talk page? You can just ask them to take it somewhere else... Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, you need to notify the notify the other user when you take them to ANI. I have alerted the other user at their registered account (Douglassriverview). Singularity42 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: This edit was made by an IP; I posted the notification on their talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been here since July 2012 according to the logs, and boy do I have a list of criticisms of this place. I also have a similar number about Twitter and Facebook, where I’ve also been for a decade or so. But unlike Twitter and Facebook, criticising this place is unlikely to get me booted from here. In fact some of our most prolific editors are our most prominent critics. We’re quite remarkable for that. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 22:37, 17 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.

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.

---

Multiple editors are constantly reverting eachothers edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Stalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisacascade (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:AN3 is third door on the right. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 17 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.

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 3

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.

---

Special:Contributions/42.2.188.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 9 October in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not aware nor do I have any knowledge about this. I can't help you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one year. @NeverTry4Me: what are you doing? El_C 11:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I don't know what it was and why it was in my Talk page. It looks spam and I have reported. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 02:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: this is the same problem I've warned you against in your report directly above. You do not provide evidence (there, you even aggressively resist doing so). The pertinent documentation is located at WP:DIFF. So I need diffs to explain: 1. what was "in [your] talk page"? 2. what is your connection to this report? 3. where have your "reported" this account or accounts? Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 10:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I am also surprised why that user left a message on my talk page. As per rules, instead of deleting my TP entry, I have simply reported here for Admin attention and investigation. Pardon me if I have spoken beyond rules. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: I need for your next response to have the pertinent diffs attached. If you cannot do so, please explain why. Thanks again. El_C 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I just used Archive Bot in my talk page yesterday. Today some entries vanished and I am even unable to find the earlier entries on my talk page as the Archive Box is not appearing yet. Probably I shall wait for a few hours more so that I can provide the "diff" here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me:, again, please review the documentation at WP:DIFF. Unless revision deleted or suppressed, everything can be accessed in your talk page's revision history (link). El_C 10:57, 15 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 making unsourced edits to biographies

This IP has made poorly sourced edits to biographies, including those of living people. I suggest they be blocked. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Firestar464 I had a quick look at the contributions. This is a BLP violation, but this is more marginal. Have you tried talking in words instead of templates? I'll have a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Single purpose account of User:GeezGod

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.

---

• GeezGod (talk · contribs)

The user just jumped into Wiki today and started disruptive edits/AfD on dead(long before) Indian Police Service Officers and People Wiki pages. Their initial attempt was to go against my edits but now they are vandalizing my edits as per mention. This should be brought before WP:ANI. —  --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please give an example of when I used disruptive editing? Why are you so easily irritated? This is a platform that is founded on the participation of the community. Everyone will express their viewpoint. GeezGod (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• GeezGod (talk · contribs) you are not into discussion but into harass and personael attack. I am not going to reply as of now. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• you are not into discussion but into harass and personael attack. ...say what? This is your response when pressed for evidence? That makes no sense; how can GeezGod simultaneously not be under discussion and the subject of this very ANI report? It's very troubling that, when asked for diffs, that you backed out of it this way. I can't see this report going anywhere, and may likely end in a WP:BOOMERANG as stated below. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Then again, it turns out GeezGod was a sock. Still doesn't quite allay all the concerns I and everyone else on this thread have, however. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the comment of the complaint's subject, it would be appreciated if you provided diffs of the alleged disruptive edits. As far as I can see, there's nothing in his edits that can be classed as disruptive. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: please don't file bogus reports or cast aspersions. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. El_C 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, this is the second time in a week that NeverTry4Me and their conduct are at a noticeboard. It can't always be everyone else. I'm watching a page that GeezGod has contributed to and find no issue with their edits either. Star Mississippi 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• also possibly relevant Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib_Baruah where NeverTry4Me refuses to plausibly address COI/UPE questions. Star Mississippi 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I, for one, have given up on NeverTry4Me. At least one of the articles that editor has created is being discussed at WP:AFD and I am in general agreement that it should be kept, but it's impossible to discuss the article subject dispassionately because of their continual interventions introducing irrelevant points. GeezGod may be wrong, but that simply means that one has to reply rather than start spurious discussions here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I've tried to stay away from the numerous battleground discussions begun by the now named NeverTry4Me, but at this point it beginning to look like they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• GeezGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a sockpuppet; details can be found here. I had originally just closed this section, but as NeverTry4Me's conduct beyond reporting GeezGod is under discussion, I guess I'll leave it open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: I wouldn't be so sure that's KSM. I'm not seeing his obvious tells, for example the thing mentioned in the comment on line 2 of the filter. If I've missed something obvious, can you email me? If not maybe check with a CU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 14 February 2022‎ (UTC)

  Checkuser needed – see also deleted contributions: One of the first things the user did was importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like NinjaRobotPirate already ran a check and noted his conclusion here. In light of that, I'll go ahead and deactivate the {{checkuser needed}} template. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Suffusion of Yellow, NinjaRobotPirate and Mz7. I find jumping into deletion discussions and importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia while hitting a low-false-positive LTA filter, hm, "unusual" for a new account. I have also overestimated my ability to detect sockpuppetry this way, after Simpson001 was CU-confirmed. GeezGod is now unblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Twinkle from vi-wiki might be User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile. It is a new script from a vi-wiki user that makes it possible to use Twinkle from mobiles. It works very well and is being considered for inclusion in the gadget. Hemantha (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• NeverTry4Me has been blocked (see the next discussion) so this can be closed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 15 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.

Roje Vala and WP:CIR

Roje Vala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor has not changed its behaviour since the last block in August 2021. The editor was warned four times since then and one editor has left advices on what is wrong with editor's edits (User talk:Roje Vala#Jackson Cates and User talk:Roje Vala#Bowen Byram). In January 2022, other editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Roje Vala's refusal to communicate also acknowledged Roje Vala's problematic behavior (not using edit summaries, no communication with other editors, etc). It looks like the editor's behavior is a case of WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE as per my previous report back in June 2021.

Examples of editor's problematic contributions:

• Special:Diff/1072006147 – MOS:CAPS and MOS:DATED;
• Special:Diff/1070842719 – MOS:DATED and MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1064084572 – MOS:DATED and MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1057754058 – MOS:CAPS and MOS:DATED;
• Special:Diff/1054050127 – WP:NCIH (reverted more than once regarding this player's surname at 2020–21 Ottawa Senators season and other team-related pages);
• Special:Diff/1067292287 – MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1067491899 – MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:DATED.

The edits may have good intentions, but there is no improvement. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• The guy's been asked to communicate many times, been template- or otherwise-warned many times, has already received a block, and in over a year now has never posted to a talk page, his own included, and never has written an edit summary. Given his pattern of bad edits, I'd support a long-term or indef block. Someone who willfully refuses to communicate, ever, doesn't belong on a collaborative project. Ravenswing 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, so I'll do it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Gaming extended-confirmed to continue edit war

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

There has been an ongoing red-hot edit war at Suraj Mal. I'm completely uninvolved in that and want no part in the content since it's caste war nonsense. That said, I submitted an RfPP, and the page was ECP'd last night, since all of the involved editors were not extended-confirmed. However, Basedch wasn't too far from 500 edits it seems; Basedch conducted a string of minor grammatical edits ([107] [108][109]). They were automatically elevated to extended-confirmed at 10:32 am (EST) [110]. A single minute later, at 10:33, they were back at Suraj Mal continuing the edit war there [111] [112] [113]. They obviously gamed getting extended-confirmed in order to continue their edit-war. Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Will block for 1 week under WP:GS/CASTE for edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Billy6688

This new editor has a single purpose - to remove material from the article Heather Ripley. Claiming to be a family member, he says the material is inaccurate, misleading and causing distress. I can’t see anything in the material that could possibly cause distress. I have posted warnings on his Talk Page about his edit-warring and have urged him to take his concerns to the article’s Talk Page but he just reappears and deletes the content. He claims the newspapers The Guardian and The Times are not reliable sources! He has blanked swathes of the article four times in 24 hours. I have not reinstated the more personal material but even these were Ripley’s own words.

See this [114] and this [115]

Jack1956 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them from editing the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jack1956 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This user hasn't been going about things in the way that regular Wikipedia editors would recommend, but I think there is still an issue with the article to be looked at. This person's only claim to notability seems to be what she did when she was nine years old, but everything that she has done since, which is indicative of a normal, unnotable, life, is considered fair game because of that. Should we really be doing this? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point, Phil. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Ripley, where I suspect I'll get roasted alive, but Phil makes a very good point and it's worth debating. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't feel like a roast of the nominator, but it is snowing there. 🌨️ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Hong Kong editor

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.

---

76.30.143.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will not leave "Hong Kong" alone as common name and repeatedly changes it to Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China. Also adds unsourced material, doesn't follow MOS on capitalization, and keeps making the same changes after being reverted. Many TP warnings and one 72-hour block already. Often, changes break wikilinks but they don't seem to notice the redlinks they are causing. MB 04:09, 14 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:NOTHERE by Wesshejjejej

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.

---

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

Literally all of this users edits have been disruptive and reverted. Some examples; Changed "Indo-Afghan" to "Afghan" Changed "Iranian" to "Pashtun" Changed "Iranian" to "Afghan" Changed "Tajik" to "Pashtun" Changed "Turkic" to "Turko-Afghan"

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 15 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.

Legal threat by User:AEMoch

User:AEMoch has just made a legal threat with this edit. A sockpuppet investigation linking this user to a previous user whose name suggests this is the same person and who was blocked for making legal threats is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aedwardmoch. Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

SPI, COIN, and AN/I at the same time... darn, still two shy of Bingo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AEMoch, who is an obvious sockpuppet making disruptive edits and a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Good block. F W Harvey would have been impressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Carfian is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

See their many recent edits to Emergencies Act. Could we please indef? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Their attempts to remove this section at ANI alone provide a case for blocking, indeffed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this user is edit-warring, this may also be reported to WP:3RR. Additionally, you have not notified the editor, I have done so for you. Outdated comment, user is already indeffed by Rosguill.Severestorm28 01:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I did—they reverted that too! A moot point, now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:36, 16 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.

Misuse of admin tools

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

---

I just got roll backed without a reason. I would like the roll backer to lose his roll back privilages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.35.216 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you violated WP:NPOV at least for the edit I reverted. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@63.152.35.216: I agree with Philipnelson99 that was a WP:NPOV Violation and no Philipnelson99 will not lose his roll back privilages. Chip3004 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to IP from another IP: Rollback is not technically an "admin tool", even though it's included with the admin user right. By definition, rollback is used to revert edits that don't need any explanation or summary, i.e. WP:Vandalism. Therefore there is no such thing as "rollbacked with a reason". However, that being said, if indeed rollback was used because of NPOV violations (I haven't examined the edits in detail), that might be a misuse of rollback because POV issues aren't vandalism, but in any cases probably doesn't merit anything more than a warning to the rollbacker in question unless a pattern of similar questionable uses can be established. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:AFF6 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• As the IPv6 IP said, "standard" WP:Rollback the MediaWiki function generally should not be used for NPOV violations. As the guideline says, it doesn't provide a custom edit summary and so is only intended for vandalism and other cases where an edit summary isn't needed. In some cases standard rollback can be used if an explanation is offered elsewhere but that's generally only for cases where you are mass undoing edits as there is no reason to use the quick tool for a single edit then take the time to offer an explanation elsewhere. Using rollback in cases where it's not allowed is considered abuse and can result in loss of the tool if the editor keeps doing it, even if the reverts themselves were reasonable and were fine to do with the undo function (probably with an edit summary). However AFAICT, no one here has used standard rollback. WP:Huggle rolback was used [116] [117]. As the guidelines also say, as Huggle rollback does offer the ability to add a custom edit summary, it does not carry the same restrictions, and indeed the first revert/rollback did offer a custom edit summary saying the edit was being reverted for violating NPOV. While the second edit (by a different editor) did not provide custom edit summary, since Huggle rollback was used and it was undoing the exact same edit, this isn't really an issue, the reason can be taken as the same. There's little difference between doing thg Huggle rollback and clicking undo and not bothering to modify the edit summary. So without judging the details of what was reverted, there was no violation of what we expect from editors with either rollback/revert. This edit [118] wasn't a rollback but a simple revert/undo and did give a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  And frankly having looked at the Huggle rollback edits now, they come so close to vandalism that I don't think anyone would blink an eye even if standard rollback was used. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This "blocked for what?" and the trollish GAN remind me of some past vandal, but I can't remember whom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Agree, there was an edit summary, no misuse of rollback. the IP,. on the other hand, describing notable lawsuits as "fake liberal lawsuits" is NOTHERE. Furthermore, describing this revert as "Vandalism" is a personal attack. The IP is also an obvious returning customer. Please block the IP for a week. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:52, 16 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.

Repeated edit warring and personal attacks by IP

• 2.203.242.222 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 188.109.177.148 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 178.4.50.18 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.186.219.97 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Multiple personal attacks (1) (summary of previous attacks), including xenophobic edit summaries (2) and long personal rant at their talk page and another editor's talk page, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Andra Febrian (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2.203.242.222 and 188.109.177.148 blocked; others are stale. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:PlanespotterA320 and WP:GS/UYGHUR

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.

---

PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · count) has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing with respect to topics relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed. Over the past year, the editor has more or less been continuing to ignore community consensus on a number of sources and instead has been attempting to push a fringe POV that the abuses in Xinjiang are not reliably reported. The user has continued to refuse to respect consensus on several sources, most notably Radio Free Asia, and has used their opposition to the use of this source (as well as research by tbe respected Adrian Zenz) as a sort of bludgeoning tool to smear everything on the subject.

Their edits on Uyghur genocide indicate a history of misusing maintenance tags to WP:POVPUSH and outright POVPUSHing, comparing the reporting on the abuses of the Uyghurs to crying wolf.

• In March 2021, Inserted POV templates into Uyghur genocide and disguised it as a minor edit, only to later edit war the POV template into the header of the article after the user was reverted by separate editors
• In October 2021, the user tagged the article with a {{partisan sources}} tag, making more or less the same complaints that they made in March about article sourcing, despite prior consensus that the article's sourcing practices were fine. After the PlanespotterA320's tag was removed by another user for it having been a drive-by tag, Planespotter restored the tag into the article rather than engage on the article talk page.
• In December 2021, the user inserted content into Uyghur genocide relating to a 1960s Soviet Union propaganda campaign that reliable sources don't connect in any way to the ongoing abuses in Xinjiang. The user attempted to insert a Chinese denialist memorandum into the article that framed the abuse allegations as arising from only separatists and nationalist groups (the content sourced to Chinas ministry of foreign affairs was removed here). After I removed the content about the Sino-Soviet dispute, the user restored the content on it. The user noted in their edit summary that it was Worth knowing that this isn't the first time someone has played the Uyghur card and cried wolf with Uyghur genocide—that PlanespotterA320 sees the abuses in Xinjiang as crying wolf is explicitly motivating their disruptive edits.
• In February 2022, the user has persisted to continually tag the article with tags that include {{partisan sources}} and {{unbalanced}}, arguing that the inclusion of content from the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Radio Free Asia is reason to put giant cleanup notices atop the page.

This pattern of editing is not just limited to the Uyghur genocide article itself. In fact, this extends to templates and other articles as well.

• In February 2022, Planespotter removed all mention of the Xinjiang internment camps and the Uyghur genocide from the {{Xinjiang topics}} template, while inappropriately placing a number of articles (including Uyghur people) in a "separatist elements" row. After this was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PlanespotterA320 made an edit that inappropriately restored the "separatist elements" row, Uyghur people article included.
• Also in February 2022, the user has inappropriately marked substantial edits on East Turkistan Government-in-Exile as minor and was reverted by Beshogur. When PlanespotterA320 restored their edits, Planespotter acknowledged that their edits were of substantive nature.

PlanespotterA320 was warned of the active general sanctions on the topic in June 2021, yet nonetheless has persisted (and been particularly active as of late) in disruptively editing in the Uyghur genocide topic area in a manner that reflects clear attempts to push a denialist point-of-view. I'd kindly ask that an administrator take a look at the editing activity of that editor in order to help prevent future disruption in the area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the right to point when an article heavily sites partisan, state-funded outlets and tag an article that does so as having such problem. The so-called Uyghur genocide is a current event, not as historical one, and is subject to controversy as such. If heavily citing partisan sources wasn't a problem then we wouldn't have a tag for it. The fact that so much of the alleged "abuses" (many of which are prevalent in neighboring Muslim-supermajority countries) come from Western state media outlets certainly merits noting until the article is not so dependent on them. There is clearly a concerted effort by an organized group of POV pushers to deem everything in Xinjiang a "genocide", watering down the term at the expense of small peoples who actually suffered genocide. Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship to prevent the availability of important context to users, even removing well-cited verifable information about historical precedents of the term's usage by ungrateful separatist elements dating back to the Sino-Soviet split. I simply call a spade a spade, a state funded media outlet a state funded media outlet, a state-funded NGO not independent, and a separatist a separatist. If you want to argue about the merits of those agents case for separatism on your social media, go ahead, but that doesn't make them NOT separatist. And I cannot help but point out here as well just how incredibly damaging the disingenuous propaganda shamefully painting the well-off Uyghurs as victims of genocide is to ACTUAL small peoples on the brink of assimilation, begging for dignity in representation, recognition, the right to live in their land, and respect, all of which Uyghurs in Xinjiang are not only endowed with in addition to titular status in Xinjiang but have completely taken for granted, ungratefully tossing false accusations of "genocide" to the government that includes them in the 56 flowers but could revoke that status with the stroke of a pen as punishment for their treason if it felt willing to but veiws such act as blasphemous and unthinkable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship to prevent the availability of important context to users do you mean like removing all mention of the Xinjiang internment camps and the Uyghur genocide from the {{Xinjiang topics}} template? I'm all for including relevant information published in reliable sources in line with the principle of due weight, but repeated tendentious and otherwise disruptive editing of yours on this topic to push the fringe perspective that the people being forcibly sterilized and held in camps are well-off despite no reliable sources actually reporting that have not been a benefit to Wikipedia. Civilly engaging in talk page discussions is absolutely OK, even if your arguments aren't great, but the repeated disruptive editing of articles by pushing fringe views that fly in the face of community consensus that you are well aware of makes this very clearly a conduct problem. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean the info about the Sino-Soviet split which you added with the massively inappropriate edit summary "Worth knowing that this isn't the first time someone has played the Uyghur card and cried wolf with Uyghur genocide. Perhaps the alleged genocide of Uyghurs during the Sino-Soviet split that never happened should get its own article"[119]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1. so-called Uyghur genocide
2. alleged "abuses"
3. come from Western state media outlets
4. concerted effort by an organized group of POV pushers
5. watering down the term at the expense of small peoples who actually suffered genocide
6. Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship
7. Mentions separatism at least four times
8. disingenuous propaganda shamefully painting the well-off Uyghurs
9. have completely taken for granted
10. false accusations of "genocide"
11. the government that includes them in the 56 flowers

Yikes! Pious Brother (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't just template:Xinjiang Topics, they also removed wikiproject human rights and the GS notice from the talk page [120]. Theres also this bizzare series [121][122][123] of edits at Dinigeer Yilamujiang which are serious BLP issues in addition to UG issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And as I said, Xinjiang is a geographic region and province of China, not an activist or a political ideology.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain removing either the wikiproject or the tag, both of them apply to the geographic region and province of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Or why you suddenly added them to Hawaii, Texas and Guam immediately after making the point that it shouldn't apply to a geographic region or territory. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Theres this edit [124] which scrubs all controversy, including the Uyghur Genocide, from the lead at 2022 Winter Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This series [125][126][127] of edits across different pages which qualify Uyghur Genocide with "alleged" in a rather pointed way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

They're also currently edit warring [128][129][130] at Salih Hudayar over the "separatist" characterization again without apparent regard for WP:BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously think he advocates FOR Xinjiang being part of China?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, can you explain these edits, especially after having made this edit. You are doing the exact thing you are saying is not applicable in your first edit which very much calls into question the reasoning for it. You state on your first edit "Xinjiang is a GEOGRAPHIC REGION and administrative entity, not a political ideology" and then proceed to add the very project template you're removing to other political and administrative entities. It's very hard to assume this was done in good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, for six months. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since Planespotter is belligerent, edit warring, argumentative insists she’s right and have severe OWN issues in every area she edits in these days I actually support a block. A topic ban would have to be ridiculously wide. Canterbury Tail talk 02:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I'm going to push back on a full block—a more narrowly tailored thing would be a topic ban on WP:UYGHUR with either a general one-revert restriction or an additional logged warning with respect to ownership of articles more generally. The user's edits in the topics of aviation and Soviet military biographies seem to be generally productive and I'm hesitant to block longstanding users with one problem area until more narrowly tailored efforts to prevent future disruption have been tried. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support six month topic ban on the WP:UYGHUR area. I'm not opposed to an additional sanction of a one-revert restriction for behavior outside of the problem topic area, but I'd prefer to give a formal warning before being putting restrictions on all of the user's editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on on WP:UYGHUR for six months. Pious Brother (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment User has similar edit warring on Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era [131] [132] [133] [134]. Also at his talkpage, despite getting different warnings, he said Two reverts is not an editwar. and Editwar is THREE reverts, NOT 2! twice. Beshogur (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI, PlaneSpotterA320 is female editor, not male, so please use the correct pronouns and don't assume all editors are male. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block - This is way beyond pale. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wider topic ban If we are going to go the topic ban route I think it should be wider than just the Uyghur area. It was only 3 weeks ago when they were at this board last for the same owning, ignoring consensus, combative edits and I dare say bludgeoning with the same arguments and not listening to others, but this time on Crimean Tatars. This isn't exclusive to the Uyghur area. If it's going to be a topic ban I think it should be on all ethnic minorities/repressed or displaced populations/separation movement/disputed type areas (open to wording as this generally isn't my area.) Uyghur is too specific as this behaviour is in other areas as well. In general any time PlaneSpotterA320 comes into any kind of disagreement with other editors, these are the results. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• She was featured at this very noticeboard for an unrelated issue as recent as three weeks ago. As usual, she responded that she is right and everybody around is wrong, and the topic, as is common with East European topics, was archived without closure. It is now time to take action, which presumably should not be limited to Uyghur genocide.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all CN and CIS politics - widely construed. We need a WP:CNPL sanctions regime like WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBPIA4 to prevent the POV pushing by Wumao, Wangluo shuijun, Little Pinks and other CCP symps. These guys are ruining it for good faith editors trying hard to introduce nuance where they are WP:DUE. For example, Pompeo's "landmines" [135] [136] [137], are probably due in Uyghur genocide as part of some wider changes, but this is impossible in the current WP:BATTLEGROUND environment where no one wants give up an inch to these guys. CutePeach (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Pompeo “landmines” stuff (I couldn’t read SCMP) seems to be not include reference to the XUAR, which would render it undue in Uyghur genocide (unless RS are saying that the Genocide designation was actually a domestic political play to screw over Biden—the claim is a bit extraordinary and I can’t exactly find reliable sources supporting that claim from a Google search). That being said, content issues are best resolved on the article talk pages. I also don’t think that summing this up as a WP:BATTLEGROUND on with two distinct sides is generally accurate here—editors on the Uyghur genocide page generally try to resolve disputes by surveying reliable sources, attempting to gain consensus in the talk, and making edits that reflect that consensus. The issue that brought me here is that Planespotter, in particular, has been utterly disruptive across the board in this topic area while explicitly stating their intent of POVPUSHING. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I was originally thinking that a topic ban or short block would solve this, but given the views expressed in the "I have the right to point ... blasphemous and unthinkable." post and the previous issues with another minority group I think we have to topic ban them from ethnic and religious minorities broadly construed at the very least. An indef block on nothere grounds woild also be justified after what they wrote here, as other users have said "beyond the pale" and "yikes"Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking. Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1 You beat me to the punch, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Why do I start reading from the top? El_C 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope they get WP:Standard Offer, along with a topic ban on any topics related to international politics or race. I think they deserve a chance to clean up their act after being told what they did was wrong. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Plutonical, they are obviously not listening. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 15 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.

Tenditious editing by User:Policynerd3212 - crime and Islam?

Policynerd3212 added a bunch of crime statistics to the article on Sweden - their edit (here) was in my opinion quite tenditious (compare to my revision); it read to me like a deliberate misreading of some of the statistics, it only brought up increases (and not the decreases visible in some of the diagrams) and they also removed the in this case obviously relevant ideological position of the author of one of the studies cited. (on a sidenote I also question whether having all of these statistics at Sweden rather than Crime in Sweden is necessary in the first place and I think just dumping all of the statistics in this way lacks quite a bit of nuance).

They also added a figure for the number of muslims in the country (here), but referred to it as a "documentation" - there are no official stats on religious affiliation in Sweden. This should appropriately have been called what it is (an estimate) and have been (if added at all) added together with other estimates. It's not necessarily an unreliable source but the specific study has been criticized in the Swedish media for its possible use in scaremongering propaganda (for instance). I reverted this but they added it back (here). The information was also added in a quite strange spot. Nearly all of Policynerd's edits have been concerning Sweden's statistics on crime and Islam (IMO bordering on a WP:SPA). They have also removed my concerns of their edits not being constructive from their talk page (here) - this is allowed but I feel like it's relevant to take note of. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): The above claims are simply untrue. I have updated a nearly decade old crime section and added nuanced information. I have explicitly mentioned decline in sexual assaults since 2017 and that Sweden is one of the safest countries in the world. I furthermore link to and use Swedens official bureau of statistics:

https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/crime-statistics.html https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/violence-and-assault.html

Regarding muslim population Pewresearch estimates are reliable and Ichthyovenator offer no contratidicting evidence. My source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

Furthermore Ichthyovenator link to unreliable opinion articles when he edits on the Swedish wikipage. For example he writes: "Even when accounting for increased expenses in terms of education and healthcare, the economic advantages of immigration over time outweighs the disadvantages." And as a source links to an opinion article. " His source: https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2019-06-26/over-tid-vager-de-positiva-effekterna-av-invandring-over-de-negativa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even respond to everything I said here. There wasn't really much nuanced information added. You wrote "For a long time ranked amongst some of the safest countries in the world" (implying it no longer is - it still is). You mentioned mainly the risen crimes - mentioning a single downward trend while ignoring others is not being nuanced. I still question the necessity of having all of these stats here, almost only mentioning the negative ones, and what difference it makes to add an unverifiable stat on the number of muslims in the country? So the article written by researchers on migration is unreliable? I also don't know why you assume I'm male.

I also question why you continue to edit war with this discussion raised and why you more or less copy-pasted my edit summary while doing so (here). I think we can wait and see what others think before you continue to push your stuff at Sweden. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Still continuing... Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And now they've removed my notice of this discussion from their talk page. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): As already mentioned, I added nuance to the statistics. But in general the crime has risen on most parameters. So therefore that's what the section reflects as the official statistics from the Swedish bureau of statistics are quite clear. I further use clear citation from The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and pewresearch. If my information is incorrect or misleading please offer sources which contradict the official sources. Your personal opinion is not relevant.

Another factual error in your critique is that I haven't contributed to other pages. But I have contributed to a lot of different sections in Danish: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciel:Bidrag/Policynerd3212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I dispute your idea that you added nuance to the statiscs. I have not disputed that in general the crime has risen on most parameters - the article still makes this clear, but you deliberately or by mistake ignored parts of those statiscs and added largely only what could be construed as bad. I'm not interesting in wasting time to continue argue or to dig up sources that contradict your interpretation of the other sources - I already linked one article concerning the pew study in particular. For an example of an alternate estimate, this page (also cited in the article already) puts the number of muslims at 6.5 % - it's impossible to produce a reliable or accurate estimate. Hopefully more people weigh in on this; please stop editing Sweden until some form of decision is reached. Your conduct on Danish wikipedia is not of concern here but I don't think that looks good either (edits to three articles, some sort of concern on your talk page). My main issue is that the combination of adding IMO misleading information concerning crime w.o. nuance, removing the ideological position of Adamson and adding stats on the muslim population (from a study which the Swedish media was concerned would be used for scaremongering propaganda no less) doesn't paint a good picture. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): Göran Adamson is not som alt right-wing proponent and anti-immigration type which you seem to insinuate. He has simply as a sociologist, an expert, researched the consequences of high immigration. Furthermore you aren't disclosing professor in criminology Jerzy Sarnecki ideological position as a proponent for immigration. Why? Because it isn't relevant. They are social scientists/criminologist. You are being very aggressive and disingenuous. And I said, I added nuanced statistics. The estimate by pewresearch is not contradicted by any sources. Why do you continue to delete this valid information in the immmigration section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already pointed out my problems with the pew study and more specifically the way you cited it. I don't see why it would not be relevant to mention that Adamson is a self-admitted critic of multiculturalism? I never said he was "alt right-wing". If you have a source on Sarnecki's ideological position you're welcome to produce that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps Policynerd3212 is unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. I am unable to make out the content dispute from the diffs provided, and I don't see a discussion on the talk page, or a noticeboard. This is the wrong venue for a discussion whether the percentage of Muslims in the country is DUE. Pious Brother (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: my concern is that Policynerd3212's addition of the crime statistics was misleading (for instance, they mentioned just the significant increase from 2012/2014 but deliberately left out that there is an obvious undergoing decrease - just look at the diagrams they sourced), that they initially claimed the estimate of muslims was a "documented" number (and I feel they implicitly connect that number to the crime) and that none of these statistics ought to be included without a more nuanced approach. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern as you explain it here, but this should have first been discussed on the article talk page. I added the talk page to my watch list. Pious Brother (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: I do not have a huge amount of experience with ANI so I apologize if I moved here prematurely. I didn't see anything saying it had to be discussed anywhere else prior. Are you saying that this should now be discussed at the talk page or should this proceed here? Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should continue the discussion there and keep this discussion open for a few days. Pious Brother (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added a response there as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Islam? Crime? Sweden? Statistics? This sounds very familiar. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I'm concerned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I second Drmies, we've seen this before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was 1Kwords, but fortunately it's not. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator I completely understand the concern for alt-right crazy people adding inaccurate information and stats. At the same time we need to have objective accurate information on the page. Before my update the crime section section stated: "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downwards trend over the last 25 years". This is simply misinformation according to all official sources.

Yes - I approve of objectivity and nuance. Notice that I have not added back the "downwards trend over the last 25 years" part. My concern was that I felt that you sort of picked and chose what you wanted from the crime statistics sources to push your POV and that I felt the addition of the estimate of the number of muslims (initially with no indication that this is just one estimate, and the reaction it had in the Swedish media), combined with the removal of where Adamson is arguing from, painted a worrying picture. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): The religion section is completely unrelated to the crime section. — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be, yes. Don't feign ignorance as to why editing both sections (and no others) tenditiously is worrying. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out here as well that the discussion has continued at Talk:Sweden. My POV is that Policynerd3212 is continuing to display tenditious behavior and a reluctance to incorporate a fair summary of WP:RS, they will obviously disagree. I have proposed rewrites to the disputed content to make it what I believe is more in-line with WP:NPOV, Policynerd3212 oppose these. The discussion has mostly devolved into repeating the same arguments so I'm hoping for a neutral third party to weigh in here ASAP. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Block review requested

I don't think I've asked for one of these before. We've got a new editor going through articles in good faith trying to make ENGVAR, grammar and spelling corrections, some of which are good but others sadly adding more errors. These include changing quotations, meaning, and in at least one case capitalizing a refname. The editor is Gaya3em (talk · contribs). User:Bonadea and I have reverted all of their contributions. I blocked to stop the problems, but I'm not happy about blocking a newbie who is trying to help. If anyone can take this editor on as a mentor they can be unblocked. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've asked them to comment on their talk page, hopefully someone will copy their comments here if they make any. I have to go out now. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that they are disruptive (though clearly editing in good faith). My first thought was that an indefinite block was a little harsh, but it's really a case of "indefinite is not infinite". suddenly I get a flashback to a grammar lecture many years ago where I talked about "infinite articles" until a student timidly asked me what the difference is between a definite article, an indefinite article, and an infinite article...

Copyediting articles is a fairly straightforward and simple task, on the surface, and so it's something new editors are encouraged to do. Unfortunately, it's pretty common to see edits with multiple changes that look like they have been suggested by a grammar checking tool, and accepted wholesale because the editor doesn't understand that a) the tool will often suggest a change that is grammatically incorrect, b) there are often several acceptable ways of saying something, and the tool might be suggessting a grammatically correct phrasing that replaces another equally correct one, and c) journal titles and other names might look like misspelled English words, while filenames and urls can't be copyedited even if they contain a glaring error. Not to mention the fact that any spelling that doesn't conform to the tool's settings will be flagged as an error, causing good-faith WP:ENGVAR violations. I started writing a short explanation of this some time ago, because it's something I have explained more than once to good-faith new editors and it's tedious to repeat the same thing... I should finish that text and put it somewhere in my userspace. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You very clearly made the correct call, Doug. The editor has not responded to any attempts to communicate on their user talk page. Though their actions were clearly in good faith they were also disruptive and you acted to stop the disruption. Hopefully they respond. I have their talk page temporarily watch listed incase they do. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS by IP hopper

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

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

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

Gonna be blunt here; Typical case of new IP appearing who starts to remove reliably sourced information because it clashes with his pov. Here he removes the Persian theory regarding this persons origin but keeps the Turkic theory bit:

[138]

[139]

[140]

[141]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and accusations by TheWikiholic at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We have an unproductive and lengthy discussion going on at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists. As the main editor of the list, I felt this matter is important enough to bring up here even though the disruptions and the accusations by TheWikiholic are taking place at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists.

The discussion was prompted over whether or not lower records sales claim of Whitney Houston should be removed or not. TheWikiholic's behavior became noticeably disruptive each time he/she was provided with an explanation that covered the questions he raised. First, he/she accused me of stating numbers I never said in the discussion. After I clarified what was actually said by me, he/she then went on accusing me of WP:Ownership. Later I noticed that he/she was also accusing me of being biased against black artists, and biased towards white artists, 1, 2. Towards the end of the thread TheWikiholc claims "the discussion is getting long because you are not ready to accept the point of view of other editors and you see the editor with prejudice. You give too much time to attacking other editors, instead of concentrating on the topic".

Note that in the past, we've had long discussions 1, 2, also involving TheWikiholic and his/her usual supporters User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl. In all three lengthy discussions, similar disruptive behavior can be seen by TheWikiholic dragging discussions to unnecessary lengths, all the time refusing to get the point, regardless of how many detailed explanations were provided.

It's also worth noting TruthGuardians' edit here "I defended this article one time before and I was being called a racist and a sympathizer of sorts".

I just felt it's important that I brought the issue here as I feel these three editors TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl abuse the talk page of the list each time they're involved in a dispute, meanwhile also offending the main editor with constant accusations. In fact, I've have worked hard on the List of best-selling music artists for over ten years now, and with the help of other productive editors, we've managed to build a great list.--Harout72 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter up. I feel like Harout ignores genuine concerns. I know that he’s not accusing me of disruptive editing, but abuse is a false accusation. I’ve only utilize the talk page in the matter to which it should be used, just like the other editors have. You do not address the concerns of the other editors and then feel attacked when you’re not agreed with. My only objective has only ever been to make this article better. As a friendly reminder, this article is the product of Wikipedia, not any individual editor, or group of editors. It’s all apart of reaching consensus, there are more editors that disagree with you than those that agree with you. That’s part of reaching a consensus as we have done before in the past. It wasn’t disruptive editing then, and it’s not now. It’s simply editing. We could take it to a next level if consensus is not reached, but as I stated on the talk page, this matter is being brought to the admin board for no reason. They certainly have better use of their time than to address an editors POV about what disruptive editing is. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's probably something to discuss here. I can't quite wrap my head around accusations of racism or racial bias in something as concrete as an encyclopedia replicating already documented sales data. If that's somehow being done, it needs to be addressed, or alternatively, if it's bogus, editors need to stop casting ridiculous aspersions otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I can agree to this. FYI, no one has ever accused the editor of intentionally putting white artists ahead of black ones. However, there was a prominent influencer on a social media platform who did bring up this article and stated that the page’s own rules do not apply to some of the white artists on this page as they do for everyone else, and I think subsequently that is what was mentioned, at least on my behalf, I defended the article, but didn’t fully realize that, in fact, different rules do apply to different artists. Now I don’t know if those influencers are Wikipedia editors, doubt it, but that’s what I saw. Also, it’s a little more to it then just documenting already noted sales figures for older artists. The page uses a particular formula to calculate claimed sales for each artist. It’s the claimed sales that are being disputed. It’s being pointed out that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

TheWikiholic in this edit states "See these types of uniformity give me a serious feeling that this page has some kind of [[Racial bias on Wikipedia|racial] bias knowingly or unknowingly." He keeps comparing black artists vs white artists, in that edit Mariah Carey with Taylor Swift and Eminem. He gets those digital figures straight from the RIAA, notice that how he could compare Mariah Carey with Rihanna, the digital certified sales of the latter are 151 million, when used the same style subtraction, the total certified sales of Rihanna would drop to 170 million. That is not accidental, TheWikiholic is actually accusing me of discriminating against black artists.--Harout72 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I personally don’t think he’s accusing you of purposefully making the edits. Rihanna wasn’t mentioned probably because she’s not the issue here. I do understand his point of view, and agree that there’s a lack of continuity, but I don’t think it is a malice racial bias.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In that the same edit, he also compares Whitney Houston to Madonna. He's constantly using the racial bias to push his point of view forward.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I won’t speak for him, but objectively, I don’t believe that there was any malice intended. But at the same time I can see your point of view and why you would even take offense to begin with.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As TruthGuardians rightly pointed out, TheWikiholic did not mention Rihanna in this discussion. On the other hand, Harout72 states that "he also compares Whitney Houston to Madonna. He's constantly using the racial bias to push his point of view forward." TheWikiholic has compared two artists named Whitney and Madonna. Who mentioned the skin color of the artists first on the Talk page? I still think that to have come to this point of talking and discussing about this is just terrible. Anyway, it is the user Harout72 who has brought our discussion here, accusing TheWikiholic, and also accusing TruthGuardians and me of disruptive behavior. If you go to my User talk page you will see an accusation against me of disruptive editing (whose discussion continued on the List's talk page from this message), made by user Harout72 when I was trying to restore the "Definitions" section of the List to its status prior to February 10, something that still needs to be done. Salvabl (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User Harout72 claims that TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and I abuse the Talk page. Please read the Talk page itself and you will see it for yourself. I have been offering an open door through my messages over and over again. Even when the user Harout72 has changed the content of the "Definitions" section (a conditioning section for the management of the list in the future) unilaterally and without any previous consensus (despite the fact that the matter was being discussed on the Talk page at that moment), I made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would be the most appropriate action. However, if we state a point of view that he does not support he often labels our behavior as disruptive. This has also happened in the past (please see it here). The difference is that, with a positive attitude (which, of course, TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and I had. And also Harout72 at that time) and trying to reach common consensus we were able to bring the discussion to a good conclusion. Unfortunately, that does not seem possible this time. He also claims that we refuse to get the point, to which I gave this reply, with the matter better explained here. Salvabl (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Salvabl, now you're posting comments here without having read mine above. Read my post above here "He keeps comparing black artists vs white artists, in that edit Mariah Carey with Taylor Swift and Eminem. He gets those digital figures straight from the RIAA, notice that how he could've compared Mariah Carey with Rihanna, the digital certified sales of the latter are 151 million, when used the same style subtraction, the total certified sales of Rihanna would drop to 170 million". TheWikiholic uses just about any strategy to push his agenda forward, if he runs out of one argument, he'll try another, whether it's a racial bias, or any other false accusations. And that's not how I built that list with my fellow editors since 2010.--Harout72 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, I have read everything you have posted (both here and on the List’s Talk page). I can also think that you have not read my message in its entirety, since I talk about various things, among which is the unilateral and without prior consensus modification of the List's "Definitions" section made by you. I really dislike that the physical qualities of the artists are being mentioned, and honestly I prefer to focus on this other matter (which is the one that has affected the List with a substantial non-consensual change, since nothing has been changed regarding Whitney's claimed sales yet). Additionally, in this discussion herein, started by you, you have also mentioned disruptive behavior (allegedly on my part, for example) that is not related to the other “matter”. The "Definitions" section should be restored to its previous status, since its last modification was made unilaterally by you when it was being discussed on the Talk page (moreover, it even goes against previous agreements reached with common consensus). You have the opportunity right now to restore the section to its status prior to February 10. And, let me be clear, the very next moment I will be totally willing to discuss any proposal you make for the modification of the "Definitions" section, and then we can discuss percentages, figures, certain conditions.. Each one of us will be able to propose our ideas and expose our different points of view. Because that is what should be done to implement a substantial change in the "Definitions" section of the List. Salvabl (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I've read all this, and I have just one teensy little question ... what the fucking hell are you all talking about? How on earth can the race of a performer make a difference to their verified record sales? If I'm missing something obvious, please feel free to let me know, but I couldn't read that talkpage for a second time because I'd lose the will to live. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, to simplify it, some of the artists on the list are listed with lower claimed sales figure and higher claimed figure. When artists' Gold/Platinum certified sales grow and get closer to the lower listed claimed figure, we normally remove the lower claimed figure leaving only the higher claimed figure. However, ever since the Gold/Platinum certifications issued for singles/tracks especially after 2016 became mainly streaming based rather than sales of downloads, we tent to postpone the removal of the lower claimed figures quickly even though the certified sales might be close to it. And this is what initiated the discussion, which later turned into unproductive argument, full of accusations directed at the main editor (myself).--Harout72 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I’m not offended by the language, but that language is not allowed on the talk page. I did my best to explain briefly how race is involved. “ Also, it’s a little more to it then just documenting already noted sales figures for older artists. The page uses a particular formula(stated in page rules) to calculate claimed sales for each artist. It’s the claimed sales that are being disputed. It’s being pointed out that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it.” The formula has been debated before as it isn’t 100% sourced (which is a problem in itself), and I think that’s where the problem lies.the formula exists because it is impossible to track the sales of artists from the 50’s-90’s so their available certifications are used along with the decade their music first started to get certified. Some have questioned if it’s about race, not made it about race, as the existing formula have not applied to white artists as they have to some black artists. With all due respect, if you do not follow sales, this is not going to be an easy topic for you or anyone to understand.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What Harout has answered you is true and false at the same time (therein lies the difficulty of this discussion). Just one example to clarify this: user Harout72 says that “we normally remove the lower claimed figure leaving only the higher claimed figure”. This is false, as for example, when Michael Jackson's 300M claimed sales figure was removed (and the 400M figure was added) his certified sales were "only" 240M. This is reasonable, since the higher the certified sales, the higher the claimed sales. In fact, Elvis Presley's current certified sales are "only" 229.4M, while his claimed sales are 500M (and when he reaches 280M certified sales, the 600M claimed sales figure will be added; as agreed in past discussions). Therefore, as I have stated in other messages, the modification made by Harout72 to the "Definitions" section of the List is inappropriate, firstly because it is a substantial change made unilaterally by him, and secondly because it even contradicts previous agreements reached with common consensus. Salvabl (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to say that the obvious next question is - "who is suggesting that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it"? but now the most obvious one is "why are you using a formula that isn't 100% sourced"? Isn't that simply WP:OR anyway? I don't know about anyone else, but the sentence "Elvis Presley's current certified sales are "only" 229.4M, while his claimed sales are 500M (and when he reaches 280M certified sales, the 600M claimed sales figure will be added)" has just made my brain attempt to escape my head and emigrate to Switzerland. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly. It would be necessary to read old discussions in which we have participated to see the replies that the user Harout72 has given to our proposals and the replies that we have given to his.. To understand several things. Salvabl (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I said "We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million", to consider and will be added are two different things. Considering would mean it could be discussed, not definitive. Also, Elvis Presley is a very different case, there were absolutely no certification systems anywhere in the world except in USA when he was charting in the 1950s and 1960. I explained all that in another long discussion involving the same group of editors above. As for the sources the formula's using, the main source we rely on is IFPI, that's also been explained in yet another long discussion. Simple glance at the discussions in the archives for the page of the list, will confirm that all artists are treated the same way.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We have already discussed about Elvis’ sales in the past. It is true that in part of his career there were only certification systems in the USA, but it is also true that if we compare (in any period of time) the relation of his certified sales in the USA to his certified sales in other countries/markets of the world, we will see that US sales represent a huge percentage of his total sales. And it is also true that artists like Michael Jackson have uncaptured sales in major markets outside the USA (such as Japan, for example, whose certification system did not begin until 1989). For that reason, I, in my mind, will continue to see it as inappropriate to add claimed sales figures like 600M to Presley when his certified sales are 275-280M; not even if his certified sales were 350M, taking into account the US-rest of markets ratio. 600M is a too high figure in Elvis' case. One only has to look at the certified sales of The Beatles, Michael Jackson or Madonna to appreciate a globality that is not present in the case of Presley. But even so, and despite our different points of view, in those past discussions we were able to reach a common consensus (and I respect it). But I think this is not the appropriate time to talk in depth about the sales of Presley, The Beatles or Jackson, because then this could become an endless discussion. But it serves to show that the unilateral change you have made in the List's "Definitions" section does not allow to do what you yourself accepted (eg.: “We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million.”), and it is also wrong to claim that the text is inline with how the List has always been operated (the case of the last modification of Michael Jackson's claimed sales figures proves it). For that reason, it is necessary that the "Definitions" section of the List be restored to its status prior to February 10. After that, everything could be discussed, maybe it would be possible to add part of your text, and maybe it could be complemented with some ideas like the one I proposed (that when the artists meet certain conditions, only the List’s percentages will be applied). But it should be properly discussed with other users, as it is a substantial change, since modifying the "Definitions" section affects the management of the List in the future. That is why a change made by you unilaterally, without prior consensus at the moment when the matter was being discussed in the Talk page is intolerable. Salvabl (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This was brought here because of TheWikiholic's inappropriate behavior. It is absolutely unacceptable to assume that the list and the main editors discriminate against black artists. Now that's intolerable.--Harout72 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but in this discussion that you yourself have started herein, your message addresses several matters. Salvabl (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the issue here. I always know that my concerns are up against your POV and that they the discussion on the talk page tends to go nowhere. I am expecting the views of different editors on this. For those who are interested in the subject, I will attempt to explain why I had the above complaints against Harout72.

The List of best-selling artist is based on the Total available certification of an artist combined with the year that the artist first crafted charting. This means of two artists are from the same era and have the same percentage of total available certification, excluding certification generated through digital downloads and streaming, to support their claimed sales there must be some uniformity.

Harout has mentioned that he has been the top contributor to this page for more than a decade. I have been closely and seriously observing this page since 2014. The page has almost maintained the same rules and structure ever since 2014. I also have done my research on both archives and edit history of this page since its creation. According to the edit history and talk page archive, artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Since then the page has undergone a few changes. The one billion figures for both The Beatles and Elvis Presley have been reduced to 600M and  Michael Jackson's 750M claimes have been reduced to 400M and later 350M and again to 400M. Queen has been removed from the 250M club, among other changes. However, Harout72 never touched the claimed sales of Madonna and let it stay as is when Madonna did not meet the page’s own requirements. It took 11 years before she reached 60% certification to support her 300M claims. But on the other hand Whitney Houston, an artist who began charting only one year after Madonna has 152.7m available certification which is more than 76% for her 200M claimed sales. Even if we remove the total digital certification of 29.5 from Whitney's total available certification by using Harout’s own argument, Whitney will still have 123.2M available certification. Which is more than 61% for her 200M claimed sales.  However, Harout still refuses to remove the 170M lower claim of Whitney. Keep in mind, even though the list has 116 artists and out of this only 12 artists have their lowest claims being used.

Harout72 has also been saying 50M digital singles certification of today will only be converted to 20M actual sales as you can see here. I don't know how he reached that conclusion. The total available certification of Eminem is 247.5M, out of this, 107.5M are RIAA's digital certification. Where the total Available certification of Mariah Carey is 185.5M and she only has 39.5M digital certification from RIAA. Similarly, Taylor Swift has 235.4 total available certifications and out of this 134M are digital sales. If we deduct the digital certification from these three artists the total certification will be 140M for Eminem, 145.8M for Mariah, and 101.4M For Taylor. Even if we pretend that Harout’s unsourced theory of 50M digital certification = 20M actual sales for face value, It's impossible that Eminem and Taylor swift meet their claimed sales of 220M and 200m respectively since they are basically artists from the 21st centuries.

Harout72 refers to all editors who oppose his point of view as disruptors. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change for privacy and legal ground. You can also see from this discussion from last June that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that “the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time" like an owner of this page.” But as a result of that discussion he had to decrease the highest claimed sales of Elvis Presley from 600M to 500M and the lowest claims 500m to 360M. Here is another instance where Harout was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor having so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, you might want to do your research correctly, just because Eminem and Taylor Swift are 21st century artists that doesn't mean that all of their digital certifications are streaming generated. The certifications issued before 2016 are good 70 % download based. You can see here 2015 Nilesen soundscan, Adele's "Hello" sold 3.7 million downloads, certified 4x Platinum by the RIAA. Taylor Swift has 99 million units of RIAA certs issued before 2016, that alone translates to 70 million digital downloads. Her RIAA certs issued in 2020 are also not 100% stream based, they're good 25 % download based. The same is with BPI certs and all others, if issued before 2016, they're 70% download based. Eminem also, he has 40 million units of RIAA certs issued before 2016 for singles, and those issued in 2018 are also over 25 % download based. As I stated above you could have made your criticism by taking either Rihanna, Kanye West or Chris Brown, as example, they're also 21st century artists. And if I were to deduct their RIAA digital certs from their total certified sales, their total certified sales would drop to 170 million, 114 million and 102 million respectively. But you didn't, because your agenda is to discredit me. And in this case you used specifically white artists to achieve your goal, which is to make it look like that I'm discriminating.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWhikiholic, you also mentioned above that the rules of this page have not changed since 2014, well you're wrong on that point too. The required percentage for an artist like Madonna who began charting in 1983 was 33.28%, and at that time Madonna had 165.7 million certified units. That's actually 55.2% certified units for a 300 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Now that my brain has decided to return to my head, the problem here is that we have a large number of editors who believe that changes to this particular page are very important and are willing to engage in a significant amount of uncollegial behaviour in order to ensure that their "correct" version is there. Note that I'm not talking about all the editors involved, but some of the behaviour is not acceptable. My suggestion would be to fuly protect the page so that it could only be changed with an edit request. Obviously, that would not prevent any of the issues at the talkpage, but at least that's only a talkpage. What do other admins and uninvolved editors think? Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, just a side note, the page is being updated for newly issued certifications multiple times on daily basis by me. It would be impossible, I think, for me to disturb administrators at least once a day to submit the updates.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Harout72 is right when he says that the list needs to be updated frequently. For that reason, I believe the easiest solution is to first restore the List's "Definitions" section to its status prior to the unilateral modification made by Harout72. And after that, establish that only the update of certified sales can be done without prior discussion. Salvabl (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. There is no deadline by which data must be updated, especially on an article like this. I would suggest that if the article's regular editors don't want it to be protected, they start working together in a more collaborative way. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Outside of some of the aspersion-casting going on, I'm not seeing much that's actionable here. Perhaps a big WP:RFC on it could help, so you could get some new input so it's not the same four of you guys clashing all the time? As a fellow editor of the music content area, I may be able to help mediate some as well, though I do admit it can take some investment to understand what happens at this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins for your assistance and your time. I look forward to reaching a consensus on the talk page on the matter. Disruption was and is never my intentions. I think if we were to approach this systematically with a goal in mind, then a conclusion can be reached. We’ve reached consensus before in the past.TruthGuardians (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Adele's case is entirely different. I can explain it on the articles talk page on another occasion. As far as Madonna is concerned, she only had 153.7M certification when the article began using her 300m claimed sales figure in 2010. It was only 51% then. You know this. It become 165.7m in 2014 and 180m (60%) in 2021. You know this as well. 1) My first question is why did you not ever remove her 300M claim during this 11-year time span?

Black Kite, Sergecross73 My main concern is Harout’s way of handing the talk page. He often imposes his views on other editors. For example, I mentioned above that he used to say 50M digital certifications for nowadays only translate to 20M actual sales. I have never seen any source or anything to support these claims. This is because one doesn’t exist anywhere. He also added a definition that supports his arguments, even in the very midst of a discussion.

Another issue is that up to a few months ago, the article was using the 2010 IFPI's market share data. According to it, the USA is the biggest music market having a 30% total market share. Using this data, Harout set up a requirement for an artist to be on the list. For example, an artist who began charting in the 1950s and 1960 should have at least have 30% available certification to support this claim. Just imagine using data from 2010 for artists from the 50s and 60s, and assuming that there was an existing online database in other countries, these artists would all have sold three times more than they have, per Harout’s findings. If we check the data of IFPI in 2002, you can see that the USA has generated 35% of the worlds total music sales which clearly indicates that when we go back to the 80s, 70s, and 60s, the market share of the USA would be much higher than compared to other markets. I also read in the 50s and 60s the USA dominated with 60% of market shares, followed by the USA and UK, where today are USA and Japan.

When any user points out these issues he labels edits and the editors as disruptive and any discussion related to the flaws being discussed is futile. As you can see here, there was a consensus to raise the minimum requirement of artists that began charting in the 50s and 60s to 40% from 30%. Even though he prepared a model of it, the consensus has yet to be implemented, even 5 months later.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, you are making stuff up as you go, that's why you and I can't work together. What consensus are you referring to that has yet to be implemented? Your supporter TruthGuardians was supposedly going to receive IFPI information directly from IFPI and pass it alone so i could implement it, TruthGuardians never did. Adele's case isn't any different than others. Look at the digital sales of the song "Happy" by Pharrell Williams, 5.6 million in 2014, certified 6x Platinum in 2014. That certification is based on more than 90% downloads. As for 2010, we didn't have any of the percentages implemented in 2010, we had no such rules. The first time we had such percentile based rules was in 2012, and I had to develop it over the years doing lot of research. FYI, Madonna had 157.9 million certified units then, that actually was the double the number what she was required to have then. You need to stop with your false accusations.--Harout72 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I think everyone's time would be better spent on creating a carefully crafted (and concisely worded) RFC to get some new input on all of this rather than these massive walk-of-text listings of mild grievances. It's impossible to follow all of this. That's why you've got a meager response of 2 outside editors commenting on this after 2 days of discussion. That's pretty awful for a venue as populated as ANI. You're all doing a poor job of breaking this down for any outsiders. Wrap this up and try a new approach. Sergecross73 msg me 05:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Harout, stop referring to me as a supporter of another editor because I agree with their sourced content and ideas and disagree with your unsourced rhetoric. @TheWikiholic is an admin. I trust that he knows what he is doing and saying. I admire his work here on Wikipedia and yes I do follow his edits. Wikiholic is right, regardless of what you are waiting for (the same thing I am), it is still a consensus. @Sergecross73 I kept warning the editors about an RFC and even an AFD. I didn’t want it to go that far. I didn’t think it would have to, but as it is there’s only one editor preventing accurate editing from moving forward for whatever reason. While I’m still on the fence for an RFC or an AFD, I am certainly in favor of protecting the article for each an every single edit. At least until this matter is settled or another agreement is reached to I protect it to allow normal uniformed edits to take place. As @Black Kite has stated, there’s no deadline that this information, or any other information on Wikipedia must be updated.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

An AFD would certainly be inappropriate- we don't delete articles just because we disagree on how to handle content within them. Definitely don't go that route. But an RFC isn't that big of a deal. I think the only issue is that most participants struggle with making concise points - if you put together a long, bloated RFC, it'll go much like this long bloated ANI discussion, where few will jump in and it'll just be you 3-4 arguing amongst yourselves again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, however, we see poorly sourced wiki articles deleted everyday. Like you said, it’s difficult to follow this topic and to just jump in and know what’s going on. I totally get it. None of the participants, including myself, have been able to put into words appropriately and in plain language the WP:NOR that is involved with the page’s formula, but I believe with the right wording may qualify for an AFD. Or at least a discussion. I agree that that it should not be the next course of action by any means though for sure. On my way to talk page now.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no way there's a valid deletion argument that a topic cross-section like "best-selling" and "musicians" isn't a notable topic. A nomination like that would likely be quick-failed out of AFD, and you'd probably get a warning for WP:POINTed editing or ill-conceived AFD nominations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Problems including repeated XfD discussion interference

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.

---

• NeverTry4Me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallab Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NeverTry4Me (recently known as Arunudoy) interfering with Onel5969's XfD !vote at Special:Diff/1070810711 and Special:Diff/1070993030 and personal attack alleging their are corrupt editors (the obvious implication that including Onel5969 at Special:Diff/1070988111 especially given This COIN discussion NeverTry4Me has multiple other issues per there talk page. Suggest behavior is out of hand and needs addressing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• another baseless allegation by Djm-leighpark . Wherever I did AfD/SfD, I have tried creating Neutral sources, but both are disrupting my edits. Edit differences are evidence of it. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me I have very specifically given diffs of your removing Onel5969's !vote with a nowiki and then of putting a strikethrough through part of Onel5969's comment; and you have called allegations against that disruption baseless. You have vaguely in response said look at edit differences. I suggest you need to own the fact you have been disruptive or face sanctions or come up with specific edit differences rather than drawing in community wasted effort. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• What the hell? This is not a "baseless allegation," but an entirely correct one. You do not refactor another editor's comments at XfD (short of direct personal attacks) ever. Period. If you disagree with their observations, your sole recourse is to rebut them in your own comments.. Ravenswing 11:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @@Djm-leighpark: I have corrected all of my entries, and there is no disruptive editing now. You and User Onel5969 are placing baseless allegations against me. I, again, say the allegations are WP: FRANCKENTSTEIN. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: What made you feel you had the right to edit other people's AfD votes or talk page entries in the first place? — Czello 11:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• NeverTry4Me, please stop referring to allegations as baseless when proof has been provided (Special:Diff/1070810711 and Special:Diff/1070993030) that they are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• NeverTry4Me is also very ready to accuse other editors of vandalism, corruption or being "arrogant:" [142][143][144][145][146] Ravenswing 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  More than half of those diffs are from 2020 or earlier. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  They are still calling other editors "Corrupt" in 2022 though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1070989321&oldid=1070988111&title=User_talk:NeverTry4Me&type=revision "presumption of a few corrupt editors". However, it isn't entirely clear what the accusations of COI against NeverTry4Me are actually based on.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Well I can see that their username until recently was User:Arunodoy and they created Arunodoy Asom, whether that's part of it I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I also independently noticed that as odd. Wonder if that's a COI/autobiography of sorts. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have created wiki pages of Police chiefs and militants also. Police and Militants are counterparts. They live in jungle, I do not. :) --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  What's your point, Stifle? It's not as if NeverTry4Me's stopped doing so. My point is that this behavior is an ongoing pattern, and no momentary lapse. Ravenswing 13:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to put this in bold so NeverTry4Me pays attention - Comment on the content, not the editors and do not refactor anyone else's comments as outlined at WP:TPO. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize. Pardon. Can we end now? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: I suppose we may have to: albeit at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah you are still requesting " this Draft history is enough to prove that @Onel5969: made a baseless allegation against me. I appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators to come up with a fair investigation and inquire about @Onel5969:'s allegation as per Wiki policy WP:ANI. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)" and I'd also note that at 12:18, 10 February 2022 with Special:Diff/1071012824 Onel5969 had to clean up your disruption to their !vote summmary at XfD though earlier here at 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC) you claimed you had moved disruption. So I'd see this is as a brush-aside sloppy apology but its likely the best that's going to be got so we will need to move on ... hopefully problems will not re-occur. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: Further no issue will re-occur. Again, my unconditional apology. I shall refrain from things related all those mistakes, I have done. This discussion output helped me to learn a lot, specially a new user like me. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 06:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me:: You've just re-factored one of Hemantha'a comments at Special:Diff/1071409975 with a violation of WP:TPO. Perhaps as a defence you may been you been you are e feel you are being harassed given there are WP:COIN discussions are still active, (one barely and on the cusp of inactivity). But you are continuing to make these problems/mistakes, which is an issue after saying you were going to stop. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: I didn't know that replying in that way is a violation of the rule, as I I thought it was my reply I haven't edited his. Thanks for learning me. Again, I tender an apology for that one. Probably I should study a vast of rules before writing on discussion pages. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• You still haven't understood you inserted your reply into the middle of their comment! Which means you are going to continue doing it! Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just to put a lid on this, User:NeverTry4Me has been indefinitely blocked by User:El_C under WP:CIR. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 16 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.

Moderna 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.

---

Hello

I struggle with an abusive user called Zefr, who takes issue with any and all information that sheds a bad light on Moderna. The disputed information is located under criticism.

The argument was supposed to be settled on the Moderna talk page, but Zefr has taken to removing my replies, threatening me on my talk page, and calling any and all negative information "an opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Surge of Reason I suggest that you withdraw this complaint and use dispute resolution to resolve this matter. It could be said that you are here to embarrass Moderna by suggesting it is controversial for them to engage in tax avoidance and giving it undue weight. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT the only reply of yours which was removed is [147]. That reply seems clearly inappropriate for an article talk page as it does not help resolve the dispute. You seem to be Wikipedia:Casting aspersions about the motivations of another editor with no evidence. And per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you cannot demand an editor fix other articles if they want fix one article. And your earlier reply does seem to be mostly soapboxing [148], the evils of tax avoidance and how many other companies are involved in it do not seem to be particularly germane to the article on Moderna. If you want to resolve the dispute you need to put aside whatever personal disagreements you have with other editors and general issues surrounding tax avoidance and instead focus on the specifics about the allegations concerning Moderna, such as the available sources that relate to Moderna and what they say about Moderna, how it should be covered if at all etc; and as 331dot said, seek help with some sort of dispute resolution as needed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Many companies are incorporated in Delaware to take advantage of a favorable tax environment. That’s not “tax avoidance”, and your attempts to portray it that way are clearly undue. Not publishing to protect intellectual property is similarly being abused by you as inappropriate shading of normal business practice to push a negative POV. 03:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Acroterion (talk)

Um, yes it certainly is tax avoidance (which is perfectly legal and distinct from tax evasion). (I'm not taking a position on the instant dispute, just correcting the record.) EEng 05:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much anything anyone does to reduce taxes could be labeled “tax avoidance.” It is usually reserved for novel or extreme efforts, not for simply being a Delaware corporation. That kind of coloration appears to be heavily influencing SOR's edits. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, anything one does to reduce taxes is tax avoidance, and no, it's not reserved for novel or extreme efforts [149]; incorporating in Delaware is absolutely a form of tax avoidance. Like I said, I'm not in any way commenting on the content dispute or how someone's characterizing what someone else is doing. EEng 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose that the information presented conveys important information about what kind of company Moderna is. I believe that to be the ultimate point of a page on a company. Statements like: Moderna avoids taxes by registering patents in Delaware or by routing money through a Swiss subsidiary are neutral facts. Information based on testimonies from multiple employees is in my opinion not giving undue weight, nor do their testimonies necessarily become outdated. At the very least they continue to meaningfully describe the period before 2016. The testimonies of veterans of the industry that describe Moderna's secretive nature as dangerous should not be ignored either. Moreover, it is commonplace for Wikipedia articles on major corporations to include important criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Surge of Reason There is no user behavior that warrants action here- except perhaps yours if you continue to seem as if you are here merely to post negative information about Moderna or any company with undue weight. It is not illegal or even just wrong in a society with free movement like the US for any company(or you personally) to register patents in Delaware or any tax haven. You must collaborate with other editors on the article talk page. This is only a content dispute, which are not handled here. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Over half of all companies listed on the NYSE are incorporated in Delaware. If you think of an American company off of the top of your head right now, there's a good chance it's incorporated in Delaware. I struggle to think of any scenario in which it would be WP:DUE to mention this fact on a company's article. Mlb96 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI is not a first stop in dispute resolution except in cases of user misconduct, which has not been credibly found in this case. The proper dispute resolution processes such as listed on WP:DR should have been followed instead. Also, to echo opinions on Talk:Moderna, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, and regardless of your opinions on the thoughts of tax avoidance (not evasion), Wikipedia is not the place for such opinion, unless such has also been echoed in reputable sources. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This bit of WP:SYNTH[150] in which the editor characterized several unrelated accidents (for the majority of them, the company was not found at fault) as "a bizarre string", suggests the editor is here to Right Great Wrongs rather than to build a neutral encyclopedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue and tax avoidance isn't tax evasion. Pious Brother (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still quite convinced that this is discrimination in favor of Moderna. There's nothing I added that wouldn't fit perfectly on a big tech criticism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 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.

7&6=thirteen account compromise?

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:7&6=thirteen's account seems to have been compromised, looking at the account's most recent edit. This is concerning, because it looks like this is a long-term abuser compromising a long-term contributor's account. What to do? -- The Anome (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They were reporting an issue on Oshwah's talk page, I believe. I saw the edit summary and was concerned myself, but the edit on Oshwah's talk page is already reverted and revdelled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of the abusive content in the edit comment is really odd; why quote this there? -- The Anome (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume to get an immediate response, so the first admin to see it would know it was an immediate block and didn't need any discussion or investigation. A link to a diff might have been better, but not as eye catching. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To get a swift result perhaps? No disrespect to you, Anome, but was that one edit really worth a 31-hour block, or is there something I'm missing? (And I say that as someone who's about far off 13's Christmas card list as it's probably possible to be!) SN54129 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it was an excess of caution, in case 7&6=thirteen's account was compromised. Better safe than sorry. Looking at their block log, this may actually be their second compromised account block in error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! Odd though, as WP:COMPROMISED is pretty clear on actions to be taken, and short term blocks don't enter into it anywhere... SN54129 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The block log gives no indication of a compromised account, instead citing "disruptive editing." And there's been no block notice or explanation on 13's talk page. Some tidying up to do by Anome I think.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sokay, Ritchie333's got the whitewash out  ;) SN54129 18:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec x lots) Having known 7&6=13 for some years, the writing style of the redacted post looks nothing like anything he would write, and I suspect the account is compromised. I've upped the block to indefinite with talk page access disabled and advised them to contact the stewards (which I believe is the correct policy but I don't often do this and don't have the Checkuser Magic 8-Ball that would help). I've left a note that if any checkuser can confirm the account is not compromised, they are free to lift the block without consulting me if they so wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Did they make the original edit at User talk:Oshwah, or did they just copy it in a report here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Dumb move from a "let's not shine light on it more" perspective but that's what happened. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: To be clear, Thriteen copied the content and name of the user that left it (albeit censoring some parts). An odd choice, considering Thirteen's experience, but it happens. I think a trout for both Thirteen and Anome are in order. Aside from that, I don't think there is anything else to be added here. Isabelle ^🔔 18:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Not anywhere near compromised. Unblocked. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks to Primefac for re-opening this, and thanks also for unblocking so quickly.; As young say there might, indeed, be more to discuss. Starting with a few gentle words directed at The Anome for leaping to the conclusion that a long term account had been compromised, calling one post at ANI disruptive, and then blocking without warning or any other notice, in breach of policy on both blocking and compromised accounts. D'oh! A small portion of fish for your tea tonight, Anome! SN54129 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll repost here what I put on 7&6=13's talk page:

• At the time I saw the ANI thread, the post there had already been redacted.
• I saw a reference to "posting on Oshwah's talk page", but no indication 7&6=13 had edited there, so didn't understand what that was about
• I noticed the account was blocked for "disruptive editing", which was inappropriate either for a compromised account (which should be indef blocked pending review) or a not-at-all-compromised account (which mandates a discussion and reasoning)
• Having looked at the redacted post (which admins can do), it looked so completely out of character for anything 7&6=13 would write, that I had reasonable enough suspicion that the account was compromised, and blocked as a safety precaution, immediately broadcasting out to any checkuser who was about to confirm and reverse the block if necessary.
• A checkuser promptly turned up, concluding there was no compromised account, and unblocked - as I had already asked to happen if that were the case.
• Tea and biscuits

In summary, I waded into something without full accumulation of the facts and jumped to a wrong conclusion. Although I didn't explicitly say it, I didn't particularly want to block the guy who encouraged me to start contributing to WP:DYK about 9 years ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It also looks like you failed to disable 13's talk page access as you had intended to do, which was for the best in the end:)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder who that reminds me of? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What's that got to do with you failing to pull TPA, Ritchie333 :p SN54129 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of clarity, I put a 31-hour temporary block on the account solely to give time for this discussion to occur, so that we didn't race to a conclusion without proper consideration,. It sounds like the checkuser has taken a proper look and removed any confusion, so everything ended well. -- The Anome (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus here, The Anome is most certainly not that "all ended well"; much discussion of trout, following overreaction in the first place. Having said that, your message to 13 just now was very nice and something that many admins would "forget" to do. Thanks! SN54129 21:32, 16 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:Symon777

Symon777 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring with me about the articles Eskiarab and Boʻrbaliq (two places in Uzbekistan). They consider these articles their own property (see [153], and respond on comments by myself ([154]) and by Ost316 ([155]) with profanities (blanked afterwards, including the comments by Ost316 and myself. It is likely that the accounts BioCaliforniauz (talk · contribs) and Salman unity (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person, see [156] and [157]. I have no hope that this user will engage in civil discussion. Markussep ^Talk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the problems described by Markussep, Symon777 has repeatedly removed this section from this page, and after that failed because it was repeatedly restored, changed it to make it appear to be a report about Markussep. I have blocked the account for 48 hours. It is up to Symon777 now to decide whether to start editing collaboratively when the block is over, or to carry on in the same way, in which case an indefinite block will be reasonable. I had already noticed Salman unity, but not BioCaliforniauz. I'll look at them and see whether anything should be done about those accounts. JBW (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty certain that the accounts Salman unity and Symon777 are connected, either as the same person or two people acting together. I'll drop a warning note. However, I don't see enough evidence to conclude that BioCaliforniauz is related, and there are enough differences to make it seem unlikely that it's actually the same person. JBW (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, the reason I suspected BioCaliforniauz was that they signed as Symon777 here. Markussep ^Talk 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Markussep, stupidly, I didn't think to look at the signature when I checked earlier. That throws a very different light on things. I don't have time now to follow this up, but I'll try to look at it again when I do have time. Thanks for providing the information. JBW (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user removing split template after voting delete on Neo-Nazism article

• CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neo-Nazism in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neo-Nazism in India was created as a bold WP:SPLIT from Neo-Nazism as the parent article was 190KB (much more than 100KB WP:SIZERULE), the split is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India.

A Template:Split was added by me on top of Neo-Nazism with a link to the discussion. CapnJackSp (recently became extended confirmed) who had voted Delete in the discussion is now edit warring and removing the split template from the article Neo-Nazism, [158]. Even though the discussion is set to be closed tomorrow. He is refusing to restore the split template and arguing that it is not split discussion but AfD. This is an obvious attempt to disrupt the AfD by a user who has voted Delete.

I have already, tried to reason with him on the article talk page [159] and his talk page [160] [161].

I am posting here to request an admin to restore the Split template [162] on the article Neo-Nazism till the time the discussion is open. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat, you have not yet explained on the talk page why there should be two separate templates. You opened up this ANI discussion after making one message for resolving the issues. The messages on my talk page were warning templates, which can hardly be counted as dispute resolution attempts.

Even though you split the article without discussion, I am still willing to entertain your incorrect usage of template at Neo-Nazi#India for the sake of resolution, as I pointed out earlier. However, I dont see why/how you can justify a duplicate usage of an incorrect template (assuming we overlook the first usage). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

PS:Would like to add that contrary to the implication, a split template already exists on the page. My edit was to remove the duplicate temple. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the edit [163] and the current version, in which User:CapnJackSp has removed the split template from the page.Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, contrary to the implication, I have removed "a" template (out of two), not "the" template. Just to clarify. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As seen in the diff [164], you have removed it inappropriately and continually refused to restore it from the top of the page, giving specious reason. Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion already, I think it is best left to the admins. If you are disputing my statement, then any admin can check that the template is in place at Neo-Nazism#India and has not been touched at all. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This seems unequivocal. Special:Diff/1071392341 is where User:Venkat TL added 2 notices instead of 1. Special:Permalink/1072195018#India is the version edited by User:CapnJackSp mentioned above, and there's a split notice right there. This has already been acknowledged by Special:Diff/1072255476. Nothing to restore, therefore.

  If the problem is a 190KiB article, choosing to split on the section that has a mere 4 sentences, and in fact is one of the smallest subsections of the article, seems a weak approach to the problem.

  Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the key consideration in article length is prose size, not overall size. The neo-nazism article comes in at 73kB, so longer than perhaps ideal, but not a behemoth by any means. I'm not sure if there is any need for action now, the question of whether and how the neo-nazism article can/should be split is a discussion that can occur no matter where exactly a split tag is located on an article. It would be more productive to focus on the actual discussion than a discussion about the discussion that would have little impact either way. CMD (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Uncle G and @Chipmunkdavis Thanks for the comments and the correction on prose size. Noted. Do you think it was justified to remove the template:Split from the top of the article while the discussion was ongoing? and then edit warring to remove it? Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  We may have guidance regarding tag placement in this situation, but I am unfamiliar with it. I would say looking at it now that actions both ways were done in good faith, and that the important factor is that discussion is ongoing. CMD (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

IP 62.98.133.82/62.98.130.202

62.98.133.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is carrying on the same disruptive editing that 62.98.130.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was recently blocked for (their block expired today). As noted in the earlier report, they continually add/re-add information, which has shown to be incorrect. Their talk page comments are hostile and abusive and include what may be seen as a legal threat.[165] So far, they are editing six or more articles, so I'm not sure that RfPP is a good option. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

IP is now also using 62.98.156.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), so RfPP may be appropriate. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an expert, but saw this thread. Given the history, I'd think blocking of some kind is needed, considering past legal threat, hostility, etc. Possibly range block at 62.98.0.0/16?... Or would that be too much...? Magitroopa (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Public wifi single-purpose editing at Cher Scarlett

Feeling some deja vu at Cher Scarlett with some edits that have altered the WP:NPOV and introduced WP:LIBEL, a few of which seem to intend to subtly discredit Scarlett's role in the organizing at Apple Inc..

128.119.202.233, 128.119.202.78, and 128.119.202.52 all seem to be the same user utilizing public wifi, and engaged in WP:EW, despite repeated requests to use the talk page. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Muhmmadaht

User Muhmmadaht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ignores the rules prescribed in WP:RS and WP:CONS and removes information from the article Mongolic peoples. In particular, he selectively removes the mention of one ethnic group according to its own judgments. I ask you to take action against the user and remind him of the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: per the big orange banner that you get when editing this page, you should notify an editor on their talk page when you report them here. I have done so for you. I'll also note that there was another ANI report about this same user a few days ago (here) which has since been retracted, originally posted by HistoryofIran. Finally, please post diffs providing direct evidence for any allegations: this is much easier for admins (who are also volunteers and have limited time!) to handle. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! User Muhmmadaht removed references to Hazaras who were of Mongol origin: [[166]]. According to the sources provided, the Hazaras are of Mongolian origin and spoke the Mongolian language until the 19th century. The Hazaras have been added to the chapter on ethnic groups of Mongolian origin. However, Muhmmadaht continues to delete information confirmed by reliable sources: [[167]], [[168]], [[169]]. I urged the user to come to a consensus, but this was not successful. The sources refer to the Hazaras, who spoke the Mongolian language until the 19th century. But for some reason he continues to write that the Moghols are mentioned in the sources. For some strange reason, he urges not to confuse the Moghols with the Hazaras. But the sources speak specifically about the Hazaras: I have added quotes and references.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Long running original research in Dervish-related content

User @Heesxiisolehh: has repeatedly added original research for most, if not all of their time on Wikipedia. Despite letting him know multiple times as well as informing him of removals of content, in line with my special editing restrictions (see [170], [171], [172], [173], ). A peaceful resolution has not been reached as Heesxiisolehh refuses to cooperate (even reporting me for "breaching 3RR" despite not being the case [174], while also leaving me a "notice" on my talk page (link) a mere minute before leaving me a notice of that report (link)).

Heesxiisolehh has repeatedly used this Caroselli source to label all Dervish forts "Dhulbahante garesas" or "Dhulbahante forts" ([175], [176], [177]), which is not supported by the cited source or by any other source and is clearly original research. The consensus reached by the Italian editors he keeps using as justification (link) is also irrelevant since they discussed the translation of the source and the word garesa only, and the consensus does not back up Heesxiisolehh's claims.

Many articles Heesxiisolehh has either created or significantly contributed to have been found to be violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFY, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and having no WP:SIGCOV, among others (see Diiriye Guure (probably the most ambitious given all the articles that used to link to it [178]), Shire Umbaal,Nur Hedik,Adam Maleh, Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal as well as Kaaha Tafadhiig. He has been approached and been advised to read up on OR and SYNTH by me as well as by another user (link) however the user has clearly demonstrated that they will not stop.

In addition, after the deletion of the Diiriye Guure article he went on to remake most of the deleted article in the Las Anod article ([179], [180]) and link it to articles where links to Diiriye Guure were removed ([181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190] including in Portal:Somalia link for that), which is another clear indication that Heesxiisolehh will not stop adding OR and SYNTH.

Heesxiisolehh has also in addition to that added unsourced original research to the main article, Dervish movement, misusing many sources which have been mentioned before. There are too many edits to mention but this is the main one, where despite me letting him know almost everything is original research, he goes ahead and re-adds the content, which violates WP:NOCONSENSUS. He also then proceeds to add even more new original research (What is a chieftainship-sultanate-emirate? That's a new word.). Heesxiisolehh has in addition added original research to the Somalia article ([191]), the Outline of Somalia article ([192]), the Geography of Somalia article ([193]), Portal:Somalia (link for that) and Dul Madoba ([194] while also using this as justification despite the fact that, ignoring the obvious synth and original research, the content he added isn't relevant). In Dul Madoba's case, he even moved the page ([195]), going against a long standing name per majority of reliable sources ([196]). Most of Heesxiisolehh's edits are also inconcise and very confusing (what is the intra-46th meridian east territories and why does it link to a burial site? [197]).

Heesxiisolehh has also created multiple categories based on the original research the editor has added, including Category:Border crossings of the Darawiish (the Dervishes were never a full state, which either way doesn't matter since historic entities shouldn't be having "border crossings" categories). Heesxiisolehh has added his original research to non-Somali articles, including Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900−present), List of states with limited recognition, Scramble for Africa, List of national border changes from 1815 to 1914, and Hewett Treaty.

To conclude, I have tried my best to assume good faith per WP:AGF even in the face of clear original research, and now I honestly doubt Heesxiisolehh is fit to edit Wikipedia as he is essentially on a mission to rewrite Dervish history to his own liking. Heesxiisolehh has breached more than half a dozen Wikipedia guidelines and has demonstrated multiple times that he is uncooperative. This reminds me of the user Shit233333334, an editor who also seems to have added a lot of original research to Horn of Africa-related articles and misused sources, in addition to sockpuppeteering ([198]). I should have submitted this report much earlier but I kept assuming good faith. Overall, I don't think Heesxiisolehh is here to build an encyclopedia. Gebagebo (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the filing of this report Heesxiisolehh has once again readded their original research to the Dul Madoba article [199] despite it not being supported by both cited sources, another indication that the editor intends to continue adding original research and synth. Gebagebo (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at both sources in the above diff and agree that it was entirely original research/analysis. The first source is available here, by clicking "View/Open" at the bottom". That author has included many primary sources, mostly a series of angry letters, and it's one of these primary sources that Heesxiisolehh is analyzing. So it's not the author's claim that there was a Dervish-Dhulbahante government, but an ambiguous claim in a letter. The second source is available here, by zooming in about two-thirds down the third column. Not only is this an unattributed war dispatch from 1903 in the Cardiff Evening Express, a terrible source for claims like these, but the source doesn't even support what Heesxiisolehh is using it for. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: As outlined above Heesxiisolehh has a history of adding original research and analysis, with almost a dozen of Heesxiisolehh's articles being deleted due to breaking WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and more. Heesxiisolehh has also been advised by @TimothyBlue: see here and @Kzl55: see here to refrain from such as well. Gebagebo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at page 76 of Raphael Njoku (link provided) published by ABC-Clio, you see the "government" phrase included, suggesting a) tertiary usage of letter, and b) that academics consider the letter (particularly the "government" passage) notable. As for the 1903 source, that is further buttressed by this source (link & passage provided), published by H.M. Stationary Office. Further strengthening the 1903 source is a 1976 issue by scholar with 105 peer reviews on Google scholar (link provided) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't analyze primary sources. That's original research. If reliable, secondary sources say—in their own voice—that there was a "Dervish-Dhulbahante government", then we can cite that. As for the additional Deria Gure sources, they still don't support the claim that Guure was "head of Dhulbahante clan". The original (poor quality) source only said that he was "corresponding to [a] commanding Royal Engineer". The new sources only say that he should surrender. They're also primary sources. Look, WP:NOR makes it clear that we need to leave any primary source analysis to secondary sources, the actual experts. And WP:V says that claims need to be directly and unambiguously supported by reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: What about the quote "These men are the heads of their respective tribes", in the 1903 Evening Express source. Doesn't that quote unambiguously suggest Gure is the "head of Dhulbahante clan"? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim you added was Diiriye Guure being head of Dhulbahante clan. That source says he is one of "four principal leaders" and clarifies later that he was somewhat like a Royal Engineer. So no, it doesn't support the claim you added to the article. Besides, as I mentioned early, it's an awful source, as British sources about British colonies/"protectorates" often were. (As an example, see WP:RAJ.) There's also no author by-line, it credits another source that we don't have, and the page is filled with all kinds of gossipy "news", like something you'd see at the Daily Mail. For claims like this, we need reputable scholarly sources—preferably modern ones—that can analyze primary documents scientifically. Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In the 25 year existence of the Nugaal revolution, 1903 was arguably the closest to a free press in the Nugaal, per (Press freedom in Nugaal link), nonetheless I guess I could take to heart eschewing to my innate fret of treading between meticulous-to-detail versus WP:Paraphrasing. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: None of the sources suggest the original research you have been adding. The first source mentions no "Dervish-Dhulbahante government" nor a king being superior to the Mullah. Pure original research.

The second source only lists a number of highranking Dervish members (including Sultan Nur, Haji Sudi and the Mullah himself) who have no guarantees should they surrender. The Jaamac source similarly is nothing but a Somali translation. The other highranking Dervish members are in that Jaamac source as well in line with the British colonial source ([200] see here). Heesxiisolehh seems to have intentionally left out that part of the passage.

The entire passage including a translation reads:

"Iyadoo aan loo malaynayn marnaba in Wadaadku isdhiibo, hadana isaga iyo kuwa raacsan oo kala ah: Axmed Warsame oo loo yaqaan (Xaaji Suudi): Diiriye Carraale iyo Diiriye Guure waxa qur ah oo laga oggolaan karaa isdhiibid aan shuruud lahayn; wax sugan oo ballanqaad ah oo noloshooda dambe laga siin karaa ma jirto"

Translated it means:

"Since it is very unlikely that the Mullah will ever surrender, him and his followers who are: Ahmed Warsame known as Haji Sudi, Deria Arale and Deria Gure can solely be permitted to capitulate and give themselves up, without any conditions. We do not attach any agreements or safeguards hereafter."

Per Official History of the Operations in Somaliland. 1901–1904, Vol. I p. 54:

"In the unlikely event of the: Mullah offering to surrender, in his case and that of the Following: Haji Sudi, Deria Arale, Deria Gure Only an unconditional surrender should be accepted no guarantee of any kind to future treatment been given. Sultan Nur the , sultan of the Habr Yunis, may be guaranteed his life"

This is a clear attempt by Heesxiisolehh to misuse sources to make it seem like his original research is supported by reliable sources. Gebagebo (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

More addition of original research (some since the filing of the report), this time in the Dervish movement (Somali) article ([201], [202], [203]). Heesxiisolehh is showcasing again and again that he does not intend to stop. Gebagebo (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And now he just moved the Dervish page in line with his OR. @Woodroar: I doubt this will end to be honest. Gebagebo (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything here. I can only ask that an admin gets involved with a trouting, page ban, or block of Heesxiisolehh. I'm no expert on this subject, granted, but every single reliable source I've seen has associated the Dervish movement with Somalia, yet Heesxiisolehh unilaterally moved the page to Dervish movement (Nugaal). Then he changed most instances of "Dervish" to "Darawiish", despite "Dervish" being the common name in reliable sources (that I've seen) and the English language in general. That last link also includes several instances of analysis of primary sources, which I'd specifically told Heesxiisolehh is not acceptable above. Woodroar (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For anyone interested in government sanctioned Dervish maps, here you go (they don't align with all of Somalia) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC):

Ibraahim Muxamed map

Ministero delle colonie (Ministry of the Colonies (Italy)) map

Boocame District, Taleh District, Xudun District, Las Anod District, Bookh district (of Ethiopia) and Nugaaleed-Bari

See, this is the issue. It's not "according to independent, reliable sources" or even "scholar X says Y", it's primary documents from ~100 years ago which Heesxiisolehh is interpreting to make broad, sweeping changes to the article. It doesn't matter that a WP:COMMONNAME search for "dervish movement" "somalia" -wikipedia returns 15,200 results while "dervish movement" "nugaal" -wikipedia returns only 1,230 results. Woodroar (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: You hit the nail on the head. Heesxiisolehh is exactly interpreting primary sources on his own, which is wrong by itself, but the fact those interpretations also contradict reliable sources makes the matter even worse. Dervish is the common name indeed, with Daraawiish being the Somali term. I hope an admin gets involved since he has demonstrated that he will continue on this path of disruption, which would have a serious effect on Somali-related articles, who are already rife with original research, POV edits and edit wars. Gebagebo (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Could you take a look at this please before this gets archived? There seems to be a consensus from what I can see. Gebagebo (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: are you going agree to stop your original research and disruptive editing? If not then you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 19:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: OK good, thank you. @Gebagebo: if you notice any further issues please let me know. GiantSnowman 19:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thank you very much! I'm removing the original research/analysis in question. I won't hesitate to let you know should Heesxiisolehh repeat this. Gebagebo (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Justanother2 - disruptive edits, ignoring attempts to talk on their talk page, leaving nasty messages on others' talk pages

Justanother2 (talk) has been engaged in making disruptive unsourced edits to Super Bowl LVI and, to a lesser extent, Super Bowl LVI halftime show. Multiple editors have had to revert his edits, and have tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he consistently deletes everything from his talk page (questions, invitations to discuss, warnings) without responding. He leaves edit summaries such as these:

• "If you have a beef or something go look up the myriad of reviews. Take this to a talk page, maybe this one for the halftime show." [204]
• "Learn how talk pages work; you continually run into arguments. You're a deletionist too." [205]
• "Can't most of you use talk pages? Don't remove this info; you're showing you don't understand sports reports or how stats function. Also you can find sources." [206]
• Do you even edit sports articles? It's not a production line; there are two or more admins editing on here now. I will ask them about this prob. Making a note of the rash of reverts on here, stop it!" [207]

I would like to invite Fynsta, Bluerules (talk), and Kinu ^t/_c to weigh in with their experience with Justanother2. As he is not taking advice from other editors, perhaps a warning from an administrator will get his attention. Back Bay Barry (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: Minor point; why are you copying and pasting the signatures of the editors you're pinging rather than using {{ping}} to do so? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ummm... because I didn't know that was the accepted way to do it? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: do I need to edit that with the ping function for them to be alerted? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: It's too late to do that now, but keep that in mind for the future. It's likely the users you did intend to ping, were pinged (because of how the notification system works). Just keep this in mind next time, as I know some users may not like it if you use their sig as a ping. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

yep I wasn't notified, only found this page by accident. So allow me to ping @Bluerules: and @Kinu:.Fynsta (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a recurrent editor on most Coldplay-related articles and this user has been a hassle there as well. They went to my Talk page and kept saying I was wrong all the time when their contributions rarely, if at all, improved the article. They just kept changing the way how the (revised, corrected and approved) text is worded to his personal preferences. In fact, one of their edits on Coldplay's discography page was outright disruptive and misleading. At first I thought I was just being over-protective of the band's articles since I created or revamped everything there except for the History section, but seeing how he got into a much worse debacle in Super Bowl LVI's article, there's clearly a pattern going on. --GustavoCza (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, that's exactly what this is. The user changes the wording and structure of the articles for the worse, and he does not stop even after repeated warnings. Going through their contributions history, nearly every edit seems to follow this pattern (and on top of that, using random nonsensical strings as edit summaries). Most of these were on small articles that weren't reverted, but should have been in my opinion. Fynsta (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur that this user's edits are unhelpful. On the Super Bowl LVI article, they made the second paragraph of the lead awkwardly-written and even added notes demanding that it not be changed back. They changed "quarterback Jared Goff suffered a decline in production, which led to tension between Goff and McVay" to "threw more interceptions than he had in 2016 and 2017, including 12 in 2018, 16 in 2019, and 13 in 2020, which led to tension between Goff and McVay" an unnecessary and overly-detailed bloat that makes the sentence awkward (which doesn't tell the full story either - Goff declined in general, not just with his turnover differential). They also restored outdated information on the Tony Boselli article about him not being inducted to the Pro Football Hall of Fame (which he was this year), while pledging to write an updated summary (which they never did). And their attitude is worse - when they created a talk page section to justify their Super Bowl edits, they accused me of having talk page full of complaints (even butting in to an unrelated discussion on my talk page to criticize me) and incorrectly thought edits were decided by polls. Bluerules (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Update apparently in retaliation for me filing this report, Justanother2 is now stalking my edits on other pages that he wasn't involved in before and reverting them; see this and this. Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Update He's now playing the victim on Coldplay's article as well, since I never really bought his facade, I'm rolling my eyes right now. --GustavoCza (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • More stalking he's now reverting me on more articles, see here and here. Back Bay Barry (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Continued stalking came to an edit I made minutes ago and reverted, purely to harass. Is there no one that can put a stop to this? He also immediately removed another warning placed on his talk page about his near-constant vandalism of the Coldplay article. It appears he is just trolling for a week straight. Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Justanother2's talk page contributions, I see some likely WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT issues. I'd attempted to engage with the editor on their talk page, but it was deleted (although they left a rather non sequitur response on my talk page in return). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this continues I will block Justanother2 indef. Please let me know if it continues and I don't seem to have noticed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to talk with User:Justanother2 user on my talk page, and now have a good idea of the problems people have been having trying to have a discussion with them. While I don't expect perfection (i.e. don't report him for being wrong about something), please let me know if this user's behavior doesn't improve (examples would be edit warring, insults, hounding, or ignoring consensus), and I will block them for disruptive editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 49.199.143.248

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 edit threatening "legal action". — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 16 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:Ginguladin

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.

---

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

This editor has been edit warring against at least five other editors over at Gehraiyaan (film) for a couple of days now, trying to add in a rather poorly written, unencyclopaedic synopsis of the film. After I gave them a 3rr warning (their second edit warring warning, after an earlier ew-soft) they have made their first edit to a page other than the Gehraiyaan (film) page, this addition to my talk page. Indef NOTHERE block time? Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite block. The filter log shows more problems. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 16 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:Calton again

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

---

On the 11th of February, an unregistered user went on the 2021 page and added in the June section the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin. It had long been established, in part due to Talk page discussion (which I personally had nothing to do with), that the event is primarily of domestic US significance and therefore had long been relegated to 2021 in the United States (the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and verdict is also not included) - so I reverted the edit and restored the status quo against inclusion. Calton (talk · contribs) then reverted my edit with the summary "Worldwide attention, Mr. Gatekeeper". He used that same disparaging bad faith name towards me that he had used back in September 2021, and of which his behaviour towards me led to a [report] as well as [condemnation from other users] at the time.

I sent Calton a Talk page message making it clear that I did not appreciate him coming back after around four months only to again violate WP:CIV and not assuming good faith, and again referring to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" - behaviour for which he had already been formally cautioned. I asked that he never refer to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" again. His response on my Talk page speaks for itself: "I don't care what you think, Mr. Gatekeeper. You don't like being called a "gatekeeper", here's what you do: stop gatekeeping. Your prickly reaction tells me that you're well aware of what you're doing. Oh, and a reminder: the Norm MacDonald discussion had pretty much everyone saying that you were wrong. Maybe you should have remembered that bit before bringing it up". I would appreciate if something was done about this, because this is entirely unacceptable and bordering on WP:HA. TheScrubby (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Calton needs to calm it down and cut out the aspersions. However, I will point out that unless it's disappeared from the archives, there has never actually been a discussion about the Chauvin verdict; it was only brought up during the discussion about Rittenhouse, and even then was simply one user (Jim Michael) saying "it's not internationally notable" three times without any evidence (when it clearly was - how many verdicts end up being shown on live TV outside the country they're taking place in?). There probably needs to be a discussion about it now, because it hasn't clearly been decided, and it would probably help if it wasn't bludgeoned this time. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If there has been a firm discussion r.e. Chauvin, at the very least I wasn’t involved. What I do know is that Jim Michael did argue that the event, though receiving international coverage, was of domestic US significance only, and that the only aspect which had international relevance was the global protests against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s death. At the very least there was no opposition to what Jim Michael argued, and from June to now the 2021 page has reflected this by not including the Chauvin verdict, which at the very least could be construed as WP:EDITCON - and it’s worth noting that the Rittenhouse case did lead to a more substantial discussion, and which was ultimately excluded from the main 2021 page. All I had done was revert back to the status quo on this.

Ultimately though, none of this really matters. Even if there had been a consensus in favour of including the event, nothing excuses or justifies Calton’s conduct and constant bad faith allegations & demeaning labeling of those he disagrees with. What concerns me most is that he had already been reported and condemned for his past behaviour (not just towards me, but I also note towards other users over the years), and he had been formally cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this back in September, and Calton yesterday has made it crystal clear that he has zero intention of even acknowledging this and following through on the caution. I just don’t understand how this is at all a remotely acceptable standard on Wikipedia? TheScrubby (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Can concur with TheScrubby (talk · contribs). Unfolding here is a damning and awesome indictment in the form of past WP:AN and WP:ANI records.

• WP:AN Archive 74

• WP:AN Archive 164

• WP:AN Archive 166

• WP:ANI Archive 211

• WP:ANI Archive 217

• WP:ANI Archive 293

• WP:ANI Archive 317

• WP:ANI Archive 328

• WP:ANI Archive 349

• WP:ANI Archive 365

• WP:ANI Archive 462

• WP:ANI Archive 518

• WP:ANI Archive 788

That being said, however due to his longstanding productive contributions to Wikipedia, if a formal vote is held over this I would favor giving him the choice of a face-saving option entailing that of voluntary resignation in the form of self-requested blocks. With that he can choose to contribute in other projects like Commons which might suit him better. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So "damning and awesome", in fact, that the *newest* of those ANI reports is nine years old. Thanks for your input, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regardless of the time of the past records, the Universal Code of Conduct had been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation on December 9, 2020. This means that Calton's incivilities such as name-calling are de jure no longer acceptable. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Calton hasn't decided to even defend their actions here is an issue. This is an editor with a very long history of incivility that, as individual events, aren't sufficient to justify action but taken as a whole need a response. Their personal talk page is littered with requests from other editors to tone things down. About year and a half back they were topic blocked for incivility directed at me [208]. They were blocked in March 2020 (not in their block log though) [209], reminded of civility [210] yet here we are again. Perhaps the issue is just the topic areas they choose to work in. An AP tban vs a block might be a productive option. Doubling down after another editor raised a concern is not acceptable [211]. Springee (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Though of course that might be because he hasn't edited at all since this ANI was filed. And whilst a chance to remove an ideological opponent is de rigeur in that area, an AP ban for an edit on a page that isn't even covered by ARBAP is probably pushing it a bit. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, last time he was reported (over his conduct during the Norm Macdonald discussion in September), he chose to essentially not acknowledge the basis of that report and instead attempted to double down on bad faith accusations towards me - as if that at all justifies his conduct. Nor did he acknowledge at any point the caution issued by El C; and with his latest behaviour on both 2021 and his post on my Talk page, he has made it absolutely clear that he has no intention in remotely listening to anybody or to take heed of the original caution. After all, why should he? For all these years he has been allowed to conduct himself this way as if the rules don’t apply to him at all - because he knows that he would suffer no consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I would think content related to the Chauvin and the protests would count as American Politics even if the article in question isn't. I rarely edit the same articles as Calton and in this case I think I lean towards agreeing with Calton's edit. That said, this is an editor who repeatedly shows that they don't think CIVIL applies to them. They have been warned and blocked in the past but that doesn't stop them. Since short term blocks have proben ineffective I was suggesting keeping them out of problematic topic areas but I certainly would be open to something else that fixes the issue. Springee (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately according to past track records such as WP:ANI Archive 217, his incivilities isn't limited to American Politics. Next according to WP:ANI Archive 518, even Jimbo Wales himself has at one point criticized him. If a tban is to be enacted it has to be indefinite and cover all topics broadly construed, except perhaps some Japanese non-political local topics, such as geography, because the latter seems to be the only field so far where Calton is less prone to succumb to his incivilities. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In light of Calton’s behaviour not just towards myself, but towards what is evidently an innumerable number of users over the course of well over a decade, it does beg the question: what is the point of having WP:CIV or to ask people to assume good faith if we cannot apply this equally to everyone, or if we make excuses for/turn a blind eye to the actions of one user because they happen to be deemed otherwise substantive or "productive" contributors? Frankly, enough is enough. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and it is a damning indictment on Wikipedia that a bully like Calton has been tolerated for this long. Anywhere else, and Calton would have long been made persona non grata. This, incidentally, is why Calton will ignore warnings and condemnation from other users, and why he feels it is acceptable to continue behaving this way. Because you ostensibly have one set of rules for Wikipedia, and another for Calton. He knows he can get away with it without consequence, and so will not learn. It is a toxic cycle, and Calton is an extremely toxic user. Whatever levels of substance he may otherwise be judged to have should not be regarded as a factor at all if he is incapable of basic civility, and incapable of not being hostile & incapable of maintaining a basic respect for those he doesn’t agree with. TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the only admin to have weighed in so far and I'm not taking any action as serious as a block unilaterally, because I don't think - at the moment - that it justifies it. I'm not treating Calton any differently from any other user, but I'm certainly not going to block him for this one incident, and it isn't helping that our probably-a-sock 91.x IP address keeps butting in shrilly demanding action (FYI there is a long-running LTA sock which has targeted Calton), so I'm generally ignoring them as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t know anything about the latter (regarding the IP) to comment, though if that’s indeed the case then it’s understandable that you don’t take that into account (although I can’t say I disagree with the points this user has made). If not necessarily an outright block, what do you suggest would be an appropriate outcome? Calton after all had already been issued a formal caution regarding this back in September, and it’s deeply concerning that he made clear on my Talk page that he will not even acknowledge this and continue with his (entirely unprovoked, I should add) aspersions as if the caution never took place and the comments by other users condemning his behaviour were never written. TheScrubby (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no good reason to believe that casting needless whataboutisms and aspersions such as "probably a sock" or "he can be referred as a gatekeeper with an ad hominem vibe because he edited a lot in an article" is in any way helpful in this case. Per WP:YANI, nobody is irreplaceable and chances are there are one or more equivalent of Calton in the sense of the term, "ideological opponent", sans the chronic incivilities, partly because there are presumably increased interest in encyclopedic editing in this pandemic when everybody are forced to stay home. I'd propose that this to be moved forward by one or more impartial administrators or sysops to hold informal votes on whether to enact the options of a tban that would limit him to Japanese non-political topics and/or that of a voluntary resignation, given his concurrently long-standing positive and substantial contributions to Wikipedia. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore at just about the same time, Calton made a disparaging comment "There is no fucking "discussion". Sealion elsewhere." on an IP user's talk page. This reeks of WP:BITE and when these incivilities are a pattern rather than isolated instances, that's where it became a major problem. However, as the often-called face culture is socio-culturally prevalent in Japan, there's the danger that he will become disgruntled and come back as a vandal as in many cases if we move too rashly or harshly against him. Therefore the informal options of topic bans or WP:RETIRE should be considered. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For context for that message on an IP user's talk page, see the history of Talk:Manchester High School (Virginia) and Special:Contribs/27.33.119.160. Levivich 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See also: WP:Two wrongs don't make a right. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't two wrongs. Telling a troll to fuck off isn't wrong. Levivich 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor do editors supposed to be goaded and lose their cool upon being baited by trolls. Slap templates on their talk pages, or report them straight to the admins. That's all. The main problem remains that WP:CIR especially when dealing with personal emotions and behaviors while editing, and someone has been lacking the capability to control it for years while being condoned by the editing community like a missing stair, despite being concurrently an "OG" and productive user. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think Wikipedia is, some kind of finishing school or honor society? We don't judge editors for being goaded and losing their cool upon being baited by trolls. They're people, and people get goaded and lose their cool sometimes. It is not an expectation that in order to edit Wikipedia, one must avoid being human. Levivich 17:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And you know what's worse than people being goaded and losing their cool? The fucking assholes on the internet who spend years harassing editors because they had an argument one time. Those people ought to be prosecuted by law enforcement with greater vigor. I think a few highly-publicized arrests would have a deterrent effect, and I wish the WMF would throw more money at making that happen. Levivich 17:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuses based on the imperfection of humanity, in the end does not negate the fact that an uncivil environment is a poor environment, which in this context, would scare many potential productive editors away as long as the missing stair or the elephant in the room is ignored. Sure, I concur that there are actual malefactors who would goad these editors and disrupt the project, but usually most of them can handle it pretty well without stooping to their level. It is a pretty lame excuse to negate WP:CIR, and also WP:NOTTHERAPY. Furthermore, the past records indicated that there are instances where Calton succumbed to incivility anyways, be it gross level or not, without any malignant provocations beforehand, such as this case. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors responding to provocation are not part of the toxicity and incivility problems on Wikipedia; it's the people who abuse Wikipedia's open nature to commit WP:BLP violations, such as using an article about a high school to try and add some negative information about a living person, and using IP addresses to harass editors who try to stop those BLP violations from happening, that are the real problem. The single biggest problem facing Wikipedia is that people sometimes use Wikipedia to hurt other people. Nobody cares, and nobody will ever care, that an editor lost their patience when dealing with such scum. Levivich 19:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither should be deemed acceptable; nor should one excuse the other. And this is also under the assumption that Calton only behaves this way towards users generally regarded as “trolls”, which frankly is a laughable assertion. I don’t think it’s anything other than toxic to make excuses for this (persistent; very long-term) behaviour, and it again begs the question of why we even bother having WP:CIV or imploring on users to WP:AGF when users like Calton are given a free hand to openly disregard and violate this without consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can't agree more on that. To paraphrase an editor and an admin, Wikipedia isn't a bazaar, not a bar, nor a private playground. All the denials or covering-ups of the missing stair is downright surreal, or to put it bluntly, cringeworthy. We can agree by now that the can is at the end of the road. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I complain a lot about incivility and toxicity on WP, and I'm pretty sure I've complained specifically about Calton in the past. But I don't see "gatekeeper" as a personal attack at all. In fact, I see it as an accurate characterization of TheScrubby's editing at 2021, especially lately: [212]. If most of your edits over some significant amount of time (months?) consist of reverting other editors' additions, you're gatekeeping. Levivich 15:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I completely reject this characterisation. I’ve been an active contributor for these yearly pages for some time and the discussions on the Talk pages, but the reverts that I do make are usually to do with removing figures in line with Talk page consensus - which, unregistered IP users especially, often don’t check and hence they add said figures anyway. For almost a year there’s been a realisation there and discussions over the fact that the yearly pages have gone well beyond the recommended maximum Wikipedia article size (which was first brought to our attention by Deb (talk · contribs)), and that it was essential to limit the number of figures included in the main Deaths section & to ensure that those who are included have international notability (just ask Deb, or Jim Michael (talk · contribs), or Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs), or PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk · contribs), etc.). Reverts to do with images are mostly because usually when some users add additional images, it leads to an image overflow, which every regular contributor works to avoid. Reverts that I make on that page are virtually always in line with consensus and in line with the result of Talk page discussions, and in line with edits/reverts also made by other regular contributors. And no, there’s no way to construe “Mr. Gatekeeper” as anything other than a personal attack - especially when Calton doubles down after I ask him to never refer to me as that again, and especially when he has already been cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this and his overall conduct towards me back in September. He had no right to say it; it was entirely inappropriate; and it’s reflective of his nature where he think it’s okay to disregard WP:CIV and to go around making bad faith accusations towards those he disagrees with. TheScrubby (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    I think you're significantly misinterpreting prior discussions, such as the September ANI and that Norm McDonald thread. Levivich 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    • I don’t see how I am at all; it seems pretty clear-cut to me. With what happened in September (and I don’t wish to fully rehash this here as that has already been dealt with and the issue at hand is Calton’s continued behaviour up to now), to make it tl;dr PeaceInOurTime started a thread questioning Macdonald’s international notability; I briefly gave my two cents; Calton responded to me with uncalled for and out of the blue personal vitriol and attacks; this ultimately led to an ANI which ended with admins cautioning Calton over civility; other users expressed disgust over Calton’s personal confrontation towards me; the discussion ended with Macdonald’s inclusion and I happily went along with consensus. Regardless of whether or not one agrees or disagrees over content or with somebody’s two cents, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate for anybody to conduct themselves the way Calton did, which is toxic and would put people off from wanting to contribute to discussions. If that standard is considered acceptable, we may as well get rid of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and be done with it. TheScrubby (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As an aside and as a perspective, I'd like to bring the attention of everyone to this concurrently ongoing case whose problem is very similar to Calton's, such as incivilities on talk pages and edit summaries. You see, there was no problem in hopping to the stage where permanent blocks are actually going to be meted out in that case. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's tacky to mention my comments without telling me. From a very brief review, this thread is not very similar to the one I'm addressing. If I were planning on getting involved in this thread (which I'm not), I would handle it much differently than I am handling that thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording is incorrect so, it's my bad. Regardless, from a quick search here are three more past possible precedents of uncivil editors being censured by ways of blocks or bans.

• 1
• 2
• 3

To quote TheScrubby, had it been any other projects or platforms, or had it been other user(s), they would have long been made persona-non-grata. The Fram incident in a way or another can be argued as the end result of repeatedly kicking the can down the road which mistake I think we are repeating now, and it almost tore apart the whole project if not for the miraculous fluke of the world being distracted by the protests in Hong Kong back then. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, here is by far the closest analogue to this incivility spree. First edit in 2012, similar WP:BATTLEGROUND issues, briefly blocked before being unblocked in 2018, squandered it, then finally a not-so-pretty sitewide community ban in 2020. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a paragon of virtue for hypocrisy and double standards. The IP was blocked for good under WP:CIR despite the admin's guide that IPs should not generally be blocked in such way because most of the time they are dynamic addresses, and even as the user in question only lacked the command of English language. Furthermore, Calton was warned by an admin last August that he's on "very thin ice here", which if he had heeded and not take it for granted, we wouldn't be discussing him on here today. Chances are this will one day end up in those Netflix or Hulu documentaries together with all other surreal or cringeworthy incidents far in the future, and most of the time the optics wouldn't really be good then. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 09:30, 18 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:Copperwidth is WP:!HERE

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

---

This user is just doing un-constructive editing, and isn't here to build a encyclopdia. From making pages such as Wikipedia:Entertainment theater that doesn't have a clear purpose, to making drawing pages like Wikipedia:KraftwerkASCII, and screwing up other's talk pages, such as this Special:Diff/1071140973. They have also made bad GAN nom's, and added protection templates, when it's not protected. This editor refuses to answer questions, and doesn't seem to want to learn.

Pinging @Blaze Wolf as they have had some interactions with this user.

Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

oh sorry... im just a newbie to wikipedia. :( COPPERwidth (💬) - (📋) 02:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Copperwidth, you will need to explain why you edited and wrote

{{explosivedog}}.

The edit was not necessary, as what Sea Cow stated. Sea Cow, it's not Blaze Wolf, it's me, (maybe a "ANI" stalker, we'll see)Severestorm28 02:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note the overlap in editing with TwentytwoAug, who created Template:Explosive Dog and shares a similar interest in creating questionable (at best) pages in Wiki-space. --Finngall ^talk 02:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's socks. Spoiler alert: so far I've found TwentytwoAug and BeeDoubleuroolerl554, but there's probably more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, those are the only ones that are obvious enough to really care about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think blocking is necessary or proportionate at this time, but I would urge User:Copperwidth to start small – focus on articles and think carefully about how constructive your edits are, because the amount of effort that it's currently taking to clean up after you means you're at serious risk of being shown the door. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: I've also had a few interactions with the user. However, I do agree that this user's edits are questionable at best (using my talk page as a sandbox for a template isn't acceptable, or nominating articles for GA when they clearly aren't ready). I'm not going to say much more since I really dislike ANI (usually involves a bunch of people arguing). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• User has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:TwentytwoAug. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 18 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.

Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour

Newish editor User:Telanian7790 has previously been blocked for edit warrning on College of Policing. Now that he/she has been released from the block his/her first action was to reinstate the very same edit that caused the block. On the article's talk page the editor's response to discussions is uncivil, e.g. diff1 "What a bizarre response" and diff2 "Thank you for that emotional and unconstructive outburst". It seems to me that this editor doesn't want to play nicely and is only here to cause trouble / engage in arguments with others. --10mmsocket (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this, so this following epistemology (yes, I'm going full phisosopher today!) point might miss the mark. But when we summarize a source, in a sense, we interpret what it says. Now, as Telanian7790 notes, if it's a faithful interpretation, then all is well. If it isn't, then it'd be deemed WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH. When I read the first diff in isolation, I don't find it outside the realms of spirited debate (i.e. "bizarre," etc.). I'm just gonna quote that exchange in full:

And again your are interpreting what the source says. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. Of course I have ‘interpreted’ the source. That is what Wikipedia is based on: taking reliable sources and faithfully and accurately interpreting them. So here’s the important question. Is my interpretation wrong? If you think it is, then please give us what you say is the correct interpretation of the source. Telanian7790 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That actually sounds sensible (again, in relative isolation). Sorry for the weird indents. But I do propose we site ban Telanian7790 for double spaces (fixed in my above quote), a cardinal sin. El_C 13:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What 10mmsocket says is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

I was quite properly suspended for violating the 3 edit rule. I have now read and understood that policy.

When I returned from the suspension, the first thing I did - on 14 February - was to post on the talk page setting out my interpretation of the source and why I thought my proposed edit fairly and correctly represented that source. I invited discussion and comment if anyone disagreed.

10mmsocket responded (on 15 February). Unfortunately, he did not respond with anything productive. He completely ignored my interpetation of the source - he presented no reasoned argument as to why my reasoning was wrong (if it is). Instead, he simply said "And again your are interpreting what the source says." You will see that this is completely unhelpful and unconstructive. As I pointed out in a further response (also on 15 February), Wikipedia is literally based on "taking reliable sources and faithfully and accurately interpreting them." The dispute here is what the source actually says. I thus invited 10mmsocket to engage with me on the substantive issue: why, if at all, did he consider my interpretation of the source to be wrong.

10mmsocket did not respond. I accordingly concluded that he had nothing left to say. No-one else said anything either. So I duly inserted my suggestion into the article (on 17 February).

This prompted a clearly angry and emotional response from 10mmsockett, who furiously reversed my edit and chastised me for doing. Notably however, he again offered no constructive analysis or critcism of my interpretation. I noted (I think entirely fairly) that such emotion was not productive and I invited him to address the actual substantive issues: the actual interpretation of the source. 10mmsocket again ignored that invitation, and instead has run off and made this complaint.

Tl;dr: I am trying to engage constructively in a good faith dispute as to the interpretation of a source. 10mmsocket appears uninterested in having such a discussion.Telanian7790 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Spam on Ashraf Ali Thanwi

I see @TheAafi: is using his/ her self written articles/ books as reference on various wikipedia articles, especially on Ashraf Ali Thanwi, see this and this . It is clear violation of Wikipedia:Spam. Administrator are requested to take necessary action in this regard. Thank you 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I was watching this IP from last few moments and didn't go here and there reverting their edits when they clearly mentioned wrong guideline, WP:ELNO when they removed the reference. I believe the usage of the reference is permitted per WP:SELFCITE and this bad-faith report should be dismissed. I'd try to look for some available sources to improve the article, thus lessening the usage of this particular source, although it isn't used all over. The time I used it, it was in replacement of unreliable/blog sources. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The site haqislam.org is a blog. Why are you adding it in articles? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: You are not allowed to promote yourself on wikipedia. It is clearly against Wikipedia's policies. Go somewhere else to promote yourself, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Looks like you missed something. The haqislam blog was removed and I added a published source from TheChenabTimes.com (a news portal). I don't think this is self promotion? The IP-user is clearly acting in bad-faith. The source I used is inline with WP:SELFCITE imho. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, good to remove the blog. Without me going and digging through your diffs, how many times have you cited yourself in the last 30 days? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Nowhere! ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you are confusing me, or maybe I'm confusing you. You said you posted a cite that was inline with WP:SELFCITE, so I'm asking, how many times in the last 30 days have you done so. I ask this as I'm going through your two accounts. It isn't a matter or trust, it's a matter of verification for myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I edited the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article over a month ago, and replaced a blog with an article that I've myself written and is published on a news portal. Is the confusion over? I've nowhere else cited myself not just in the last 30 days but in last two years. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that is all I was asking. When someone makes a report, I'm going to look at the claims and see if they are accurate. You coming here and simply saying "it is false" isn't enough. Everyone says that. So there isn't a need to be defensive. What we need are facts. Saying you added one cite in the last year or two under SELFCITE, and me verifying (as best I can), this is establishing facts. Obviously using your own cite every now and then where it applies is ok, I was trying to see if there was a pattern that was excessive, and I don't know until I look and ask (and by virtue of the report, I'm obligated to look and ask). So in the end, I don't see a problem with the editing and the IP is overreacting to something that is generally allowed, in moderation, if it is in line with WP:SELFCITE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. In such a case, shouldn't their overreacting edits on the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article be reverted? I also see that you left the IP a note on talk page, thanks for that. Looks like you missed adding a heading and used more than four tilde in that note. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in any sort of war with the IP and would leave all the good work related to this to you. I'm only here to improve and develop the encyclopedia and ofcourse to learn new things. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, This was not the first instance when the editor used his/her self written article but, he/ she had previously spammed Mufti Faizul Waheed with his/ her articles. Please check this. Not only this he/ she had inserted article written by him/ her from the blog link named Baseerat online, please check this. I suspect more self promotion by the same user in past which need to be dig out. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

One is a geniune citation over eight months ago, and the other is an EL (not citation). I might have forgotten to state this, but does that make sense? You're free to remove the EL, and leave the citation as is. Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is the earliest article where I remember using a source in line with WP:SELFCITE. I don't think I've done some excess. Nonetheless, I'd have a relook on all my contributions and be back with facts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown; As a matter of fact, I'm leaving this as a proof that there's no excess. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown This edit is clearly a Spam or self promotion and @TheAafi:, Baseerat online is a blog, along with the article, which you have cited, was written by you, it clearly indicates self promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you normally edit as a registered account? This entire report is very, very strange. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Just see their edits on Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi and Mufti Faizul Waheed; and you'll see they're on a long game. Possibly! That too, when this ANI thread is open. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop, User:TheAafi , to deviate the spam on different side to save yourself, anyways, I have tried my best to stop spam on Wikipedia, I am leaving this case for administrators to deal with it. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the way a run of the mill IP editor behaves. This looks entirely like a vexatious report. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave if you want, but I had already left a note on your talk page. Yanking sources without better justification can get you blocked. As far as SELFCITE, we are always leery of it's use (I've used it myself, many years ago), so I would just note you have to be careful reverting your own work back as cites. Some talk page discussion is always good. So is a disclaimer on your user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• And CFJ, I agree, and the IP is deleting references and bordering on their own block. But since I didn't see a disclaimer on Aafi's page, I still make the notes. Even I have a disclaimer for my work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One last note: it is one thing to link your own work as a reference, but doing so as an external link is just not a good idea in almost all circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I'd make a disclaimer note, but how to? Could you please give me an example? Thanks. I'm always trying my best to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  and I definitely agree with the usage of the external link and I really feel bad for it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  See my user page under Accountability. I just state I own a company (Solacure) and link to it, and state I won't edit in a way that financially benefits me. This provides the reader the ability to compare my edits to my company to see if there really is a conflict of interesting in my edits. I would suggest also adding a note "I work for this source; adding it under WP:SELFCITE" to the summary, so that not only are you complying, but you are inviting others to review, and keeping it all in the wide open. Full disclosure is less likely to come back on you. If it does, you can say "I disclose on my user page, I disclose in my edit summary" so there isn't a way to really question your honesty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. I've a COI page for this stuff. I added the three articles where I have added citations under SELFCITE during last three years. I'd surely add the note, if ever I added a self-cite to any article at the time of need. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I didn't see it, but I would make sure my user page had a conspicuous link to that COI page, or just transclude the page onto the user page. Same reason I put mine under "Accountability", which is pretty conspicuous. Really, these steps are more for you than for others. It also lets you search easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  At the top of my userpage, I've stated, " If you ever assume that I've a conflict of interest, please see my COI declarations...", in line with the COI disclosure guidelines. I hope someday I'll get time to design my userpage like yours! Thanks for all the notes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown; I just fixed the stuff at Mufti Faizul Waheed article, and while searching for more sources, I got a 2019 academic thesis on one of his books, and it was quite helpful. However, the IP's removal of sources from Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is troublesome, where they call a news-portal (which has editors) as a blog and spam. The IP also tagged the article for notability. I'd just leave this to uninvolved editors to have a look at the IP's behavior; who comes all of a sudden with only one motive, that's to open an ANI thread against me, and accuse me of self-promotion, which I've never done. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: and @Catfish Jim and the soapdish:; The IP doesn't stop from removing sources. They've once again removed a source from Mufti Faizul Waheed. If I'm right, this would be someone from the Authordom sockfarm. I looked around and found some interested stuff with some similar IPS. I had a look at an AfD on which a similar-IP "37.111.218.17" commented strong-delete, (the nominator of that AfD Sabeelul hidaya was blocked as a sockpuppet by Bbb23 recently). A yet another identical IP, 37.111.219.54 was involved at Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, and another identical IP, 37.111.217.63, seeks copyediting-help from Miniapolis at Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi. The IP had included a statement that sounds anti-Deobandi in nature in the Fazl-e-Haq article, and ant-Deobandism is the history of Authordom sockfarm, and I've been attacked only perhaps because I've come across them in past, and rescued several articles in deletion, that were tagged as such. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No deletions have happened since this thread started. Lets see what happens before we start swinging the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is still about as 37.111.218.70 (talk · contribs) and generally filibustering. All I'm going to say is that whether 'x' is a good source depends entirely on what it is citing, and in what context. After all, we have a consensus to cite The Sun in at least one BLP, despite my general view that you should avoid it like the plague. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems the IP range 37.111.192.0/18 fits with the editing pattern. – The Grid (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Consistent cross-wiki uncivilized behavior and addition of NPOV content by ShieldOfValour

ShieldOfValour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently accuses other editors as "(Chinese) state-sponsored agents" in both the English and Chinese Wikipedia article of Xuzhou when the editors revert their edits which (while truthful) scandal events are inappropraitely added in the lead paragraph as a clear attempt to use Wikipedia as propaganda against the Chinese government when viewed alongside their behavior in edit summaries and zhwiki. This user seems to be not here to build the encyclopedia and assuming bad faith of other editors. Please look into this issue. Thank you with regards, Luciferian𖤐 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional note: This user has stated in his zhwiki talk page (diff@zhwiki) that he is recruiting meatpuppets from Reddit on this issue, so this would also have to be monitored. Luciferian𖤐 13:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion from ShieldOfValour The editing war started when a factual statement of Xuzhou being one of most affected human-trafficking areas in China (supported by well sourced references, one example ) was persistently removed from the lead paragraph as a clear attempt to suppress the most historically and presently significant characteristic of this particular part of China. It's an important ethical and safety related fact that everyone who considers to invest in, move to or visit Xuzhou should know beforehand. The focus of contention is why this can not be part of the lead paragraph. And the escalation came when several senior editors started repeated reverting/deleting content not only added to the main entry but the talk page of the user involved. The state agent claim was made because one of the editors who started the editing war publicly claims on his/her user page to support Chinese Communist Party.

The intention for this user in question to ask help on Reddit is not to find aforementioned meatpuppets. Instead it's to find other senior Wiki editors who are not based out of China and who have an impartial standpoint to the issue in discussion.

Banning my account (ShieldOfValour) doesn't kill the fact. The propaganda war waged by Chinese Government is far and wide. When a negative fact is viewed just as being negative, the fact is lost.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShieldOfValour (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The place to find "senior Wiki editors" is Wikipedia, not Reddit. As far as the content issue is concerned I have reverted your latest edit of Xuzhou as a clear violation of WP:DUE. I will leave the conduct issue to others. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not putting up with this, refusal to get it, accusing other editors of being agents for governments just because they say they live in a country, ignoring WP:DUE and WP:LEAD to push the information as the most important thing in a city (despite the fact no one was removing the contents from the body, just the lead), blatantly trying to circumvent editing warring restrictions by editing logged out. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

From banned ShieldOfValour

• "accusing other editors of being agents..." Guilty as charged except that I only accused one of them who claims to support Chinese Communist Party on their Wikipedia user page.
• "push the information as the most important thing in a city" Guilty as charged except that it's the fact. If it's something that once known, no one will go there for holiday, to live, study or work, then it is the most important thing in that city. I know better than you do about what happened and is happening in that area. I read all the cited sources in English and Chinese. Have you? What makes you more authoritative to say human-trafficking is not the defining character of that city if you haven't even read any of those English references on that page.
• "blatantly trying to circumvent..." Give me a rest. Do I care more about the banned ShieldOfValour account than exposing my IP address? I had multiple tabs open in private mode and some of those I forgot to login into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.129.65 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

IP without sufficient competence in English.

IP 2804:389:A08C:4B:41AA:CB5E:3049:972D has been editing articles about a number of previous Olympic Games, but has demonstrated a serious lack of competence in English. I have twice reverted edits to one of those articles, but these edits this morning to another article again show that the editor's English isn't good enough for editing this Wikipedia. I have given one warning, but it appears that further action is necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to do gnomish updates also. There's potentially other options. Let's see their response.—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I know some people like to think everybody can contribute to the English Wikipedia no matter how insufficient their English and it's everybody else's responsibility to copyedit what they write. But this case is as if I should contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia on the strength of one year of Spanish studies in high school. There has to be some limit to how much we demand of others in the way of assistance. I have blocked the user and their /64 range per WP:CIR. Thank you for reporting, David Biddulph. Bishonen | tålk 11:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC).

• Sorry, Bagumba, I had already blocked when I saw your post, or I would have waited. I stand by the block, though. If they appeal the block, or reply in any way, on their page, it can be moved here. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC).
  • I saw this entry and assumed it wasn’t fair that one would get sanctioned because of their proficiency (or lack of it) In what is arguably the most difficult languages to grasp. But having seen Bishonen's rationale, I totally agree. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Made in Baltics

I am not sure what to do, I tried to merge content into one article, but it got taken back out and moved around to other articles. Seems there was draft articles, moved and stuff. I found it all rather odd, felt as if user PauliineMitt was claiming ownership of the articles! I really don't see the point of all the splitting of content for such little of it. I don't want to get into trouble, maybe someone else can look into it? Govvy (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there was an issue with this, guess admins think there is nothing... :/ Govvy (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an issue here with PauliineMitt's editing. This editor created her account in 2020, so is not new, but at this point is editing entirely about the record label Made in Baltics; she's created that article and also List of Made In Baltics artists and List of Made In Baltics singles, has moved the label article back to mainspace after it was draftified, and I think recreated the singles article a second time in mainspace after it was draftified (there's been a histmerge). Both lists have more sources than the main article, but I haven't looked at their quality and the label article could definitely use more references. There's a section on Talk:Made in Baltics but so far as I can see, PauliineMitt is edit warring without discussing, except via edit summaries. Hopefully she'll respond to my ping at the talk page, and maybe there's some wikiproject guideline recommending separate lists? But the label was only founded in 2018, so unless there is such a guideline, I don't believe there should be any certainty that the lists must be separate. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I've sent List of Made In Baltics artists to AfD. I don't see the need for that article, seems covered enough with the main one. I still feel the other article with the singles on needs to be merged. I am going to avoid doing that myself. I've been in enough trouble recently over another article. PauliineMitt Hasn't responded to my question yesterday or even responded on ANI here, so I am a bit myth'ed. Govvy (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Is there a problem with the Made In Baltics page having only one editor, should there be more? And is it really bad if the List of Made In Baltics singles and List of Made In Baltics artists is in separate pages? I didn't want to put them both on the main page. Is there anything that I could do to improve the pages Govvy ? I would really like if the two lists could be separately from the main page. PauliineMitt (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: The problem lies in rejecting Govvy's edits simply because it's another editor seeking to edit the page (that's a violation of one of our basic principles, which we refer to as ownership). We work collaboratively; that can be messy, but we're expected to be ready to defend our viewpoints on how an article should be written when someone disagrees. I appreciate your responding here and at Talk:Made in Baltics, and pinging in both places. But so far as I can see, other than a comparison at the talk page to Sub Pop, an article with far more references and on a label founded in 1986 rather than only in 2018, you've offered no reasoning except your personal preference. In fact, other than a question on the article talk page that you removed two weeks later, that appears to be your first talk page edit, and I don't see any edits to user talk, including no response to two draftifications, to an AfC denial of Draft:Made In Baltics, or to an inquiry by 331dot about possible conflict of interest or undeclared paid editing. Instead you appear to have circumvented both draftifications by recreating the articles in mainspace, using different capitalization to do so for the Made in Baltics article and requiring a history merge by Primefac for List of Made In Baltics singles. I'm aware that new editors are by definition single-purpose when they first start, I know our usage of "notable" and sourcing requirements take a bit of getting used to, I am probably one of the least hostile of long-term Wikipedia editors toward articles on businesses, and I note the article on the label has also been edited by Uuskasutaja, whose user name, Google tells me, means "new user" in Estonian, but the non-communication, the recreation of the articles, the edit warring with Govvy, and the undeclared conflict of interest if there is one are all violations of our policies in addition to the lack of collegiality implicit in the assumption that the article can be the way its creator wants it to be just because. (I apologize for all the links; I want to be open about the basis for my statements to someone who hasn't been here that long.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is off-wiki evidence that convincingly shows Pauliine Mitt is an undeclared paid editor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

She had been warned before but didn't reply. I gave her a second-level warning and asked her not to do further edits until she responds. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I understand all of your statements and I agree, it's just that I haven't made a lot of edits here, so I don't know all of the functions and what is needed for a good Wikipedia page. My main goal is to create a acceptable page for Made In Baltics. But as I am one of the only people doing it, with the lack of experience, it can have a lot of faults in it. But I definitely would like to improve.PauliineMitt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: The reason I didn't reply before, was that I didn't know how to do it and I didn't know how to see the comments, it was all quite messy for me and I am very sorry, but it wasn't intentional.PauliineMitt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: You should have a look at WP:CONTENTFORK, Made in Baltics isn't a big article, it's a rather small article really. You only need separate pages when the need arises or under certain conditions. On a side note, I noticed the Estonian wiki page but couldn't work out how to add it to the English version. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: So would this help, if I'd just put the Made In Baltics singles and Made In Baltics artists pages both on the Made In Baltics main page and then I could put the references on the main page as well, so it would have more references and there would be no other pages, other than the Made In Baltics main Wiki page? PauliineMitt (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: Originally yes, you shouldn't mess about with the AfD article, that would need closing first. Moving all those pages around was a major red flag and one reason why I posted in this forum. However this conversation should continue at Talk:Made in Baltics and this ANI should really probably be closed now thank you. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: You must respond to the messages on your talk page about paid editing before making any further edits to the various Made in Baltics pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Yes, I saw the message now and responded to it as well.PauliineMitt (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Uhhh. I was unaware of this whole thing here at ANI and nominated the article for deletion. Did I mess up by nominating this or is everything good? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 21:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  In retrospect, deletion is probably the best resolution. I'm still unclear as to whether the creator fits the paid editor definition used by Wikipedia (boy, that definition and the warning notices need a lot of work to improve clarity). Pauliine Mitt knows more than the rest of us as to appropriate references, as she has inside knowledge, so if she can't get the article up to snuff, I doubt any of the rest of us can. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Delete P____"

A group of IP users:

• 81.161.49.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.94.128.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.80.213.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 220.141.206.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.20.88.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.92.21.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 217.164.148.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possibly the same person, using a proxy, has been adding "Delete P (numbers)" to articles without clear reason. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another group of IPs:

• 69.116.240.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.150.19.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 191.36.147.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been making edits with the same edit summary, but this time it's "Q105103969 needs to suffer". --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the IP editors are making Verifiedhandlers.com to suffer, Googling the "Q105103969". I needed to run basically everywhere to revert this shit. Another IP is also 190.87.160.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinging Sea Cow, since Sea Cow may be familiar with this. Severestorm28 23:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Familiar" is a understatement. There's been roughly 10 different messages the botnet is doing. They do it for maybe 10 minutes, stop for 2, find a new message, and the process repeats itself. There's more IP's than listed above I believe. Sea Cow (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You said this is a botnet; are we talking zombies or is this a case of someone renting out a bunch of IPs to do this? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a suspicion, but probably renting out a IPs. I would find it hard to believe that someone has such a vendetta that they would use zombies. Sea Cow (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Filter 1184 (hist · log) (private) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely has to do with that site; see the history of TheresNoTime's talk page and this page (referring to "vh"), and d:Property:P9395 and d:Q105103969 are that site. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Banish Verefied Handles already the database is ridiculously selective."

Multiple IP users are just adding "Banish Verefied Handles already the database is ridiculously selective.". This is similar to the thread ""Delete P____"" above, and there are about a hundred IPs adding the quote on various articles. Severestorm28 23:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a bot attack probably using some sort of residential proxy service. I started a list here:

From that list I did find a few blockable ranges that didn't seem likely to have much collateral damage. Most of the addresses were too diffuse for rangeblocks, at least given my sample. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit! There should be more IPs on the loose, this is just damaging Wikipedia. Severestorm28 23:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this something we could add to the abuse filter for a little while? (I don't know what the procedure is to adding something temporarily). Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, though looking at some of the previous bot-like attacks, which you can see in older contributions from this range, the vandalism content mutates somewhat. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

My guess is whoever is running the bot's changing the message in an effort to dodge (or otherwise make irrelevant) edit filters. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost definitely the same bunch as yesterday. From a technical perspective, my money is on "botnet", which means that long IP blocks probably won't help much, unfortunately. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Annette Maon

The user has engaged at extensive conflict about neutral point of view policy at Talk:Elon Musk, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive334#Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting, User talk:Annette Maon, and more at their contributions. My only action is to explain about Wikipedia's etiquette, but the user is likely wasting time from other editors, engaging in conflicts for the sake of it, and has no interest in building the encyclopedia. I suspected that this is a sockpuppet by an active spaceflight editor, given their history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Conduct_of_User:Annette_Maon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User made a threat to submit a Good Article Reassessment on Elon Musk if corrections for issues that they "saw" were not made. User has persistently brought up their disagreements in existing and unrelated discussions on the Elon Musk Talk page, often at the expense of the original matters. 17:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this editor's activity on the Elon Musk page has been disruptive. They have dominated the talk page of late with a strongly one-sided POV. Stonkaments (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this and say that this user showed up at the 2021 Top 50 Report to completely rewrite the section on Musk, claiming it violates WP:BLP without describing why (rejecting my explanation that the Report is meant to be humorous and also pinging random uninvolved admins on talk). Based on what's already been said here and my personal experience, Annette Maon doesn't seem to be here to contribute to an encyclopedia. JOEBRO64 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, I absolutely agree with their revert here, and I'd like to hear from User:Stwalkerster as well. I didn't know that the Top50 was supposed to be funny, and I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also agree with the reversion. "It was a joke" is not a defense against BLP. Annette Maon pinged me because they're presumably still salty that I deleted a similar "humorous" page of theirs that had been tagged as a G10 attack page, and is now trying to make it a whole thing with me playing the part of "BLP police", I guess. Regardless, they may have made the reversion for less-than-stellar reasons, but the action in itself was the correct one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My use of the phrase "BLP Police" was in reference to a different incident which I am still trying to process. It reflected my limited WP:NEWCOMER understanding about when the Wikipedia community chooses to use "rev-del", a term I had not been aware of at the time. I would appreciate any pointers to policy and/or examples that elaborate on Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" and would allow me to learn about the process and dynamics from other people's mistakes so I can avoid blundering myself. I understand why Writ Keeper could have interpreted "BLP police" as a reference to their own actions instead of the ones I had in mind. It is important for me to clarify that I respect both Writ Keeper and Barkeep49 as people that I want to learn from and would not have used the phrase "BLP Police" to refer to them or to any of their actions. As I said in the original post which TheJoebro64 linked here "I will defer to their judgment". I made some suggestions for going forward on the talk page which reflect my own WP:NEWCOMER understanding as it continues to evolve. I hope that at least some of those suggestions are useful enough to be incorporated into the final version by someone with more experience than me. I would also appreciate comments from experienced editors on what I might still be missing. Annette Maon (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm in agreement that the text as it was is nowhere near appropriate; my edit (IMHO) vastly improved the situation but I think it's still not great and could certainly be improved further, though it's probably best to rip it out and rewrite it completely. I have neither the time, energy, or motivation to sort it out properly - my motivation with that edit was to make the problem less urgent. For the most part, what remains I think is sourced, albeit in fairly poor taste and with a clear axe to grind against the subject. stwalkerster (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here, stwalkerster--thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies, for what it's worth, I actually wasn't the one who wrote the Musk section. If it was a BLP violation, I apologize and acknowledge that I made a mistake—but I didn't write it, I merely reverted because it'd been months and was changed by someone who had no involvement with the report. JOEBRO64 21:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TheJoebro64, thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to that top 50 discussion but did not have time to do much beyond read it. What I read clearly contained BLP violations and am glad that stwalkerster decided to excise some of it. I recently gave Annette Maon a firm warning about BLP violations and am glad she's taken that feedback on board though I have no comment about whether the way she went about doing it was correct or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to keep the discussion on Talk:Elon Musk and reach consensus there. Since it has been brought here (not by me), I would appreciate some input about having "a hard time reaching consensus that BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice". The BLP subject's twitter criticism of the quality of Wikipedia curation on his article has received wide media coverage. Those who mansplain to me that "Musk doesn't have the final say on what warrants inclusion in the article" are completely missing the point. I never said or thought that he should have any say. Regardless of what happens on the talk page or here, he will still have an army of twitter "trolls" that try to do what he says. What I am concerned about is the actual quality of Wikipedia curation on the BLP article that happened to receive the most pageviews in 2021. Looking at the state of Talk:Elon Musk since I got there, it seems that there is some room for improvement. I thought that would be a priority, but I am starting to have doubts about that. Annette Maon (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page how to discuss the issues. You have failed to do so. You originally opened up a discussion with an ultimatum which is not a discussion. Based on the agressiveness of your responses, I think I am leaning towards OP's recommendation about education on NPOV. The article does have room for improvement but the way you are currently going about it is WP:POVPUSHing.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to chime in that my concern is the constant attacks on the project and editors. 'Mansplainin' used above, current user page in the 'Seeking Mentor', previous not so subtle personal attack directed at me. They have an agenda and whether its WP:ADVOCACY, WP:LAB, or plain ole trolling it adds up to disruptive editing and a disrespectful attitude to fellow editors of the project as a whole.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I was coming here to add that User:Annette_Maon#Looking_for_a_mentor, by itself but especially when paired with the user's hostile attitude to other editors, is very concerning re. motivations for editing and community/project civility. I'd suggest an active civility warning, active BLP warning, and TBAN on Musk, and see where we go from there. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is their definiton of consensus Special:Diff/1071029840, which amount to my edit stays, not status quo and my personal favorite, yet another personal attack that quickly gets stricken Special:Diff/1071012272Slywriter (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The context for that last one is that I replied to their messages at the Top 50 talk, not about Musk, then I saw the Musk stuff and was going to their talkpage to leave a message about maybe not poking other editors with a big stick to get your way. Then I saw their user page and this ANI thread message and had to point it out. How they saw that I had left a comment here before replying to me at the Top 50 talk would suggest they were actually following me, but it is ironic that as soon as I say they should be civil they leave me a personal attack accusing me. You know, rather than the simple truth that if they are doing noticeable things they will get noticed. Actually, that specific Diff is about Sly. I'd quote that meme about incredibly similar things happening twice but I am not surprised. If they want to blame their attacks on their paranoia, then we have a CIR issue: too paranoid to function collaboratively. They are a ridiculously hostile editor who would rather make personal attacks and then use those to disregard others than listen to policy. Kingsif (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Previous issues

It's only a few weeks since Annette Maon has had significant issues at another BLP article (well, BLP/BDP) - link. One may be an error, but two appears to be a problem (note also Barkeep49's comment about warnings). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice"

Putting aside all the personal attacks and innuendo against me. The ongoing talk page discussion about whether there should be "a mainspace section dedicated to Jeffrey Epstein" was going nowhere before I created this section. If being dragged here is the price I have to pay for getting that WP:UNDUE WP:BLP problem removed and restoring some semblance of curation to the process, I am willing to pay it. If the dynamics surrounding that section was the only problem, I would not have been wondering about the need for a WP:GAR (which I did NOT ask for). Moving on to other content issues. It has been extremely difficult to reach consensus on Talk:Elon_Musk that phrases like 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should be quoted and attributed instead of being stated in Wikipedia voice. Other articles dealing with similar content issues (i.e. Joe Rogan) do not seem to have this curation problem in mainspace (I haven't checked Talk:Joe Rogan). I am starting to wonder if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users" (Thank you Slatersteven). Annette Maon (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are doing it again. QRep2020 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet more inappropriate language crying vandalism and BLP violations rather than discussing content - Special:Diff/1071111456.Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed this thread when I went over to their TP to warn them about their edit-warring on the Orson Scott Card article, where they've shown a flagrant disregard of NPOV and a deep investment in promoting the article subject for the past several months, including both the removal of reliably sourced material and the addition of self-serving cruft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming here that being skeptical about COVID-19 policy is worse than genocide:

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

WP:WIKIVOICE

Musk was criticized for his public comments and conduct related to the COVID-19 pandemic.[306][307] He spread misinformation about the virus, including promoting chloroquine and assuming that death statistics were manipulated.

Elon_Musk#COVID-19

Others have made incorrect assumptions about my POV which forces me to clarify it for the record:

• I do not support Musk's views on COVID-19.
• I do not support Musk's promotion of people who are accused of "spreading misinformation".
• I got vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19 (as soon as I could).
• I actively avoid being in the same room with anyone who has not been vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19.
• I do believe that Musk has a right to be skeptical.
• I believe that Musk has a right to make mistakes.
• I believe that if Edison hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have lightbulbs.
• I believe that if Musk hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have the Falcon 9.
• I do not support the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie
• I do support the right of Janis Ian to disagree with me about Skokie
• I do not believe my personal POV is or should be relevant to the contents of any Wikipedia Article including Elon Musk

Another consensus that seems to be forming here is that WP:UNCIVIL behavior toward me is acceptable even when it includes:

• rudeness, insults and name-calling
• personal attacks, disability-related slurs
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety
• belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts
• taunting or baiting
• lying
• quoting me out of context to give the impression I said something I didn't say

As a WP:WikiGnome in training, I could provide links to each of the bullet points above. But that would be taking the bait and feeding the trolls. So I will try again to "talk about content, not users".

This discussion may be "dominated by the loudest and most persistent editorial voices" but a quick look at Talk:Elon_Musk shows that even they have to work hard to keep up the illusion that stating "He spread misinformation" in WP:WikiVoice is "Uncontested and uncontroversial".

I am still wondering if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users". Annette Maon (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You have obviously thought about this issue quite a lot, so let me ask, did Musk spread misinformation about the virus, or is that merely someone's opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that ANI is just a more public forum to talk about content, or are deflecting. In case you need to be told, this forum is for editor issues. This is where we talk about users, not content. The topic of discussion here is not the contents of the Elon Musk or Orson Scott Card articles, it is your behavior while trying to implement certain versions of them, as well as general comments. Continuing to insist that your versions are correct is doing the opposite of helping; it is rather quite demonstrative of the issues that have landed you here. Kingsif (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1071406173 & Special:Diff/1071390667- just more inability to discuss content without attacking editors and more of their special brand of consensus where the status quo can't stay.Slywriter (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/10714095750- Intentional misquoting of another editor to make a point not grounded in policy or logic.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue raised by OP is the conduct of a user. The discussion has since evolved in discussion about content. This is not the place for that. In fact, Annette Maon was told not only here, but on the Elon Musk talk page and their own talk page how to properly address a content dispute. They have failed to do so and continuing bludgeoning. I think we have done more than WP:AGF but AGF isn't a WP:PACT. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for close (Annette Maon)

Editors have raised issues above including incivility, disregard of NPOV, CIR, bludgeoning, and BLP problems after a warning. They have recommended remedies including a civility warning, BLP warning (there's already one in place), and a TBAN from Elon Musk. I support a civility warning, having been on the wrong end of Annette Maon's incivility. Regardless, I encourage an admin to close this section, whether it's with action taken or not, rather than let another discussion of this editor's conduct archive without closure. Firefangledfeathers 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adjacent discussion about DS templates and their use. Isabelle 🔔 16:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: What was the point of posting three discretionary sanction notices on one talk page, all within the same section? What did that achieve exactly? I've not seen that anywhere on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Scope creep: I posted two notices because Annette Maon's comments on Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting (now rev-deleted) implicated two DS areas (BLP and American politics). Later, she edited a part of Elon Musk that involved his comments about COVID-19, another DS area. The alerts don't lead to formal awareness in any topic area besides the one mentioned, so one alert is insufficient for users working in multiple sensitive subjects. Positing multiple alerts in one section is common. This log includes every edit action that includes a formal DS notice, and 2 of the last 10 edits were multi-notices. I could have spread the alerts into separate sections, and if there's a good reason to do so moving forward, I'd be happy to improve my notification work. This part is speculation, but if the subtext of your comment involves the DS alert process being problematic, I agree with you, as do many others. There's an ongoing review of the whole DS system, outlined here. Firefangledfeathers 13:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Three is excessive, two is excessive. A note left on the talk page would have probably been better in this instance, in the 2nd and 3rd instances. They are the worst kind of message to use in user-interaction, certainly the worst i've seen. The worst of is they leave the editor feeling uncertain what to do or how to go forward. It break down creativity and enthusiasm, the best intention are destroyed. I don't like the DS system either. It is destructive. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Well, I'd love not to ruin your week. It's likely that I would agree with a lot of your issues with the DS system. As it stands now, no, I couldn't have posted a personalized message in lieu of the formal notices. Per WP:ACDS, "these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". Firefangledfeathers 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: I followed scope_creep to here as it is he who is guilty of "worst kind of message to use in user-interaction, certainly the worst i've seen". My jawed dropped that he could be so blind to his own imperfections while pointing out others supposed mistakes. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies, Barkeep49, Black Kite, and Johnuniq: pinging the admins that have commented in this discussion. Are any of you willing to close this? I would also be responsive to a suggestion that archival without closure is the best scenario here, and I intend to take a lack of response here as a sign that we should just drop it. Firefangledfeathers 13:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not been, and likely will not be for at least a couple more weeks, in any position to consider Annette's actions at Musk which this thread seems largely about. Her actions at the Top 50 suggests she has improved her understanding of BLP since I left her the warning but beyond that am not in a position to assess or close this thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I'm afraid I'm also sort of bowing out, due to time constraints--but also lack of interest. After so many years here it becomes more and more difficult to muster the energy to deal with the veritable walls of text from disruptive editors, and Annette Maon's comments from the 12th in this thread certainly qualify as that--but if, as Barkeep says, things have improved, then maybe we should let it go. The editor has been warned, informed of DS, and chastised corrected by other editors. Perhaps that's enough for now. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The long and tedious comments by Annette Maon point to the future when meta:Universal Code of Conduct arrives. I'd be inclined to leave this section for the archive bot but take bold admin action if the troll-like nature of talk page commentary continues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

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

---

Could you please delete this [213] history? HeeraDrishti (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The OP has been blocked as confirmed sock. Wikimedia Commons is a different website from Wikipedia. --Stylez995 (talk) 08:49, 18 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.

Block evation

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 user doing LTA has again being evading block [214] with new IP [215]. --C messier (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And now is edit warring, not acknowledging consesus. --C messier (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

it is the same user as here (still blocked) or here. --C messier (talk) 14:54, 17 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 talk:Realjamesh

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 talk:Realjamesh Multiple IP addresses spamming same image on banned user's talkpage. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Alpha Piscis Austrini, I've protected it and removed the garbage. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:56, 17 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.

Request for a block and rev-del

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.

---

Could someone give 2603:6011:9400:B395:B031:4048:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a block and rev-del the edits they've made? They've been inserting unsourced rubbish into BLP's about how people are "Globalist Tyrants" then left a rather nasty threat on the talk page of the person that reverted them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, this kind of request is best handled at WP:AIV rather than on this board. In any case, I'm sure an administrator will take appropriate action soon. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the existence of AIV, I've been here a long time. In this case I brought the editor has posted this stuff over multiple weeks and some of the stuff they posted (like the talk page threats) probably needs rev-delling, AIV isn't really suited to doing anything except quick blocks of obvious vandals. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range. For future revision deletion requests, please take a look at WP:REVDELREQUEST. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:22, 16 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.

ArgentineMartin changing figures despite warnings

ArgentineMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a standard edit summary, "Added the real percentage of white people in Argentina" and has done little more than changing figures, mostly at White Latin Americans and White Brazilians, since December. They have been reverted and warned on their talk page by several editors, including a final warning by me[216]. Their last edits: [217] and [218]. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

GenoV84's accusations, false statements in discussions, and 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.

---

• LGBT in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report by Santasa99

GenoV84 has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing, edit-warring ([219], [220], [221], [222]). Being on multiple ANI's for biting, casting aspersions with especially troubling being presentation of false claims in personal attacks (warned [223], [224], here they were called out for false personal attacks [225], [226] by User:LindsayH in this diff reiterated by User:El_C, then for attempt to engineer sanctions for opposing user [227]) over the past and this year, and earlier during the 2018. They showed disregard for community consensus (as reported in this ANI User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s) in the middle of which GenoV84 supposedly retired, but they were warned [228], they were called out for "gaming the system", "bludgeoning", "writing manifesto", "incivility", "hypocrisy", even being "anti-Muslim", all in that ANI by the community of at least half a dozen or more editors, and then on another again here (when they reported opposing editor for removing warnings from their user TP [229], but they themselves were removing all warnings and block notices from their user TP, and explained by User:Justarandomamerican that editors are allowed to do that and warned for not assuming good faith, again, [230], [231] by User:TheDragonFire300 and [232] by User:Bishonen, and again month later they filed a report [233], [234] on the same editor and were warned [235] by User:Fences and windows). They often disregard community standards on issues such as OWN, OR & SYNTH interpretation and usage of sources, the bad faith assumption ([236], [237] report by User:Vaticidalprophet, also noted by [238] User:Apaugasma). From my personal experience - main accusations and false claims: ...if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals..., by explicitly stating that he doesn't care... i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content - I posted my raw intent on very specific matters concerning eventual changes in problematic sentence [239], no more no less, I didn't debated, threaten, disregard opinions - "deficiencies and misdemeanors" on my part and "unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content" should be explained; How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, only we don't require evidence to remove unrefed/unsourced material, and we always expect to collaborate; ...you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made, not one proposal or solution was offered, only more of the same, and "refusal to get the point" and provide asked ref; Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times,..., only we don't require reliable source to remove unrefed/unsourced material, they didn't provide ref for contested material; If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes..., they were not, they were just bunch of source, meaningless quotes, non of which contain required ref for contested material or justify accusations; then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users,..., more evasion and aspersion; I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly., they did constantly spread aspersions, and the rest should be easy to prove and justify; I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, ...no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially ...that this entire discussion and edit war that you started, evasion, untrue due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion, aspersions w/o evidence? Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, not upset just contesting unrefed material; depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users, yet, it was GenoV84 who started to revert and broke 3RR as well, actually first, insults and attack should be easy to prove; I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for., evidence? he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, evasion, untrue; Timeline for the TP exchange: GenoV84 reverted me on my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, disregarding good faith, [240], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [241], [242], with additional comment [243]. VenusFeuerFalle & GenoV84 has established contact via e-mail two weeks ago, 6-7 days before our first encounter, as evident from this exchange on GenoV84 TP [244] between 2-3 Feb.2022; VenusFeuerFalle replaced GenoV84 in reverting me, so I stepped on that mine foolishly. I initiated discussion [245]; GenoV84 responds [246]; I followed [247]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references and without offering what I asked [248] [249]; nevertheless, I checked them and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found in them [250] [251]; now they were starting to get angry at me and to write essays with lots of wikilayering [252]; I tried to explain [253] [254]; they started with a new round [255]; I asked them to stop with accusations [256]; they started asking in circles [257] and I replied again [258] [259]; they simply didn't want to get the point and repeated again [260]; I was a bit annoyed at this point [261] but I pinged other two editors and asked [262]; one replied Your edits today on this article have violated WP:3RR. Could you please explain why you have ignored that policy? — Manticore; then the other [263] not exactly clear what they said; I was baffled and responded with [264], I was asked about my proposal but I wasn't sure what [265]; so I said that [266]; editor said they can try to fix English [267]; I wasn't sure why they debating when reference is my main request [268]; they tried again but made thing worse [269] [270], which isn't the point after all, both editors were simply evading to provide reference which was my main request ! Then, GenoV84 posted essay of 10 thousands bytes [271]! Sorry for the long report, even though it could have been longer.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Response by GenoV84

intractable, long term history of POV pushing.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users (@VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore:), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink. In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently. You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes. So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.) paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. Evidence with reliable sources and diffs that directly indicate your disruptive edits on the article LGBT in Islam, along with your reiterated violation of WP:3RR, have already been provided by me and the user @Manticore:, both here and in the article's Talk page. And no, responding to your incessant, passive-aggressive comments and offensive remarks about me and the editors @VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore: in the most polite way possible is not harassment: it's called manners. Did you manage to behave that way and treat other users like trash for 14 years without ever getting blocked or reprimanded by an admin? Impressive.... and depressing. Despite your attempts to repeatedly inflame the dispute resolution with uncivil comments and personal attacks by inciting me and the aforementioned users to push the boundaries even further, as you just did with your latest comment (You really need to hit the brakes a little bit), I'm pretty sure that I have already expressed my opinion far too well, both here and on the article's Talk page, and there's no need for me to restate my argument ad infinitum. I also took the initiative to request a third opinion from users that weren't involved in the dispute resolution in order to find a constructive way to reach consensus together, but so far nothing seems to work. I invited other users and editors to join the discussion and express their own viewpoint both on WP:AN3 and the article's Talk page, if they wish. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 ([272]; [273]; [274]; [275]; [276]; [277]). There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies. Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus: Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty"; I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word. How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? As if this entire dispute resolution over a simple, innocuous wikilink wasn't entirely avoidable if only the user that opened this report had tried to engage with me and other editors in a more polite, respectful way from the beginning, in accordance with the policies WP:Civility and WP:KEEPCOOL, as I suggested him many times during the dispute resolution, he disregarded all my advices and continued to behave in the same disturbing, disrespectful way (Oh, sorry Aristotle, i wasn't aware you go digital now.). Furthermore, Santasa99 has blatantly, explicitly DENIED that he was WARNED by the admin EdJohnston just yesterday following the closure of the report on his edit-warring [278], which can still be found at WP:AN3, with the following phrase on the article's Talk page: EdJohnston never said that [279]. GenoV84 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) After all this mess, who is the one making accusations, insulting other users with personal attacks multiple times, treating them with disrespect and offensive remarks after being asked to stop multiple times, persistent lying despite the provided diffs and evidence with the continuous dismissal of all the diffs and evidence, accusing them of bad faith and WP:NOTHERE? GenoV84 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) But the user Santasa99 didn't stop there. He continued to post comments and replies on WP:AN3 after the admin EdJohnston had already closed Manticore's report on him for edit-warring, knowingly (Thanks @EdJohnston:, I am well aware of what I shouldn't do [280]), insinuating that me and editor VenusFeuerFalle had a conversation via email regarding the article LGBT in Islam because I gave them an email address to reach me on my Talk page weeks ago (I was, apparently, up against two editors editing in concert, which I suspect from this short but worrisome exchange User_talk:GenoV84#Discord? between 2 and 3 Feb 2022, and manner in which they took turn in reverting me. [281]). In the same fashion, the user Santasa99 stated on the article's Talk page that he won't let me go while the discussion is still ongoing (Are you now refuse to work with me, do you think that somehow goal is accomplished and now you don't need to explain to me anything? [282]). See and judge for yourselves, who is the editor in bad faith and casting aspersions here (WP:ASPERSIONS: It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.). I wish that I didn't have to do this and write this papyrus above, but if other editors and admins need to see the full story, there it is. For what? A wikilink. GenoV84 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) References

Wow, well, this is basically unreadable. El_C 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please El_C, work with us, and let's try to make this as simplest as possible. My report is long to begin with, but GenoV84 reply is exactly what makes this case important.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment (to break from walls of text)

I was long past content issue problem, and my intention was to present pattern of continuous breach of behavioral policies and guidelines - any editor with a history of bad faith assumption, false representations of other editors' discussions, and willingness to wage a crusade over simplest matter, as apparent from ANI, User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s), case about racist userbox three time deleted by community, three times re-created by GenoV84, or from disruptive editing on the article Criticism of Muhammad edit-warring and discussing over edit-summary [283], which eventually earned them a block; and now, with all this over removal of one word, "Islamic", from absurd, provocative and deceptive phrasal construction "Islamic death penalty", created without references, should be signal that editor is not here to build the project.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I've amended the collapse title that read Bludgeoning evasive counter-report and wikilawyering by GenoV84 into Response by GenoV84. Even if the former is so —I haven't read these very lengthy exchanges and am unlikely to do so in their current state (doubtful someone else would, but who knows, I guess)— I don't understand why you'd think it okay for an involved user such as yourself (the OP) to frame the collapse title like that, in such a favourable way, to you. There's a serious lack of clue in doing that, I'm sorry to say, again, regardless of the claim's factual veracity. You should not be clerking a discussion in which you are involved, period. El_C 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, this is a poor summary. A diff from 2018 is beyond Stale. El_C 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I concur and totally accept your remarks, it was risky and not neutral, but your first reaction was clear that in previous state it would probably discourage any editor from reading through it, let alone attempt to curate it and make it less repellent. I worry that my report is too long, but I hoped that at least was organized in usual, practical manner (my experience on filing ANI is based on what I observed only, it is possible that I tried ANI before but I don't remember.) It would be shame if it fails because either my report was unreadable or because GenoV84 respond made it repellent more than it should be. As for the stale diff, I used it only to illustrate how long this patter persists, my experience is much deeper than any previous editors' presentations showed in those old diff's and cases. How many should I present here is dilemma of inexperienced editor filing the report.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Compile the three most egregious recent diffs, with brief summaries if needed. El_C 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, I will take diff's my first three TP discussion posts and juxtapose it with GenoV's replies. Since their replies are always longish and contain enough evidence I will tq it with diff's. Thanks and thanks again. (Let's see how it looks in 10-20 min.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I initiated discussion [284]; GenoV84 responds [285]; I followed with a second attempt [286]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references[287] [288] and without offering what I asked exact place in sources; nevertheless, I checked the sources and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found [289] [290]; now they replied with a long post with lots of wikilayering evasive explanations and aspersions [291]; I tried to explain [292] [293]; they started with a new round [294]; I asked them to stop with accusations [295]; they started asking in circles [296].

Now, I said I will tq specific lines, but I will leave that for separate post if specifically requested, so that we keep it simple this time. I think that these diff's are most interesting because this is me, cool as Antarctica in July, trying to initiate TP discussion and get reference for specific part of the article (lede), and the answers I was getting. There are worse things hurled at me later on, and while I was too getting more blunt later on, there is no justifications for the things said and how they were said in GenoV's answers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And, it's not irrelevant that on our first encounter GenoV84 reverted my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, completely disregarding good faith, [297], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [298], [299], with additional comment [300]. That was really unexpected.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I'm not seeing anything egregious in those exchanges. Looks like a content dispute that could use further dispute resolution. Spirited debate is allowed. GenoV84, on Feb 11, you removed Santasa99's comment from Talk:LGBT in Islam ( diff). This was by accident, I presume...? El_C 12:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, there's another paragraph. I don't understand why you're making this so complicated, Santasa99. Too much redudant material, still. Anyway: //looking. El_C 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a spirited when you get this you should try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggresively. when you are calm and there is no lashing out on other users aggresively just because you ask for reference in absolutely calm, even cold manner.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I hate being here, I never wanted to use these channels.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a diff, so I have zero context, but I don't think it matters at this point, anyway. El_C 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay...? El_C 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's diff 196 - I hate being here because it means something went wrong, and that's why I have little experience, and why my posts are "complicated".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And you expected me to just remember? And you don't link it directly now because...? Doesn't matter, I'm not gonna look at it. If you can't bother making this convenient for me, I'm just gonna disengage and you can try seeking further assistance from someone else. El_C 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, El_C, I don't expect much anyway, but you said be concise give me three diff's, which I posted, but than you missed entire sentence in it where the editor literally accuses me of being xy. I am not sure what else could I do.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are required to read it at all, let alone carefully, but I provided those diff's and they contain some pretty inappropriate attitude.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, no, you didn't. You posted 17 diffs. El_C 14:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

:-) you got me there, hah it's really that much, but how else you can show what happened in this kind of report, where behavior is examined, I mean if I post their diff you are left without "why" they said "you are angry, cool down , don't lash out and don't be aggressive" - so, in this case it really felt that it was needed to be in the format "I said/they said". I wanted to remove this report from the content issue, so it is a case of two editors and their behavior.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Warned. GenoV84, don't mis-use user warning templates during content disputes. Don't label a content dispute as "vandalism," disrutpive," or "censorship." If you do this again, you will be sanctioned. Both of you: find a dispute resolution request that works for you, like WP:3O, an WP:RFC, or posting to WP:RSN, and take a break from one another. It's too much and it's getting neither of you anywhere. I've already warned Santasa99 above, so hopefully, that would be the end of it. El_C 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But you already warned them once in July over the same thing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So now it's twice, I guess. El_C 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@El_C, I accept the warning and agree with your suggestions regarding the proper dispute resolution. To answer your first question, I'm afraid that my revisions and Santasa99's revisions overlapped while saving the respective replies; it happened unintentionally by accident.

However, I had already requested a WP:3O at the very beginning of the dispute resolution; except for the intervention of other editors mentioned earlier, which don't seem to be interested in this discussion anymore, nobody else has joined the discussion yet, and I explicitly invited other users to join in the article's Talk page.

From my perspective, especially considering Santasa99's disturbing and concerning conduct towards me and other editors, I think that both of us should WP:DISENGAGE and let other users step in, because it's clear that this entire mess about something so trivial and innocuous as wikilink is not worth the effort. GenoV84 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not the break! That's not the break! El_C 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What a ... :-))) , I was thinking to Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment about DRN

I have closed a request for dispute resolution at DRN because this case is also pending, and DRN does not consider any dispute that is pending in another conduct or content forum. If User:GenoV84 and User:Santasa99 agree to close this dispute in order to file another request at DRN, I will accept a request for moderated discussion if all of the parties are notified and a majority agree to moderated discussion. I will advise the parties that I will insist that parties at DRN be concise, and may hat walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it needs to be formally closed, many of these ANI's gets archived without ever being formally closed - the important thing was that it was concluded by El_C's warning?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Please see my reply above regarding the user Santasa99's disturbing behavior, stalking on my Talk page and my past activities on Wikipedia, reiterated uncivil, disrespectful conduct along with several insults and personal attacks towards me and other editors involved in the discussion on Talk:LGBT in Islam#Public opinion among Muslims, not to mention the blatant untruths and character assassination exposed at WP:ANI, WP:AN3, and Talk:LGBT in Islam#Public opinion among Muslims by me and two admins (he has already been warned twice). I don't think there's much else to say here; Santasa99's disturbing behavior speaks louder than any report could ever do. I'm not interested in that pointless discussion anymore, and I still consider WP:DISENGAGE to be the best decision for both parties involved. GenoV84 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously!?!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, GenoV84 said they wanted to disengage, you said you have abandoned the page. Earlier, I had said: Both of you: find a dispute resolution request that works for you, like WP:3O, an WP:RFC, or posting to WP:RSN. Any of these WP:DRRs could have been used with minimal if any engagement from GenoV84. But instead you pick WP:DRN, where engagement is at an uttermost, to un-abandon the page with? At this point, I'm inclined to just topic ban you from the entire WP:GENSEX topic area. I simply do not believe that you are clueful enough to handle its pitfalls at this time. *Sigh* El_C 06:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I really believe that would be unfair, not to mention it is not my topic area, and the reason has nothing to do with WP:GENSEX. I changed my mind that's legitimate attitude (GenoV retired from editing less then two months ago after some "Islamophobic" remarks in ANI filed against him for three time re-created of deleted hate-mongering userbox), but I let things cool down and resorted to DRN because, after all, GenoV vehemently defended removal of word "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty", so I don't see how would avoiding him be helpful to resolve issue. Most importantly, I have never once been uncivil with him, I never included part of the text or wrote entirely personal attack in post, and just because GenoV is unable to post one paragraph without such attacks and personal innuendo without one diff of evidence, shouldn't be the reason for me to pay the price, even though I filed lousy formatted report here, or collapsed statements, or wasn't formatting my report in summarized readable fashion, etc. If GenosV last moves were OK, than I am clearly on the wron place in the wrong time.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I'm sorry to say, but nothing of the various, totally un-evidenced things (i.e. without one diff of evidence) you say above convinces me that you currently possess the competence to edit GENSEX pages like LGBT in Islam. I don't know what else to tell you. El_C 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not editing GENSEX, and if you could find 10 such edits in 2 or 3 that topic articles in my 14 years I will gladly accept sanctions. My engagement with LGBT in Islam has nothing to do with a topic area as such, it was attempt to change one word in what is awkwardly and provocatively constructed phrase in the article, and if that one thing that has nothing to do with a topic area GENSEX warrants topic ban, no less, than go ahead. But I feel that topic banning me on my ANI report on editor's personal attacks and false accusations without evidence, which continued with this last outburst, for my attempt to return to resolve content issue, is unfair, to say the least.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what removal of one word "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty" had to do with competence to edit GENSEX?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I could WP:ABAN you from the page rather than WP:TBAN you from the topic area, but if you don't edit the topic area, anyway, I don't see how it'd make any difference. But sure, I guess. You keep mentioning 'fairness,' which can become a pretty subjective thing. But your actions, not knowing when to drop the WP:STICK, that's an objective fact. El_C 07:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Minute waited. The page is under the GENSEX DS. You are failing the competence threshold on that page. El_C 07:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't drag this out any longer. Closure pending. El_C 07:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It makes all the difference, because I am not sure where did I failed in competence on that page (let alone topic). Is it because I said something which disrupted editing there, or did I said something in Talk Page there which is, let's say any worse then opposing editor(s), or something which I can't comprehend? It makes the difference, if nothing, it could be lesson for the future.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That has been discussed at length already. Now would you please let me close this report so I could wrap everything up? El_C 07:53, 19 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 user 124.104.57.209

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.

---

IP User 124.104.57.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has for many months now engaged in edit warring, pushing his WP:POV in many political articles. He has changed ideologies and positions despite established consesus, has been reverted multiple times by several editors, and has engaged in breaking WP:3RR. He has removed sourced information to instead add in his own opinion of an article. Despite reverts by many editors, he has insisted in adding in his own info, and toggles of what an he believes the article should look like without sources too. Definitely worrying with a user trying to push his narrative in too many articles to keep up with for many editors. Not only that but he has also been WP:HARASS several editors.

Honestly he has broken all of the things above too many times, however I have added some of his violations here. I recommend an administrator to look at all his records if this is not enough. In my opinion a permanent block would be the best solution after everything he has been doing. He has also receives multiple warnings by several editors and been blocked from editing certain pages due to his edit warring. [301] [302]

WP:HARASS against editor Vif, [303], against Vacant [304], against me[305], against Shadow [306], against Ben [307]

Broken WP:3RR several times, refusing to discuss, adding unsourced or WP:OR content and reverting back against multiple editors: [308] (6 times) on that page), [309] (4 times on that page), [310] (4 times on that page), [311] (6 times on that page) and these are just some examples.

WP:POV pushes, unsourced too: [312] (edit denied), [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], and there many many more.

If someone can put an end to this, it would be appreciated. One of the worst IP users I have seen and he has basically been waging an edit war against all editors to push his point of view. BastianMAT (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You should request an administrator's intervention to block the IP user. It can be WP:AIV. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ignored [[318]] Shadow4dark (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They're now getting a month off since they had a week off earlier this month. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 16 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: Djciejboab and unsourced edits

This user has been persistently adding an unsourced "Contestants" section on Miss Universe Philippines 2022, despite being no announcement of it, adding the fact that the said names on the section are unconfirmed delegates that lack notability, clearly violating WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and many more. I know that they are doing it in good faith but it's actually making the article less Wikipedia-friendly.

I have already mentioned the issue on the article's talkpage but I got no response and the editor kept on doing these destructive edits. And these edits date back as far as January 2022, as seen this edit; with the latest edit of such nature being in this edit.

Djciejboab, since you do not reply at all, I just hope that in here you do just so you can defend your case.

Good day to everyone. Milesq (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor Toyota Corolla E140 and uploading images

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.

---

As per this edit here, I think Toyota Corolla E140 has pretty much confirmed that he's either not listening, not here to improve the project, or both:

Pretty fucking idiotic to ban me from wikipedia and preventing me from uploading photos, just because i did something wrong once, first upload was my bad, i accidentally posted it as my own work, second i posted it with the wrong license and now im banned? Fuck of both of you, especially "magog the fucking orge" i dont car what have i tried to say about the license but the FUCKING photo has been uploaded twice and i stopped but still "EaRnInG a MuCh LoNgEr BLocK" fuck of both of you, i hope both of you have a stroke and die.

The entire exchange is on my talk page Volkswagen Phaeton main photo here. Editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• This one is hilarious, too. Probably it is too late to get them to understand (1) "copyright" is the legal ownership scheme that applies to intellectual property (and is completely independent the ability to copy a digital image), and (2) Commons and Wikipedia are two different websites. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think that the intent to improve the encyclopaedia is genuine. There's just a total lack of comprehension of what copyright is. In fairness, you used the word "troll" first, Chaheel Riens. If you didn't think it to be true at that point, it would have been better not to say it at all. It very probably didn't help. If the account-holder isn't going to edit any more at all, I think that the problem is solved by the account-holder xyrself. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think this message should be revdeled, and maybe a block, as this message is totally unacceptable. --Stylez995 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Toyota_Corolla_E140#Indefinite_block. Uncle G, the "troll" quote actually reads: I was beginning to think them a troll, but a recent post makes me think not. El_C 13:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I know what it reads, thank you. As I just said, it would have been better not to say that at all if one no longer thinks that the person is a troll. It clearly got the person saying "troll" back, and that escalated into warnings about saying "troll" from the first person to say "troll", and then it got even worse. Just not even bringing up the subject if one didn't think it to be the case would have been better. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. El_C 13:56, 17 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.

Harassment by User:Eggishorn

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.

---

He/she is disrupting my edits and harrasing me. Aburh (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement is not disruption or harassment. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 19 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.

Projects IP sockpuppets

...have become rampant lately, redoing others' vandalism and spreading lies when true users try to correct them.

Examples:

• 102.45.220.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 119.95.182.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.166.8.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 179.52.199.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Even after he gets blocked on one IP, he just hops to another everywhere we go, on Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and all of the WMF. I request serious measures be taken against this troll. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion from Ohio – country music and TV shows

• 2603:6010:8602:5300:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2603:6010:A300:F142:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2603:6010:8640:500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Feb 2019 – ANI report
• Mar 2021 – ANI report

Someone from Ohio has been evading lengthy IP4 blocks by using IP6 addresses. The existing blocks are on Special:Contributions/174.105.188.178 for four years, Special:Contributions/174.105.181.31 by itself and also its container range Special:Contributions/174.105.0.0/16. The IP Special:Contributions/174.105.177.231 was blocked seven times.

This person larded up the List of Soul Train episodes with 250kb of unreferenced text. They have been doing much the same thing at Austin City Limits[319] and a bunch of other articles about TV shows. One of their tell-tale quirks is the addition of future "TBA" episodes.[320]

Can we get some long-term rangeblocks? Note that partial blocks are already in place for the very wide range Special:Contributions/2603:6010:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

111.92.72.127 - block needs to be extended

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.

---

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

Persistent vandalism related to Indian films.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:08, 19 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.

NeverTry4Me issue

I strongly condemn the block of@NeverTry4Me: . He is a reputed editor with so many years of experience. Admins should not misuse their power. I ask the blocked user to defend his diffs here. I support you and thanks for your valuable contribution.TOAARN23 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Lololol. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NeverTry4Me, let me try a little bit of helpful guidance: this thing you're doing right now is transparent, and all it will do is make it harder for you ever to be unblocked in the future. It is really too bad that you didn't try harder to understand what El_C and others were telling you -- I get that English isn't your native language, but that means you should have spent much more time asking for clarification of what other people were saying and much less time arguing. Your best bet for being unblocked is (1) stop creating alternate accounts or editing logged out and (2) devote some serious effort to understanding what has already been written to you. Then, after a long interval of not creating or editing with sock-puppet accounts, (3) read WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, (4) read it again, thoroughly, (5) probably read it one more time, to make sure you understand what administrators will be looking for in an appeal, and what was problematic about your behavior before, and finally (6) file an appeal as it describes. --JBL (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: ZNKA, TOAARN23 both indef blocked for block evasion today. Please don't create a third one, NeverTry4Me. This is silly. El_C 13:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

MoiKebolTumar makes 3. El_C 04:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not tagging anyone. I have no ties to the old account (as you discussed) and have no plans to do so (I just laughed). This individual (the subject) has a Facebook page where he constantly posts/states that all ULFA leaders should have Wikipedia pages established for them and he's doing it. We're all in good spirits. That is not an issue. Then he started contacting everyone to write an article (no outing from my side). Although I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I am an engineer. Because we use similar platforms/method/psychology/rules to run our company, it takes one engineer 30 minutes to learn everything in a new platform. Because of his mental health, this user is restricted in his community (journalism). Isolated! Is it possible to send an email to one of you admin? I can explain everything. This is my last post regarding that user. Thanks to him for introducing you all. I'll try my best to do something here. GeezGod (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked GeezGod indef (User_talk:GeezGod#Indefinite_block) for that Because of his mental health, this user is restricted in his community (journalism). So now both of them have been indeffed (by me), so hopefully, they'll both decide to move on from this Facebook-to-Wikipedia, whatever it is. El_C 14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we at WP:3X level yet? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a moot point since the OP has already been blocked, but please don't lie completely through your teeth with statements such as He is a reputed editor with so many years of experience. Any one of us, me included, can easily verify NeverTry4Me's experience, or lack thereof in this case, and attempting to fabricate otherwise in a mountain of evidence is surely not a good look for any user. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

After having a second look at NeverTry4Me's contrib log, I have retracted the above comment. I don't think it's fair for me to make that assessment, though this has no bearing on competence issues. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that it appears the apparent evasion was a joe-job. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, shit. El_C 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm tidying up their contributions, many will be speedied under G3/G5 or by my own motion for being a ghastly useless mess. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unrelated to the festival of socks, would someone mind an eye at Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta? It was created by Nalbarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is since CU blocked (cc @Joe Roe:) with no substantive edits, although NeverTry is in the history. It's unclear whether this is a G5 creation, but given two blocked editor in the history probably needs some eyes from those familiar with either editor. Thanks! Star Mississippi 20:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Put a mask on mate!

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.

---

• Put a mask on mate! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user Put a mask on mate! had reverted my removal of my edits three times. His first revert was with a false edit summary "Alphabetized users", but it was reverting my edit, second and third reverts were without any summary. Also removing the edit warring [321] the warning from his profile with a personal attack How about you put on a mask mate! not sure what he's trying to say. This spa with less than hundred edits, engaging in edit wars in another articles and similar edit summaries.

Also other reverts on his own talkpage.

1. [322]
2. [323]

reverts

1. [324]
2. [325]
3. [326]

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Beshogur (talk) 16:27, 19 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.

TartarTorte and Dirkbb

Hello. I am here to report the disruptive behavior of TartarTorte (talk · contribs) and Dirkbb (talk · contribs) for disruptively reverting my edits. Let me clarify. I am trying to help Wikipedia in a good way but these two are getting in my way! I will ping their talk and alert them of this. Thank you. --Breast999A (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The reverts of your edits were appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As above. You may be trying to help Wikipedia in a good way but you certainly aren't succeeding. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I considered indeffing the OP as a vandalism-only account, but actually they have made two or three constructive edits, so I've made it one week. How is for example an edit like this even trying to help Wikipedia? Also, they're very "new" but far too adept with templates and wiki lingo to be actually new. An indef comes next. Bishonen | tålk 22:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

And now they've created a sock. Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. That came faster than I thought! Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

User:Levixius and tendentious editing

Levixius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for almost 2 years and has over 700 edits but much of their contributions from the beginning are examples of rather egregious pov pushing and tendentious editing coupled with original research, cherrypicking, poor sourcing, weasel words, blp violations, etc over which they have a tendency to edit war as well. Note that their editing interests are exclusively spread over three DS areas; IPA, Gamergate, Ampol2 (and BLP if you like). Their behavior has not changed over time, they are aware of policies and guidelines but seem least interested in following them so I'm inclined to believe that this is just a case of WP:NOTHERE, some select examples from their last 50 edits are as follows.

• Special:Diff/1069636265 on Azam Khan (politician), they restore a section with the edit summary "vandalism". The section presents as fact that he was responsible for a murder when none of the sources even contain an accusation of a murder against him let alone a conviction.

• Special:Diff/1070020306, same as above.

• Special:Diff/1060032342 on Godhra train burning, removes a sentence attributed to a scholar, cited to two books published by Springer and Harvard University Press by claiming that they are fringe.

• Special:Diff/1062745270 makes an addition on The Red Pill using imdb. This is removed for being unreliably sourced.

• Special:Diff/1062760062 restoration of the same with the edit summary saying they will add a reliable source in the following edit. They never do that but instead follows it up with an edit (Special:Diff/1062760136) which adds a citation for something completely different.

• Special:Diff/1069639102 introduces a line in the lead of Melina Abdullah stating that she support "hate group Nation of Islam". Her support itself is sourced to three primary sources and a secondary one, none of which directly verifies whether she supports Nation of Islam.

• Special:Diff/1069802257, restoration of the above.

• Special:Diff/1068791692, introduces a line on the same page as above, stating that she supports an actor in the BLM protest cited to a combination of primary and unreliable sources (e.g, Twitter, NYPost) and cherrypicks a description of the actor stating that he was once convicted.

• In Special:Diff/1068536558 Special:Diff/1068539286 they introduce a poorly supported section on Students Federation of India. The latter part of the first sentence is not verifiable, in the third sentence the citation does not state that the colleges are "SFI-controlled", the fourth sentence is not verifiable, the first and second paragraph are presented as if they are separate commissions when they are the same, the commission itself is presented as if it solely pertained to the SFI when it was directed as campus politics in general, the eighth sentence is an allegation represented as fact, the entire section also names non-notable victims and accused alike, consists solely of accusations, makes omissions such as the University College unit being folded by the SFI, etc. This is without even going into the sourcing problems.

• Special:Diff/1069605232, restoration of the above.

• Special:Diff/1072222965, restoration of the above.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

LTA back with two new /64 ranges

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely nearly a year ago and has returned regularly as an IP for continued disruption. 2603:8000:B03:E5C5:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been a recurring favorite and is currently under a 3-month block.

• 2603:8000:B00:17BD:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B03:D526:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These two are active now and carry all the hallmarks of this LTA. Edits are mostly to automotive articles, the rest related to professional wrestling. Disruption includes tampering with dimensions, messing with predecessor/successor entries, and other falsities like adding a "previous owner" for a firm in a time period in which it didn't exist. Both ranges resolve to Downey, California; all of this LTA's IPs are from either there or adjacent Bellflower. --Sable232 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This vandal is still active at this very moment: [327] --Sable232 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

More misinformation vandalism. Ninenine99's commitment to disrupting Wikipedia is considerable. Materialscientist - as the administrator who made the last rangeblock, your input would be appreciated. --Sable232 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Reflectivesurface521 posted inappropriate on my talk page

@Reflectivesurface521: posted an inappropriate message (saying to kill myself and "Cunt") on my talk page. I think it is related to his edit on Spider-Man: No Way Home which I reverted. Centcom08 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked, so I think this can be closed, but I'm surprised it was only for a week. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is unprecedented for an otherwise well-behaved editor — especially since they have never edited outside of article space except in this incident and to create their user page — which may explain the short block period. I don't think the edit in question is egregious enough for RD2 — it's similar to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#User:_Jixby_Phillips, only more profane — but it's nonetheless unusually nasty as a personal attack. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back

I really do not want to start this ANI but looking at their talk page, this user seemed to be involved in an edit war last month and at one point had basically pretended to be an admin by stating to another user that they lost privileges to edit Horse's talk page. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the background here when OP reported at AIV, and suggested they drop it at that venue, after they were advised to come here. Should an admin close this with a polite word right away? I think so. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. Any editor can tell another editor that they are unwelcome on their talk page (except for mandatory notices), it doesn't require admin privileges. And an old edit war? What action are you looking for here? Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I really wanted to know where can I report these types of stuff. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, are you referring to this edit? If so, that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do (see WP:UTP). This seems like pot-stirring to me. There's nothing to report here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, scrap this ANI. I will deal with the user myself instead. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's more than pot-stirring, it seems to be an deliberate attempt to get Horse Eye's Back in trouble/banned as revenge for leaving them a warning about using poor sources [328]. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I check the reliable sources page, Xinhua is in the yellow area of reliable sources. We can dicuss this in the RS noticeboard. When it comes to events held in China, it would be very difficult in finding any good sources. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: did you really just open a vague open ended ANI case against me without notifying me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Propose trout

• Can someone WP:TROUT SpinnerLaserzthe2nd? I don't want any real action taken against them because their heart seems to be in the right place even if they don't really appear to understand some of our underlying policies and guidelines or how to handle disputes. Also don't think they would accept a trout from me in the spirit it was offered and I don't want to escalate the situation. Hopefully they will listen to someone else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Aye, it is a little concerning that someone with 20K edits doesn't appear to be able to use sources properly (or, if the "Mascot" section of 2022 Winter Olympics marketing is anything to go by, understand copyright either). User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, you do need to take care per WP:RS and WP:COPYVIO when you're editing. Please do so. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to do it very carefully and as I mentioned before, Xinhua is apparently in the yellow area or something. Regarding the copyright section, I tired to add the info about the mascots without copying but I failed modify into something that is non-copyrighted. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support (at this stage) trouting. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Xinhua, I think we should dicuss this in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because this is more of a dispute over Xinhua sources. This is becoming more suitable for the RS noticeboard. See you at the noticeboard. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really a discussion to be had, "There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation." and we know that China has an active propaganda *and* disinformation campaign about the Olympics[329]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support trout, if for nothing else failing to notify Horse Eye's Back of this ANI thread despite the giant orange edit notice on this page. Bringing HEB to this page for things that had already been resolved at a different administrative noticeboard in a manner that found no wrongdoing on Horse Eye's end is vexing. I really don't see any reasonable way to conclude from the unsupported and extremely vague allegations brought forth by OP that HEB is doing anything near violating behavioral guideline. I sincerely can't find a way to conclude that this discussion involves urgent incidents and/or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I'd suggest that OP formally apologize to HEB for dragging the user here; scrap this ANI. I will deal with the user myself instead doesn't cut it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Troublesome new editor

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.

---

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

New account starts and begins CSD tagging and making dubious comments on talk pages. Warned at Special:Diff/1072934739 to which replied "OK, thanks" then fifteen minutes later makes this disruption Special:Diff/1072940646. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Has been indef'd so this can be closed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, sh. El_C 11:16, 20 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.

Sockpuppet accounts flocking at Philip II of Macedon

Sockpuppet accounts are flocking continuously at Philip II of Macedon. Any admin attention will be appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article, which should provide some breathing space. Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, the raise in protection seems to have calmed things down.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Dwest25 - Vandalism and BLP vios

Dwest25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last few months this account seems to have been on a slow burning spree of vandalism, adding the descriptor "propagandist" to articles on conservative American media figures. Some examples: [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335]. More generally this user seems to have issues with adding unsourced or poorly sourced content to BLP's, they have seven years of warnings about this on their talk page yet are still continuing with the same behaviour, e.g. [336]. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations, to get their attention. If they resume, the next block would be for a whole lot longer. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792 is NOTHERE to build an encylopedia

‎EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to enjoy a WP:BATTLEGROUND. As evidence, consider the edit summaries in Special:Contributions/EnlightenmentNow1792 and the uncivil BLUDGEONING both at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pepe_Escobar and at Talk:Persian_Gulf#Request_for_comments:_Arabian_Gulf.

His latest, extremely POINTy edit has prompted this filing.[337]

But I am also troubled by his willingness to assert as facts things that are simply not true, for example, asserting that JacobinMag (sic.) is nowhere close to being a RS when Jacobin (magazine) is not a redlink, and is included at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources where "There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source."

And for another example, his false claims and repeated violation of BLPTALK in disputes about (to quote him) "the warmongering, hate-filled Escobar" such as no serious outlet has ever published his work or a single piece of his may contain half a dozen fails (references to long debunked theories, 9/11 denial, various ongoing popular conspiracy theories, with AIPAC and Mossad and the CIA all secretly orchestrating everything that happens or tens of thousands of unhinged rants on extremist websites.

I would welcome an interaction ban, because he has already hounded my contributions to Center for American Progress in order to revert my BRD edit while accusing me of unspecified bad intentions.[338] We don't edit in the same areas, thank god. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support given my interaction with EnlightenmentNow1792 at Uyghur genocide yesterday/today after they tried to introduce a lot of information into the lead which was not supported by the given sources or in the article as well as remove some that was [339][340][341][342][343]. Instead of opening an article talk page discussion or joining the one in progress EnlightenmentNow1792 instead chose to open a discussion on my talk page [344] and chose to edit war with grandiose and error ridden edit summaries "here, will you allow those simple terminological corrections/explications to stand for clarity's sake? Or will I be subject to a third round of ludicrous accusations regarding my person?"[345] "Undid revision 1072620669 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) i thought your behavior was gonna end up at this level eventually. You're either (a) deliberately keeping imprecises terminology in the lede; or (b) rv for no other reason than just to act out at strangers from your keyboard. whichever it is, it's not helpful. I suggest you take a break."[346] before their inaccurate additions were finally reverted by @Mhawk10:. These sorts of personal attacks are out of line, especially when EnlightenmentNow1792 should be expecting some pushback on significant changes to the lead of a controversial article (including the first line, which is the subject of an open RFC). I had assumed that their behavior otherwise was ok, I now realize that I was getting their *good side* and that the bad is bad enough to warrant not editing anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk), this is cute. I've tried your weeks to ignore your repeated rudeness and personal attacks against myself and numerous other editors, which has led them to make similar complaints against you. From the get go he's accused me of being having a political interest in the issue, suggesting that I am a paid agent of the Chinese government, accused me of being a sockpuppet, reverted my edits 3 times in a row, without being apply no give a reason, saying things like "i felt like you your making things up and going OR" (wrong) and he didn't apologize, but doubled down, reverted my minor edits of terminology 2 more times that day, with sly edit summaries like "no, not really" and "unnecessary" - when all he ever had to do was read the actual sources. But he's made it very clear, many times, that he doesn't intend to read any of the sources, and he doesn't even like reading. So I told him, I'm just going to ignore his childishness from now on, and just regard it as trolling. ----

The lack of self-awareness and sense of entitlement here is staggering.

How many eminently reliable, difficult to find, and unique sources have I added to Wikipedia articles, over a wide array of topics - somestimes taking 9 or 10 hours, days even, painstakingly trying make make Wiki's editorial voice as representative of the latest conventional scholarly wisdom as I can, only for some (one sometimes, but usually two, or three) "true-believers" to perform a mass revert, delete all my sources, and restore the article to a state of misinformation or disinformation, just because they can. It takes them seconds, a click of a button. And each time, I am accused of having a COI or POV, of being a paid editor, being a sockpuppet, and so far variously a shill for the CCP, the Saudi led GCC petrostates, a rightist at first by HouseOfChange, but that backfired spectacularly didn't it mate? And many others, I can't even remember. Oh year I'm supposed to be like three separate ethnicities by now. It happens as soon as a fresh frish tries to make a controversial article more neutral, then the gang of owners see, revert your every move, deny WikiPolicy, say when it supports their argument a crappy tabloid like TheDailyBeast is a RS on GeoPol, but a decorated scholar with dozens of publications and hundreds of citations across 4 decades, a Ph.D from Yale and head of the freakin' department, no, he won't do, because he once, I dunno, interned at the Heritage Foundation.

HouseOfChange there, and I've said to him a 3-4 times, this is not good for you, to hoist your flag to someone who is soooooo not a notable journalist, but who also happens to be a rather despicable person. But he just removed in one flow swoop:

1. The New Republic (2013 or so, but a particularly insightful one);

2. Ayish, M., Mellor, N. (2015). "Reporting in the MENA Region: Cyber Engagement and Pan-Arab Social Media." United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

4. Crone, Christine. Pan-Arab News TV Station Al-Mayadeen: The New Regressive Leftist Media. Peter Lang Publishing, 2020. (very argumentative, but not wrong - it's gone from secular progressive so wildly sectarian, bloodthirsty, and checking their contributers, infested with conspiracy theorists, antisemites, and one I know from his FB, not only an extreme Western Supremacist reactionary, but a Holocaust-denier too boot. You'll be flabbergasted when I tell you he's nearly 50 and never been married, and very, very unhappy about it as a devout Catholic!)

5. Cherribi, Sam. Fridays of Rage: Al Jazeera, the Arab Spring, and Political Islam. Oxford University Press, 2017.

6. Routledge Handbook on Arab Media. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2020.

7. Berman, Ilan. Digital Dictators: Media, Authoritarianism, and America’s New Challenge. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2018.

8. France24, "‘Anti-Al Jazeera’ channel Al Mayadeen goes on air" (2/06/2012) ... But will Al Mayadeen be truly objective and independent?

9. The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2020.

10. Saouli, Adham. "Hezbollah: Socialisation and its Tragic Ironies." Edinburgh University Press, 2018.

11. "Operational Code Analysis and Foreign Policy Roles: Crossing Simon’s Bridge." Taylor & Francis, 2021.

12. "Regional Peacemaking and Conflict Management: A Comparative Approach. Taylor & Francis, (2015).

13. "The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives." SAGE Publications, (2016).

I even messed up my referencing format (and page numbers), because it takes so long to scam through the ones you haven't read, take down the page number, place in the correct part of the paragraph, when you know it's very likely to be deleted permanently by someone who freely admits they don't like reading and claim to not even have any particular reason to be sticking up for this guy. She literally said it was because she thought I had a political axe to grind, and he felt like he should resist my POV.

I was generous to Emilio Escobar and HouseofChange for weeks, but not only did she delete all those high-quality sources, he left in the few articles he managed to right for yer run-of-the-mill news websites between the late 2009s to 2015, 2017 for some others. To make Pepe seem more legit.

Instead, he deleted all the absolute shower of sh*te that his been writing in for the last 7-10 years, that I had literally just added for balance. So.

"He currently writes on an almost daily basis for fringe, conspiracy theorist blogs and websites (many of whom spread fake news) such as a blog called "Uprooted Palestinians",[7] the largely fake news website ZeroHedge, a far-right Moscow-based blog called "The Vineyard of the Saker"[8]], and the same-old universally-blacklisted conspiracy websites [one that Wikipedia won't allow], UNZ[9]. A Portuguese-language only Brazilian website that designs it's content specifically for the Apple iPad[11], a bizarre Greek-language-only Facebook page that calls itself "iskra", and only manages to attract 4-5 clicks per story[10], and now even more regularly for the extremely sectarian[12][13] and warmongering[14] Al Mayadeen, which is based in Beirut, but is widely presumed to be funded and directed by Iran[15][16][17] as it echoes the Iran regimes sectarian rhetoric, shares a lot of staff with Press TV and other Iranian outlets, is exuberant in it's parise for Hezbollah,[18] Assad,[19] Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad,[20] all the while saving its wrath for Iran's favored targets: the West, the USA, and Israel[21] and the irs Sunni Arab GCC monarchies locally.[22]

So her idea of improving the article and showing that he does meet WP:Journalist, was to keep in few dozens decade old articles he wrote for a good few years before he was unceremoniously dropped from them all ever prior or slightly before November, 2015 (if you can guess why there might be a nice little slice of Russian black bread in it for you!). And then just censor the atrocious far-right, conspiracy-peddling, Holocaust denying, antisemitic, anti-vax, anti 5G and all the rest of it. Wikipedia would hardly let me post the outlets he now most frequently writes for: blogs, disinfo fake news outlets, the most sectarian and war-hungry channel in Lebanon, ZeroHedge, Globalization.ca, etc. etc.

I'm exhausted now, but in my defence this is I think the 4th time its happened to me. And all on subjects I happen to be quite well versed in, have personal experience with, and posses a very, very significant library to help me locate sometimes arcane but ofen crucial sources. Not to mention jStor and Scopus access, which I didn't even bother which this time because I could see what was coming.

I still don't understand, this is someone who for years and years published for say, right-of-right Russia Insider and self-conscious frauds/schemes like - they who shall not be mentioned - makes highly dubious, always very conveniently unwitnessed claims about meeting Osama bin Laden just before 9/11 (which he believes was an inside job btw), or that he, as an "investigative journalist" as he called himself back in 2013 (what kind of investigative journalists never bothers to live in the places he writes about, learn their language, or even learn simple things like the distinctions between Daoism and Confucionism, who's been wrong about absolutely all of his key predictions that have remained unchanged since I first became aware of him but I digress. (He's still on about BRICS and a new secular Arab-wide civil uprising. He's been predicting the collapse of the US dollar since the early 2000s.)

But this is a guy who claimed to be a Islam expert after 9/11. His friend, in this blog/interview, says that he discovered and "broke the story" of Belhaj being an al-Qaeda zealot - like millions of other Muslim Arabs at that time. 1) Is that a real scope? and 2) If you think it is, why didn't he report it?

His friend, puts it like this: "In the early 1990s, when James Woolsey was the director of the CIA, Gadhafi appealed to his U.S. interlocutors for assistance against “Islamist extremists” in the Benghazi region.

The investigative reporter behind uncovering the gigantic Libyan con is Brazilian-born Emilio (Pepe) Escobar, a reporter for the online Asia Times. From North Africa to the Middle East to Pakistan, he is well known for breaking stories in the Arab and Muslim worlds. - he is? like what? they're all just unreported like this one as well?

In a piece Escobar wrote for The Maldon Institute, a private investigative organization that publishes “information on matters ignored or misrepresented by the media,” he says “the story of how an al-Qaida asset turned out to be the top Libyan military commander in still war-torn Tripoli is bound to shatter...

1) I know why he never reported it, aside from happying almost zero by-lines or reporting experience to his name (his first two books, published in the late 1990s and 1996s, are just about taking drugs on the Hippy Trail for 20 years... a generation too late), the CIA were already onto him. He was a verteran of the Russo-Afghan War, and was already fighting with Libya's local al-Qaeda affiliate against Gaddafi in 1994. I won't go on, there's lots of tracking him and arresting him and releasing him and other Libyans from Guantanamo Bay because the CIA figured that Gaddafi ran such a type ship they wouldn't be a problem there. The point is, the name Pepe Escobar never once comes up.

2) There's no record of any Brazilian analyst working for the Far-Right, short-lived Maldon Institute either. Why would he work for a firm he opposed with every fibre of his body. How could he work for the group, when he was living, according to his own account, in Central, South, and East Asia, right up until 9/11.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding a few diffs to this wall of text:

• The two previous ANI filings (I think this was withdrawn tho) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#EnlightenmentNow1792
• My statement to another editor that EnlightenmentNow1792 seemed to me to be motivated by his own political POV is not an accusation of being a rightist, but of having a political POV sharply at odds with Escobar.
• Diff of my revert. Obviously, the same or similar material could be re-added but text in Wikipedia's voice would need to respect "WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT" as my edit summary said.
• The Libya story from 2011 that EN1792 claims doesn't exist is online at Asia Times; possibly Maldon republished it? Searching for its title got a bunch of results including Wikileaks, where the young intelligence ops who got leaked were passing it around, together with other stories by Escobar.[347]
• Escobar's story warning about bin Laden is often mentioned because of its date: August 30, 2001. EN1792 repeatedly removed or tagged with scare tags information about the geographical areas where Escobar has worked.[348][349]
• Many fringe outlets re-publish Escobar's work, with his permission. The bio quotes his explanation, that he wants to extend his "audience." Al Mayadeen has republished one (1) of his stories in English, (about prison labor, from 2021), and republishes regularly his monthly article in Spanish for a Venezuelan pub called Mision Verdad.
• The claims of insider knowledge about Escobar, plus the animosity, suggest COI. A topic ban would be good.
• My Wikipedia preferences specify masculine pronouns. HouseOfChange HouseOfChange (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comments: (edit conflict)
  1. On 5 February 2022, when the comment about Jacobin was made, there was no listing of the source on WP:RSP. I had previously made a close of an RfC that the source was WP:MREL. That close was overturned for re-closure by an administrator and was subsequently re-closed by Joe Roe, but it took until 17 February 2022 for the listing of Jacobin as WP:GREL on RSP. It's nowhere near fair to hold this against the user as some sort of There were indeed many users that expressed that some additional considerations applied during the relevant RSN discussion (in fact, the majority didn't actually call it a straight Option 1 source), so I don't think that their view on the reliability Jacobin shows some sort of desire to intentionally bulldoze through established consensus.
  2. EnlightenmentNow1792 appears to have an issue with personal attacks, as shown by the above diffs.
  3. A one-way I-ban with one user isn't going to solve a general issue with WP:NPA violations. It would have to be broader than that to address the problem more concretely. That being said, the editor has a clean block log, and I'm wondering if ‎EnlightenmentNow1792 would be willing to apologize for personal attacks against other editors. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I felt that EnlightenmentNow1792's comments in the Persian Gulf Rfc were a little too wordy to be helpful, so I asked them on their talk page to try to be more concise and to hat a part of it [350]. Instead of replying on their talk, they responded to this with more text in the RfC itself [351], needlessly personalizing and complaining that editors are trolling because they don't spend enough time reading. Another editor hatted part of the earlier comment but was reverted [352]. Despite all of this feedback, the bludgeoning continues [353].

EnlightenmentNow1792's behavior ticks most of the boxes at Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project: there seems to good faith, but they are unwilling to listen, disrespect fellow Wikipedians, and have trouble understanding how building a collaborative, online encyclopedia differs from free-flowing academic debate. I'm not very optimistic about the long-term prospective here, but seeing that the issues appear to be peaking at this particular moment, I would recommend a short block (two weeks would probably be sufficient), hoping that when they come back they will take in the community's advice. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

He is also POV-pushing about other Middle-East journalists besides Escobar. For example, adding peacock text (later reverted to the bio of Fox's Lara Logan but instead tagging for notability the Polk-Award-winning journalist Tracey Shelton. Wikipedia voice should not be enlisted to boost or bash your colleagues BLPs of those working in an area where the editor claims insider knowledge and expertise. (Slight update/modification as EN1792 says he is not currently a journalist) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So, "too wordy", "unwilling to listen", disrespectful, "POV-pushing", "adding peacock text", oh and having a "political agenda" was I believe his first accusation (the second was being a sockpuppet), now HouseOfChange is moving onto accusing me of having a CoI now a third time now (thankfully he has finally ceased bombing my talk page with warnings and threats that he would take me to this place and get be banned, despite me repeatedly asking him not to on my talk page, four times before he ceased). Now my CoI is that am a journalist and on here to bash "my colleagues"? Sorry, no, I'm not, dabbled many, many decades ago, but like square-dancing and cigars, it's just not for me.

And I'm the one who has a problem with personal attacks? I'll let the admin/s be the judge of that. I'll try to furnish them with diffs when this bout of nausea dissipates. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• After I made one comment on an AfD, EnlighenmentNow1792 (diff) commented that "you seem to have made it clear that you are one of the many denizens of Wikipedia had has an aversion to reading". My comment might be seen as dismissive, but it came from trying to read the AfD page and not seeing a clear reason for deletion, and many personal opinions about the subject, which do not belong on AfD. Either way, I think saying that I don't like reading sources on our first interaction is clear battleground mentality. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, so you admit to not reading the relevant Wiki Policy, you admit to not bothering to read by arguments for deletion on the grounds that they're "too wordy", and now you admit you "don't like reading sources" on a first interaction, yet still feel compelled to voice a partisan opinion? Is that not the very personification, the very essence, of emitting a "battleground mentality"? You took the position "I'm not gonna read anything, I'm just gonna disagree", and I call you out on it, and I'm the one emitting a "battleground mentality"? You know it takes hours and hours to read and gather all those academic sources. Yet (talk) is more than happy to delete them en masse (16, 20? I've lost count), and you're proud to say you're not even interested in reading them. "Battleground mentality"? I say! I'd rather we just all spent this time on reading and curating sources, instead of petty point-scoring and name-calling such as all this "incident" amounts to. I'd be doing that right now if it wasn't for all this. Although not on the Pepe Escobar article, as I'm sure HouseOfChange will just delete them on sight again. Battleground mentality indeed. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying that something is long-winded, confusing and contains personal opinions implies that the person who is saying those things have actually read it, and made those conclusions from reading it. I'm not HouseOfChange and no matter what their behavior is, that was still a personal attack on me and you're very hostile for your first and second interactions with me. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, your reply to RoseCherry64 claims that they "admitted" a number of things that are not in their comment at all, and includes a serious misreading of their final sentence. If you are trying to demonstrate that you are not approaching discussions with a battleground mentality, you failed in this instance. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• After attempting to read this thread and also looking at the Pepe Escobar AfD created by EnlightenmentNow, I have blocked EN for one week for disruptive editing. Any administrator is free to make the block longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: or some other admin: Could we have an indef block until there is some acknowledgement by EnlightenmentNow1792 that policies AGF, CIVIL, or BLUDGEON apply to him? Even those who consider themselves subject-matter experts don't get free rein to insult and abuse other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also trying to read their unblock request, I don't think they're quite there yet with BLUDGEON and AGF . I'm getting ever more skeptical about EnlightenmentNow1792 not ending up here again in a few weeks, but then if that happens it won't be a hard decision to go straight to indef. Better let it rest now I think. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

They seem not to understand that this isn't a personal conflict between them and HouseOfChange... Theres zero acknowledgment that multiple editors in multiple spaces have the same issues with the way they conduct themselves. I also get the feeling from what they've posted on their talk page that they are still more or less ignorant of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOTABILITY despite the massive efforts by other editors to educate them in those areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Had a look at their last ~100 edits, which go back to December 2021, and I don't think a week-long block is going to be enough to prevent disruption in this case. For example:

• December @ Iraqi Turkmen
  • Edit warring: Special:Diff/1058847857, Special:Diff/1058850513, Special:Diff/1059598139, Special:Diff/1060882657, Special:Diff/1061490079
  • For context/completeness, see Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Needs serious attention from a neutral expert and subsequent threads on that page
• January-February @ Pepe Escobar
  • Edit warring: Special:Diff/1067065058, Special:Diff/1069856873 (note the edit summary mentioning "NOTRESUME")
  • This BLP "hit job": Special:Diff/1072698327 (note the addition of a resume, of sorts)
  • Disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Escobar, already discussed here
• February @ Uyghur genocide
  • For context/completeness, their talk page posts in the RFC on Feb 7: Special:Diff/1070365725, Special:Diff/1070369302, Special:Diff/1070491891
  • Special:Diff/1072359973: Adding a {cn} for "Islamophobia" as a motive in the infobox (though it's cited in the body of the article, search for the word) and for "political dissent" (YGTBKM)
  • Special:Diff/1072380941: A few hours later, removing "Islamophobia" from the infobox claiming "can't find any RS in the body that mentions Islamophobia" (again, searching the page for "Islamophobia" yields "Scholars such as Sean Roberts and David Tobin have described Islamophobia and fear of terrorism as discourses that have been used within China to justify repressive policies targeting Uyghurs..." cited to Geopolitics)
  • Edit warring to remove "religious minorities" or "ethnic and religious minorities": Special:Diff/1072352155, Special:Diff/1072381314, Special:Diff/1072566751, Special:Diff/1072651269
  • Special:Diff/1072383082: Removing "independent NGOs, human rights experts" from the lead with the edit summary "not aware of any great number of "independent NGOs", nor "human rights experts" proclaiming it genocide in RSs", although the page, in the body, includes the line "Over two-dozen NGOs that focus on the rights of Uyghurs were involved in organizing the protests" cited to The Nikkei, and the body has an entire section called "Non-governmental organizations and research institutions", and the line "In 2018, UCL human rights scholar Kate Cronin-Furman argued in 2018 that the Chinese state policies constituted cultural genocide" cited to two sources: Foreign Policy, one of the four sources posted to the talk page in the previous bullet point, and Terrorism and Political Violence
  • Special:Diff/1072350870: In this list of four sources on the talk page Feb 17, what is described in the edit summary as "academic journal article" is not an academic journal, it's a think tank publication (Center for Strategic and International Studies), and the European Financial Review link is an op-ed (from what appears to be a non-RS because there is no masthead that I can find)
• The recent unblock requests at User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#February 2022 and subsequent threads on that page are all denial and WP:NOTTHEM, no acknowledgment
• Note the uncollegial and personal edit summaries, aimed at multiple editors on multiple pages: [354]

Other editors shouldn't have to deal with this kind of disruptive editing. Edit warring incivility fast and loose with sources no commitment to change = tban, IMO, but from what topic? Multiple tbans = site ban, IMO. Levivich 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User: PianoDan

I am bringing up misconduct by PianoDan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PianoDan Here is the offensive statement: "And the cherry on the top for me is that it was added by the Scott Fruehwald sock puppet IP address." It is on the Talk page for Philip Ewell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_Ewell

Also, PianoDan seems to follow me around Wikipedia (stalk) to make changes, even in areas he doesn't edit on otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.184.26.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'll wait for comments from an admin, to be sure I'm following procedure correctly. For the time being, I'll just point out that the required notice was NOT added to my talk page. PianoDan (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Revoking new page patroller rights from User:Hatchens due to bad draftifications

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

---

I recently came across User:Hatchens while looking at really old articles that were unilaterally draftified. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:ATD-I, and WP:NPPDRAFT, old articles should not be unilaterally draftified; all of those policies reiterate that draftification is meant for new articles. Additionally, WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:NPPDRAFT says that articles "intended to be in mainspace" such as those accepted through the AfC process should not be draftified. Hatchens has repeatedly draftified old articles and already accepted AfC articles. To give a few examples, since October 2021, Hatchens has done the following draftifications:

1. NPX Capital, draftified after acceptance through the AfC process. [355]
2. Draft:State Institute of Design, draftified 8 year old article with several contributors. [356]
3. Draft:Times Business School, draftified a nearly decade old article with several contributors. [357]
4. Draft:Jaro Institute of Technology, Management and Research, draftified accepted AfC submission.[358]
5. Institute of Advanced Research, draftified a 3 year old article from 2017. [359]
6. Draft:Times and Trends Academy, draftified already accepted AfC submission. [360]
7. Indorama Corporation, draftified 8 year old article.[361]
8. Draft:Badruka College, draftified article from 2007(!).[362] Article was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badruka College in 2009.
9. Draft:Ahmedabad Management Association, draftified article from 2006 with many contributors. [363]
10. Draft:Shradha Sharma, draftified article from 2016, with several contributors that was already kept as notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shradha Sharma. [364]
11. Draft:RattanIndia Amravati Thermal Power Project, draftified article from 2014. [365]
12. Draft:RattanIndia Nashik Thermal Power Station, draftified article from 2014. [366]
13. Draft:OCTAVE Business School, draftified article from 2011 with many different editors. [367]

Hatchens has been made aware their draftification behaviour is inappropriate before. In November of 2021 in reference to the Indorama Corporation article, Paul 012 informed them that unilateral draftification is usually inappropriate "for articles which have existed in for eight years".[368] They likely saw this as they edited the article after Paul. [369] They are also currently blocked for 24 hours by Bbb23 for improper speedy deletion tagging of schools under WP:A7.[370]
Looking at User:Hatchens/Draftify log, they have draftified 54 articles since October 2021. This means they have an erroneous draftification rate of around 24% (13/54) since October. This is far too high for someone who is a new page reviewer. [371] I am therefore asking that Hatchens have their new page reviewer rights revoked and be indefinitely banned from moving any more articles from mainspace to draft. They are either disregarding the norms around draftification or they are not properly reviewing the page history before performing draftifications. Either way, they clearly should not be allowed to review pages if they cannot properly use a key component of the new page patroller toolkit. They should also not be allowed to draftify any more articles. I would also ask that an administrator consider reviewing Hatchens' past draftifications that have been G13'd to see if they were appropriate, or at the very least WP:REFUND them so others can do so. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: You haven't notified Hatchens of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Oh shoot it didn't save sorry. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Patroller user right really does a whole lot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but I think Chess is talking about the new page reviewer right. Perhaps you're thinking of the Autopatrolled right?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At least from what I know, all the right does is give a small menu with deletion, tagging, and the ability to patrol articles. Removing the right won't remove the ability to draftify or do any of those things except patrolling.

I haven't looked at their behaviour, but please note the above. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is (or was?) called "patroller" in the code. It doesn't matter; I'll just call it "New Page Reviewer". But I don't think it really does all that much – it just lets you mark new pages as reviewed. To get the user right, you need to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia's quality control, and one of the guidelines for revocation is "performing obviously controversial reviews". If the editor has trouble with draftification and speedy deletion, they probably shouldn't be a New Page Reviewer, but, on the other hand, not being able to set a page as "reviewed" won't do anything to stop potential disruption. 90% of reviewing pages can be done without the New Page Reviewer right. It's mostly political – a badge that says "I'm an experienced editor". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I second that. Draftifying old pages has nothing to do with NPR because the feed doesn't show articles that have existed "unreviewed" for more than 90 days. I've seen Hatchens making several mistakes on AfC approved articles. For instance, they draftify instead of using the right venue of AfD. That is to say, I'd tell them they should take someone from the WP:NPPSCHOOL as a mentor and learn the stuff around. It would help them best. Draftifying AfC approved articles is surely a problem with an editor's NPP skills; and I would agree with the removal of NPR rights from Hatchens, and suggest them to join the NPP school to learn more and follow in the steps of their mentor, who mighty eventually end in giving them the right permanently. But what is the solution for draftification of old articles? I believe NPP school's tutoring would help them to solve this as well. Best. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 03:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• All of the cited examples except the first are from October to early November last year, before Hatchens was informed by several editors (including Muhandes, Timtrent and Liz) of the issue. Given that the problematic draftifications mostly ceased afterwards, it seems that Hatchens responded well to those warnings and further sanctions wouldn't be necessary nor beneficial. The NPX Capital case seems like an isolated incident, with a separate though related issue (draftifying an article previously accepted at AfC) which could be addressed with a warning and education. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Paul 012 Thank you for the ping.

  I hold the firm view that Hatchens is a collegial editor who wishes to learn and is willing to learn, and who makes mistakes from time to time. I have never known them not learn from their mistakes and have never known them respond poorly to education. I have mentored them from time to time, at their own request. The key is that Hatchens is usually aware of the things they do not know and will ask for help.

  While there are times I would prefer them to have asked for help earlier they have, in my experience, always worked to mitigate any errors. I find that a useful behaviour. We all make mistakes. I guarantee to continue to make some of my own. The key is whether we learn from them. My view is that they do.

  The NPP right is as susceptible to editor errors as any process. As an AFC reviewer I have also wondered for my own purposes whether AFC and NPP ought not to be mutually exclusive lest a newly accepted draft misses the checks and balances of NPP.

  Since this discussion suggests removal of that right I think we should first ask Hatchens for their opinion on their retaining or relinquishing that right. I base this on my own questioning of AFC/NPP overlaps and potential mutual exclusivity. Obviously they can only appear here when their short acting block expires. Perhaps we might exercise patience until then? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  As an aside, I am now better educated (by the NPP folk) on NPP. I had made incorrect assumptions or had imperfect memory. I had confused it with Autopatrolled to some extent. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Everyone of those articles are the worst kind of article on Wikipedia, particularly the first one at NPX Capital. Of the seven references that have now been added, one is press-release, three are routine annoucements from press releases, one is the front landing page of the company, which is plain advertising, the best it is possible to get, the 2nd is another press-release and last is a block of PR served as news. We really need a serious conversation about the way Wikipedia is going, because at the moment it is failing, it is in state of failure. On one hand there is a group of earnests editors who are trying to do their best, on the other side, that is by far the bigger group is those who are trying to sink us. I've sent this first article to Afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NPX Capital Hatchens knows all this, yet it will be impossible to delete it scope_creep^Talk 23:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hey guys! I'm back. First of all, if there is any abuse of rights at my end knowingly or unknowingly, then I apologize for it. As far as my awareness is concerned, I have never used my NPP rights to pass substandard articles. I have always taken second opinions whenever I've a small amount of doubt. It (second opinions) empower us to take an active role in maintaining the true essence of the Wikipedia. But, at the same time, the poor interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines cannot be shrugged under the carpet despite having a good intent at my end. Here on Wikipedia, we all are equal no natter what rights has been bestowed on us. So when Bbb23 blocked me for 24 hours; I simply accepted it because their judgement (regarding me) is not at all punitive. They did what they are to supposed to do. And, I have duly accepted my mistake and relinquished my rights to contest the block. Now as far as this ANI discussion is concerned, whatever would be the consensus (about my NPP rights or whichever rights), it will have my full support. Also, I would like to take this moment as an opportunity to thank TheAafi for being unbiased despite being a good friend to me; this depicts the integrity of the person which we all as the Wiki editors should try to learn and emulate. Last but not least, I would also like to thank NinjaRobotPirate, AssumeGoodWraith, Paul_012, Timtrent, Bbb23, and Scope_creep. Hoping this discussion will provide much-required clarity and a way forward for me and others in dealing with similar situations in the future. -Hatchens (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Hatchens, That is to say, Hatchens is an editor who is always willing to learn new things and also from errors they make unknowingly. However, my suggestion for them to join the NPP school remains intact. Reading Paul's comments, I see that Hatchens has improved a lot and fixed several of errors and mistake they had committed in past. Now let us give them a way to education and learning. The 24-hour block that they just went through is enough as a warning. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 04:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Chess, A “bad page move” has absolutely nothing to do with their new page reviewer status. Furthermore in the 12 listed grounds for revocation of the perm no where does it state “Inappropriate Page moves” as grounds for revocation. Although unilaterally draftfying older articles isn’t such a good idea, hypothetically speaking, “bad drafitifications” would fall under (controversial page moves) which falls under page mover rights This would have merited a discussion if it were the page mover rights we are discussing, I’m sorry but I see no merit in this report. Furthermore, if an article is accepted at AFC by an editor who clearly was in the wrong for accepting the article, let’s say if the article was poorly sourced, Draftifying is very much applicable, if not, this would mean bureaucratic proceedings damaging and taking preeminence over WP:COMMONSENSE, this is the very reason for IAR. As aforementioned, whilst I’d condemn draftyfing old articles, which is the only real point here, the rest of the report has no real merit, at least it has no business whatsoever with their NPR perm. Celestina007 (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: If an article is accepted at AfC by an editor who's allegedly in the wrong, then draftification is not appropriate. WP:DRAFTIFY clearly says it's for articles not intended to be in the mainspace, including "reverts of previous draftifications". If an AfC accept is wrong, go to AfD and/or bring it up with the person accepting it. COMMONSENSE is not movewarring. Draftifications are an essential part of WP:New page patrol and is one of the most common actions taken there. That's why it's listed at WP:NPPDRAFT. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Chess, Semantics that can be discussed another day, it still doesn’t take away from the fact that this whole entry is based on a wrong premise. You expressly called for the removal of their reviewer right when it clearly isn't covered under the 12 grounds for revocation of NPR & no, generally speaking move warring is editor A performs an action, editor B reverts, Editor A reverts, I think the essay WP:PMW expounds on that. I haven’t interacted nor worked with you before, but I do see you a lot at RFA's & your thinking process & rationales are always brilliant, so much so that I respect you without necessarily ever working with you. My thinking is closing this report would be the honorable thing to do at this juncture, it is moot, as aforementioned it is based on a very wrong premise. I believe we are too experienced to see there would absolutely nothing coming out of this. Celestina007 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore Chess, I’m not seeing a conversation between yourself and Hatchens prior this ANI, is there one between yourself and them prior this I’m failing to see? Although not mandatory, it usually is a good approach & ANI's are typically evoked after all other options are exhausted and is reserved as a last resort. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: They were warned about bad draftifies already and kept doing so. Never interacted with them, just don't think someone who has that high of an error rate and has already been warned multiple times about the issues should have the ability to draftify or review new pages.

On that note (replying to both of your comments here), the 3rd guideline for granting NPP permissions says that "the editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines" and the 2th guideline for revocation says "the editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in new users being offended or discouraged." I would say that improper draftifications mean that the user has not exercised sufficient care while reviewing new pages, assuming that draftifying is a part of the new page reviewal process in practice as generally it's done by people as a part of WP:NPR. Judging by the response to an RfC I started at WP:VPP, perhaps we should formalize a requirement to be a new page reviewer to draftify articles.

I'd call draftifying accepted articles a WP:MOVEWAR since the default state of articles in a dispute is mainspace as outlined in WP:DRAFTOBJECT (moving an article from draft to namespace would logically entail not wanting to move in the opposite direction) and draftifying is only allowed in uncontroversial circumstances. WP:EDITWARs usually occur when editors are in a dispute and one refuses to accept the status quo and engage in discussion to change it.

Obviously though this thread isn't going to go anywhere though, as you said. I can read the room. You can count this comment as "withdrawing" if it makes it easier for you to close. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Chess, I knew I could count on your intellectual prowess to do the right thing rather than prolonging the inevitable, My thinking is, Hatchens draftifying older articles is definitely wrong, if in the future they persist in this improper approach I believe you are more than justified to file a new report and reference this very ANI. Something you mentioned stimulated me intellectually, are draftifications considered reviewing? or is incubation the inverse of reviewing? I think your proposal above does have merit. I’m moving to close this, this is precisely the sort of mature behavior I want to see in all established editors. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: You're laying the flattery on a little too thick and in the future it could be more subtle. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:35, 20 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.

Cross-wiki Spammer Joilson Melo

I'm autopatrolled on ptwiki but lower level here, so please let me know if I'm not where I should be. I'm writing to report about a cross wiki spammer who's been wasting editor time across at least en, simple, fr, pt and de wikis. He's been trying to post an autobiographic article based entirely on paid content that fails any notoriety test - apparently he wants to use a different wiki as definitive proof of his notoriety and almost succeeded at one point. He currently has two drafts here in en that he alternates for submissions in hopes one of them will catch. He has three rejections in one and two in the other, pending the third review: Draft:Joilson Melo (review pending) and Draft:Joilson Junior de Melo (dormant for now). He has an article currently up at simple, pending deleting request, and IIRC he's had it deleted there three times before. He's has three deletions at frwiki. He has too many deletions to count at ptwiki, with at least four name variations for article name and four or five accounts already blocked (there's no IP editing in pt, so he had to create multiple accounts and got them all banned so far). Between rejections in en and deletions elsewhere, he's already above 20 deletions and multiple bans, but keeps trying and wasting editors time. My suggestion would be to remove both his drafts here and protect both from being recreated. Doing the same in simple wiki would also be welcome. This level of disrespect can't go on forever. Thanks for your time and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cslatter999, vandalism and BLP violations

Editor Cslatter999 (talk · contribs) has made multiple questionable at best edits, and been warned for it up to a level four. After recieving their final warning for making unsourced edits they made this edit to Jake Paul with no sources making it a complete BLP violation. Then there are also cases like this and this with the incorrect information added in combination with the edit summaries making for pretty obvious cases of vandalism. Overall I doubt this user is here with the goal in mind to build the encyclopedia, and if they are I think they unfortunately lack the competence required to do so at the moment, seemingly not listening to any of the warnings issued to them. I pondered posting this at AIV but since the latest edit was not obvious vandalism but a BLP violation, I decided to post it here. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Rileyplop11 and copyright violations

• Rileyplop11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dartmouth Steam Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rileyplop11 has added copyright text to Dartmouth Steam Railway [372] at least four times; the text was removed and revision-deleted after each addition. They were temporarily blocked on 9 February for copyright violations, and their first edits after the expiration of the block were to re-add the infringing text to the article [373]. DanCherek (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Rileyplop11, your next edit needs to be here, in this thread, and it needs to say that you (now) understand copyright policy, and that you will never do it again. Otherwise I see no option but an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I endorse this request by Drmies and the outcome if a response is not forthcoming promptly. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Questionable disruptive edits, possible NOTHERE

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

Bagofscrews has been here only a short time, yet has built a history that suggests possible WP:NOTHERE, or at least that they struggle to understand that basic guidelines actually matter. Some of it could be chalked up to being new, but most concerning, and the reason I'm bringing it to ANI, is a recent series of edits at Eric Schneiderman and their subsequent response to being noticed about it.

He referred to Schneiderman as "Spiderman" in the article on two separate edits. (Their later explanation for this was autocorrect on their device, but it was left in public view for 3 days during which time there were 8 additional edits by the same user - and they were not the one to ultimately change it, so that seems unlikely to me. However, if that is true, it suggests WP:CIR.)

• The initial diff: Special:Diff/1069785459
• A secondary similiar add: Special:Diff/1069895547

During this series of edits, they posted personal contact information for Schneiderman in the article, then changed that to what was removed in the second diff mentioned above. I reported the diff of the edit containing that information to oversight and it was suppressed, and so I have not included it here (for clarity, it was specific personal info - not the content of the diff above).

Due to previous interactions with this user ([374]), I was hesitant to post a warning, but felt the level of severity made it necessary. See interaction here: [375]

Following the notice, they came to my talk page accusing me of "bad faith policing". Interaction here: [376]

There are other edits outside of this that evidence NOTHERE, but the biggest problem is this goes beyond simply calling people names and posting email addresses, and extends into outright denial of personal responsibility for their edits, and an unwillingness to care about specific (and important) guidelines that pertain to a BLP. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

These edits are not indicative of an intent to edit productively either [377] [378] [379] [380]. I had been thinking of blocking for a week for personal attacks, but after looking at their history, I'm blocking indef as NOTHERE. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Competence issues regarding User:CycoMa1

A couple of weeks back, the Furry fandom article came to my attention via a post at WP:BLP/N. The specific issue was sorted quickly enough, but a closer look at the article showed several issues. There were problems with sourcing, and with neutrality, but those could probably be dealt with in the normal manner. More fundamentally though, the article was simply incoherent in places, and a bloated, unstructured mess of almost random and contradictory malformed and ungrammatical sentences almost everywhere. Inspection of the article history revealed that back in August last year, this was then what appeared to be a reasonably-written article, by Wikipedia standards. Not without issues, but at least as it stood a readable exposition of its subject matter. The article has been transformed from that state to its current one almost entirely due to the efforts of a single contributor, CycoMa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has over that period made over 1000 edits. I have, on the article talk page, tried engaging with CycoMa1, but got absolutely nowhere in getting this contributor to even acknowledge the underlying issues. To be blunt, I simply don't think that CycoMa1 is competent to deal with articles of such complexity, and having tried, and failed, to get anywhere my patience has now run out. Accordingly, I reverted the article to the state it was in as of late August last year, indicating that my reasoning was given on the talk page. [381] CycoMa1 then immediately reverted back to their preferred version, with an edit summary stating "There was no consensus Undid revision 1072697860" [382]

I had considered starting an RfC on the issue, but given CycoMa1's apparent inability to understand the need for articles to be properly structured and written in comprehensible encyclopaedic English, as demonstrated repeatedly on the article talk page, [383] it now seems to me that such a course of action would risk merely shifting the problem elsewhere. Accordingly, I would ask people to take a quick look at the two versions of the article as linked below (a complete reading is hardly necessary to amply demonstrate the problem), and then consider what the best course of action would be. I have no reason to doubt that CycoMa1 is acting in good faith, but in my opinion that is not enough. Not when 'good faith' turns encyclopaedic content into a confused word-salad of random things cherry-picked from questionably-sourced articles about furries. It seems evident that CycoMa1's level of literacy is simply inadequate for the task. Possibly a topic ban from 'furry'-related articles might be the solution, though as I note, this seems to be a fundamental competence issue, and that risks moving the problem to other articles. Perhaps mentoring might be a solution, that that would require a volunteer, and an acknowledgement from CycoMa1 that there is actually a serious problem. Failing that, I'm not quite sure what to suggest, beyond noting that as a last resort Wikipedia can and does block contributors for a lack of competence on occasion. Not a pleasant thing to do, but sometimes necessary for the good of a project that aspires to be an encyclopaedia.

Furry fandom article as edited by CycoMa1: [384]

Furry fandom article as restored to earlier state by me: [385]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have, on the article talk page, tried engaging with CycoMa1, but got absolutely nowhere in getting this contributor to even acknowledge the underlying issues.

Tried engaging with me. Dude when I tried engaging with you at first you were rude to me and you never even said sorry or apologized to me for being rude.

Plus it feels like the only reason you want to change it back to it’s original state is to make it more structured. I mean the old version of the article had outdated information and was also guilty of the same issues you and other editors mentioned.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Plus no other editor on that article agreed with or said they were in support of you changing it back to its original state.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sentences such as "More intellectual furries would claim that the central themes of the fandom have existed for thousands although the arrival fandom is a modern occurrence." do not inspire confidence in CycoMa1's version. - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s what the source said. Look I know that statement seems ridiculous and honestly I think that statement is ridiculous but I didn’t want to distort what the source was trying to say on the matter.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not about the content, that is barely coherent English. MrOllie (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Look I have been busy with work and school in real life. I mean Jesus Christ I had to edit while doing homework at the same time. There were times where I edited articles while cleaning my house.

Plus you guys all know I have ADHD and GAD. I mean seriously it feels like I have to reveal my personal life just in order to prevent myself from not getting in trouble.

Like I know how to write in good English. It’s just I do better when I have time.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER. Jurta talk 11:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jurta: I guess that’s kinda the issue I’m facing, I’m honestly too dedicated.

I remember people a couple of months ago feeling concerned for me when I admitted I made 100 edits per day. Even wiki admins felt concerned for me.

I guess I need to remind myself Wikipedia is mainly just a hobby I choose to do.CycoMa1 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Look I even suggested I could rewrite the entire article in my personal sandbox. But apparently Andy said I was incompetent and couldn’t do it.

Look man I understand my strengths, I have been in special education classes ever since I was a young child. I feel embarrassed to admit that.

Look I knew I messed up the article and I honestly disappointed in myself for that. It honestly looks horrible in my opinion.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I learned that my writing is good when I have tons of free time and I’m not multitasking. It’s just I got too dedicated to Wikipedia too the point I forgot that.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• CycoMa1 can do good work on Wikipedia. Don't just take my word for it; look at the barnstars and many accepted AfCs on his talk page and archives. He also has a knack for finding high quality sources in my experience. I think what he needs is advice to slow down and make absolutely sure that anything he adds to article space is fully copyedited before he adds it. And also make sure it's coherent with surrounding text. It should not be inserted and left there while unfinished. And CycoMa1, please don't let Wikipedia take up too much of your time. It will always be a work in progress and it can wait; chores and homework are more important. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've not really commented on CycoMa1's edits elsewhere on Wikipedia, but since it has come up, I'll note that I have noticed similar problems elsewhere, even after only a brief search. See e.g. these recent edits to Vampire lifestyle, [386] which clearly isn't an accurate representation of the source. [387] Being able to find sources isn't sufficient, one also needs to be able to understand, and accurately summarise, what they say. And not use them to imply things they don't say, which also seems to be a common trend: see e.g. the stub article Candelaria fibrosa, created by CycoMa1, which contains a statement that this fungi species "has been found in Buncombe county in North Carolina". This appears to be true. It cites a source that says so. It is however a complete red herring, since the fungi has apparently been found throughout much of the eastern United States and elsewhere, making its occurrence in Buncombe county of no significance at all. [388] Assembling random statements into articles like this may look superficially convincing, but it isn't encyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: As a sidenote I have been talking to doctors about reducing my ADHD medication.

No joke a couple of months ago I used to take 3 pills a day but I talked with my doctors about reducing to only 2 pills per day and see what happens. Maybe me reducing ADHD medication might be another cause of my behavior.

Plus there are days where I don’t buy medication because I want to save money. So there are days where I act differently than usual.

Also sidenote when I was interacting with you today I was literally stocking shelves at my work place. So I had to multitask and I misread your comments.

The AfCs that I submitted were accepted by editors who are more experienced than me.

User:KylieTastic,User:Theroadislong, User: Robert McClenon, or User:DGG have accepted my AfCs keep in mind these guys are literally in the top 1000 editors.

Admin User:CaptainEek accepted my AfC one time.

If I really was incompetent these individuals wouldn’t accept my AfCs.

The statement above that I find troubling is: "Like I know how to write in good English. It’s just I do better when I have time". If an editor writes drafts that are sometimes in good English and sometimes not in good English, the reviewers check the grammar, as well as the notability and verifiability. The issue appears to have to do with edits that the editor makes directly to mainspace, which are not reviewed before being visible to the readers. I have not reviewed the editor's history in detail, but I find their statement that they have written good drafts to be a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also as a sidenote I’m the kind of guy who researches on a variety of topics in his free time. Because I’m the kind of guy who loves knowledge. Which is why I write on so many subjects. I guess you could say I want to know everything.

Not to mention I try writing in a form of English that can at least be understandable to someone ages 14 to 15. Just throwing that out there.CycoMa1 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

But anyway experienced editors and admins have saw my contributions to Wikipedia.

Sure they called me out for some mistakes but they were fine with most of my contributions.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@CycoMa1: you need to find a friend to vibe check you when your writing is reaching the point where it is bad. I know the feeling you have. The best thing you can do is to find someone outside your own mind who you can trust to tell you when you're acting questionably. When one is doing something stupid, most of the time they don't realize it until after the fact, and most people (including yourself as evidenced by the diffs) aren't going to have a good time taking someone's criticism who they aren't friends with. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We now have an acknowledgement from CycoMa1 that there has been a problem with their edits to the Furry fandom article at least: "Look I knew I messed up the article and I honestly disappointed in myself for that...", which would seem to me to be sufficient grounds to restore the revert to the August last year state, unless anyone has any objections. This does of course also revert any edits by other contributors that occurred over the period, so I'll try to check through such edits, to see if there is useful content worth restoring.

Beyond that, it seems that CycoMa1 now recognises what others appear to have said previously - that they should be prioritising school work, rather than Wikipedia. Hopefully this acknowledgment will be sufficient to deal with the issues with other articles too. Wikipedia can wait. Education shouldn't. If CycoMa1 can take that in, and act accordingly, no further action may prove to be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Warned. CycoMa1, just make proposals for major changes on the article talk. Proposals which perhaps other contributors could help better refine. This is the thing: Wikipedia is meant to be based on scholarly standards. Standards which, unfortunately, your additions fall short of at this time. Good luck! El_C 08:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

IP vandalism on Lia Thomas

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’re going to have to protect Lia Thomas from non-registered users (auto-confirmed if they make new accounts). In just the last few minutes: [389] [390] [391] [392]. Three different IPs (in different locations; Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas), four edits, all almost instantly reverted. Yes, in all cases we have put appropriate notices on their talk pages. SkylabField (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved by User:Ohnoitsjamie SkylabField (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, please can somebody look at User:Metoo15? In addition to being one of the vandals on Lia Thomas, they seem to have made nothing but bad edits and are now trying to put defamatory claims about Thomas on their User Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Never made any false claims in ANY edit. Just facts that you choose to not accept. You have your opinion and I have mine. I've kept it to my page, nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metoo15 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indef block Metoo15 - obviously WP:NOTHERE and deadset on WP:BLP violations. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've done nothing to anyone. I was asked to stop editing (Lia) Thomas' page so I did. What I keep on my own page is my own business. I don't edit yours, why continue to edit mine? I'm clearly the victim. -metoo15 11:53, 18 February 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metoo15 (talk • contribs)

I invite people to look at Metoo15's other contributions to other articles as they all seem to be vandalism or nonsense too. e.g. this seemingly homophobic rubbish. --DanielRigal (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That "rubbish" is something he said to me. Again, you make dangerous assumptions about what others do or do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metoo15 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 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:NOTHERE by Harry19500

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.

---

Harry19500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vast majority of this users edits have been disruptive and reverted, some examples;

8 February 2022 Added Pashto in the lede, no explanation whatsoever.

8 February 2022 Changed the number of Pashto speakers from 40 million to 85 million.

8 February 2022 Randomly added Pashto as one of the spoken Middle Iranian languages, albeit it wasn't spoken till decades later.

10 February 2022 Replaced several (sourced) mentions of "Turkic" with "Pashtun".

13 February 2022 Changed the percentage of Pashtuns from 48% to 50%.

[393] [394] 18 February 2022 - Replaced "Tajik" with "Pashtun".

18 February 2022 Replaced "Sogdian" with "Pashto".

18 February 2022 Removed mention of several ethnic groups residing in the area, replacing them with Pashtuns.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:24, 19 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.

2A00:1FA0:0:0:0:0:0:0/33

2A00:1FA0:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Block evasion of User:Ikip. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for three months. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123

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.

---

Could someone please do something about the behavior of Martinevans123? This man is for some reason reverting my edits without reasonable arguments, let alone logical ones. Above all, on the discussion page of Talk:Martin Heidegger this man is publishing without any legitimate reason at all the location of my IP-adress. This had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and had more in common with intimidation. After that, he's following me to other articles and starts reverting my edits there, again without any form of logical reasoning. Very weird behavior that reminds me of stalking. Can an admin please do something about this?Cornelis Dopper (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would that be the IP address(es) that you plastered all over the history of the talk page by editing as an IP before creating a username? I'm pretty sure we can't blame Martin for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm assuming you are Special:Contributions/213.124.174.59 and Special:Contributions/89.205.133.144. Every time you edit as an IP you are publishing your IP address, and anyone can look up the location. As far as I can tell Martinevans123 was trying to determine if the second IP was the same editor as the first, which had been blocked earlier the same day for edit warring. This is a legitimate query as blocks apply to the person, not the account and it would have been block evasion. Here, you admit that you have in fact done that. It is also legitimate, if one sees perceives a user as being disruptive at one article, to check their contributions and follow up at a different article. That is not stalking or intimidation. I don't see anything actionable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• This complaint is without merit, and should be closed without action. There is a run-of-the-mill content dispute at the article talk page, about the use of superlatives. Martinevens123 has one position about it. A series of IPs expressed different positions, and then the account making the opening post here was created ([395]), and continued to express the same opinion. Martinevens123 raised the issue of the accounts likely being the same person, per WP:DUCK. And WP:IP edits are not anonymous. The "following to other articles" seems to be only to Ludwig Wittgenstein, which Martin has been editing since long before the new account was created: [396]. This is not stalking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-opening (Martinevans123)

I'm going to have to re-open this, because I've had to protect Ludwig Wittgenstein for clear and obvious edit-warring between Martinevans123 and Cornelis Dopper. I can't figure out who is right and who is wrong (if anyone), but I note that Martin has left his rationale on the talk page while Cornelis hasn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with waiting a bit longer in order to see what develops, before taking admin action. But this is getting to where it's not really a question of right or wrong about content, but rather about who is WP:HERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you are a long-time and obvious wikifriend of Martinevans (and vice versa). I don't think you should be the one taking any action in disputes where they are involved, whether it is closing a discussion here or protecting pages. No matter if your actions are correct or not, they may appear to be biased and should, per WP:INVOLVED, be avoided. Fram (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If there's an edit war between two people only, it seems inappropriate to have applied full protection, blocking everyone else from editing, because of two people. Moreover, demanding just one of those editors to "explain the rationale for your changes", and not the other editor, seems prejudiced. An edit war is an edit war. Both need to explain, get consensus, and stop.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In this specific instance, nobody else was involved in the dispute. Otherwise partially blocking both editors from the article would have been a suitable alternative. I've left a third opinion on the talk page which I'd suggest the two editors use as a compromise, otherwise they're going to have to seek dispute resolution elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, for you, that would have been an equally unsuitable alternative, per WP:INVOLVED. You should not be the admin on any situation where a wikifriend (like Martinevans) is involved, and should stick solely to commenting. This applies even when your actions are completely impartial, and even more when they seem prejudiced, like Bagumba says right above. Fram (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Fram and Bagumba, I'm sure you can both find something better to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went and looked at WP:INVOLVED, which defines involvement as "conflicts with an editor... , and disputes on topics...". Not conflicts of an editor one is friendly with, with other editors. As with all such things, this does include gray areas where judgment is required, and so it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement. But when no action (beyond commenting, and asking for discussion by the person who was not discussing) has been taken against the other party (who in this case is getting awfully close to not-here), there is hardly need for a commotion. (This is the comment that is cited above as a problem: seriously?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement." No, really? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, someone else who is buddies with Martinevans and felt the need to close this discussion and now to dismiss claims of involvedness. Shameful behaviour, but I guess you don't have anything better to do. Or at least not a better example to present. Good going. Fram (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You added to the closing statement twice. Gee, where could this confusion come from? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Where could this confusion come from? An apt question, indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection, which was a welcome relief, I must say. For "clear and obvious edit-warring"? If a claim fails verification in the source provided, I've always assumed it's valid to remove it. Similarly, if a source can be removed, as per WP:LEADCITE, I've always assumed it's not valid to simply restore it with a sarcastic edit summary. If this was edit warring, it was done with a polite invitation from me to discuss at the Talk page. With wikifriends like Ritchie, who needs enemies? But I'd better forgive you for not notifying me that you had re-opened this thread. Or was the OP meant to do that? I was getting close to taking Ludwig Wittgenstein (which I've been editing since 2011), off my watchlist, thanks to this. Might save you a job. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The appropriate picture --Tryptofish

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention during this morning's meeting. Are we doing a burma-shave or a funny picture for this one? Levivich 21:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Either one would be fine with me. You didn't miss anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Funny picture? I'd recommend Rabbit–duck. But, just like Ritchie, I'm not sure which is which. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm partial to the Spinning dancer, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, spinning. British television viewers might be reminded of the title sequence for Tales of the Unexpected... which is what this thread seems to be turning out to be. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to buzz kill and I'm sorry to pile-on, but Ritchie, after everything that happened with Diannaa (though I don't believe you acted as an admin in that incident), I really do think that, at the very least, you need to maintain some extra-good optics. Speaking for myself, I grant Gerda's RD requests via my talk page all the time (i.e. editing WP:ITN, an admin action). But I do that because those requests are uncontroversial.

By contrast, once, after I blocked Mathsci (via a report by Fram of all people as I recall, small vwold), I found out he was Gerda's friend, I never acted as an admin in his case again. And I never will. I'm saying all this as someone who isn't friends (but is friendly) with Martinevans123. Though I'd like to be, because he's fuckin' awesome! El_C 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I am deeply touched. Ritchie, the cheque is in the post. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Cornelis Dopper the same IP/SPA as above? This all seems rather silly from Dopper, and given edit summaries like this, I suspect they wont be here much longer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The first IP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule; the next IP made a total of 4 edits; after I asked if they were the same person I was told "You know damn well that we’re the same person". And then User:Cornelis Dopper miraculously appeared. I didn't actually ask if they were the same person.... perhaps you'd like to? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If not a buzz kill, then I guess I'm becoming a broken record, but given that the above is true, I feel the need to say again that the concerns about INVOLVED are awfully close to complaining about INVOLVED when the action was something routine like reverting a BLP violation or vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that we don't really have buzz kill here in the UK. But we do have the trusty old wet blanket. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, you wrote: 'And then User:Cornelis Dopper miraculously appeared'. Now you're acting as if it was a big surprise when you felt it was necessary to publish the location of my IP-address. I still don't understand what the added value of that was. In combination with the many sarcastic remarks and illogical behavior it came across as an attempt to intimidate someone. And now you're saying that it is a miracle that I created an account to make a few comments on these matters?

In my opinion, the entire discussion began in a ridiculous way, with constant sarcasm from especially Martin; not really a nice attitude to begin a discussion I would say. But this is also what he did at the Wittgenstein article; reverting edits back like a dictator, starting a discussion and then refusing engage in a constructive manner. Not in the least I have the feeling that this discussion is being held with people who have next to no background in philosophy (they're not showing it at least). Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Also: @Ritchie333, you wrote: 'but I note that Martin has left his rationale on the talk page'. Excuse me? I think you can clearly see my arguments with proper sources and all enfolding on the talk pages of both Heidegger & Wittgenstein. How on earth can you say this? And I would very much like to be informed where I can find the so called rationale of Martin; it seems to me it is completely absent. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see them now, but at the time I wrote that post, I couldn't because you'd hadn't written them at that point. Now you have, I have set out a compromise on a talk page that I hope you both can follow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• I read this, wondered what the issue was and find that the dispute is whether the subject is considered "one of the greatest philosophers" or "one of the most important and influential philosophers". This seems to be a distinction without a difference. No doubt such philosophers have written books about such fine points but the rest of us need not waste much time on it. Seems like an obvious case of WP:THIRD and/or WP:LAME. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck Begoon 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Still going on here after 8 days? It seems this sub-thread was re-opened, yet again, without notification? Andrew, yes that's part of the dispute. But most of my arguments, at both of the articles where Cornelis Dopper has edited, concern the need for any statement in the lead section, whatever it's form, to be a fair summary of article content and to be fully sourced by WP:RS sources. Cornelis Dopper seems to think this is optional. And that editors who have more than "next to no background in philosophy" can make general superlative statements like these as they know they are true. Martinevans123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 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.

User:Wright Stuf and false accusations of vandalism

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

---

User:Wright Stuf has made false accusations of vandalism towards myself, User:Ariadacapo, User:Ravenpuff, User:Ahunt, User:GraemeLeggett, and User:Cullen328. The primary diff is here. When I told the user that this was a content dispute, not vandlism, and asked to have the accusations struck, he doubled down, dismissing my comments and warning as a Talk:Wright Flyer "threat". The comments came in response to a long-running dispute on the talk page about the use of "restored" and "colorized" images on the Wright Flyer article, which images were made by amateur photography enthusiasts, including by the user himself. Those arguments are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but might be brought up anyway. I'd like the user to retract his accusations of vandalism, and promise not to do so in the future. Regards. BilCat (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The utterly false accusations of vandalism leveled by Wright Stuf constitute personal attacks that really should be addressed at this noticeboard. For far too long, this editor has been riding a hobby horse while grinding an axe on the subject of colorizing historic black and white photos. I am obviously involved as a participant in the discussion and as one of the recipients of the personal attack. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from the Wright Flyer article and the topic of colorization of photos, broadly construed. Let uninvolved editors decide. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban on Wright Flyer and the colorization of photos. So many walls of text/bludgeoning. I know the idea/practice of colorization of old black and white photos is incredibly controversial and I highly doubt something like a WP:COLORIZED will ever become a policy/guideline, so why continually push for it.♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Support the suggested topic bans as stated. The accusations of bad faith and vandalism against anybody who disagrees with them are not acceptable or remotely credible. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment This editor was at ANI one year ago - diff where there was general agreement that the behaviour was problematic but no consensus about sanctions. Please do not let this disruptive behavior slide this time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

JCW555,
You have characterized my latest posts as me wielding some kind of bludgeon. Let's all be clear as to what bludgeoning is:

"...the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view..."

Anyone who takes the time to actually read what I have posted will find quite the opposite. Here are exact quotes from my Talk Page post today:

"Perhaps someone here might be able to present a scenario that is consistent with Good Faith. I cannot."

"Ariadacapo & Ravenpuff, I am giving you that opportunity here and now" [to explain why you had made these edits which degraded the article quality].

"This same question is being asked of you, BilCat, Ahunt, GraemeLeggett and Cullen328. If the four of you are objecting to Colorization, then why did none of you not simply swap the colorized photo for the historical black&white version? You all are denying anyone who comes here to learn about the Wright Flyer from seeing this image, regardless of form."

This is me expressing that I am TOTALLY OPEN to consider any alternative explanation that these cited cases are not examples of deliberately inflicted damage. So Acroterion, if you read the words I had posted there, I hope it is clear to you that this is not a case of having a problem with "anybody who disagrees with them". It was me presenting an invitation for all of these editors to explain their actions. Here is a nutshell paraphrase of my message:

Here are two examples which I see to have degraded the quality of our article. I am highlighting this issue as vandalism, because I am at a loss for explaining this as anything other than intentional damage.

In a whopping grand total of two (2) minutes later, BilCat chooses to vandalize my post. BilCat clobbered the subsection by removing the header of this issue which I was attempting to call attention to.

I had highlighted the issue of vandalism back in February of 2021, when my Talk Page posts were repeatedly being molested (see Archive 1 of that article's Talk). It is happening again now. And far worse, this issue of deliberate degradation (perhaps there's a better term than Vandalism) is now impacting Mainspace. --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"In a whopping grand total of two (2) minutes later, BilCat chooses to vandalize my post. BilCat clobbered the subsection by removing the header of this issue which I was attempting to call attention to." Again with the false vandalism accusation. You've been told before over and over, but please, drop the WP:STICK on this issue. Let. it. go. It's not helping you in the slightest. Your colorized photo isn't going to be on the page. It's not a big deal. Also talking about people "molesting" (what a horrible word choice btw) is major WP:OWNership behavior in addition to another thinly veiled vandalism accusation. Unless it's verboten via talk page policies/rules, people can say whatever they want on article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban as uninvolved editor - frankly, this seems like he's going to a lot of effort to defend something that is ultimately unimportant to the quality of the article. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban, this editor is unwilling to have a constructive discussion about content that is mindful of other editors, and learned nothing from his block last year (same article, same topic, same behavior). --Ariadacapo (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply to all three above:

MiasmaEternal, you stated:

"...frankly, this seems like he's going to a lot of effort to defend something that is ultimately unimportant to the quality of the article."

What I have been doing here is spending loads of my time in an effort to uphold Consensus. Perhaps Consensus is unimportant to you. But I would not be putting all this effort into it if it was unimportant to me. If you go back to the beginning from one year ago, you can see that I was perfectly fine with letting all of this go. But what changed is that I found an example which had established Consensus on a near-exactly parallel issue way back in 2016.

Ariadacapo,

What I did was invite you to explain why you clobbered the image instead of switching to your own b&w version.

For whatever reason, you've opted to not explain yourself. Yet you will readily mischaracterize me as being "unwilling to have a constructive discussion about content that is mindful of other editors".

JCW555,

Here is a dictionary definition of 'molestation':

"an act or instance of interference with or violence against someone" (ref)

Quoting you:

"Your colorized photo isn't going to be on the page." - JCW555

Ironically, that is an example of YOU acting as though you are the owner of the Wright Flyer article. My arguments have been made on the foundation of well-established Consensus. With the Infobox image, dating back to 2016. With the non-infobox image, dating back to February of 2021. I have never acted as though I own ANYTHING here on Wikipedia. With the exception being the words I post outside of Mainspace. Like right here. If you were to jump in and alter this character string I am typing now, then I would clearly see that as a molestation of my words. Now if you have a problem with that one particular word, let's substitute "violation" instead. I actually AM the owner of the words I type, outside of Mainspace. If I create a Subsection, and any other editor happens to object to me doing that, then they have the option to present to me an argument as to why, and I can change it myself.

In your previous post, you had stated:

"I highly doubt something like a WP:COLORIZED will ever become a policy/guideline, so why continually push for it."

This is yet another mischaracterization of my efforts here. Where have I pushed for it? I have never once gone to any WP and so much as posted a single comment, let alone request any change. Nor creation of anything new. And over on the Wright Flyer article, my main focus, every time this has been raised, has been to identify this lack of policy as being the root problem. I don't recall asking anyone to create any such policy in any of my posts. Others had explained how to go about it. I never took the first step toward pursuing it.

Here is the exact quote of what I had posted over there on this issue yesterday:

"Of course, the central issue here in this section on Colorization is the question of Policy, which appears to remain unanswered."

I hope everyone can agree that identifying the core problem is quite distinct from what you've characterized my effort as being. Another Admin has characterized my posts as Bludgeoning. I replied to that by highlighting that my posts have communicated quite the opposite. I am fully onboard with abiding by Consensus. And if editors collectively feel that Wikipedia is better off with no policy regarding colorization, that's perfectly fine with me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the WP that directly applies: WP:Talk page guidelines: Editing others' comments.

"The basic rule... is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."

The policy goes on to give a laundry list of exceptions. But I scanned that list, and I don't see any exception which fits what BilCat did. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The PAs are enough, but their behavior in this thread cinches it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, me highlighting how editors and Admins have been mischaracterizing my efforts is "behavior in this thread cinches it". Curious. Or perhaps there is some other thing which I have done here which you find objectionable. Perhaps you are in the camp that any use of the word 'molest' could not possibly be non-sexual. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely, writing hostile replies to every person will show uninvolved users that there are no issues with your editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion that I have been acting hostile here would carry loads more weight if you were to cite specific examples. I myself would be glad to see just one quote. Let alone "replies to every person".

I see your post to be YET ANOTHER MISCHARACTERIZATION of my inputs. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Examples of your coming across as hostile in this thread? The formatting change here would be one example. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they're doing a solid job of making my point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, yet again, you have provided absolutely no support whatsoever for your claim that I am the one being hostile here. I had asked for just one example, when you said I had been hostile to everyone. And you've to date provided zero.

How bout everyone stop with the gross distortions here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, the one single example you cite is from something I had tweaked after ScottishFinnishRadish had asserted the claim. And I would be very interested to know how the bolding, capping, underlining and italicizing of three (3) words is taken to be hostility of any kind. In my edit summary, I very clearly explained the reason why I had done this:

" Perhaps if I add a touch more emphasis to this bizarre pattern of distortion which has been permeating this thread, people here will start to be more accurate with their assessments."

I see no hostility whatsoever. Not from me.

What happened is that I had objected to the persistent pattern of distortion.

In your post, you chose to become A PART of that distortion, while stating this as your edit summary: "oh the irony".

Oh the irony, indeed. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not particularly strong when it comes to self-awareness, are you?

The optimist in me says you should work on that. The realist in me just laughs at any such notion, given the evidence here, and in your history. Begoon 16:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

So instead of supporting these baseless assertions, you are now choosing the tack of going fully ad hominem.

The evidence and history has shown that I am a staunch, steadfast advocate of Wikipedia editors conforming to Wikipedia policy. In particular, the policy regarding CONSENSUS.

You're certainly free to psychoanalyze me as much as you want.

Perhaps you'd like to create an entirely new Wikipedia Project: The Wikipedia Couch.

Alternatively, we could all stay focused on the topic at hand:

Did I cross any lines? Did I violate any policy?

Perhaps there will be objective people who might arrive here, and will let everyone know that what is happening is nothing short of Cyberbullying.

Your post is a prime example. I see no place in Wikipedia whatsoever for a comment like that. And especially not here, where there are supposed to be rational minds making serious decisions. With maturity. Upholding Wikipedia Policy. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to have breakfast. Begoon 16:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"I have been unfailingly polite, and you two have been nothing but rude."

I myself do not disagree with the walrus. Or sea lion.

So why post a cartoon which voices support for my position here?

Perhaps an hour from now the reason will dawn on me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Above, Wright Stuf wrote: "I am fully onboard with abiding by Consensus." The only problem is that WS is on board with consensus in a different unrelated article and has been behaving as if that consensus negates the unequivocal consensus against using the colorized photo in the Wright articles. As administrator Canterbury Tail told WS in February 2021: "You keep talking about this consensus but I have still not seen any such consensus, the only consensus on the talk page is to NOT use a colorized image." That bears repeating: "the only consensus on the talk page is to NOT use a colorized image." It's true Wikipedia has no explicit policy on colorization. WS is free to propose such a policy at the Village Pump, or to issue a Request for Comment on a Wright article talk page about using the colorized photo. It's pretty clear, though, that WS should not be free to make false accusations of vandalism or disruptively flout clear consensus in the article at issue. DonFB (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

DonFB, the section where that Admin had evaluated me as being the one who was on the wrong side of Consensus Policy is HERE, over on my own User Talk Page. There was no policy, so CantTail cited this essay: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I read through that, and found this quote:

"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

This essay actually supports the position I had taken, and still hold today. That it makes loads of sense for there to be consistency across Wikipedia as a whole. It would be ridiculously wasteful to rehash Consensus discussions in every single article where that issue happens to appear. Regarding the issue of the use of colorized historical images in the infobox, that Consensus was established quite solidly way back in 2016.

And then with the current image being highlighted now, over on the Wright Flyer page, Consensus was firmly established one year ago, back in February of 2021. I hope we can all agree on the point that use of colorization in the infobox image is a distinct issue from use of colorized images in the body of the article. Here is an exact quote from Archive 1:

"Nice image. I can imagine a small gallery near the bottom of pages of very historic black-and-white photographs featuring colorized images..." - Randy Kryn (20:29, 15 February 2021)

This image was presented. And absolutely no one voiced objection to it. The use of it was supported in essentially the manner in which I had added it to the article. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

At what point are you likely to accept that basically nobody agrees with what you are doing?

Oh, never mind, I looked at the history now - ignore my silly question. Begoon 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who does a thorough review of how everything has unfolded over at that article can clearly see how I had taken the side of Consensus which had been established by DOZENS of editors YEARS prior to me ever arriving to address this issue.

And in the most recent image that has been called into question, there were two (2) editors who had expressed their view after that colorized image had been presented. Both were on the side of Using the image. NO ONE expressed any objection whatsoever.

I have no idea what you looked at ...where you decided to join this discussion just to mock me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your editing history. As to "mocking" you - not guilty, or necessary even I were so inclined, which I'm not - you're doing a cracking job of that yourself. Begoon 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your previous post (above) was a blatant ad hominem attack.

And the angle you have chosen down here is likewise way off base.

The question at hand is whether an editor has crossed the line. And I happen to see you as being WAY ACROSS THAT LINE.

You have the option to turn this discussion back toward the direction of rational, salient points.

You also have the option to simply remain silent. And let the discussion continue with maturity, with no further input from you. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's me told then... Begoon 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the children who are wrong.jpg ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on Wright Flyer and the colorization of photos since that is what has been proposed, however the behaviors demonstrated on Wright Flyer would not be acceptable anywhere on the project, and Wright Stuf needs to change their approach to editing. The repeated accusations of vandalism and deliberate damage on Talk:Wright Flyer are both personal attacks and false; the refusal to recognize that the disagreements on images are not vandalism indicate a lack of competence. The battleground approach to discussions is unproductive and inappropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. I have blocked Wright Stuf indefinitely for sealioning, Gish gallop, persistent personal attacks, and unreasonableness, as seen in this discussion as well as all over Talk:Wright Flyer. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC).

  Thank you. I was just formulating my proposal for an indef. Saved me a lot of trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  And thanks from me. I just tried to save a long screed detailing all the reasons why this editor should be blocked but edit conflicted with you, and then with ScottishFinnishRadish with this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks from me as well, as the topic ban just didn't seem sufficient to address the behavioral issues. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, Bishonen. I was going to support a topic ban, and then I started thinking of writing a siteban proposal, and then they cancelled all the buses because of the heavy snow so I got other things to think about... --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Very well. We shall resume in an hour. Begoon 18:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Problem solved. Thanks, Bishonen. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 21 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.

Backlog

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.

---

Huge backlog at WP:AIV

 The backlog is present when making posting this message. It may clear out if someone reviews it later. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Pretty sure this belongs at WP:AN, not ANI. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Padgriffin Sorry. Placed it in the wrong place. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess ANI is extra visibility. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

! Code red (or whatever they say) the bots have taken over. We really should have reviewed them more thoroughly at BRFA.

(seriously, isn't there a captcha) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

...for now, every single one of them that I've seen are either spamming

Hcb6gyyhyhhhnnmmmmñmmmkkkkkkkko9

!kjuhggfdsA!!!!?..?.nhbhhhjkm!llll

or that twice. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:16, 21 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.

Move warring at Killing of Ashli Babbitt (/ Shooting of Ashli Babbitt)

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:Feoffer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Twsabin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Feoffer is move warring by repeatedly changing the title of Killing of Ashli Babbitt back to Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, counter to the RM result, despite being informed of the possibility of requesting a move review based on their objection. Relevant diffs:

• original move by the RM closer Elli
• out of process reversal by Feoffer
• doubling down
• tripling down
• removing the old move template from the talk page, in an apparent effort to unilaterally anull the RM close

tw^sabin 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've got a 3-week-old account repeatedly renaming the article "Killing of". Obviously, this requires consensus which does not exist. A bulk move proposal explicitly excluded the Babbit page after it was too controversial, a non-admin cited this to bulk-move the page, and a 3-week old account is now move warring over it. Its certainly not my place to war with an admin/vested over this, but it merits attention. Feoffer (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've got 6 years old account that is repeatedly renaming the article "Shooting of ...", after an RM closer Elli moved the page to "Killing of ..." based on their finding of consensus. Does this 6 years account know that WP:Process is important? I question your competence. tw^sabin 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: WP:PI, that you've cited several times now, is an essay (and not a particularly influential one) and as a result isn't going to form the basis of a convincing argument. Particularly since WP:IAR is policy. I suggest the two of you quit addressing each other directly for a moment and let some editors that are uninvolved weight in (I'm involved BTW). VQuakr (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Do you think that, perhaps, I should have started a move review regarding Feoffer's actions, instead of an ANI report? I thought about it, but it seemed like the only thing that can be done in MR (based on instructions there) is challenging a close, and not requesting that the close be upheld. If you think that move review is also a procedurally viable, and better, forum here, I agree to drop this complaint and to go there directly. Maybe WP:IAR can offer guidance in this regard :)

If an administrator reading this thinks that moving the matter to MR is beneficial, I'll wholeheartedly support the change of venue. But I still think that ANI can resolve this by undoing Feoffer's unilateral action and simply directing them to MR, so that they (instead of me, which makes much more sense, again, according to MR instructions), can start a normal challenge there. tw^sabin 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: the move warring was/is a behavioral issue so ANI isn't the wrong venue. Just note WP:BOOMERANG; it takes two to edit war. It isn't fair to push the move review onus onto you, but in this case the close was so obviously questionable (discounting the policy-based reasoning by the majority of participants) that I think the ideal response would be a reversion of the close by an uninvolved admin to allow further discussion (or just change the specific outcome for Babbitt to no consensus since several of the !votes were specific to that article). Whether any uninvolved admin agrees with me, though, is another question. The key thing you should do differently next time is not revert the article movement, at all. Where the article is located in the short term doesn't matter very much, and the move warring is much more disruptive than having the article at the "wrong" location for a while. More generally, I think you're overly fixating on process (which, BTW, isn't that important). VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on what you've said I should have done nothing, and simply have left the article at it's "Shooting of ..." title, as if the RM had never happened. It would mean that RM was meaningless, and a big waste of time for everyone involved. But it can't be meaningless. It just isn't. There has to be a way to resolve such disputes communally, and I have suggested Move review, but Feoffer did not accept this suggestion and kept doing what they think is right. Someone had to do something. Feoffer can't simply WP:OWN the title of that article. You said what I shouldn't have done but you haven't said what you would have done in my place. (In this regard, I respect that you're involved, and not the ideal editor to pose this question to) tw^sabin 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not say you should have done nothing, but in this case the first step you took of reverting the undo of the move shouldn't have been performed. Following up with Feoffer on their talk page and escalating to ANI if necessary were fine. Talking to Feoffer might have even been more effective if you hadn't first reverted the move. With regard to the RM and community time: the Babbitt article should, pretty obviously, have been excluded from the RM closure and that's a likely outcome of a hypothetical move review. It's a more efficient use of community time to just reach a consensus on the article talk page (as should have been done in the first place) than to go through a rubber-stamp move review process that might result in overturning the rest of the moves as collateral, too. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I followed WP:BRD. Elli's close was not a bold action, since they were bound by their finding of consensus to execute the move, as the closer. Feoffer's undoing of said move was the bold edit, and my reversal was a normal revert, and what should have happened is for Feoffer to start a discussion, but I went ahead and started the discussion on their talk page myself. Feoffer should have then discussed this further with me, and I was perfectly willing to discuss it in great detail, but intead they immediately reverted again which was the start of move warring, and as such, it was a disruptive action. Seen in totality, even their first undoing of Elli's move was disruptive, as there had been no place for boldness in face of a closed RM which is generally regarded as a functioning and effectual process, that has it's well-established review venue. I felt entitled then to undo their move seeing it as a typical disruptive edit. Seeing everything in retrospect, I stand by my actions. We can't have a pseudo-RM on the talk page after the actual RM. That is a waste of time as it has no promise of success. There's no consensus that bundled RMs are inappropriate. WP:RMPM envisions bundled RMs. The right venue for Feoffer was MR and that's it. They decided to move war and now they face an ANI report for their disruptive conduct. tw^sabin 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't mandatory, and you can't follow BRD if other editors aren't doing so. You're continuing to exhibit hyper-focus on process by litigating who was the B in BRD, which is even more optional than most of our processes. No, you are never "entitled" to a revert. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't mandatory but it is excellent, and Feoffer knows it. I did right to follow BRD, as it was an efficient and sensible way to try to resolve the problem, but Feoffer unexpectedly assumed an incredibly recalcitrant attitude, followed by their disruptive behavior. I find your arguments quite bad (RM apparently doesn't matter – clearly wrong; IAR – no real reason provided; no BRD, when it's a useful tool – no reason; semantics of "entitled" – just arguing semantics). I made two actions here which were in line with consensus as found in the RM, and after thinking about your comments, I have decided that I conducted myself alright. I am a firm believer that process is important and I will uphold process in the future. Hopefully the result in this section will have a preventative effect toward Feoffer not to disregard process. In every venture, sticking to process has operating costs, but on the grand scale it saves an immense amount of time. Our specific thread here (between two involved editors) is evidence of poor use of time resulting from no firm structure of resolving disputes. There is such structure on Wikipedia (Move review, for example), but Feoffer decided to disregard it. Now we are all in a worse place. I expect that they will understand not to do so again as it brings no advantage whatsoever. Still, thanks for your comments. tw^sabin 23:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. The BLP concerns here are weak, so even though both the closure and the "enforcement" of it by the new account are indefensible, so is move warring over the article location. Someone should talk to the closer about leaving contentious closes for an admin, and the original RM close should be reopened to allow further discussion/reclosure. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• About Feoffer's objection—Feoffer said (second diff): "Move proposal withdrawn by nom, generate consensus for this change [397]". This is after an RM has concluded. It seems absurd to say "generate consensus" after an RM where consensus has been found and resulted in a move. If the here reported user has an objection about the closer's reading of consensus they must bring it up at Wikipedia:Move review. They can't overturn move closes themselves. Their other arguments such as "no admin has been involved" (referring to the closer of the RM who is not an admin, as if that makes the close less conclusive) and "wheelwarring by 3 week old account" (referring to myself), are also inappropriate. Further, the actual argument here is that the RM nominator withdrew the proposal to rename the Shooting of Ashli Babbitt article. But they did not withdraw the proposal. They only said they were amenable to someone striking it from the list, and no one did, eventually leading to the bundled RM close being effective for all the listed articles. But even if someone did, it's too late to withdraw, after substantive arguments have been aired on both sides. If someone says, "I'll withdraw", and they don't, and the discussion runs it's full course it's simply too late. tw^sabin 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• I have move protected (EC) the article for a month while this gets sorted out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose that it gets sorted out in the following way: Feoffer is directed to start a WP:Move review, in order to challenge Elli's close. If they don't file a challenge there in a month, the title is restored to the one resulting from the RM. tw^sabin 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• My two cents : we have been discussing the issue here. I personally support the move per the decision here and for consistency's sake. If we rename all the other pages and not this one, this would pose a neutrality problem. IMO, this conflict is completely unwarranted. Psychloppos (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• I was involved in the bulk RM. To be fair to both Twsabin and Feoffer, 162 etc.'s comments did leave some ambiguity. Were they committing to withdraw Babbitt from the proposal if certain conditions were met, or were they actually withdrawing. They didn't strike or delete Babbitt from the proposal, and I am inclined to believe that there was consensus to move all the articles. Firefangledfeathers 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• An admin should move the page back to the title that has consensus per the last RM ("Killing of..."), please. This article was not pulled from the bulk RM (and the proposer couldn't unilaterally decide that anyway once people started voting). We can't keep having these discussions over and over and over. Consensus is consensus, and Feoffer can go to MR (or start a new RM just for this article, I suppose). Levivich 21:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• I stand behind my close here. Moving back the article contrary to the close is improper, if you believe the close was bad, please take it to WP:MR. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• There was no consensus to move all the articles to "Killing of...", mainly because the Ashley Babbitt one sticks out as being unlike the others. As many of the editors who responded said, they should be done individually (though I suspect that a re-run of the multi-RM without Babbitt would receive consensus). Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: in your opinion is there sufficient consensus here to overturn the RM discussion closure and invite a reclose or would this need to go through MR? The latter strikes me as more process for the sake of process; the close was terrible but the end state is still likely where we'll end up. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There's obviously good reasons to overturn the closure, because (sorry Elli) it was a poor closure whih didn't take account of the actual comments (and was actually against consensus). Having said that, I don't see a problem with removing Babbitt from it and re-opening, because I suspect that list of articles would gain consensus. It was a poor idea to include an article where the death of the person was unlike the others. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I can accept some criticism of the closure but I do think it should go through a discussion at move review and that overturning it based off of this ANI thread would be out-of-process and inappropriate. I believe that the arguments made in the discussion lead to a pretty clear consensus, but I can accept that others would read that differently, so some unbiased input on it from move review could be helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

MR is an unsavory direction since I don't disagree with the end result. These are just unrelated articles that should never have been bundled into a RM. Paired with the fact that the close is an obvious overturn, though, I'm not sure there's much choice since Elli isn't willing to reconsider. I'll give it a couple of days to see if an admin wants to IAR instead, but given the recent history of move warring I can understand if no one wants to go that route, either. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You know I'm here, right, your replies to me don't need to be in the third-person? There's no need to do this "well if an admin would IAR move it back, that would be great, otherwise I'll do a move review even though I don't actually disagree with the result". No, IAR is not applicable, there is a process and no need to go outside of that process. I've explained why I won't reverse the move, nor do I think the close is an "obvious overturn" if you consider the actual arguments in the discussion; most of those against the move were incredibly weak and not based in any policy, guideline, or practice. Closing discussions isn't just counting the !votes. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 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.

Abusive language left on talk page by DuanLW87035 (talk)

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

---

This is to report an edit by user DuanLW87035 (talk) on my talk page, using (mildly) abusive language against myself.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danners430: (Non-administrator comment) If this is the only instance of a personal attack, can't you just leave {{subst:uw-npa1}} on their talk page instead of dragging them to ANI? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I'm genuinely open to options at this point - I've never experienced nor had to deal with any incidents of any nature before, and upon searching for options this was what appeared to be the most sensible option I could find. If I've missed something I should have done, then by all means I'll make the necessary changes. Danners430 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danners430: I have left the warning for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Thank you - I'll make sure to keep this in mind for future use, and apologies if this caused any problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 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.

Disruptive editing by relatively new User:Pridemanty

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:Pridemanty registered in December 2021 and most of their edits are in an area which a newbie is not expected to work in. They are very disruptive - tagging, moving articles for no reason. There was a pause in their editing and became active yesterday. Possibly a sock. 23.84.96.19 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that this is a malicious report - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddjjo. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Seems a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. Both registered editors have since been blocked for sockpuppetry. Nothing more to be done here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:55, 22 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.

Vandalism on Rajen Sharma page by Onel5969

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.

---

Admins, please take action. Edamyb (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Edamyb: What vandalism? —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

He has targeted me and trying to delete my contributions. Edamyb (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, given this OP's (lack of) editing history and the sock activity in Rajen Sharma's history, I'm going to go ahead and block as a sock. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I see that in the history now and endorse your action. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Edamyb: There is no way that Onel5969 ever vandalized Rajen Sharma, his 2 Edits on Rajen Sharma are not Vandalism . Chip3004 (talk) 04:09, 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.

2001:16A2:C000::/40

2001:16A2:C000::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Serial vandalism by an IP user from Riyadh, which hasn't stopped despite multiple previous blocks. Typical edits include: [398], [399], and [400]. An AIV report was closed without action as stale. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant to make a range block, since I don't have a good feel for ranges, especially IPv6 ranges. But after a fairly painstaking review of the contributions from this range, I don't see *any* legit edits in the last 2 months from this range (not that I found earlier legit edits, i just stopped looking). And it's continuing even after this report. So I'll take a risk that I'm not blocking a whole country or anything, and block this range for 1 month. Anyone more knowledgeable than me should feel free to increase/reduce the duration or expand/contract the range. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I didn't realize how often this same range had been blocked in the past. Block duration changed to 2 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:40

• 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:40 has been adding uncited recording dates to a large number of song articles. I have explained to them that all challengeable material must be cited, but they don't seem to understand this and haven't responded to my talk page warning. Their edit summaries convey that they think they are an expert on the subjects in question when they have provided no supporting evidence for their claims, and they have been going back to several articles and manually reverting edits. This IP was previously warned for disruptive behavior at List of Panic! at the Disco band members in November 2019 and has not edited again until today. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And he keeps on doing it. I've just reverted a few, with such lovely edit summaries as "Maybe it’s right. Idk", "When it was recorded. I think ‘94.". and "When it was recorded had to be in the early 90s, late 80s.". —Wasell^(T) 14:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

Raquelmetal is undisclosed paid editing (somewhat disclosed on now deleted userpage) and despite having been warned about their COI editing they went on to create a draft which has been declined at AFC. I think that blocking them from the Draftspace and keeping an eye on them in case they try to get auroconfirmed and go straight to main space for the creation. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evation 2

Long term abuse blocked user LefterisApos has again being evading block with new IP [401]. --C messier (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Protest against deletion of Pallab Bhattacharyya article

Admins were too bias. Need revision on police article notability. Tuhirere (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The place to go if you think that the close of the discussion was incorrect is firstly to the closer's talk page and then, if you still think there's a problem, WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And you are obviously a block-evading sockpuppet of User:NeverTry4Me. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

or GeezGod or both, but I of course welcome any established editor to discuss in the section on my Talk. @Bbb23 sorry for the edit conflict in blocking. Star Mississippi 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless there are shennanigans going on, I don't see why it would be GeezGod given that their vote was the opposite. Also, look at Tuhirere's userpage before I tagged it, same stuff about "cannot buy my ethics" that the master had. Star Mississippi, it'd be nice if you would re-block reinstating my sock block instead of the current NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that NeverTry wasn't socking at all and it was a joe-job per @Blablubbs and @El_C here: #NeverTry4Me_issue? I reverted to your block message. Wasn't sure I could do a sock as a non CU, but happy to. Star Mississippi 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra in case the UTRS queue showed any further insight. Either way this sock is blocked. Star Mississippi 18:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That discussion occurred before this latest account was created. I go with the obvious, but if a checkuser wants to look at it, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)( Bloody ec ate my reply. ) I declined UTRS appeal #54957 (1701UTC) shortly before Tuhirere came along (1748UTC). I had advised NeverTry4Me against creating a sock puppet. The characteristic user page edit summaries are trademarks. Bluntly, NeverTry4Me is dense enough to have created those posts, though the lack of verbiage is not their characteristic. Not good at dropping the stick. (They did harangue El C ever so curtly.) Which leads into this. That they did not go on to rant about the unfairness of their block, and the "harassment by GeezGod," and the missing-dif's-they-never-found argues against this being NC4M. Could be a joe job ala GeezGod, but what for? NeverTry4Me is already blocked. (FWIW, I'm glad GeezGod got blocked, because they had gone out of their way to provoke NeverTry4Me.) Tuhirere could just be an LTA amusing themselves. Only your CU would know, only not for sure. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks both @Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra:. Whichever one it is, glad the disruption is sorted for the day. I'd filed it for paperwork ahead of this thread, so maybe we'll get the mystery solved. If not, I'm sure we'll see them again soon. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 21:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• For posterity, joe job. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of them. Star Mississippi 02:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

what a jerk. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm late, I was 🍕 in the head by a man who didn't say anything. El_C 05:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No attribution given in Spanish Wikipedia

I have a concern regarding some of my edits. Specifically, those made at Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A Spanish Wikipedia user has been copying and placing some of the edits I've made to this article from the English Wikipedia to the Spanish Wikipedia's version of the article. I understand that it's required for editors to provide attribution, but the user has not been doing that. Does it also apply to Spanish Wikipedia, and particularly in cases like these where it's occurring between the English and Spanish Wikipedia? I have no problem with having those edits copied and pasted to the Spanish article, as a lot of them are primarily composed of quotes. But I was wondering if this was permissible, and if not, is there something that must be done to address this issue? Pardon me if this is not the right place to bring this (this is my first ANI report, so I'm not very familiar with the criteria). I tried to warn the user with a "No attribution given" template, but I couldn't find one at the Spanish Wikipedia. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 00:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: It is likely that attribution is required due to the license we use here, but it is also unlikely that anything will be done from an ANI report on the English Wikipedia. You should try to find an equivalent noticeboard on Spanish Wikipedia to file this report, or a local embassy equivalent if that helps get your message across. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This embassy is where you probably should go for help. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: I noticed you've listed es-5 as a Babel box suggesting you have proficiency in Spanish. In that case, maybe leave a message on the talk page of the article to which the mentioned user is copying without attribution? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Great suggestion. Why didn't I think of that. Should I just make up my own message, or is there a template I can use in the Spanish Wikipedia regarding attribution? Because I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to say. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: I searched in es:WP:PAU but there is no template for this specific situation. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Can keep it simple... "Material was taken from en.wiki with RevId(s) Xxxx, please see en-wiki Nicole Kidman page for attribution".Slywriter (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nazi vandal Jewish? That's not me

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 already reported Jewish? That's not me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:AIV and I'm sure they will be they were blocked, but I think their edits should be redacted. I wouldn't even repeat them, just look at the edit summaries. --Muhandes (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems it was already done. Thanks! --Muhandes (talk) 12:01, 25 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.

Continual reversion, unwillingness to discuss and incivility on Scientology 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.

---

It appears that there is a concerted effort to keep any editor from making changes to the lead section of the Scientology page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology#Lede . Cambial, while accusing me of not adhering to NPOV, has been condescending, (Personal attack removed), insulting and interpreting what I’ve said out of context. I’ve answered his arguments point by point while he haphazardly insults and dismisses mine. He does not like being challenged and I feel discriminated against for having a different opinion. I see that Cambial is very active in this page (mostly reversions) and will not allow almost any change. He is the self-appointed gatekeeper of the page and refuses to discuss any changes. The change that I am trying to make is completely NPOV, and it gives the complete story of Scientology in that it is recognized in certain countries as a religion while being considered a cult in others. The repetition of the word “movement” and the term “associated movement” makes no sense. He still has not explained what “associated movement” means and what it does to enrich the lead. Although I stuck to RS and sent him reliable sources to back up the recognition claims, he ignored them and showed that they didn’t matter. “Guadalajara” is not the United States or Netherlands. This editor needs to be held responsible for uncivil editing, and I also request for my edit change to be closely and seriously considered. There is no reason for anybody to have a monopoly on the content of this page.01:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckystars1981 (talk • contribs)

I've removed one of the evidence-free personal attacks Luckystars1981 made in their comment. If Luckystars1981 had pointed to a single diff or quote, rather than accusing me of bad faith without a shred of evidence, that would be one thing. If they had spoken to me on my talk about what they claim is their perception of my article talk page behaviour, that would be another. Given that they've done neither, Luckystars1981's baseless assertions here are grounds for some kind of boomerang.

As to the only issue slightly relevant to this noticeboard after Luckystars1981's series of personal attacks: in the most recent (of four) comments exchanged between Luckystars1981 and I, I referred them to multiple previous discussions in which other editors have defended this version of the lead, some at far greater length than I, against various very new editors. I maintain that my characterisation of Luckystars1981's proposed change as well outside content policy is a fair one, privileging as it does one source over about fifteen others cited within the lead, along with pushing a quite specific POV.

Luckystars1981's other accusations are without evidence or merit, and I've therefore warned them against further personal attacks. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - merely on the basis of my sole recent encounter with the person right above me: bad apple; very toxic and cynical; would do better as a publicist or an entertainment lawyer; resorts to smear tactics and takes no responsibility for their actions, if not suffering from their own self-deception. I genuinely feel hurt by this man 👨 😞 😔 Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In that discussion it appears that you were the one making the ad hominems and personal attacks, calling people "pathetic" in edit summaries, and "you're clearly a know-it-all", and "to preserve your original edit, or maybe just your ego". And indeed, your very statement here continues in that vein. Uncle G (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No. I never called anyone pathetic. You're lying. But such is politics. And I have a date tonight ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Erm. We can READ your edit summary, you know. Never mind the other insults you levied both in the diff and in the paragraph above ... while we're talking about not taking responsibility for your own actions. You really have rather a long block log to be so casually and publicly tossing around personal attacks. Ravenswing 09:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess the culture here keeps me going? Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not provide examples because I provided the link and thought that your incivility was pretty self-evident. There are several examples of personal attacks and incivility in our talk page discussion.

First example: “The reference you added appears to be published by a vanity press; it is not a reliable source. The tiny publisher seems largely to exist as a vehicle for publishing the climate change denial of paid lobbyists.”

There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Based on further research, you just based it on a Wikipedia article about the publisher, when you have previously stated in another discussion I’ve found that WP is not a reliable source.

Second example: “The almost non-existent publicity for the book includes an advert by “Scientologists taking Action Against Discrimination” (supposedly the STAND league - presumably no-one thought to teach the Scientologists about spelling - more appropriately the SAAD league)”

Insulting a group of people without provocation. I can only derive what STAND league is from an internet search, but I have not mentioned them or am not connected to them, so I don’t know why Cambial says that here.

Third example: “No-one cares whether the Scientology organisation’s lawyers convinced a judge in Uppsala or Guadalajara that it is religious.”

I don’t know where Uppsala or Gudalajara is, but I certainly did not mention these countries. He said this to be condescending and to undermine the edit that I did, which mentions the United States, Italy, Mexico, etc. What is even then point of saying this but to insult?

Fourth example: “I’ll not be engaging in an extended discussion over a proposed addition that is so absurdly removed from the content policy of this website that it barely merits a response.”

Unwillingness to engage in discussion. This is why I had to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

I also found another fairly recent similar discussion. Apparently other editors have found the lead to be faulty, but Cambial just refuses to have it changed in any way, shape or form. Please see discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_31#Virtually_unexplained_reversion

Editor Bolddreams also calls his tone very disparaging. Here is excerpt of the discussion:

Cambial: The notion that the "full recognition" which you speak of extends to “26 countries” lacks credibility; it's closer to 10, though the nature of recognition amongst those is quite variable. None of your sources gave a figure of 26 countries; it's pretty obviously bullshit.

Response of editor: Hi Cambial. Thank you for your feedback. I would like to first point out that your tone is very disparaging and does not reflect that assumption of “good faith” at all per Wikipedia policy. I would like to cordially work with you in creating a better lead for this article which I think really unfairly represents the article. Look at the Mormon page opening, which is another controversial religion, and nowhere do they mention just the controversies in the first two sentences. The 26 countries, that you said was “bullshit” was the number of countries listed in the Scientology Status by Country Wikipedia page that recognizes Scientology as a religion. Are you saying then that this Wikipedia page is “bullshit?” The references I used were used in this Wikipedia page. Why is it acceptable in that page, but not in the Scientology page?Bolddreams (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some personal POV reversions that Cambial has made on the Scientology page, where there is no sufficient reason to remove unchallenged content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1036781020&oldid=1036778373

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1026377315&oldid=1026159527

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1019490204&oldid=1019480721

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1014840869&oldid=1014654933

I can look into this further and make some further elaborations. I stand with my position that Cambial should not be allowed to monopolize the Scientology page, evidence is in the Scientology page edit history if you would like more examples. The lead section needs to be improved, and NPOV changes seriously discussed without dismissing any kind of change before it is even truly explored.

Luckystars1981 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the quotes you provide are in any way uncivil towards you or any other editor. The word "bullshit" was used in reference to a claim inserted by another editor, unmentioned in any source provided. Two other editors broadly agreed with that assessment of the claim. The diffs to which you link are entirely justified removals of the remnants of organised POV editing by the group's members, including removal of sources long established as unreliable. Your continuing ridiculous personal attacks here, such as He said this to be condescending and to undermine the edit that I did - a nonsensical assertion (how can I undermine your edit?) drawn from your imagination to buttress your empty claims - are now reaching the point where a sanction against you is appropriate.

As to not wanting to have a long discussion about inserting thinly-sourced POV-pushing claims in the second sentence of the article: several days ago I pointed you to the previous quite extensive discussions indicating a consensus about the opening sentences. You are free to try to demonstrate that consensus has changed and would now support your edit. Given the tendentious nature of the content you proposed, in my view that's unlikely in the extreme.

Your repeated insertions of tendentious material sourced from generally unreliable sources, into the lead and elsewhere [402][403], have been reverted by multiple editors[404][405] and increasingly look like WP:ADVOCACY. I and other editors have explained in some detail why your additions are not neutral or appropriate on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• This just seems like an instance of the OP whinging about WP:CONSENSUS, which is firmly against using Massimo Introvigne and his CESNUR outfit as reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 22 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.

Eggsafertoareo- nonsense edits/summaries, vandalism, disruptive editing, etc.

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

User in question seems likely WP:NOTHERE, just even from quickly looking at their edit history:

• Whole bunch of vandalism/unexplained content removal, most notably on Lucas the Spider
• All of their edit summaries are a bunch of nonsense/random gibberish ("I'm super girls and mum batgirl"? "Yhrd"? "Oagbe hoa"? etc.)
• Whole bunch of their edits are straight up disruptive/vandalism with gibberish as well, including the "Oagbe hoa" edit linked above, as well as various other edits of theirs
• They originally created List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic in December 2021, which was moved to draftspace later that month. Despite the moving to draft (as well as previous deletions and two previous discussions), the user decided to recreate it earlier this month, with 0 improvements.

Got a feeling the user is very much NOTHERE, and all their edits should do the telling. Would also suggest Draft:Cn tubers be deleted as well, draft created by the user with a whole other language in it. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of content from Lucas the Spider, I would say that it was just made for revenge. From his talk page I see that Beat Monsters, which was tagged as not english by Victor Schmidt mobil, later deleted by Lectonar as it was merely an arabic translation of Lucas the Spider. So it sums up that, he tried taking revenge by removing content from the English article. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also what I gather is that he has a habit of using nonsense edit summaries. For example see his contributions on the arab wikipedia. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It is somewhat normal to make wrong edits, and I think more opportunity should be given to such users. However, making too many irrelevant edits requires serious caution/reaction. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Djm-leighpark, and User:Onel5969 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 have dubt, though not confirmed, that Onel and Djm-leighpark are same person. FYI and FYD, I landed in pages as my 'General Conflict of Interest' but never edited any of such pages BFW I can be blamed. I must appeal against their hierarchy privileges' and Onel as well where they both are only here to delete page of Asian interest though they both are not from any Asian countries. --Wichan The Lost Guy (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place to be, although in this case, don't bother, as these two clearly aren't the same person. And no, they are not "only here to delete page of Asian interest", they edit across a wide range of topics, probably including pages with an Asian interest: this is not reserved for people from Asia, everyone may edit everything here. In general, when you come here to discuss editors, you should include diffs, i.e. links which provide some evidence of your claims. You have a complaint, you should provide evidence. Without it, this section will be closed without any action (or at worst action might be taken against you for making unfounded accusations). Fram (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and you must drop a note at the talk page of these two editors to inform them of this discussion. Fram (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it Specious Accusations Against Onel5969 Week again already? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 11:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wichan The Lost Guy your account is very new, so perhaps you don't realise this, but in making claims of this nature without providing any evidence you are in contravention of our policy on personal attacks. What possible reason do you have for thinking that these two experienced editors, with such diverse interests, are either the same person, or interested in deleting Asian-related content? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ho ho hum. One couldn't make it up! Hardly after that snuffy contribution which took the development wheels off! Q.E.D. I confirm I was borned in West Sussex. Special:Diff/1068310855 kind of refutes Wichan The Lost Guy's bias claims and we have the old WP:BOOMERANG opportunity. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd sooner believe that Wichan The Lost Guy is the pot calling the kettle black. Rabnebanadijodi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a very odd message on WTLG's talk page, and their contrib history is very short and the account was created on the same day. Perhaps another in a line of GeezGod socks? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:58, 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.

User:Waybwachard: trolling username

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.

---

Waybwachard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be in violation of WP:ATTACKNAME, specifically as a mocking reference to sexologist Ray Blanchard. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Troll indeffed. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:33, 25 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.

Manipulation of wikipedia by a French presidential candidate team

Hello. An infiltrated journalist in the campaign of French presidential candidate Éric Zemmour revealed that they had a team focused on manipulating Wikipedia. It was leaked to a French wp admin who identified the following accounts:

• Cheep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CreativeC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Additional information can be found (in French) on fr.wp administrator's noticeboard. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've left AMI notices for the accounts that you did not notify.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot one. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed editors from the list who either are not registered at en.wiki or who have no edits at en.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Comte0: Have you thought about filing a CU on Commons to confirm that "IllianDerex" is one of Cheep's socks? M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am not active on commons anymore. Please do, thank you. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  A checkuser request has already been done on frwiki, came back positive between these two accounts. Regards. --Thibaut (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, in order to avoid suspicion, they used a single purpose account to upload a photo of Zemmour to Commons before adding it to the Reconquête article using their main account (which was used to add the photo that they openly uploaded to other projects[406][407]). To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• The French Wikipedia community seem to be clearly in favour of blocking all involved Wikipedians. I suggest we hold a discussion over blocking these three on en.wiki too. The press sources at the French ANI also make it possible for us to include content in various articles about Reconquête's astroturfing and misinformation tactics on Wikipedia and social media. We should also consider whether to keep using images uploaded by those involved e.g. File:Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg, used at Éric Zemmour and Reconquête. As far as possible, we will want to check the contributions of these three editors for policy violations that remain in articles, and perhaps could do with organising that in a manner like CCI does for Cheep to avoid redundant work. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  While waiting to see what other images have been used by those involved, I have removed File:Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg from both articles. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is a related discussion at WP:VPM#WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President, which I created at the urging of a French sysop and bureaucrat who urged me to do so. I was unaware of this ANI discussion at the time, and probably I was composing the VPM message at the same time. In any case, this ANI should take precedence, but there may be links or other information there of interest. Or perhaps each discussion could continue with their separate scope and goals, with ANI performing the usual behavioral monitoring and blocks as appropriate, and the VPM article exposing what is going on and why, with the possibility of a broader discussion there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This had no tangible effect on English Wikipedia, other than the upload of some rather nice photos, which it will be a shame to see removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you think they are nice is proof that they have achieved their goal (to make him look presidential). M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

They are in fact nice, high resolution photos that illustrate the subject well. The next best photos of Zemmour we have are over a decade old. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course they are "nice". You don't expect his PR people to upload images of him that don't make him look presidential, do you? M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to go do something useful, why don't you clean up Reconquête, which has been extensively edited by Cheep, who is known to have been part of this campaign? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If I ever need some useless advice, you'll be the first to know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see anything wrong with the picture. Additionally, it's buried in the middle of the article. JBchrch talk 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the picture per se (there is nothing wrong with it), it's about who uploaded it and for what purpose. Leaving it would send a clear signal to all those who want to promote themselves: 1) if you want your "beautiful" image to stick, make sure you hire a professional photographer. 2) It really doesn't matter if you get caught, we accept faits accomplis. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons allows undisclosed paid affiliations with the subjects of the images that are uploaded on it. It is certainly not appropriate that people associated with the campaign appear to have initially inserted it into the English Wikipedia article. That being said, the current location of that photo in the English Wikipedia article looks appropriate—are there any better photos that you suggest we put there? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a much wider debate than this image, but yes, we do accept fait accompli. I'm not happy about it, but we do. There's no policy that provides for the removal or deletion of content written by COI/UPE editors provided that it complies with the rest of the policies or guidelines. The best we got is WP:DEL-REASON # 14 combined with WP:PROMO, but good luck arguing that at AFD if the article is not-too-bad and the subject is notable. There is of course a broader debate to have about this, but I would argue that this is not a good case to launch that discussion, because the image does improve the encyclopedia, even if it has been uploaded by a campaign member. JBchrch talk 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROMO is obviously what I've been referring to all along. Even though I'm aware that no single policy can be used to remove the image (wp policies don't usually work in isolation anyway), I was hoping that others may agree, especially now that story is in the newspapers.[408][409][410] M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I'm unconvinced there's any fait accompli here about the image. Something that was sort of mentioned above but perhaps not made clear, there's nothing wrong with a subject getting a professional photographer to take an image and then uploading it to commons provided they declare their interest and ensure it's appropriately licenced by the copyright holder. In fact, in some ways we encourage it. So in terms of the image being uploaded, the only problem is the COI was not declared and a possible use of sock or meatpuppets. Otherwise the actions were perfectly fine.

On en.wikipedia there is a wide problem. They should have only proposed the addition of the image on the talk page (along with a declaration of their COI, and of course without any sock or meatpuppetry) rather than directly adding it. Any editor without a COI would then be free to add it if they felt it was suitable. It's unfortunate this is not what they did. However while it's wrong they didn't do so, we should not punish them by removing the image just because they didn't do so.

Instead we should fairly evaluate whether the image belongs in the article, and where to place it. I have not looked into this in detail, but it sort of seems like this has basically happened, editors have evaluated the image and alternatives they're aware of and came to the conclusion it's fine where it is. While we obviously cannot know what would have happened if they had done things properly, there's a fair chance it would be the same or at least very similar (maybe the image would be in a slightly different location).

The way I see it, the only likely reason things would have been different is there's a chance no one would have noticed/dealt with the query, not because they disagree but simply because thats how Wikipedia can work. Especially if the subject, is obscure which admittedly doesn't apply here. Although the fact they are unpopular may have meant editors said yeah, nah not going to spend my time dealing with this (which I can understand). While editors still should not be ignoring our strong recommendations not to directly edit, it's also silly to tell them "sure if editors had actually bother to dealt with your query, you'd probably have the same result but probably no one would have so we'd have a different result and for this reason what you did is wrong/unfair".

To be clear, as a regular at WP:BLP/N I can say we occassionaly get COI editors unhappy with an image we use. (I'm lazy to dig up examples but see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 38#Getting more freely licensed media by allowing fair use images of living persons, while the idea was very bad IMO, it does mention mention a specific case of what I'm talking about in another Wikipedia.) Provided the image isn't so bad as to be a clear negative, our only real solution is generally to explain that we can only use freely licenced image so until we find a replacement, we will have to keep using the one we're using. Some editors make it clearer and explain if they upload a better freely licenced images, we may use it.

You're not the first editor to complain about flattering photos but since we require freely licenced content and it can often be difficult to get a good photo even for someone who semi regularly appears in public if you're just randomly snapping photos, professional photos which may be intended to be flattering are often our best choice when they are available.

Notably with many US federal politicians and government officials, since they tend to have official portraits etc and these are freely licenced if works of the US federal government, these are often our go to choice. Especially for more obscure figures or those who don't do a lot of work where photographs are taken, official portraits may be our only images. Ketanji Brown Jackson mentioned below is sort of an example of this although that article also includes professional photos from Harvard and maybe others. I'm reminded also of Wilton Daniel Gregory where at least in the past, the photos were released by some part of the Catholic church.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: We cannot admit that there is a COI problem, accept to keep the added content (under whatever pretext) and then pretend that there is no fait accompli. The message we're sending here is loud and clear: throw money at your promotional material (by hiring professional writers, photographers, etc) and you won't even need to declare your conflict of interest, because even if caught, your proportional material will be kept. M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: except the promotional material would have been kept even if they had declared the conflict of interest. We would very likely be in the exact same situation if the proper processes had been followed. There is no fait accompli, the exact same thing would have happened. We could trivially remove the image from the article. We aren't failing to remove it because it's too much work or because it's hard to do or anything like that. We won't remove the image because if the editor had said on the talk page, "hey I represent person A, and have uploaded this image which I feel should be added to the article, would that be possible?" we would have very likely done that and would have the same or a very similar result. This doesn't mean it's acceptable for them to do what they do, but we should not punish them for that by causing a worse outcome just because they didn't. That's a clear cut violation of WP:BLP IMO. Regardless of how poorly subjects behave here, we should never, ever do something to punish them in our articles. That's disgusting and unacceptable. And there is absolutely no need to hire professional writers to upload an image, nor to add it to an article or to suggest it is added. (I'd note that as mentioned by others, I'm not sure there's even a reason to think anyone hired professional writers, it's seems likely there's a fair chance that these people were volunteers for the campaign. That doesn't make what they were doing acceptable instead it illustrates why concentrating on the professional part is sort of silly.) Note as I said, in my first post I'm not referring to anything other than the image. As for professional photographers, as I already said we already effectively encourage subjects to get professional photographers to take their photo on occasion, there's nothing forbidden about it's part and parcel of Wikipedia. The problem is not that a professional photographer was used, or that it was uploaded by someone with a COI, both are perfectly allowed in fact in some ways encouraged. The problem is because this COI was not declared, and it was added to the article by someone with a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Of course there is no need to hire professionals, but it sure wouldn't harm, especially if money is not an issue. As I said right from the start, it's the fact that it was added to the article by someone with a COI that is an issue (the image itself is not a problem). The professional part became a subject when some editors insisted on keeping it under the pretext that "it looks nice" (i.e. professional). Anyway, I think we have to agree to differ on this particular point. M.Bitton (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Actually it could easily harm if you use the wrong professional. Professional writers may use language that is suspicious when adding the image. And I'm reluctant to agree to differ on BLP matters. You seem to agree that the image would have been added to the article if the subject had simply proposed to add it to the article rather than adding it themselves. If you do, then why are you suggesting we remove it simply because they didn't do so but added it directly? If you think it's acceptable to punish subjects in articles, you should not be editing BLPs period. That's in clear violation of BLP. I haven't looked into the French reports, but are we even sure the subject had much involvement in this? Campaigns often have a lot of stuff which is fairly disconnected from the politician. Perhaps you can blame them for the people they let into their campaign etc, but it seems even more wrong to be saying we should punish subjects for stuff they had minimal involvement in and only came about because they were careless who they hired. It makes far, far more sense to do what we're doing at the moment. We're telling everyone involved "look if you'd done things properly, we would be in the exact same situation and instead of you being blocked (which seems likely to happen), you could continue to propose new images you uploaed". Note this also meants it's quite likely there has been no promotional benefit here, instead it's been harmful. We'd be in the exact same situation if they'd done things properly and simply suggested the image on the talk page, except they could continue to edit and make such image suggestions which may be in part promotional which they will no longer be able to do so. (I have no idea what's going to happen on Commons, and it doesn't concern us here.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with @Hemiauchenia with respect to Eric Zemmour. I took a look at this some weeks ago when I attempted a clean-up of the article, and I did not notice any suspicious activity. JBchrch talk 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As someone involved with the Zemmour article I also concur with JBchrch and Hemiauchenia that no activity there over the past few months has seemed like suspicious activity. I stopped watching the page some weeks ago, though, so it is possible I missed something although I trust their word nothing happened recently. I'll add that I see nothing wrong with keeping the images there if they fulfill the license requirements set by Wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not to be that guy… but is linking accounts to real-world affiliations WP:OUTING or is it OK? There were a lot of suppressed edits at Ketanji Brown Jackson and its talk pages after a report came out regarding someone who edited that page. I’m a bit confused on how the policy is supposed to be applied. Does the literal name of an individual need to be contained in an off-wiki link for it to be considered outing, rather than an affiliation of the specific editor with a third-party? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the French ANI thread and there is no attempt to connect specific accounts with real-world names. I don't see an issue here. For Ketanji Brown Jackson, the suppression was due to the fact that the accounts supposed real-life identity was mentioned in the report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure I have this right: a report that mentions a username and its affiliation with a particular article subject, but not the real-world name, is Kosher? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is the only reasonable intepretation of WP:OUTING. Nobody is suggesting that any of these accounts is Zemmour himself, but just part of his campaign. If we couldn't accuse people of having COI's with regard to certain organisations or individuals then WP:COIN would have to be shut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indef blocks now in place at fr-wiki for: fr:Cheep (talk · contribs) and fr:Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs) after 50-some votes in favor. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Also for fr:Trismegiste0 (talk · contribs), fr:Salomegrd (talk · contribs), fr:Shōkakū24 (talk · contribs), and fr:Maurice Roux (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• For information. A news article in The Guardian 17 February 2022 - French reporter infiltrates campaign of far-right presidential candidate Éric Zemmour. I read it before this thread was opened, but didn't see enough in it to get enwiki involved. Narky Blert (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Can I safely assume the members of the presidential candidate team are being compensated in some way shape or form for their efforts? That seems more than just WP:NOTHERE, but firmly into WP:PAID territory. Kleuske (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kleuske, not necessarily. At least in some countries, campaigns rely heavily on volunteers (see https://www.google.com/search?q="campaign volunteer"), so unless France is different, it's quite possible that these people aren't paid at all. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • IDK about France, but here in UK paying for campaigners is virtually unheard of. For one thing, campaign expenses are capped and must be declared; link. I'm not sure of the penalties for overspending, but they may include prosecution and rerunning the election without you. Narky Blert (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about my broken English. I tried to sum up the story here on meta: m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Clandestine task force actively promoting Eric Zemmour's presidential campaign at Wikipedia. Best regards, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: NOTHERE block of involved editors

I'll get the ball rolling—I propose that Cheep, CreativeC and Film sur Léo Major are indefinitely blocked as not here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia. This matches the French reaction to the same news, with 50 users participating in the discussion that came to an essentially universal consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: Cheep has now been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for CreativeC, which has not edited since 2019 and has not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia (blocks are not punitive, but preventative). Support for Cheep, who has actively edited in a COI manner if press reports are to be believed. I'm not sure about Film sur Léo Major: I can't identify any disruptive edits by the user. I'm unsure about if the user is a sock of Cheep being used to avoid scrutiny, or simply WP:MEAT, but that's best left for SPI. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Cheep, who has clearly done undisclosed COI work regarding Zemmour on English Wikipedia. Oppose for the others, as they have not edited English Wikipedia about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's important to respond rapidly because Wikipedia is very vulnerable to this sort of coordinated attack from high-profile figures; if there is any perception whatsoever that it produced any positive results, even temporarily, we could expect to see many more. Even for the editors who have not yet edited significantly about this in enwiki, the fact that they have declared or clearly displayed an intent to edit Wikipedia in order to advance a particular politician is sufficient to justify a preventative block per WP:NOTHERE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Cheep but not others per @Hemiauchenia: reasoning. Cinadon36 08:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom; although I agree that blocking accounts with few edits and little time on the project might be unnecessary  :) SN54129 13:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What do we think that Special:Diff/1039556531 (and Special:Diff/1039635235 and Special:Diff/1039635479 and Special:Diff/1051758630) where Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs) signs xyrself as another, non-existent, account, is all about? Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I found the answer myself. Account rename on the French Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for all of them, as they have not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia.--Emigré55 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I do not see the block as punitive for someone who isn't currently editing. It is about preventing future issues and creating an incentive to not use Wikipedia in this fashion. In this particular situation, it's the proper course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. It's a reasonable preventative step to take given the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support all three as a fully justified step based on their previous edit history, to prevent damage to the English version of the encyclopedia. Let's also recall that this is about presidential politics, and not about angels dancing on the head of a pin. A block is not a WP:BAN; they can be unblocked the day after with an appeal showing why there is no danger of the kind of damage they caused at fr-wiki that led to an explosion of articles in the French press about manipulation of Wikipedia, from being reproduced here. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• The mantra "preventative not punitive" supports blocking of editors who are likely to disrupt the English Wikipedia, rather than, as one or two people have claimed, opposing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that they have been so publicly exposed in in this regard lowers the chances that the accounts, which have not clearly engaged in past disruption on EnWiki, will be used for future Z-related disruption on EnWiki. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    • These accounts, mayhaps. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, though creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions would already be a sockpuppetry violation. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support while these accounts may have few edits here, it's clear that they were engaged in a kind of manipulation which isn't acceptable. As a BLPN regular, I appreciate it can sometimes be difficult for subjects to get even fair changes, but this very far from the way to go about getting changes to articles. I think this is one of the few cases where it's okay to block to send a message in part since the block is already justified but in addition the block may make it easier to deal with future meat or sockpuppetry. Edit: for clarity I'm referring to all 3. I'd also support blocking anyone else involved in other Wikipedias if they start to edit any article remotely related without first dealing with their CoI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 07:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support block of all three, as the two less-active accounts are de facto meatpuppets of the obviously-needs-to-be-blocked Cheep. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support blocking all three, per Phil Bridger's reasoning. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support blocks for all 3, to prevent damage; blocks can easily be undone at need. Lectonar (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack by Kingsif

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.

---

Kingsif (talk · contribs)

We've had a minor content dispute, LAME in hindsight, now resolved as a compromise has been reached for the article in question. Good. Less good is that he has just called me a "jerk" - can somebody please remind them about CIVIL? GiantSnowman 11:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I leave a friendly suggestion at your talkpage, acknowledging your good faith, you then decide to reply without context at my talkpage, and then accuse me of "concerning tendencies" and WP:OWN (both visible in the reversion you helpfully linked), seemingly based on your own wilful ignorance (you ask for confirmation of content, I say check the sources in the article, and you just don't, then bludgeon me about it) - am I not allowed to say that's being a jerk? Because it is. You need the CIVIL warning, realistically, especially adding four messages continuing to respond on my talkpage after I say to reply in the original thread. Kingsif (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I posted four times on your talk page after you told me to reply on my own talk page?! Diffs or it didn't happen. I literally left one message over two edits after you suggested to "keep it in one place" (excluding the mandatory ANI notification). GiantSnowman 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It was four in total, my mistake, a simple counting error that you don't need to get haughty(?!) about. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a simple mistake when you make accusations. Please retract. GiantSnowman 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Retracted. It was a simple mistake, so I have retracted it. Kingsif (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I've now noticed the header claims "jerk" was a personal attack, jeez, it was a reference to WP:JERK. I've learnt my lesson about using WP:DICK, but I guess I'll have to remember to link it every single time. Kingsif (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, backtracking. GiantSnowman 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are entitled to your completely wrong opinion. I am of the opinion that dragging someone to ANI over one word that even in the worst case isn't a personal attack is a massive over-escalation. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Every time I post on your talk page you revert, and your attitude towards me is crummy. ANI was the only recourse. GiantSnowman 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I felt your attitude was, as you say, crummy. That's what WP:JERK is about, by the way. FYI, I hadn't seen this response when I just started a new thread on your talkpage (suggesting that Template:uw-npa or a new thread at my talkpage reminding me yourself would have been more appropriate for how, as you say, lame this was). For completeness of reply to this: I removed the messages at my talkpage for the reasons I already gave in those removals: 1. always reply in the original thread so there is context, unless starting a new topic. 2. (only implied, but) I felt I had already given satisfactory responses and the repeated messages were unnecessary anyway. A third reason could be that the messages were being added to the bottom of a different section, but then I could have added a header myself if I thought there was a point to leaving them. Kingsif (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile at all. I simply want an acknowledgment from you that what you said was wrong, an apology, and for you to stop posting messages like this that come across as bad faith and trolling. GiantSnowman 12:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, why do you return to Kingsif's talk page after they removed your comment there, asking that the discussion remain in one place (diff)? Kingsif, obviously you called GiantSnowman a "jerk" (and no bad faith needed, jerk — diff), not acting like a jerk or WP:JERK (whatever that is).

Both of you: why is this MOS dispute even escalating like this, DYK? Anyway, Avraham Tamir is very well known in Israel. The way the nickname is mentioned in אברהם טמיר (in parenthesis), that seems sensible to me. El_C 13:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between somebody saying 'keep the discussion in one place' and 'don't post on my talk page'. But glad to see me trying to communicate with an editor is considered as bad as that editor calling me a jerk! GiantSnowman 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that you're both being oversensitive over what is minor tiff, but feel free to seek whatever intervention you think is warranted here nonetheless. I won't stand in the way. El_C 14:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody reminding Kingsif not to insult other editors (and also not to then pretend they weren't doing so) will be enough. GiantSnowman 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I already did that, above, did I not? El_C 15:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope. You only confirm what we all know (that they deliberately called me a jerk) but I see nobody telling them not to repeat it...but it's fine, I've got more important things to do than worry about basic civility being enforced here! GiantSnowman 15:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

((edit conflict) because I forgot to hit save; I have read the comments since) Beats me. A compromise was reached before the first message. That's all I have to say, except it was of course a massive timesink and I won't trust engagement with Snowman again (ANI on a hair trigger, calling me a troll for genuine suggestions, etc.), so that sucks for WP. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You could have saved the situation by a) not calling me a jerk b) not pretending you didn't c) not reverting all of my talk page posts d) not posting on my talk page accusing me of liking opening ANI threads. Those are the actions of somebody having a laugh. This is on you. GiantSnowman 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman didn't call you a "troll," Kingsif, he said you were trolling. Just like you didn't actually say they were being a jerk, but flat out called him that. This is a minor tiff, but best to not minimize what you said to him; just like he shouldn't exaggerate the gravity of your misconduct. Probably best that both of you just move on, methinks. El_C 15:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• COMMENT This is like 5-year-olds in the playground! Suggest you both learn to play nicely or there'll be two people in the naughty corner! Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• While I acknowledge the sentiment (and reject it of my own conduct), I do think an admin threatening bans for what at worst would call for an IBAN is uncalled for and inappropriate, Mj. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong hammer! El_C 17:26, 22 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.

@ScottishFinnishRadish and El C: Sorry to reopen this but I had this message overnight, clearly linked to this discussion - likely a mysterious individual with a false flag attack, but still...can somebody please do a quick SPI to rule Kingsif out? GiantSnowman 10:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. GiantSnowman, we don't ordinarily use CU to rule somebody out (especially when they've only made one edit in total). CU is WP:NOTFISHING expedition. That said, any user in good standing is entitled to file an SPI, so I'd imagine it'd be left for you to pursue. HTH. El_C 12:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)