Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095

Joseph Ladapo 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.

---

Once again vandals are editing articles to put forward less than the truth on Joseph Ladapo BLP. Ladapo issued guidance recommending against healthy children receiving a covid vaccine. User:Snooganssnoogans had previously done that last week and is now again editing the article removing sourced information as cited by the source. I posted on his talk page asking him to stop and have not rereverted his edits vandalizing the article. Do not want to edit war though someone needs to have him stop vandalistic actions and maintain NPOV policies regardless of personal bias.2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Left message of this report though not sure if he will see/notice it. Thank you2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, the removal is not vandalism. The comments you added didn't have a reliable source. Even if the claim is true, Wikipedia needs sources to back such a claim. If I understand correctly, your concern is the article says he is opposed to vaccinating children and you are saying he is opposed only to vaccinating healthy (non-risk group?) children? If true that is a significant distinction and probably should be in the article. Do you have a source for the claim so editor scan assess it? Springee (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yo should slow down and go to the same source that is referenced and read it. t says healthy children shouldnt be vaxxed...Not all children and then the other edits same source where it staes four doctors disagree...in that source it says 17,000 mds signed a letter saying they agreed with Laado advisement. That is the other edit u removed with poor edits. When editing an article and reverting others good faith edits it would be wise to check the source and do due diligence to ascertain what the correct edit is. Please revert your incorrect edits to Ladapo and stop vandalizing the BLP 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what the source states. It is the same source that editors keep changing to remove the word healthy. The source is "The Palm Beach Post" That is the very source and only source in that portion of the paragraph. It is the source for the 17,000 doctors letter agreeing with SG Joseph Lapado of Florida. The edits by snoggins need to be self reverted maybe that will stop his vandalism. Thank you 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) SORRY DONT KNOW HOW TO SHRINK THIS DOWN...

That is exactly vandalistic behavior...editing an article to put forward an untruth. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation that healthy children in Florida not be vaccinated against COVID-19. In doing so, Florida became the first state in the US to issue such a recommendation. The recommendation was contrary to that of the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics

Now there is the aragraph in question...gee looks like it is a cited source though must admit if i had no NPOV Ii "might" say it isnt sourced or its not what the sourcesays. Check it out and the article needs to be reverted back back snoggins...2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not call this vandalism again. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations of vandalism can result in you being blocked from editing. Vandalism does not mean "edits I disagree with." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats really funny... that is exactly what vandalism is editing an article in opposition to what a reliable source says. That is also bias and a violation of NPOV on Wikipedia. The source's article is titled "Florida to be first state to recommend healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC". the source is "The Palm Beach Post". published 7 March 2022. The source actually says "healthy children" (believe it or not)

When an editor redacts the word healthy and allows the BLP to say just "children" that is misleading the reading public and dishonest. Whenever I see something I don't believe, I don't just edit the article to make it say what I believe the source says...I read the source and act and edit appropriately. Don't you? Otherwise Wikipedia would become a mishmash of people's bias and lack a neutral point of view which Wikipedia desires to avoid. The article needs to be reverted to correct the vandalism. Have a nice day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep insisting on using inaccurate words. The removal of the "healthy" thing clearly was not vandalism as other editors have told you. It was a BLP violation which frankly is far more serious than vandalism so it's particularly silly that you insist on calling it something that it isn't. However this time around, AFAICT, it was fixed in ~15 hours [1] and has not been removed since. So while not ideal it's a meh situation. In the mean time you've been trying to add nonsense to the article, and have sometimes removed important information both before and after the recent flareup over the "healthy" thing so it's not like you've been helping the situation. I'd note that despite your apparent desire to add this nonsense to the article, you made no attempt to discuss it while the page was protected. And you've still made no effort to really discuss anything on the talk page beyond the healthy thing (for which there is no disagreement it belongs) and some generic rants. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Non-Admin comment Added reflist so references are contained in this section, rather than being appended at the bottom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

telegra.ph

I've seen a couple of attempts to use this domain in the past couple of days to create hoaxes, based on legitimate-appearing hoax content hosted there. See [2] and [3] both blocked. I am uncertain if this is more widespread than this, but it probably deserves blacklist attention if it is. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You can make this request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I mention it here first for a broader audience to see if anybody else has seen this trend. I've blocked a named account and an IP already. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this domain is not expected to host RS content, though now, when pretty much all independent Russian media have been blocked, sometimes people use it to repost there publications from blocked media. Anyway, probably should be blacklisted.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though it could be used to rehost RS content, there's no reason why we should use a mirror over the original RS in the first place. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes sense to me, if the original is available. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuous Disruptive Edits by User:NishaRawal 31

NishaRawal 31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): The User is repeatedly using excessive cheap, abusive and fandom language on Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin just to show one character as the "only good character" and the rest other characters as negative. Also she's creating negative image for Neil Bhatt and his wife Aishwarya Sharma Bhatt who plays Virat and Patralekha in the series respectively by combining their personal as well as reel lives. And the point to be noted is that she's using exactly same language which an IP used soon before pages semi-protection today. The User has been warned several times still she isn't stopping herself. I'm providing links to those edits[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. See after I reverted her edits she did it again and used exactly same language which she used with another fellow editor Manali Jain. It's more than evident that she's here just to make "Wikipedia Article a Fan Page of Ayesha Singh playing Sai" and she isn't following wikipedia rules and ignoring all warnings just to show one particular character in good light and rest all in negative light. Administrators please look into this matter Pri2000 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am regular viewer of Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin and updated its plot on Wikipedia. However, some non-regular viewer are having a problem with plot. Request you to speak with serial makers and writers instead of reporting account on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishaRawal 31 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Administrators can see what she's saying. I mentioned in edit summary also that wikipedia runs over some rules not on personal views even after someone is regular viewer or not. And after experiencing wikipedia editing for over 9 months I understood that it isn't fan page but an encyclopedia where fan language can't be used and plot can't be updated daily. The User even removed her warning messages.Pri2000 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure what is going on here. They claim they do not know how to reply (but have done so here), but then they also constantly (including here (now removed)) use massage instead of message (hard to see how that is in any way possible). And in a way that dos make some grammatical sense (if it was meant as a joke). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Translation: The editor is repeatedly deleting a {{Long plot|section|date=March 2022}} notice and adding huge amounts of text that is full of editorization and unsourced analysis (example: "Terrorist"), which is not plot summary, in broken English (example: "Sai gets hurt while grinding but Pakhi enjoy it and makes her fun."), to an article that already has an overlong plot summary section full of broken English (example: "Sai convince Samrat to return home and Samrat gets agree."). The "Is this thing on?" discussion on the user talk page is probably peripheral. The best edit to happen to that article recently is Special:Diff/1079723040. That really is a pile of junk, nearly incomprehensible to readers. I think the best action here is to request: please stop adding more of this barely comprehensible junk to Wikipedia, NishaRawal 31. What you are adding to is already bad. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

KingsofLondon's disruptive editing

• KingsofLondon (talk · contribs)

Please have a look to this user's disruptive edits. He'd arleady been given a 4im warn but he's still disruptive. We've tried to explain him what he'd done wrong but doesn't want to listen to us. Dr Salvus 08:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for disruptive behaviour? I went through some of the edits that triggered warnings on his talk page... seriously? Given a warning for inserting the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on Kimi Räikkönen (who retired in 2021)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, there are unsourced info 1, 2, 3, 4. There are also other unsourced edits. The last uncostructive edit is 5 (updated the infobox but didn't the table) Dr Salvus 10:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The first diff he added information to state that Hayden Mullins was no longer manager of Colchester United. He was correct. Has anyone actually tried working with him rather than biting? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Warren, Andy (January 19, 2022), "Colchester sack Mullins as ex-Town defender takes interim charge of U's", East Anglian Daily Times, retrieved March 27, 2022

It does not appear the user has any intention of communicating having never posted on any talk page or even used an edit summary. SK2242 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Don't claim they have no intention when they probably have no indication at all that anyone is trying to communicate with them. Fram (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do then? How do we try and get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We usually block them, but with a note that gently indicates why they were blocked, not something that makes them feel like a deliberate vandal. And if it were up to me, any time we have to block someone for the "theycanthearyou" reason, we should also block one of the people from the company actually responsible for this already long known major issue, i.e. someone with a (WMF) account. Perhaps by the time all of them are blocked from enwiki, they'll start to realise that this is a serious issue, much more so than the things they usually spend their time on. Would that be blocking people over something they personally perhaps can't solve? Well, right, but that's exactly what we have to do with these mobile editors... Fram (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It may well be that it is necessary to issue a block to Kingsoflondon, but as things stand we'll probably lose them as an editor as the talk page is plastered with templates that can look threatening to a new user. KingsofLondon looks to be attempting to edit in good faith and could turn out to be a net positive to the encyclopedia if gently nudged. If a block is needed to that end then it would be helpful if it is clear that the block is being placed as blocks are meant to be placed, i.e. preventatively rather than punitively. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The templating at the KingsofLondon's talk page is a textbook example of how to not treat new users. The initial level one template made by Egghead06 (talk · contribs) was unnecessary. It related to an addition that didn't appear controversial in the slightest and took seconds to verify. Still, as per WP:UWLS, no major problem as it assumes good faith. The edit that "earned" them a level 3 warning from TylerBurden (talk · contribs) was to place the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on retired F1 driver, Kimi Räikkönen's article. Bear in mind that a level 3 warning assumes bad faith and that the warning states "content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy." Is it?

Further to this KingsofLondon was given a level 4 warning by SK2242 (talk · contribs) "Final Warning-Assumes bad faith, strong cease and desist, last warning" for updating Mark Goldbridge's article with his birthdate in the infobox and lead. "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Goldbridge". His date of birth is in the article and it is sourced. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I trusted too much to the users who've given the warns and so I hadn't had a look to the user's edits Dr Salvus 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You can't just look at a bunch of warnings and report someone to ANI, you need to actually investigate their behaviour yourself and provide diffs. TylerBurden (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: Kimi Räikkönen isn't a retired racing driver as a whole, he retired from Formula One. There are other motorsports than Formula One, and he has participated in them. Changing the article with no sources provided to imply that he would be fully retired is a BLP violation, and I don't see why you take such issue with giving a level three warning for that since they had already recieved a level two earlier that month for inserting unsourced content. I have no idea why this user has ended up here, can't say I'm shocked to see someone violating BLP did though. TylerBurden (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Because it wasn't remotely a violation of BLP, should not have been viewed as bad faith, and was not defamatory or in violation of Wikipedia policy. We have behavioral guidelines to inform how we treat newcomers. Please read WP:BITE. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How is inserting unsourced material into a BLP article not a BLP violation? TylerBurden (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a valid interpretation of "retired". Whether it fits in terms of nuance would be up for discussion... which you finally did with another editor after getting involved in an edit war. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Writing him as retired in the lead makes it look as if he's retired from racing, him retiring from Formula One is well sourced, him retiring from motorsport as a whole is not. It should not be up to our "interpretation" as editors to determine if a man has retired from his job, it should be reliable sources. Either way that issue is solved, they did not make an edit again and consensus was reached on the talk page. To be pinged months later here and have an admin seemingly not be able to grasp the concept of BLP is almost absurd. Either way I have no interest in this discussion, I'll have a look at WP:BITE but I doubt it will change my mind about this particular warning. Adios and good luck. TylerBurden (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"His date of birth is in the article and it is sourced" - Blatantly untrue, and you would have known that by actually clicking on the source to see it doesn't mention a birthdate of 7 April. SK2242 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight. In Special:Diff/1074845641 someone else adds to the birth date, and all that KingsofLondon does in Special:Diff/1077868990 is transfer that from the "Personal life" section to the infobox and introduction — and rather than the person who added the information getting the warning (User talk:42.2.113.108 does not even exist right now.), the person who merely transferred what was already in the article to an infobox gets a warning. Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Was it a bad faith edit on the part of KingsofLondon? A level 3 warning assumes bad faith. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Posts in a RFC moved around and deleted by the OP

User:Iskandar323 started a RFC about removing a quote from the lead of an article, but when the majority of editors started to suggest that the quote could be replaced with content from multiple sources instead, Iskandar323 started to change the format of the RFC and order of the comments[18][19], also deleting one of my posts [20]. I asked Iskandar323 to self-revert, but he did not and is saying he did this because editors are not understanding the RFC [21](but to me the RFC now is not neutral as it doesn’t reflect what the majority support). Another editor also said Iskandar shouldn’t be doing this[22], and from the start another editor was already saying that Iskandar had not posed the RFC in a neutral way [23]. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1077701669 is where the opener addressed that by moving xyr opinion out of the question, ten days ago, noting that xe had never done an RFC before. And Special:Diff/1079164565 is where xe collapsed the metadiscussion now that xyr own opinion is not part of the question, and added separate sections for Support/Oppose statements and discussion (not deleting anyone's comments) per Project:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate votes from discussion. It looks like Iskandar323 took the original criticism on board, went and found out about RFCs, refactored to be more neutral, tried to follow the example given for how RFCs are structured, and collapsed the now moot metadiscussion so that you could all get on with the actual question at hand.

  No, this is not a "shambles" as Hogo-2020 put it. This actually looks more like a normally stuctured RFC. And if Hogo-2020 wants to support/oppose a simple question of whether a quote should be in the lead, then xe needs to state something definitive, one way or the other, not "If Abrahamian’s quote is removed …".

  Quite honestly, if you are going to sneak extra things into a revert like you did at Special:Diff/1079183864 you should be prepared in good grace for other people to miss them.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Uncle G: I'm impressed by how quickly you untangled that. I was scratching my head over where to even begin explaining, but you've summed it up very well. As you say, I had completely missed the added comments bound up in Special:Diff/1079183864 because it looked like a revert, and the edit comment read like a revert explanation, and I didn't reckon on new material being interpolated into the mix. I added in the separate votes/discussion subheads because the RFC was rapidly growing in complexity, with comments bouncing around all over the place, and it needed some structure. Neither @Fad Ariff or @Hogo-2020 have spent much time outside of this one talk page and I don't think they've ever seen an RFC before, so I wanted to make what was required in terms of response format etc. more clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this required simple clerking, which I have now done. The filer of an RfC should not be clerking that RfC, as they are as involved as it gets. And they certainly should avoid using terms like "vandalism" needlessly. Anyway, hope it'll be smooth sailing from this point on, but it's the MEK page, so shenanigans are sort of expected. El_C 13:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @El C: Yes, in hindsight, clerking your own RFC probably isn't a good idea! But there didn't seem to be anyone else around. I had been pondering what outside clerking options might be available ... is there a process for requesting help with clerking? Apologies for the 'vandalism' comment - it was made in ire and I regretted it, but edit comments being the irreversible things they are... Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, you can report problems with an RfC here, or use {{admin help}}. Not only is this a page subject to WP:ACDS, but it's the page that led to WP:GS/IRANPOL and later WP:ARBIRP. No one but admins should be clerking the MEK talk page, pretty much ever. El_C 13:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I had no idea the page has such an illustrious history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: thank you for fixing this. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Another range block needed; LTA IP hopper

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

---

• 2603:8000:a403:8807::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This LTA IP hopper is at it since 2018/2019, pursuing a pro-North Caucasus and anti-Iran narrative on Wikipedia (inflating figures, removing sourced content, adding unsourced content, messing with categories, etc.) Admin EdJohnston issued them another range block in December 2021,[24] which has now ended. So, yet again, he's at it. Could any admin reinstate the range block? Every time they were range blocked it prevented all disruption basically. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, as you can see in the block log, Ponyo and Oshwah range blocked them priorly too. They are quite determined, as they are almost literally counting days every time they are blocked. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a /64 range, which is super-narrow - most likely just one person or household, so no fear of collateral. I've blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 1 April 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.

LTA IP

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.

---

Long term abuse by IP, see 77.57.64.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Changes year to 2014 or earlier. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 years. El_C 18:11, 1 April 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.

Attention seeking Sock disrupting pages

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

---

Barbosa9o (talk · contribs) is vandalizing pages while the SPI is awaiting Admin action. An admin should block. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BhaktaDASS. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Returned as Alluarjun99. Please block. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin should also consider a semi protection for my user talk page.--Venkat TL (talk) 11:51, 1 April 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.

More mid-Michigan vandalism

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock.
• 2601:405:4600:5F80:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There's a vandal in the area of Lansing, Michigan, US, who was previously rangeblocked for three months as Special:Contributions/2601:405:4600:DFC0:0:0:0:0/64, after discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock. They are now using the /64 of 2601:405:4600:5F80, doing the same stuff, for instance changing a mixtape to a studio album,[25] adding non-notable names to a record label,[26] and adding unsupported "associated acts" to the infobox.[27]

Can we get a suitable rangeblock?

Who is this? How can I find out who the OP is? Help me please! Erm: Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 03:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast work. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I was channeling James Randal (help me, please!), you know, as I do (nobody cares!). El_C 08:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discospinster history of miss truths Bulling and violates copy writes

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 page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

21:30, 8 March 2022 Discospinster talk contribs deleted page User:Discospinster/Shona Macdonald (G3: Vandalism) 03:21, 21 January 2022 LuK3 talk contribs deleted page User:Discospinster/Shona Macdonald (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) 18:03, 3 January 2022 Discospinster talk contribs deleted page User:Discospinster/Shona Macdonald (G7: One author who has requested deletion – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.119.70 (talk)

• First of all, the big red box at the top stated that you are required to have notified Discospinster as to this discussion, which you neglected to do. Secondly, this is probably an IP sock of NLEJAY223 or Hellobozo111 (or both), considering the userpage that is described in the body is [28]. Curbon7 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't even work out what this is about. Is there an issue that anyone wants us to look at, or are we meant to figure that out for ourselves? Girth Summit _(blether) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I read the other day that Zzuuzz was gay and apparently that was bad--what's the dirt on Discospinster? Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 April 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.

Truth3v3r

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.

---

Truth3v3r (talk · contribs) is a very new account who seems to be here to "right great wrongs" within the Israel-Palestine area. [29], [30], [31], [32]. Does not appear to me to be a productive editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that name will continue the rule for usernames with Truth in them. At least they always advertise in advance. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Editor continuing to add unsourced BLP info including WP:DOB after 2 final warnings

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

---

• 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Dmytro Lubinets (diff):. Repeated addition of unsourced dates of birth for living people after 2 recent final warnings on adding unsourced material, including one 11 days ago specifically for dates of birth issues. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I actually searched it up to make sure and also created the page Dmytro Lubinets. 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you looked it up somewhere, you need to include that source as a supporting citation at the time you add the information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Paddington (film series)

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.

---

• Paddington (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

reporting user Richard75 for vandalism of the Paddington (film series) page he is adding information that does not relate to the English version of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxlongy420 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some diffs are Special:Diff/1074392962 ("Volodymyr Zelenskyy") where Richard75 adds material sourced to The Guardian and Special:Diff/1080057521 ("removed information that can be found on IMDB") where Oxlongy420 removes it because IMDB has this information too. In Special:Diff/1079697073 120.144.54.55 does not supply any reasoning in the edit summary. Uncle G (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Content of the report aside, the big red box at the top of this page clearly states that the reporter is required to notify the involved user of this report on their talk page, which you didn't do. Curbon7 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this allegation has been made in bad faith, because by no stretch of the imagination can this be considered vandalism. However, to address the edit, there is nothing to suggest that the scope of the article is confined to the English language version of the film, and no reason why it can't mention other language versions where there is something notable or worthwhile to say about it. We're hardly going to start a new article about the Ukrainian Paddington after all. It is disingenuous to ask (as has been done in a recent edit summary) "why not add every voiceover artist for every language?" because only one of them is the president of a country. Zelensky is notable because he is president of Ukraine and is currently in the news every day, so it's a fact worth mentioning as of potential interest to the reader -- not only in his own article but also in this one. Saying "this information is already available on IMDB" is a preposterous objection; following it to its logical conclusion, none of Wikipedia's film articles would contain any information at all. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to include. (Paddington is the only article Oxlongy420 has ever edited, I wonder what this is really all about?) Richard75 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Richard75: I agree with you in that the report is rather unusual. They have been very quick to run to ANI here.

  Nevertheless, we must sanction you, because you are obviously a vandal. Indeed, all your edits are clearly blatant vandalism.

  So here goes: "You are very naughty, you must promise not to vandalise again, OK? Or else I will do my grumpy face."

  Sanction applied.

  😋

  Now to the OP, Oxylongy420. First of all, what does the "420" in your username mean? I usually see that number only used in the usernames of vandal accounts, ironically.

  Second, read Wikipedia:What vandalism is not, because Richard75's edits were absolutely not vandalism. All they did was add information which is notable, like adding Ronald Reagan's name into a film where he held a role which would otherwise not have been notable.

  Third, please don't be so quick to drag another editor to ANI again, as doing so here has been a waste of time and energy. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Repetitive long-term addition of unsourced political candidacy

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.

---

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

While I admit that this isn't as urgent as many others on here, the first user kept on adding an unsourced candidacy to the 2022 Austin mayoral election page at least 4 times from last month and I added reliable source and disruptive editing warning templates to their talk page. 11 days after their last edit, another user, with a username matching the apparent candidate itself, added the same thing as the first one. [33] [34] —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• There are no other contributions by either account; and either this is a hoax (which it appears to be as I cannot find any confirmation), or political soapboaxing rather than genuine attempts to write Wikipedia. It seems that there is an actual person with the (full) name given, so the second account is, further, either an impersonator or an undeclared conflict of interest. So there are lots of reasons for taking the editing privileges away, which I have just done. It's also sockpuppetry, by straightforward behavioural analysis, albeit serial rather than concurrent. Uncle G (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Edits on Babymetal and Suzuka Nakamoto

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

---

An anonymous IP has been recently been making edits on Babymetal and Suzuka Nakamoto (a member of Babymetal) regarding the current status of the band. The band is currently on hiatus, but consensus is they have not disbanded and thus the article(s) should be written in present tense and the "years active" in the infobox should read "2010-present". The IP has been making edits has been making edits in contradiction to this consensus, very similar to edits they were making a little over a month ago. Edits for which they received a month long ban.DragonFury (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to quickly add: the IP has now taken to direct insults in their edit comments (see their recent edit on Babymetal.DragonFury (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for three months. This is their third block. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

JPL topic ban violation

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

---

This user continutes to violate their topic ban relating to religion or religious figures, broadly construed with this edit. The closing comments on the original topic ban said that it "should be apparent from categories" if the article is in scope. The article in question mentions the Yiddish Theater District, Central European Jews and Eastern European Jewish immigrant(s) in the lead, along with the categories of Category:Jewish American composers and Category:20th-century American Jews.

JPL was blocked on 7 December 2021 for one week for violating the ban. Another ANI thread was closed just three weeks later, with the closing comments of "draw JPL's attention to the fact that many users think this was a topic ban violation, and many users in good standing supported the block proposal. Next time, they might be in majority, and it is your direct interest to make sure that there is no next time".

JPL seems to be acting against the requirements of the topic ban once again. StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is being Jewish being a religious figure? Is being Christian? What about being athiest? The person is a composer, not a religious figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Being Jewish does not make one a religious figure. Speaking Yiddish does not make one a religious figure. Indeed, even penning a work about the golem, a figure of Jewish legend, does not make one a religious figure. JPL has indeed (by my lights) violated his ban in the past. This is not that. But by all means, keep watching. I am sure something will turn up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not a violation. Ellstein was Jewish, but the article does not mention religion or religious leaders. JPL's edit had nothing to do with religion or religious leaders. A fuller quote of the comment that the TBAN closer was citing includes "But unless an article subject was in ministry, whether ordained or lay, or led a church or religious company, or is a journalist or essayist who wrote on religious topics, they should be fine. This should be apparent from categories ...". The kinds of categories that matter here are ones that indicate religion is an important part of the biography, not ones that just note a subject's religious or ethno-religious affilitations. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose In my understanding these are ethnic issues. This is a language based organization involvement and ethnic and language based organizations. This is ethnic and linguistic in nature clearly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• The topic ban reads, from the link above, articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. OP, you have a bit of a misunderstanding about Jewishness and Judaism. Advise starting with Who is a Jew? and Jewish culture. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• This type of editing is not what was intended to be stopped by the tban. ––FormalDude talk 20:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Something related to the incident at Murder of Jeanne Clery

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.

---

Today I was patrolling and came upon this diff, it got reverted by User:LPS and MLP Fan for original research. I don't know if this is valid or not, but I thought that this incident should come into the notice of administrators. Maybe personally contacting User talk:2600:1700:1FC0:A260:BDBA:4860:87ED:CFAC to scout for more information may help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir Shane (talk • contribs)

It doesn't seem that different from the account of the crime. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Emir Shane and Catfish Jim and the soapdish, First, I think that this discussion would be more appropriate on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Anyway, I read Wikipedia's no original research policy, the article, and its sources. When I read the reference from People, I saw some content about drinking, which the IP mentioned in their edit. However, the drinking was done by the perpetrator, no the victim, as they said. Furthermore, the IP used opinions and first-person language in addition to original research. Now, I would like to ask, why should this be noticed by administrators? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Unclear... trying to figure it out. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Emir Shane - you haven't explained why you think this needs administrative attention. On the face of it, I see someone posting their own experiences into an article, and another editor correctly removing them. What action do you think is needed here? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

concur... Is there something you think we can or should do in relation to the edit? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit _(blether), Catfish Jim and the soapdish & LPS and MLP Fan. Thanks for taking part in the discussion. I'm not saying that any administrator should take any steps or do anything. If any step was needed I would have gone to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I simply wanted to bring light about the edit which I conclude was of quite serious in nature, as stated by the initial author in his/her edit "I have not said anything until now. This is the only way I know to get the word out. I hope someone reads this." Maybe the author did want to shed light about the event. I know it is original research (These words confirm it "I have information on this murder that was not shared with the press."). If possible I would suggest that we personally contact User talk:2600:1700:1FC0:A260:BDBA:4860:87ED:CFAC to see what they wanted in the first place and if they have any more information. Like why would someone adopt this method of adding information when one can simply forget about it. There is a possibility that the author may have some undisclosed information. If not, then ofcourse there is nothing more to be done. Emir Shane (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• The OP, User:Emir Shane, has been CU blocked as a sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

promotion of 86.26.234.66

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

---

This IP user promotion after blocked on his own talk page, so a TPA is requested. Thanks a lot!Pavlov2 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

86.26.234.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Pavlov2 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. TP access removed for duration of block. Deor (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Thebrakeman2 fresh off a block, back to name-calling and belittling

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.

---

Thebrakeman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for chronic WP:CIVIL issues as a result of this recent discussion on ANI. Less than a week off @Cullen328:'s block, this editor is back at it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Thebrakeman2 for two weeks for their ongoing pattern of making personal attacks on other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also continuing to mark almost all of their edits as minor despite being warned about it previously. Gusfriend (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Sendtoanthony - Personal attacks and polemics

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.

---

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

I am possibly WP:INVOLVED so I am coming here to request a block for violations of WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:POLEMIC in the following edits:

• "How can a "trans woman" be a "woman" when the definition (according to Wikipedia) of "woman" is "adult human female" and a female (according to Wikipedia) produces ova? Can so-called "trans women" produce ova? Are their gametes larger than a males? Do they have XX chromosomes? No? Then they're not female. So they can't be an adult human female. They cannot be a woman. Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Wokepedia to reflect its ideological bias"
• "I pointed out that Wikipedia is not living up to its own standard of being unbiased. It is clearly biased in favor of Leftist ideology. Now go fuck yourself little shit."
• "In reading your profile it's clear that you are an extreme Leftist. "Expressing of personal views" is what YOU do on Wikipedia. You just want to have a monopoly on the narrative. Typical leftist intolerance of anything but their own ideology."

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I would advise an indefinite block if that behavior resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

BESmith2022 - disruption/promotion

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.

---

So the user BESmith2022 on the 23rd of March decided to make 2 edits on Kim Thayil and the article talk page about how they are romantically involved with them - not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia - then, today, they decide to make Raccoonpawz’a talk page with the message ‘ Raccoonpawz! I need your help!

I'm searching for Mr Verbinski for many years. Please, after contacting caa, Jimmy Sloan, Margaret Herrick Library (still closed) I have yet to speak with Gore regarding a screenplay he liked that I wrote in the early 2000s: FULL SERVICE.

I've been writing again. However, he has the only known copy.

Be a lamb and make it happen!

Also, I'm crossing my fingers for him to be my director.

Ty!!

Brittany Elaine Smith PKA Eva Barrett’, now I am not sure what their userpage said as it was deleted under U5, but I can imagine it went the same way as the other edits did. Either way, I believe the user needs blocking under WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, Zippybonzo | talk 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It also looks like they went to great lengths to find someone with interest in the person they were looking for. Zippybonzo | talk 16:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE. Blocked indef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Question

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.

---

Are words "vote" and "re-elect" not allowed in Wikipedia because I noticed that User:Jaymark 220 is keeping on putting those words in some Philippine local election articles here, meaning he is campaigning for a party or a politician. BTW, I have sent him a message in his talkpage regarding this issue. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The words are fine, the context is what matters. What is happening here is pure disruptive editing to draw attention to a particular candidate in Wikipedia's voice, and that's not okay. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. What shall I do if he make edits like that in other pages? NewManila2000 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 72 hours for violating WP:SOAPBOX. NewManila2000, please revert edits like this immediately whenever you see them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

promotion of User:Xgen college of visual art

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 promotes himself after being blocked, using his talk page, could any sysop revoke his talk page access? Pavlov2 (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 08:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

BilledMammal is unnecessarily hostile and rude

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.

---

BilledMammal continues to be very hostile and rude in almost every interaction we have. Just now I attempted to politely ask them on their talk page to consolidate their comments on the Port Elizabeth move request for clarity. They just deleted my comment after saying Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY [35]. I used the word "votes" when I should have used the word "comments" and I apologized for that. I then asked them to please stop being so hostile and rude while rephrasing my request by using "comments" instead of "votes" and that was deleted without discussion [36]. I know this will immediately lead to a WP:BOOMERANG request for myself but all I am saying is what happened and my many mistakes, including my previous block, are available to see. They also appear to be sealioning on the Mount Frere move request here: [37]. It can genuinely feel like their disagreement is with me rather than with the content of the article. It is difficult to interact with them and feel like it is productive or in good faith. I personally feel like I have assumed good faith to the point of absurdity and engaged in many discussions that go nowhere.

I did consider posting concerns to the WP:DISPUTE resolution noticeboard but given that my complaint is about more than a single issue and not article content, I felt like this was the right place to go.

A few more examples:

Dogpiling when admins have already made their position clear while editing guidelines and then citing them to me: [38]

They make arguments that seem to go directly against what a policy appears to say: [39] - Sorry this is the same diff I cited above when I mentioned sealioning. Not going to remove it just needed to clarify.

We have had many more arguments that can feel like they are not in good faith. It really seems like they have a problem with me as an editor more than anything else. I have really tried to be as polite as possible while occasionally losing my cool like in this instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilledMammal#Wikipedia_isn't_a_competition

I hope it is at least somewhat clear that I am trying to engage in discussion. I am not even asking for a block, just some kind of "chill out" message or something. Desertambition (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I should have explained myself better at my user page, and I apologize for not doing so, but this is a user who regularly accuses editors they disagree with, including myself, of misbehaviour, and I did not feel up to an extended talk page discussion with them - for examples, see the other ANI discussion that they have recently opened, on Spekkios and Nemov, as well as comments on editors talk page such as this comment on Toddy1's.

To better explain myself now, I have restored my last response to your query. I also note that I did edit my response in order to hopefully address your concerns - note that I didn't merge them, per the linked response, and since editors had referenced both of them to merge them would violate WP:TALK#REPLIED. I also note that I reverted my WP:NOTDEMOCRACY response one minute later, before you responded, and replaced it with a longer response as I did feel I should elaborate. As can be seen in that longer response, it was intended to address any concerns you have about the closer counting votes, and not in response to your choice of words. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: On this diff, having two separate bolded answers is not exactly best community practice. Why even introduce the issue for other editors/the closer? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

My first response was procedural, call for the move request to be closed, as I felt it was too soon based on the number of recent move requests and the closing statement of the most recent request. When an editor expressed support for the move, I then addressed the proposal itself. I didn't strike the first response, as I still believed that the request was too soon, and I didn't expand that response, as it had already been addressed in Desertambitions response to Spekkios. BilledMammal (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm avoiding interaction with Desertambition. I've made my point.[40]. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Looking over these diffs, the first two are to BilledMammal's own talk page. He has the absolute right to delete comments made there, for whatever reason, good, bad or indifferent.

The third diff is "They are from independent, reliable, English-language sources, but they don't determine prevalence. I won't bother to provide the specific examples as your response makes me think you won't find them persuasive - if anyone else would like them then please ping me."

The fourth diff is "Desertambition, in line with CaptainEek's comments, I would suggest reading WP:DISPUTE, specifically WP:CONTENTDISPUTE."

I'm having a hard time figuring out what could be objectionable about any of these -- even presuming you have a very thin skin -- and I'm curious as to what you find ANI-worthy in them. ANI is for serious issues, not for teeing off on any editor who says something you dislike or does something you dislike. Nor is the definition of "not acting in good faith" holding a position with which you disagree. Ravenswing 08:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like their response: "They are from independent, reliable, English-language sources, but they don't determine prevalence. I won't bother to provide the specific examples as your response makes me think you won't find them persuasive - if anyone else would like them then please ping me." is unnecessary and makes it sound like we are supposed to WP:SATISFY BilledMammal. They are also saying the exact opposite of what the WP:COMMONAME policy states and I don't feel like their response is productive or collegial at all.

While they are free to do anything with their talk page, I don't feel like their response was reasonable or productive. Also saying I have very thin skin is a little unnecessary, even if you're just heavily implying it instead of saying it outright. It is hard to know what would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME if not the exact text of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Desertambition (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's important to note that you are not an admin. That doesn't dismiss what you said, but the condescension is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. I thought this was an admin basically telling me to close the request. I understand anyone is able to give their opinion but your comment was highly misleading and led to me attempting to withdraw the request. Just want to make it clear that the complaint still stands. Desertambition (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I am neither an admin, nor hold myself out to be one, and yes, anyone is able to give their opinion here. That's something I sometimes do. An admin telling you to close down your request and go away would tell you to close down your request and go away (not that, in practice, admins do that at ANI). Claiming that my comment was in any way, shape or form "misleading," to the point that you'd seek to shut down your own ANI complaint, is not the way to convince us that you're neither overreacting nor are prone to read things into other people's words that aren't actually there. Given other disquieting behavior for which you've been blocked multiple times in the last couple months [41][42], including your creation of a list of editors you suspect of being neo-Nazis [43], our concern here is not unfounded. This is, by my count, the sixth ANI or AN discussion in which you've either initiated or been involved in the last three months, and at some point, we have to question whether you're a trouble magnet or the opposite. Ravenswing 02:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Should that list still be accessible on Wikipedia? I know I wouldn't be happy if I was on it.Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(not an admin): Desertambition, could you please delete that material? Per WP:POLEMIC, you can collect material/evidence about other editors alleged misconduct if it's to be used in a dispute resolution process "in a timely manner". Your list has been around too long for that to be the case. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, with NO editor on that list having been blocked, and three still active, I'd think it was revdel country myself. Were I on that list, I would be one whole effing lot less mellow than Slywriter would be over it. Ravenswing 02:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't read Ravenswing's comments as condescending at all. Rather, I see a good faith effort to understand the dispute and provide feedback. Like Ravenswing, I've read your responses to this discussion with concern. I think you need to take a step back and assume a little good faith. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: Please don't remove reports from ANI once they've recieved replies, even if its your own report. If its not actionable, it'll just be closed and archived away. Thank you :) ~TNT (talk • she/her) 16:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you, sorry about that. Didn't realize. Desertambition (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all :) ~TNT (talk • she/her) 16:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I tried to delete this complaint after mistakenly believing an admin was telling me to close the request and go away. That may still be the case but I was misunderstanding the situation. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I stand by the complaint and would like a bit more input if possible/reasonable. Desertambition (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 8

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 LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

1. Special:Contributions/219.73.95.20.
2. Special:Contributions/219.77.184.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 27 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 04:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

nnnn. El_C 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/58.153.0.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 23 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

bllllll. El_C 09:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

IP user 112.198.97.45 disrupt pages on some major airports

This IP user 112.198.97.45 (talk) (contributions) had been disrupt the pages like Ninoy Aquino International Airport and Tan Son Nhat International Airport. I already warned the user to stop the disrupt edit if they still continue to disrupt edit. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

FelicityWiki reported by Comedymod

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• FelicityWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedymod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Gordillo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a request to restore Special:Diff/1068022507 to the last edit on 26th January 2022.

User FelicityWiki has made edits that subtly defames John Gordillo as you can tell by

unlinking his website removing links to his "Podcast for Kel" podcast editing the main content to make it seem less favourable about his achievements and editing to seem he's generally an unfavorable character I know John Gordillo personally and have given my attention to this so I created an account to appeal to administrators to have the page restored to the last version before FelicityWiki edited the page who we both believe it's someone who has continually engaged in online harassment against John on every social media platform and now seeks to defame him further.

John and I have decided to directly appeal to administrators instead of engaging FelicityWiki as, historically she has been hostile and we both believe this would be a waste of time. We are appealing for swift action on these defamatory edits which can clearly be differentiated by reading the current Vs previous versions.

This page also has had a history of malicious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedymod (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comedymod,

• If clearly problematic content is currently present in the article, please go ahead and remove it. If WP:PAID applies to you, please provide the required disclosure in your edit summary when doing so.
• If there is currently no problematic content present in the article, and your concern is purely about the lack of content you'd like to see included, please do not edit the article directly. Instead, click "Talk" above the article, then "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange box at the top of the talk page.

That's pretty much it. Remove factually incorrect statements if there are factually incorrect statements. Discuss any other kinds of desired changes on the article's talk page. See WP:FAQ/Article subjects for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing defamatory at all, but simply the removal of clear advertising. The only defamatory content I see is your post above, which defames User:FelicityWiki. Are we really supposed to find someone with such a pompous friend funny? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed some content in revision 1079425700, which may have been the main concern (undue weight; potential verifiability / source reliability issues). I can't read minds, though, and if there is truly problematic content currently in the article, we do allow its removal even by closely connected editors as described in WP:BLP, even before discussing the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits FelicityWiki made as well; they did not remove any podcast link that I could see, nor did they touch the website (which appears to be dead anyhow; it's a Wix parking page). Other edits certainly looked to be reasonable and aimed at making the article neutral and factual. There's a distinct lack of WP:AGF in the claims made. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made a full rebuttal on the talk page. I use the citations already in the article to demonstrate why the edits seem biased. The page has been under attack before. Perhaps I should not have gone all guns blazing, but anyone who is supposed to check the information could read the citations in their entirety to see that the edits walk a line.

I do however thank you all for correcting my approach, of course I don't expect you to read minds but I hope you give my reasonings the same weight as you did these other edits. Comedymod (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Comedymod. Editing of this page attempts to: establish a neutral tone and a factual oversight of a career. In my research I looked for notable reviews to justify their inclusion and used other comedian's profiles as a template. FelicityWiki (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ban after a single revert

User:Ohnoitsjamie initiated a ban after I reverted someone's revert. This was not done with malicious intent. The administrator did not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing linked by the administrator. They left a title of ban evasion though this was my one action that I have done on wikipedia in two or three years and did not follow "attempts to evade detection" guidelines. It appears as though the administrator did no due diligence and just did what was most convenient for them by choosing them only area in disruptive editing that would give them leeway to ban people. If nothing else I hope to establish a pattern of behavior. If needed I can show that this is my router's IP address and not a VPN. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review the edit history here. Your IP was temporarily blocked for block evasion after whoever was using it at the time restored the edit of this recently blocked user, per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did that. It wasn't inflammatory and I thought it was a good faith edit. So why am I "block evading"? That was the first edit for this IP address and my only edit in years.174.52.89.222 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're continuing to evade this block of Baxter329, or you just happened to make the same edit a month after that user did? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"my only edit in years" seems to answer the question you posed to editor. Hope that helps! 107.115.147.102 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Their "only edit in years", yet they want to establish a pattern of behaviour. Don't you think that's odd? M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia has been around a long time, and lots of people have taken multi year breaks. It is more odd not to really. 107.202.75.102 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The pattern of behavior is meant to reference the moderator. Meaning if nothing else I want to note this happened in case this becomes a reoccurring issue. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The binary you give is false. I looked through a revert and undid that revert because I thought the content should be there. I am not that Baxter and didn't know they were banned.174.52.89.222 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Baxter329 is a sock puppet of Grundle2600 and had a few other accounts active, which I blocked. This IP looks to be some random, unrelated person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page archives for that article, there have been dozens of people who wanted to include mention of the "trained Marxist" thing the IP added (and dozens, including the majority of editors in the 2020 RfC, who wanted not to include it). I doesn't really appear to me that the IP agreeing with Baxter329/other such users who wanted to include the comment is particularly good evidence they are evading a block. Endwise (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not Baxter and the admin didn't follow the criteria in disruptive behavior for ban evading. I reverted the the revert because I thought the item should be in the article. I would not have been banned had the criteria been followed. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I concur that this is possibly not the same person. Per WP:AGF (and I use that term as loosely as possible), there is a certain political persuasion in the U.S. that has been pushing this "trained Marxist" narrative against the broader Black Lives Matter movement, and this edit is in line with that false narrative, it is quite likely that 174.52 is not actually Baxter/Grundle. To be clear, the text about her being a Marxist should not be in the article, but just because 174.52 tried to put it there doesn't mean they are the same person as was blocked previously. --Jayron32 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Reodorant

I already reported this user back in July 2021 so I will just copypaste my report.

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

Reodorant (talk · contribs) keeps on relating the concept of Transylvanianism to the marginal Transylvanian autonomist or independentist movement. The person behind has used way more (IP) accounts for doing these changes continously, recurring to fake edit summaries and additional changes to add Transylvanianism once again in unrelated articles. But first of all, I need to define Transylvanianism.

Transylvanianism is nothing but the promotal of good interethnic relations between the Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania (a multiethnic region). It is not independentist, autonomist and, by definition, it is not regionalist as well as this user claims. The page of the latter says this: "Regionalism is a political ideology which seeks to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions." Not the case of Transylvanianism. I explained further, with links to reliable sources, the concept at User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (one of the IPs of Reodorant). At first we discussed (months ago already), but then they stopped replying to me.

Here are the fake edit summaries I mentioned: [44] [45] (this one is quite obvious). And that's it from this account but there are way more. They are not in chronological or any particular order, because I am not willing in wasting more time with this issue.

• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B909:B054:CB9D:97DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [46]
• 2a04:2413:8003:b380:b54a:99e2:5b5f:61e1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [47] [48]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (this is the IP I discussed with and stopped getting replies from)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:D8B:A350:B112:1D74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [55]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:7032:7AB9:62C5:53F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [56] (fake edit summary)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:794C:C6E6:860C:FFDD (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [57]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:5D72:A717:297A:F4D9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [58]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E402:1151:5613:79DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [59]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:1CBE:E342:7BD0:1A38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [60]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:2430:F681:D7A2:8477 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [61]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:F591:9066:CBE2:F780 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [62]

This is not an easy to track issue, it's very tiring and time consuming, and it has been going on since FEBRUARY [2021, noting now in this new report]! I want it to stop so I don't have to check the histories of those pages every once in a while anymore. By the way, I didn't specify it earlier, but the pages where this conflict has been happening are these: Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe, List of active separatist movements in Europe#Romania.

I also note I already reported this here before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#IP [and before, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#User Reodorant]

I please ask any administrator to take the measures they see necessary so this doesn't happen anymore. By the way, out of this, I see Reodorant is a good contributor to Wikipedia, so perhaps blocking them from editing those three pages might do it.

That was my July 2021 report. After it they were blocked for 5 days (it appears 5 days is way too much time, so they requested an unblock, which was rejected, while attempting to portray me in a bad light). You can see this all here [63], as the user has deleted those messages from their talk page. Afterwards they requested a third opinion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Transylvanianism again trying to blame the issue on me, but they were basically told that they were wrong.

Seemingly they still haven't accepted this as today I've found these edits [64] [65], done by IP 2a04:2413:8002:1680:8dae:ca60:c477:3059 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This follows their old original method.

I've wasted enough time with this issue. Reodorant has clear bad faith and seems to be here only to push their rebated viewpoint. I ask for the indefinite block of this user and the permanent protection of the pages Transylvanianism, Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe and List of active separatist movements in Europe. I think 3 reports, 12 IPs, two blocks and a third opinion request are ENOUGH for this issue to be ended forever. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I was just reverted [66] by the thirteenth IP, 2a04:2413:8002:1680:7943:cbde:49d1:7bae (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You just can't let this go, can you? As I've said before, any movement/ideology/whatever named after a region is self-evidently regionalist by nature. Why do you oppose this so vehemently?

You accuse me of trying to push a particular viewpoint, but looking at your userpage you state that you are a proud Romanian nationalist. I don't know how else to put it, but you have an active conflict of interest when it comes to this topic. Checco has correctly pointed out that you're the only one who is against linking these two articles. You still have not addressed this point.

I respectfully disagree with Seraphimblade's assessment, as I don't think it was thorough enough. If he were willing to provide a more detailed explanation of how he came to his decision (or if anyone else were to provide a third opinion), I would be more than happy to let the matter go, but as it stands I am stuck in a dumb semantics debate with someone I thought was acting in good faith.

I don't expect the Wikipedia admins to agree with me since your account has seniority over mine, but I have openly accepted the previous reprimand and ban. The vast majority of my edits to Transylvania-related pages amount to nothing more than adding names in German, Romanian and Hungarian. The rest are edits that you and you alone oppose. I would hardly call that disruptive. Reodorant (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is no the page to discuss article content. The OP has said you are editing while logged out to make it appear that your edits are not able to be traced to you... that's a serious behavioral issue. You have not yet responded to that. --Jayron32 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have admitted to editing while logged out. I am forced to do it because the nature of these edits have attracted this user's continued harassment of me and I would rather not have my username attached to them. I have never abused IP editing to pretend I am multiple people and I have no sockpuppets. My ISP assigns me dynamic IP addresses. This is not something I can control. Reodorant (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite Super Dromaeosaurus' flagrant lack of NPOV regarding this WP:ARBEE topic, I was the only one to receive a warning about my edits. Why? Reodorant (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wading into the deep end of this content dispute, but I will direct you to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which states "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. This includes editing while logged out. Whether or not you believe you are in the right, you may not log out merely to make it look like you are not the one making the edits. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to be working all that well. If you can agree to stop doing that going forward, especially when editing in the area of dispute, we can start to look at wider issues here. --Jayron32 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize that it was very dumb of me to edit while logged out. I am willing to only contribute to Wikipedia from this account going forward, but if you think it's too late and ban me permanently, so be it. All I want is proper closure on the Transylvanianism issue. Reodorant (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Checco, sorry for pinging you a second time, but this user has often used your 2021 comments as arguments in disputes between them and me. I'd be interested in hearing from you if you have anything to add on this issue. Super Ψ Dro 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus:. You're running into WP:TLDR territory here; you made your initial post, now it is time for others to comment. The more you comment on this thread, the less likely anyone else will want to deal with it. Maybe the reason nothing gets dealt with is that you tend to bludgeon the discussion, and no one wants to deal with it. Be succinct, provide diffs, answer questions when asked, and let the process work itself out. If you keep responding as part of the ongoing conflict, you're going to get ignored. No one wants to deal with someone like that. --Jayron32 15:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The other reports were less lenghty, but sure, you're right. I've deleted the comment, here's it in case anyone wants to read it [67]. I've kept Checco's ping above, as I'd be interested in a reply from them. Super Ψ Dro 15:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reodorant, I would hope that any decision made by the admins is based on the facts of the matter as they see it, rather than any notion of seniority. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it sounds very believable from me, but I also want a solution like that. I have always been against such treatments on Wikipedia, which once affected myself negatively. So I am also for impartiality here. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The underlying content issue should be resolved by discussing how independent reliable sources define this concept. Has this discussion happened on any article talk page? Talk:Transylvanianism has no discussion of anything whatsoever. On the behavioural issue Reodorant has agreed not to edit logged out, and I'm sure Super Dromaeosaurus will try not to be so verbose. Is there any more that needs to be done here? Shouldn't we just close this? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I see now that there has been some discussion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Transylvanianism. Please just continue that, with a bit more good faith on both sides. It's the sources that determine what a Wikipedia article should contain, not any editor's personal opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm with Phil on this, I'd be willing to close this down, if the two parties agree to asking for some outside help in working through the source material to arrive at a consensus. WP:3O and WP:DRN may be good places to go to get that help. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A dispute resolution mechanism has already been followed: a third opinion was requested, and given. I provided several sources (6 or 7) when it was necessary (the other side, if I remember correctly, just 1 or 2, which I commented on and attempted to rebate; the other side did not do this on my sources), and the ruling out was given. And later, the user disrespected the result without noticing me or anyone else. Nothing has changed regarding the content dispute, it's all behavioural problems. I'm sorry but I don't have much faith in this outcome where the user will seemingly go unsanctioned, not even with a formal warning. I am open to another third opinion and I will respond if requested, but one has already been done and I really do not see the need for another, and I would not ask for it if it was on me. And WP:DRN is a lenghty process, which is exactly the opposite of what I want. My intention with this report was to end this issue once and for all. How can I know that this user will respect the following result and that I will not be forced to open a fourth report in the future? I still feel compelled to keep these pages on my watchlist. So I am not satisfied with where this is going and want more discussion. I would like at least some kind of guarantee that requesting another third opinion or filing a case at DRN will be the last things I'll ever have to do regarding this. Because I remind you, this is an issue that started in February 2021, and which has ended already on 3 reports. If it continues today it's because of the insistency of this user, not because I did not follow rules and recommendations when it was needed. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the totality of easily available sources, such as these and these, to come to a conclusion about what is the meaning of this according to the consensus of independent reliable sources. This needs plenty of work on reading the sources rather than a quick third opinion. My initial view, based on a very quick look at some of the sources, is that this is a term for something that has changed over time, like many other things have, such as Scottish nationalism that has changed from being a very narrow anti-English thing to an ideology of the centre-left that claims to represent anyone living in Scotland, regardless of racial background. I haven't spent enough time with the sources to determine whether there is a common thread in the coverage of Transylvanianism that means that it is all one topic. These things take time to resolve, and it's best done by continuing to work at it without accusations of bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly seeing that many of the sources in those results pages, especially in Google Books, talk about interethnic relations between Hungarians and Romanians, incorporation of Hungarian elements in Romanian historiography, Hungarian and Romanian literary phenomena, etc. (the position that I defend); nothing about autonomy (the position that this user defends). I insist that this is not a content dispute (bolding in desperation that the administrators do not rate this report as such in the end), what had to be discussed was discussed in its time. Although this was discussed on several talk pages, the most important thing happened here [68], at the 3O request. Reodorant opened the request providing ONE single source talking about Transylvanian autonomism titled "A strange Transylvanism" (that title in itself says something). I discussed the contents of that source there, and showed that it doesn't actually refer Transylvanism as an autonomist movement. In the end I said that their source was too imprecise and that it did not address what Transylvanism is exactly, Reodorant did not make further comment (including objection) on this and we did not talk anymore about that source. The rest of the discussion is debate about the sources I provided, and it ended with Reodorant saying they would search for more sources. They didn't give any afterwards, that is, that single source which doesn't actually talk about Transylvanism in depth was their only backing. This is a more or less complete summary but I recommend users interested in having more context in reading the discussion.

I have realized that users here are trying to give equal treatment to both of us. Good faith is appreciated but I think my effort is being underestimated while Reodorant's is being overestimated. I did search for 7 sources, commented mine and Reodorant's and wrote a single message with 7 paragraphs developing my viewpoints. Reodorant only looked for a source that they didn't try to defend anymore once I tried to refute it, also commented on my sources (which was followed by another message of mine, which did not receive further discussion on the matter), and they promised to look for more sources, which they didn't. Then an uninvolved user gave their own judgment and determined that my position was correct. The content dispute resolution has been undertaken already. I will also note the fact that Reodorant has been blocked twice due to this dispute (the first was on one of their IPs) and that they today violated the result of a dispute resolution method and have arguably done sockpuppetry. The treatment here is being "equal" but not fair in my opinion, sending us both to another dispute resolution mechanism does not change anything. It is something that has already been done and that would theorically not require repetition, and it is effectively allowing a user to breach the rules of Wikipedia, having a history of having already done it, without consequence. Again I express myself open to another third opinion but the fact is that this has already been done and that the result was not respected by one of the sides. This should not go unpunished and the third opinion should not be repeated only because one of the sides decided to overrule it. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems that I was being over-optimistic when I thought that Super Dromaeosaurus would try to be less verbose. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You stated that "I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the totality of easily available sources", and I stated that this has been done already. I've also attempted to summarize the 3O where this was done and express my views on where this report is going. I don't know what is the reply that you expected me to do, you proposed more discussion into the content dispute and I explained why I considered it unnecessary. I don't think it would have been better if I just outright rejected your proposal. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure why I am getting pinged to a months-old argument, but will note that 3O is a nonbinding process, so anyone involved can take it or leave it. I will stand by what I said in that "See also" sections should not be used for controversial material, but other than that have no intent to read through the text walls here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not going into details, but, surely, I support including Transylvanianism in the "See also" section, as I have argued before. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring across many pages

Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bears247 has engaged in prolonged edit warring, even after being partially blocked on two separate articles recently. They were blocked for three months from editing Eric Berry on March 21 (see article history) for edit warring and then blocked from editing Tim Tebow the next day (article history) by a second administrator.

The article Bryan Scott (quarterback) has been plagued with undisclosed paid editing by at least seven accounts (see Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigBoyzz1006/Archive). I had upgraded the page protection to extended-confirmed to combat the sockpuppetry/UPE, because Mr. Scott has been paying editors to make specific edits to his page for the past 12 months. Bears247 added back one of the edits that I've repeatedly removed from sockpuppet edits on February 23 (without edit summary), which I removed again (with edit summary). On February 26, Bears247 re-added the content (no edit summary) and posted on my talk page ([69]) about the edit. I responded there and, after pointing out my rationale for the removal, asked if they are a paid editor like the rest of the socks I've encountered on that page. I did not receive a response for a month, and in the meantime, Bears247 has been blocked from editing two pages for edit warring. Bears247 finally responded on my talk page denying that they are a paid editor but ignoring the rest of my response about the actual content dispute on March 23 ([70]). Another user removed the edit on the page later that day (here). Bears247 posted on the article talk page asking about the content (here), but then ignored my response there and just re-added the content to the page again today with no explanation ([71]).

Bears247 does not seem to understand why edit warring is a problem, or why their behavior specifically is disruptive (diff). I am an involved editor, so I would like to see if there are opinions from other administrators on this user's conduct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have page blocked Bears247 from Bryan Scott (quarterback) and all three page blocks are now set at six months. Cullen328 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for handling this matter. At what point do you think a full mainspace block would be in order here, after three partial blocks for edit warring in the past week? The user says here, right after your third partial block, that they were "in the right" during one of the edit wars that resulting in their block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Eagles247, I just responded to that comment on their talk page, and warned them that they are on the brink of an indefinite block. Since you both edit American football articles, please let me know if you observe any more edit warring behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Eagles247, I believe that Bears247 should already be blocked from all edits on mainspace wikipedia. He did it thrice and has shown no sign of stopping. He has cluttered my talk page, he threatened to bring another user into this, and has repeatedly shown himself to have no sensibility. This sums up how aggressive he is: He is so unable to listen to another view that he'd edit Mirabel Madrigal to say she's a conspiracy theorist if he believed it (And cite the "open your eyes" in Waiting on a Miracle). This is quite a long post so I will stop here, but he seriously should be banned from all Wikipedia. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I edit nutrition articles and volunteer as a Teahouse host. NO IDEA why my name mentioned here. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was a bit suspicious when I saw you on my talk page. It was an honest mistake of mine. Sorry about that, Now I know you're innocent. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted your name from my post, I am extremely sorry about disturbing you. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

i’d like to get some more clarification for what this block would be for? If your referring to my recent addition to the eric berry talk page, the whole purpose of a talk page is to discuss issues and try and resolve them… as for cluttering your talk page, i’m sorry and i will stop from adding anything else there for the future. I’ve been a productive and unproblematic editor on here for almost 3 years. This and my recent Tim Tebow issue are the only two times I have had any sort of conflict, both of which were relatively minor infractions. Bears247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bears247 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

IP harassing user and other NOTHERE behavior

2600:8804:6600:45:2918:2AB7:9BF0:437B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Problematic & WP:NOTHERE behavior:

• This user has been harassing/vandalising the user space of @Novem Linguae [72][73] [74], despite multiple requests that they not edit NL's user space or user talk space [75] [76]. They repeatedly describe NL's essay as written by a cabal of other users.
• WP:SEALIONing: [77] [78] [79]
• Given the nature of one of the edits [80] (and other aspects of their contributions [81]), it is possible this anon may be a WP:LOGGEDOUT situation for a user sharing the same POV: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
• Other problematic edits: [87] [88] [89] (and on /40, may or may not be same user: [90] [91]) (non-MEDRS altmed [92] [93]) (Almost DEFINITELY related: [94] [95] [96]) and more, I would suggest a look through their contribs to see what I mean.

Recommend either A) /40 one-way WP:IBAN (with Novem Linguae) vs B) /40 block from NL's user and user talk space. If the behavior continues elsewhere, or more apparent SOCK-like stuff goes on, either SPI or a TBAN may be in order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shibbolethink. Your above theory about logged-out editing is unlikely to be true though possibly this could be someone else not mentioned in the current thread. The topic is covered by WP:COVIDDS. The IP is editing from a range used in the past by other socks but he has no overlap in interest or behavior with those socks. An SPI would probably not find anything interesting but I could semiprotect User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak if requested by User:Novem Linguae. I could not see anything wrong with the IP's edits of Edward Rubin. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @EdJohnston thank you for the reminder re: COVIDDS and the cogent analysis. I have alerted the IP as likely should have been done a long time ago. I understand your assessment re: IP vs SPI, and you are probably right, the evidence was thin and regardless, I understand it is prohibited to CU link IPs to users. Re protection: I will of course leave any such considerations to NL's good judgment for his own user space. Regards, — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind some kind of action being taken against this IP, such as an admin warning or partial block. They have only edited the essay one time as an IP so protection may not be necessary. But they are causing drama on the essay talk page and have ignored multiple polite requests not to post in my userspace, so that part may be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I was attempting to defend other users that were being bullied by the cabal. As someone who has been attacked in the past, it bothers me to see it continue. 2600:8804:6600:45:505A:8E83:9C97:7BC8 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

IP User 72.229.242.36

Original header: IP User 72.229.242.36 Created Feb 22 Removing own talk page notifications [1], undoing article revisions after talk page discussed changes [3], Mutiple other violations. El_C 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is over 500 edits of which a large majority have been undoing revisions, deleting talk page posts and removing warnings or messages to their own talk page. [History]

1. [one example of deleting warnings towards self on talk page to hide history of edit-war revisions]
2. [Bias]This one here shows deleting some sources despite keeping other equally as reliable sources to convey a narrative or perspective, one of the five fundamental pillars here.  Neutrality.
3. [despite talk page.]

This is just a small sample of the disruptive editing doing by this IP address which started edits the very day of the 2022 Russian-Ukraine conflict.. Considering the creation date, edit history, deceptive measures to hide history, non-responsiveness on talk or edit pages and excessive "undo" actions without any explanation this is a user who requires admin attention. They have shown no discourse nor discussion on any of the over 500 edits. I have not posted a new notice to the IP editor's talk page since they are just deleting them The Impartial Truth (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There's also just countless "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" I am not going to waste time going through since none of these have remained current edits. The Impartial Truth (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The Impartial Truth if you had looked at them you would have seen that they were just reverting the edits of 174.251.64.220 now blocked for their actions. So they were just rapidly fixing the issues caused by that editor. KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting that users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, per WP:UP#CMT. Curbon7 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've WP:ECP'd this page independently (unaware) of this complaint (RfPP, AEL). Also noting that I had recently blocked this IP, mainly for the reasons stated in the original block. However, upon closer review, I did notice an improvement, so I opted to lift it (block log). I think there are still some issues, but they appear to be more borderline (although possibly there's important items my sample overlooked). As Curbon7 correctly notes, the IP is not obliged to retain any material on their user talk page, the removal of which was not factored in my analysis.

Ultimately, this report fails to bring any recent diffs of that are of an egregious nature. One of the three diffs they cite is even my own aforementioned ECP protection. What The Impartial Truth fails to realize, however, is that it was set at that higher protection level also to possibly to safeguard the article from them. Had the protection been targeting that IP, specifically (or IPs, generally), I'd have just gone with the usual WP:SEMI. That the protection coincides with their version being displayed is not an endorsement of that version, and saying that the IP's edit "is bordering on vandalism" (diff) is bordering too much (WP:NOTVAND). If anything, it'd be disruptive editing to which vandalism is a narrow subset of. El_C 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Doubling down on an accusation of bad-faith/personal attack after being warned against it

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

Above has made this egregious post, and when explained to politely on their talk page that such things are not OK, instead of apologising, doubled down and re-inserted it with even more oil on the fire. For the record, while there is a disagreement at another page, my comment at the AfD was simply a result of me seeing what looked like a rather obvious case of Wikipedia:Relist bias. That Charlie happened to make a non-policy commpliant post previously, and now thinks I'm stalking them, is nothing more but an unfortunate coincidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The above user, RandomCanadian, is doing just what he accuses others of doing by bringing it up on ANI (adding gas to the fire). People should cooperate and discuss. I've already done my part because I am slowly withdrawing from an airplane crash article that RandomCanadian seems to be fighting over. I also am not following her/him/zir around even though he/her/ze is following me around.

This matter should be ignored and closed and see if RandomCanadian just calms down. I will and am. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. I politely asked you to not make unfounded accusations about me (including the one you've made again just above), and yet you are here and again, like at the article, failing to get the point. WP:NPA and WP:AGF are not negotiable, but here you have violated it not once (the initial link in my post), not twice (the next one), but thrice (your post just above). If you refuse to get the point, then it becomes a matter for the community to resolve, since I've tried with no success. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, if you don't know someone else's pronouns, you can just use "they." Schierbecker (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• An AfD vote doesn't become "bad faith" just because someone disagrees with it. If I had a dollar for every time someone screamed HOW DARE YOU at a delete !voter, I could afford to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Just to needlessly add to this, Charliestalnaker's vote rational in the Raja Dashrath Medical College AfD was rather nonsensical and semi-insulting. "Strong Keep, let's act normal!. High schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia so a medical college definitely is. Let's be reasonable, folks." I, and I'm sure others, don't really appreciate the insinuation that it's abnormal or unreasonable to nominate a college for deletion. It happens all the time. It's also patently false that high schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia. In the least their comment an utter lack of knowledge about the AfD process, at the most it's an extremely bad faithed dig at the nominator/delete voters. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Gombe editors

We regularly get complaints here about contests, editathons, education efforts gone wrong, ... Recently, I have seen a lot of "Gombe" related new articles from a couple of editors; while there is no indication that these officially belong to any group effort, they have the same kind of issues.

• User:Abdulghonniy has after just one month quite a long list of warnings about many issues, and new pages getting deleted, draftified, nominated left and right. This includes things like Nysc Gombe State, draftified but then recreated as Nysc Orientation Camp Gombe State, which I draftified before finding out about the previous one. Other articles: Kalare Guys in Gombe State, Sports Centre in Gombe State (at AfD)
• User:Abdulazeez Taufeeq, who had over the last few days 7 very recent articles nominated at AfD, and one moved to draft space: examples are List of Primary Health Care Center (PHCC) in Gombe State, Nigeria (at AfD) or Pindiga Town (which seems to be a copyvio translation or a very close paraphrasing of [97]). Something like Jekadefari Area of Gombe State, Nigeria doesn't belong in mainspace either (and all sources, for what they are worth, call it Jekadafari), and what's with the very weird categories like Category:Place infobox templates? Also random refs[98].
• User:Salihidris450, only a few edits so far
• User:Ibjaja055, so far three articles moved to draftspace, and two copyright violations warnings
• User:Usmanagm, creating multiple drafts, all rejected
• User:Umar2z, adding seemingly unrelated references at random places[99][100]
• User:Abdulrahman0044, providing low-quality "improvements"[101][102][103] that get reverted anyway

And probably others...

It looks as if User:Semmy1960 and User:Odomero2711, who were previously active on a similar project for Lagos, are somehow connected to this, as is User:Atibrarian.

I don't know if any socking is involved, this probably is more like some undisclosed, poorly lead editathon or education project, but it causes quite a lot of disruption and extra work. is there a way to deal with this to make it less disruptive? Fram (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Abdulghonniy name does look strangely similar to a previous sock that was banned, I think to do with Bangladeshi sports articles. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fram, thanks for your meticulous work on Wikipedia. In as much as we do projects to be able to document the history and notable events in Nigeria, there is still a big challenge getting online sources for referencing. The third world countries have a lot of issues with references because there were no online documentation until recently and many of these articles are very notable which should be documented. What do you advise to do in situations like this? We want to bridge the knowledge gap, at the same time not disrupt the use of Wikipedia and not frustrate the effort and good work you Editors are doing.Semmy1960 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, are you aware if there is any coordinator, central page, ... about this project? Having to reach out to many individual editors is a lot harder than having some central page where issues can be raised, and having one or two more experienced editors who can keep an eye on things and guide the new editors through the many pitfalls also eases the burden on other volunteers here. Fram (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1074532528 and m:The WikiVibrance Project? Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: I have deleted Kalare Guys in Gombe State as a WP:CSD#G10. Not only did it call a group "thugs" but it suggested those thugs were organised by a named living person. (It was also written in only vaguely comprehensible English - This thug group was cheese away from the main city to jekada fari then but now the jekada fari has turn to big place in Gombe - so I don't think much of value has been lost). Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The sources did not in any way match the content, either. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Found it: meta:Wikipedia Awareness and Training in Gombe. Aimed directly at enwiki, but not discussed, linked, ... here. Recipe for problems. No idea why Semmy1960, who is a participant, couldn't inform us of this in his reply above... Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And of course there is also a grant for this: meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Atibrarian/Building Wikipedia Awareness and Community in Gombe State. Fram (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• T

@Fram The project is aimed at creating awareness about the Wikimedia projects and introduction to Wikipedia.

The participants consisted mainly of newbies and yet to fully grasp the scrupulous rudiments of contributing content to Wikipedia. To guide them and ensure they avoid contentious topics, an "Article Suggestions List" was created to serve as a guide. Unfortunately, a few have strayed from the list to work on areas that might not meet WP:GNG, and a dearth of reference.

Consequently, discussions are currently ongoing on the project WhatsApp group to tackle the issues and modalities to prevent the futuristic occurrence.

Kind regards Atibrarian (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• To further expatiate on Fram's point this was me in November 2021 see this, asking Atibrarian if they had a COI, they didn’t respond, I furthermore note what seems to be UPE & I ask them about it here of which they gave a shabby response to. I’m quite sure I have asked them about a possible COI overt & stylishly If they are engaging in any unethical practices and their response were either no response at all or a convoluting response. It is good Fram brings the “grant” part of this up as Timtrent, Deb & myself discussed this and this time it was a bunch of editors focused on creating non notable articles on Lagos State (a state in Nigeria) just as Gombe state is as well, see this. Furthermore In this extensive discussion on my TP, which DGG, TheAafi, Timtrent (all of us work at anti-spam) we discussed how it’s nigh impossible for anyone to engage in unethical practices on en.wp without being snuffed out. My thinking of their thought process is rather than engage in undeclared paid editing, where they’d likely not succeed they could make “legal money” it’s no coincidence that a supermajority of the contestants in the history of whatever it they are doing are largely spearheaded by editors currently facing sanctions. I note this trend became exponentially increased after this occurred. I’m not against making money from Wikipedia in a legal manner I have never received a dime and do not ever intent to, but if editors are doing so, then fine, but The problem is they are causing a vey serious problem on mainspace publishing sheer non notable articles. whilst the front is “building an encyclopedia” “shedding more light on Nigeria” or “closing the knowledge gap) or whatever it is they say to themselves, It is my opinion that the article creations are financially motivated $2000 is seriously close to a million. Whatever sanctions are evoked by Fram or anyone else I’d gladly support it. Wikipedia isn’t in the business of making its editors rich. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you have persistently tried to force a claim on me. How would you want me to accept an untrue claim just because you "thínk" it is?

  If not that you have mentioned paid editing I wouldn't have known what it is. The idea of volunteering efforts to making Wikipedia articles more reliable and making information accessible has been my driving force. Atibrarian (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Atibrarian, please retract your aspersions, immediately, no one expressly said you were engaging in unethical practices, that is gaslighting and it isn’t an acceptable behavior, rather, a question was asked about COI here & you didn’t respond which gives probable cause for a valid reason to be suspicious, please see WP:APPARENTCOI & Lastly As for what i “think” all I literally need to do is “think” an article is dubious in order for me to send an article back to Draftspace, did you read all this before coming to cast aspersions against me? Literally all I need is a “suspicion” see WP:DRAFTIFY. Please Do well to listen to Timtrent's advice who is more laid back than I am, because if I see more shabby looking articles from you or anyone else i would unilaterally remove them from mainstream. Furthermore If Fram proposes a harsh sanction I would support it. I’m not responding to this anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: I can't say I agree. You've accused editors of being motivated by a $2000 cash prize. However it's unclear to me that there's any prizes let alone cash prizes involved. As another editor pointed out, you seem to have confused the grant funding with a cash prizes. Regardless of whether the grant was a good idea, it seems unlikely to me even if some of it is going to be used for a cash prize that all of it will be. There's a reasonable chance none of it will be. I've ask Atibrarian to clarify but until they do, the fact remains you've made such a claim without any real evidence I can see. If you are going to make such accusations, you either need to provide evidence or withdraw your claims, and preferably apologise. Defending Wikipedia doesn't excuse you unfairly attacking other editors by making false claims about their motivations and what they are doing. If you have problems with the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever else, then attack the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever. It's simply unacceptable for you to attack other apparently well meaning editors because of your disagreements with other parties. This isn't to say that the way Atibrarian has handled this is perfect but frankly from my POV there's one editor's behaviour here in this whole mess which seems particularly bad and it's yours not Atibrarian. While true the grant recipients as recipients even though I assume they're not spending the money on themselves, have a responsibility above and beyond what you have to engage with the community properly this still isn't an excuse for what you've said IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, yes you are right, and I do apologize. when Fram mentioned a grant I mistook it to mean a cash prize & No I have no issues with WMF or Jimbo Wales and why would you even say that Nil Einne? I do not even insinuate that. I think in the end well meaning or not they are causing real disruption on mainspace and nebulous or otherwise there is Infact an incentive for creating this articles, definitely not $2000 which is the grant not cash prize but an incentive is an incentive. When I make mention of disruption, yes! The disruption is exponential getting worse Fram just discovered that of Gombe State, myself and Timtrent discovered that of Lagos state some weeks back, how many of these exist? Do we condone these sort of binge creation of non notable articles directly to mainspace because it is done in good faith? Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Actually it's worse than the grant document simply mentioning $2000 is the grant. In fact the grant document has details on the budget and the only reward in the budget there seems to be for participants seems to be "Certificate of participation for participants: $40" and I guess "Hand Sanitizers for facilitator and participants during the training= $25", "Branded Nose masks for facilitators and participants= $120", "Branded T-Shirt for facilitators and active participants: $120", and "Refreshments for participants: USD10×35 = 350 for 2days = $700". Or at a real stretch "Training venue: USD130 for 2days = $260" and "Alternate power supply during the training:$40". There is additional funding for the two facilitators travel etc and I guess you could consider these facilitators and/or the flyers are somehow a reward to the participants but that seems a real stretch. I'd also note they are two other editors not Atibrarian. Again I make no comment on the wisdom of any of this funding, I don't think it's the right place but as there seems to be no indication I can find of any cash prize let alone a $2000 one. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atibrarian The simplest and most effective, is for the participants to use WP:AFC, to create drafts, and to work on them when declined.

In that way the major disappointment of having articles deleted will be much ameliorated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response and suggestions will be implemented. Atibrarian (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, Theres no way they are submitting via AFC, not only would it be declined, it would be sheer wasting of their time, I’m not sure how this competitions work but I bet it time bound, so that isn’t even an option I think they’d consider, $2000 (close to a million Nigerian naira is up for grabs) I don’t believe anyone is waiting for that long, but as for Atibrarian there’s serious issues here such as COI or WP:MEAT, I honestly haven’t got the time else I’d have presented an air tight report and opened an SPI, something very decisive has to be done here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I am in a charitable frame of mind. I believe, at least for now, that this pool of enthusiastic editors can be guided. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 however, I had not noticed the $2000 prize. It was hiding somewhere in this swathe of text. That does not change my mind. They just need a longer deadline. Wait they will have to, or deleted their work will be 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 unless I am mistaken, the $2000 is not a prize, but a budget for the event that created and trained the group. This seems to be a small cost and relevant to WMF's charitable status.@Celestina007 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent there are certain aspects of Wikipedia I’d rather not speak about On mainspace or even via mail or if at all it would strictly be between myself, Arbcom or Jimbo Wales directly. But for now We shall put that aside, the crux of this report by Fram is the rather disruptive manner in which this is morphing into. Everything else can be out on hold for now. I don’t think I want to speak on this anymore hadn’t it been you (people I actually respect) I wouldn't have bothered to reply, but seeing you a friend, I respect you so much that I must reply no matter what . Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atibrarian Make sure the participants understand that we applaud their enthusiasm, but that they need to be pragmatic. Wikipedians wield a scalpel to remove articles that are below quality. The skill with which that scalpel is wielded can feel intimidating to the new user who does not, perhaps will not, understand quality.

Please make it very clear to the WhatsApp group participants that we welcome good work, will educate work that is not up to standard, and that we will excise work that is placed incorrectly in main space. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words to the participants. A crisis talk and or meeting has been initiated to address all concerns raised. I have equally arranged to emphasise the need for meticulous and thorough research on any article intended for creation and must be submitted through the AFC process going forward.

Kind regards Atibrarian (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atibrarian: since it's an issue raised above, can you clarify whether there's prize/s involved and if there is, what these prizes are? I don't see any mention on the meta page, OTOH it mentions a competition but only gives judging info etc but doesn't discuss anything about what, if anything winners receive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

.Nil Einne: thanks for the question. For clarity, there is no 'monetary' prize(s) attached to the editathon other than what was stated in the grant proposal: a certificate of participation, branded T-Shirts for active participants, etc. Atibrarian (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like us to get back onto the fact that the submissions are generally unworthy of article space. This editing drive has escaped from the control of the proposers, and is creating work for others. This quality control shoudl be internal to the drive, competition, call it what you will. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don't think that we can tar all of the people here with the same brush. I actually went through the contributions histories of the editors listed, and there's a vast difference between the simple minor copyediting at Special:Contributions/Abdulrahman0044 (Yes, xe doesn't know the byzantine date style rules of Wikipedia. That's not exactly unusual.), the attempts to clean up after one of the other participants in Special:Contributions/Salihidris450, and the egregious misrepresentations in Special:DeletedContributions/Abdulghonniy. I disagree that the drive is creating work. Clearly a few of the individual participants are, but quite a few of them are not as well, and would be regarded as largely unproblematic and on a par with many other editors if encountered without this context. Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Uncle G: thank you for your time and efforts taken to meticulously scrutinise the contributions of the listed users to arrive at this conclusion.

    Steps have been taken to control all activities relating to the editathon. Atibrarian (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Help needed at Veracrypt

Full protection at Veracrypt expires on 31 March 2022.

At Talk:VeraCrypt#Licensing of VeraCrypt there has been zero progress in reaching an agreement, and it is likely that the previous edit war will start up again as soon as the protection ends. Could someone please look into this and see what you can do?

I edit with a IP, but I will abide by any restrictions I am given even if my IP shifts. 22:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:C43A:7A9A:3A68:225A (talk)

There's been zero progress because everyone is arguing with their own original research (reading the license terms) instead of providing sources and starting an RfC to get wider community input. Indifferent on protection, might even be a novel use of WP:ROPE to let it expire Slywriter (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion isn't going well and this ANI thread is suboptimal, but nobody in that discussion came so low as to use original research. And while I appreciate the input neutral parties, I don't appreciate them casting aspersions. Waysidesc (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Waysidesc: say what? That discussion is full of original research with people citing the licence terms, US law, OSI guidelines, our article on open source etc. I mean to be blunt, this is a direct quote of an editor who turns out to be you "To decide whether an app is free: We look at the app's license agreement. Here is a copy of license agreement that comes with VeraCrypt:" Um no we don't analyse a licence and decide whether the app is free. That is clearly original research. We report what sources have said about an app. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, stalker. I'll bear that in mind, as in, I'll keep doing it. I'm not ashamed of citing, comparing, and contrasting published sources, even if a stalker mislabels it as ... original what-not.

By the way, please take care that your stalking doesn't become WP:HOUND. Waysidesc (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Waysidesc for 48h for personal attacks, not just the one above, but at least one other that was egregious. Frankly, their whole attitude is WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Given this comment on their talk page, I'd say Waysidesc needs an indef as WP:NOTHERE & talk page access revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, you're free to do what you want in your private life. You cannot of course use your original research to edit articles. If you want to call it something else that's your choice provided you don't generate confusion by doing so, just don't do original research or whatever you want in articles, that's my main concern here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another useless ANI thread that should've been resolved in an RfC ages ago lmao. So I'm going to start one myself. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem solved. [104] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Undue polemics

Heat>light. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Dimadick: has been insulting Christians, Christian scriptures and Christian theologians on a talk page where such polemics positively do not belong. Here are the relevant diffs --65.94.99.221 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Oh really. A book that is full of violence and incest is compared to porn. What an insult. See the article on Dinah (a rape and revenge story), Tamar (daughter of David) (raped by her half-brother Amnon), the Levite's concubine (a gang rape), Lot's daughters (impregnated by their father), or Absalom (where the article summarizes a public sex scene involving multiple partners as "slept with his father's concubines". Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) @Dimadick: Wikipedia is not a counter apologetics website. It’s mission is to be welcoming to all people, not just non-Christians. And again, you keep breaking the rules. --65.94.99.221 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC) And which rules require me to lie about the lack of holiness in the Bible? Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM is the relevant guidance here, for the both of you. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Having read all of that diff, I'm also gonna add that reading WP:DENY would be helpful for future reference, as not engaging with the obviously bad-faith 2402 IP would've prevent the situation from escalating. Curbon7 (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC) How does writing "I do not pretend to be holy" Well, the Bible is not remotely holy either. I still remember (almost 30 years later) its description by a bookshop owner who was speaking to my mother: "It's like porn, but a lot more violent". With all the scenes of rape and murder in the anthology, the description was very accurate. help improve the encyclopedia? It's inflammatory and does not seem particularly relevant to the content of the article in question. And I say that as an atheist, for the record. Endwise (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC) "does not seem particularly relevant to the content of the article in question." An article where there is a long-standing edit war whether Christian apologists are a reliable source for stating that there is no contradiction between two different narratives on who killed Goliath. And where minimalist scholars have been directly accused of "lying for anti-theism", just because they oppose the historicity of the Bible. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC) ITT: bloke accused of inappropriate polemics responds with an inappropriate polemic.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The bloke in question argues that the Bible is essentially a pornographic text, and that we should not treat it is as some example of holiness. Where do you find the polemic? Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Right there, mate. Don't get me wrong: I'm as atheist as you are, but this isn't the place to get out your views on the Bible and wave them about. On Wikipedia what's appropriate is to talk about what the reliable sources say about the Bible. Do that in a collegial manner, which means robustly and forthrightly but without creating needless drama.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Having lots of sex and violence doesn't make something 'essentially a pornographic text', unless you're inclined towards Mary Whitehouse's line of reasoning. You don't need to believe in the truth of the bible, or even think it is a particularly moral book, but calling it porn is just silly, and needlessly provocative. Girth Summit (blether) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I'm no wiser about what remedy the OP is seeking. That aside, Dimedick isn't insulting Christians in that quoted passage (he doesn't mention them), and accusing him of insulting the Bible is coming very close to an accusation of heresy. Now let's move on.Achar Sva (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I am sorry @Achar Sva: that you don't think the rules apply to the people who believe like you, but Wikipedia does not think so. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Quite the contrary, Wikipedia doesn't punish people simply for saying bad thing about a religion, which is what you're demanding here. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:1 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia has rules against polemics and undue insulting of, among other things, religious views. See, WP:POLEMIC and WP:FORUM. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA for Sola8273

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.

---

Sola8273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) misused his talk page after being blocked as a sock, please revoke TPA. Thanks a lot!Pavlov2 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Pavlov2, the user is allowed to remove that stuff. See WP:BLANKING, and please don't put it back. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC).

Opps, sorry Pavlov2 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 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.

Battleground behavior by user Jacona

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

---

The user Jacona has shown battleground behavior in multiple AfDs, repeatedly disparaged other users, and clearly has competence issues.

1. 1. In Combermere School they claimed news headlines are significant coverage

1. 2. In Combermere School they repeatedly claimed that I did not look for references before nominating the article after I told them I had.

1. 3. In Combermere School they said news stories that they hadn't read because they are behind a paywall were significant coverage.

1. 4. They disparaging the nominator in the Ian Holiday AfD, saying "the nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD."

1. 5. In the Raja Dashrath Medical College they claimed theirs a consensus that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources.

I'm sure there's other examples. I'm not super bothered by the second one, but the other ones show a clear disregard for the guidelines and a lack of civility toward people who nominate or vote delete on articles about non-English subjects. I'll leave it up to others to decide what an appropriate action is, but it's clear to me that his behavior is fostering a toxic environment in AfD discussions. Especially ones that are about subjects that lack English sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a clearcut revenge report by the filer, and is quite reminiscent if not identical to what is described in WP:REVENGE. The filer's behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Holliday was clearly disruptive. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, the filer bludgeoned the discussion with falsehoods, and doubled down after being called out. I recommend a figuratively large, heavy and speedy boomerang. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice deflection and here I thought you were about dealing with problematic users. I'd love to know how this can be a WP:REVENGE report when Jacona wasn't the one who filed the ANI complaint, suggested the topic ban, didn't advocate for me to be topic banned, and as far as I'm aware had no other involvement in it. If I was trying to get revenge on anyone wouldn't Girth Summit be the person to open the complaint about? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

All that any uninvolved editor or administrator needs to do is read the trainwreck that you created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School to see that you have a grudge against Jacona. It is clear to see for all neutral observers. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You can try and make this about me, but I think his comments in other places besides the Combermere School AfD speak for themselves. He was still uncivil toward other people and in discussions that I wasn't involved in at the time. So in no way does this complaint hinge on the Combermere School AfD and your free to disregard it. That said, I think your doing a major disserve to your former claims of being against dishonesty and for civility if you derail the whole complaint just because of an AfD me and Jacona got in a disagreement over out of the three I reported him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 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.

Any admin willing to check this death threat (?)

[105] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a death threat or just nonsense, but I'm leaning towards the latter. Either way, should be revdel'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No idea. Revdel'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reported it to emergency(AT)wikimedia.org, out of an abundance of caution, and as mentioned in the red edit notice here. sorry if someone else already did that. I've spoken with them about similar threats before, and they always tell me they'd rather have you report threats to them that you think are probably nonsense; they have people trained to make that call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Endorse decision. Deb (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

IP checks out to some of the information in the edit. Likely to have been written in a state of mental crisis or in a state of psychedelic intoxication... either way endorse Floqs' decision. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC) zzuuzz (and/or other admins, but pinging zzuuzz because it was they who revdelled), what possible good reason is there for revdelling a death threat? Concealing the fact that it was made does not make the recipient(s) of the threat any safer. If a person (gods forbid) were ever to try to make good on such a threat, hiding the fact that they made the threat would not hinder them in any way! I understand the desire to not have the appearance of such a thing being unacted upon, but I fail to see ho covering it up is of any benefit. It would be better to red flag it with some kind of administrators' statement saying such is unacceptable and edit &/or summary has been reported to WMF; but for transparency's sake, you all should not be hiding it! (Unless there's personally identifying information, &c..) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:25D7:83BA:434:F008 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, we do not allow grossly offensive content like threats of violence to remain visible to our readers anywhere on this project. It is removed from general public view but still available for use by editors who are administrators or who possess other advanced permissions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP raises a good point that removing a threat doesn't prevent anything. But then Cullen328 raises a good response that relevant people can still see it. Speaking for myself only, as 'first on the scene', it wan't (and still isn't) clear to me whether this was a threat or not, but what was clear is that the message contained potentially troubling information which didn't belong on Wikipedia, and that it was appropriate to revdel it soon after being publicised here. My lack of summary was because I really couldn't understand it, but knew that this was going to be subject to peer review and that people would follow it up if they thought appropriate. Think of it as a sticking plaster. It has now been taken as far as it reasonably can be, which is not unexpected and not a wrong result. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the possible threat was directed at if anyone, but it's also worth remembering that readers can include the editor concerned. Depending on where the threat was made, the target etc, revdeleting it fast enough can ensure that the editor concerned may never have to read it. They may know something happened and if a more detailed revdeletion is left and they read it they may know what it was, but not having to read such things can definitely help reduce the harm. If for some reason they need to know what it said, well that's why report such things to the WMF so they can judge what needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"Thank you for proving your bigotry against the White race"

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.

---

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

Over the course of a few hours, user transitions from WP:SOAPBOXing at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory ([106][107][108]) to adding wildly inappropriate WP:SYNTH to the article [109]. A user talk page warning about WP:OR and suggestion to read the policy before editing further rapidly escalates into this: [110]. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I literally provided statistical data from two different government sources. You deleted that data because David Coleman (demographer) chose to publish on Daily Mail. That does not make his Office for National Statistics data incorrect. I fail to understand why numbers are so threatening. ClairelyClaire (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:DAILYMAIL is nigh-universally regarded by Wikipedians as a purveyor of utter crap… for starters. Dronebogus (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Dronebogus: I appreciate your support but I strongly suggest that we stick to clear behavioral violations here rather than discussing content. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, it wasn't the Daily Mail. It was Coleman 2016 and the Daily Mail published an "edited" version of that, which the Daily Mail article actually said. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Coleman, David (2016-05-24). "Uncontrolled Immigration Means Finis Britanniae". Standpoint. Archived from the original on 2021-06-21.
• Hey I just showed up with the same complaint about this user (Cla. Cla.) what do you know! Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ClairelyClaire seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. They made fewer than 100 edits from 2017-21 and now are suddenly focused on POV pushing on white genocide, examples being:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080380210 WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOTFORUM attempted legitimization of the conspiracy theory
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080380455 more of the same
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080419033 extreme WP:OR to legitimize topic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080416045 more attempts at legitimization using the legendary and infamous WP:DAILYMAIL
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&diff=prev&oldid=1080421721 complaints about “censorship” typical of POV pushing fringe types, (and arguably yet more attempts to present the topic as “legitimate” by suggesting it is worth “learning” through some sort of dialogue with its supporters?)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080416393 bludgeoning

Based on this evidence I’d say this user runs foul of WP:NORACISTS due to their unequivocal support for a racist conspiracy theory. They have also engaged in POV pushing over Donald Trump (of course) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DARVO&diff=prev&oldid=1080379835) to add to their list of disruptive activities. Dronebogus (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• (comment) For what its worth, their user page speaks for itself. Classic example of WP:RACISTBELIEFS#3. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I blanked the userpage as offensive and inflammatory racist content. Dronebogus (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Partial blocked I have ejected them from white genocide conspiracy theory and DARVO as those appear to be the problems at the moment (and I will be AFK shortly), though if any admin wishes to increase that sanction then feel free. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Fully blocked now per WP:NONAZIS and WP:POLEMIC. They just reverted Dronebogus. I'm fully blocking them now. --Jayron32 13:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks :) Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 1 April 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.

Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA

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.

---

Tsans2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user @Tsans2: has added new material to an article. I opposed those additions with explanations, and reverted the user's changes. The user added back those information, after giving an explanation I deemed unsatisfactory; I reverted this re-addition and insisted the BRD process be carried out. The user added back those information once again, stating don't do this again. explain on talk page and stating on the talk page I don't revert. I put back what is supported by sources and I argued it here. You contstantly delete my additions, including the latest ones with Ukrainian historians. That proves you either don't read the article or don't like their views. I told the user they had to revert their addition otherwise I would open an ANI, to which the user replied that they would maintain their addition and that I was possibly "Ukrainophobic". The user has refused to go throught the BRD process, prefering to imply I had an agenda and could not read the sources (it's only your idea. no one revert my edits, but only you. you have been banned for a week from editing this page. and what? no one reverted my edits. what does that mean?; I reverted my edits because you even don't read the article. please be careful).

• As for the part Or you are Ukrainiphobic and the view of a Ukrainian historian is not worth mentioning here?, the user then changed the wording [111], but only after another user told them it was a personnal attack and that they should AGF; even then Tsans2 stated they had removed it because it is possible insulting and said nothing about questioning my good faith.

The user also stated concerning my behaviour:

• Personal attack:

  Nope, why should you care? because, you are the one who wanted to delete this article, and now, you are obsessed with it?

• Competency and the current elements of CONSENSUS concerning the scope of the article I had cited:

  nope, you don't know the topic neither you speak Ukrainian or Russian to understand it. Regarding this: Moreover, the vague consensus on this article's scope - it's just your idea or statement. You wrote it, you defend it, I'm lucky with that, but don't make it a point here.

I have already had problems with the methods and POV-pushing of the user and I had previously described them at this ANI from 14 March 2022; at the time I acted too hastily. The user also has a strong tendency to add WP:FICTREFs and to attempt to have them maintained without real justifications (see this other user's very recent remark to the revert of Tsans2 to which Tsans2 never argued back). I have described the problem with the user's use of sources in this whole talk page section and its sub-sections.
I feel sanctions need to be taken against Tsans2, who has already been one-week banned from editing this article for edit-warring on said article (I was also one-week banned from the article for the same reason, but I have hopefully learned my lesson). Veverve (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• As a related note, Tsan2 added the "propagandist" label to Marina Ovsyannikova without any sources: [112], added it back after it was reverted with some particularly crummy sources: [113], and after it was reverted and the sources challenged by Mellk, they added it again a third time with no explanation: [114]. Their behaviour on both of these articles seems like a classic case of tendentious editing, and I find it highly questionable that they are actually here to build an encyclopedia (as opposed to grinding their axe or trying to win in political battles). Endwise (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I noticed there is a tendency of continually restoring their preferred edits after being reverted and told why, so I would hope it does not continue. Mellk (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter @Veverve@Endwise I added sources as it was asked. I found that the article was non-neutral and I added a littlbe bit another information. Tsans2 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Endwise already started a discussion on the talk page. I will try to find better sources. Tsans2 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Starting a talk page discussion like that is a far more productive way to engage in disputes like this, so thank you. Endwise (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is clearly an editor only interested in POV pushing and not in anything else. See for example their edits at Odessa today: Even after they have been warned multiple times that the English name of the city if Odessa they still continue to write Odesa in the article. Their talk page is full of warnings, and they do not have any useful contributions. The sooner they get blocked indefinitely the better. We have currently enough editors who are adding neutral info in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is pure vandalism [115]: Replaced a valid link with a red link because they did not like the name of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I was never warned about Odessa/Odesa stuff. --Tsans2 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Or it is just incompetence with piping in wikitext, and no awareness that that doesn't necessarily mean a thing for the English language name. The editor isn't making up the name change, but what was bandied about in 2019 does not seem to have actually taken hold, at least from a cursory look on my part. See Talk:Yuzhne#Possible name change. Of course, there are challenges with this sort of stuff right at the moment, as I don't need to tell you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • @Uncle G: Tsans2 seem quite experienced, from what I get. Veverve (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Xe is clearly not a native English speaker, doesn't have even 300 edits here, has fewer edits on the Ukrainian Wikipedia than here if my count is right, and is still making markup errors such as boldface for subheadings as of a mere 3 days ago (Special:Diff/1080012976). Xe is possibly not as experienced or facile with either wikitext or English, or indeed with Wikipedia in general, as you might be thinking. ☺ Yes, ad hominems and personal attacks. But also yes, not very good with English, wikitext, or Wikipedia norms. By Hanlon's Razor, don't attribute to vandalism that which can be adequately explained by not knowing how to use MediaWiki markup properly and not knowing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Uncle G (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

          @Uncle G I'm not native speaker, that's true. If I made a mistake - please help to avoid it in the future. Thanks! Tsans2 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      • @Uncle G concerning Yuzhne - you are not carefull :( I changed the name of the Port, not the city. Port is named: Pivdennyi. Tsans2 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • No, you changed a hyperlink to Yuzhne to a redlink. Take up your idea of a 2019 name change at the port actually being effective in Ukrainian, let alone in the English language, with Олександр Кубраков visiting ПОРТ «ЮЖНИЙ» in 2021. I started the talk page section, as I pointed to before. Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

          @Uncle G no, I changed a hyperlink to the red one, as there were no article about Pivdennyi port. The hypelink was leading to the city, and I change it to the future article about Pivdennyi Port which I created today. Tsans2 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    My edit isn't a vandalism. Please read: Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism and Wikipedia:Yelling "Vandalism". Concerning "red link" and Port Pivdennyi - it was renamed from Yuzhnyi to Pivdennyi, as a decommunization and derussification of Ukraine. Please be careful and don't blame me. Tsans2 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Odessa or Odesa - is it written in the beginning of the article. The same as Kyiv or Kiev. It's both legal. Tsans2 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  For consistency sake, it would need to be "Odessa" throughout the article rather than "Odessa" one sentence then "Odesa" next sentence. "Odesa" in first sentence mentions alternative name. Mellk (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Mellk okay! but it's definitely not vandalism. Am I right? Tsans2 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Tsans2: you have completely ignored all the content of the criticism of your behaviours others have done so far, instead focusing on the form. Veverve (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Veverve I answered all the questions and bold accusations. Tsans2 (talk) 10:51, 1 April 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.

POV pushing edit warrior making bogus claims 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.

---

See diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LifeSiteNews&diff=1080399880&oldid=1080395888 and the most recent history of LifeSite News in general. They’ve done this multiple times, please block as WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

MovingTree appears to believe they can remove whatever they don't like from the lead section at LifeSiteNews on the argument that it lacks citations. Citations are not actually required in the lead section, which summarizes the article, and its content is supposed to be (and is) referenced further down. Partial-blocked for three months from LifeSiteNews for persistent tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 2 April 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.

2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F / The fate of User:JalenFolf

• 2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From looking at this anonymous user's contributions, I see a lot of edits that claim the edits are "on the grounds of" other articles, a serious violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for claims to make edits that, for example, violate MOS:TVNOW. Multiple warnings have not helped; the user continues to make these kinds of edits regardless. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This feels less OSE, more WP:CIR; the argument might read in an OSE manner, but they're just throwing in random television show titles to try to argue for their preferred tense, and no one would say a television show 'ceased operations'. Nate • (chatter) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to contribute that the applicant jalen folf also systematically deletes contributions from some unregistered users sometimes obviously without any improvement of the article by the revert. Contributions can also be well-intentioned and made. This can also be seen in the changes of the complained user or in the applicant's history. it mainly leads to edit wars with users who are not familiar with the rules. I assume that he intends to do so here. this contradicts the procedure that one should assume good intentions of the user, and has a demotivating effect.91.41.254.22 (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First, may I request that a separate section be made for this very issue? This accusation is not what this thread is about. Second, in regards to Ben O'Toole, I had simply moved it into draftspace to allow you to improve the attempt without any intrusion from page reviewers. Now that the article has been accepted in Articles for creation, I have no reason to bother the page anymore. Thank you for your time. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In addition, any other neutral page reviewer would have made similar redirect restorations if they had seen what I had seen: at the time of draftification here there were very few sources present on that version of the article to establish notability. WP:THREE was followed, but with two sources from the same vendor. Additionally, I suspect AllFamous is an unreliable source; the About Us page on the website suggests it runs on WP:UGC. Luckily, this is no longer a problem thanks to improvements since draftification and Cabrils accepting the improved version of the article. I still do not see why this separate issue needs to be brought up in a case where now I feel another anonymous user is borderline WP:HOUNDing me. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made my article to the topic at all, neither i wanted to change the topic. But you just did. Anyway, reverts with a reason of advertising or promoting with tag RW included should be used carefully in my eyes, which made me drew attention. This and a systematical deteletion of contributions for the timespan.

So back to the topic - Outspoken warnings should be treated carefully. Systematic reverts too. Reverts to all contributions with the justification last good version is restored indicates that all contributions made were bad. in the present case you made these reverts within seconds. that this leads to displeasure is pretty obvious.

Also as far as i know, three reverts a day can be considered as an edit war. Please check your contributions history on that, especially if a users history can also be considered as a page. Polite pointers and suggestions for improvement are often much more appropriate than a warning, and a basis for collaboration. Please check your history on that and as already mentioned, reverts and warnings about my contributions are not the topic at all. 91.41.246.95 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think may have been an overreaction to a comment by a single anon editor, and have addressed it on the user's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed community ban of User:JalenFolf I propose that the user JalenFolf be community banned from the English Wikipedia on grounds of a large history of edit warring, hounding, editing while logged out, and incivility towards anonymous users. Fine! I give up! This anonymous user is not letting me respond civilly to these accusations. If this is how it has to be, let’s see what the community says! Jalen Folf (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, anon! You just drove a long-term editor to leave the community! I'm done! For anyone else reading this, I don't care what happens to my fate; all that matters is I'm no longer comfortable editing on this encyclopedia. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to make an addendum to this thread that this matter just became worse with an IP owned by blocked user Glam-girlz targeting my Talk page for vandalism. This whole situation needs action, and FAST!!! I cannot stand this website anymore! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:WikiLinuz

Hi, can an administrator please help me? User:WikiLinuz created a section on my talk page earlier today and accusing me of posting incorrect stuff on the Honorary Aryan article. The user then threatened me with, “If you continue this disruptive POV editing on other articles, you will be reported at WP:ANI”. The user is now hounding my edits and reverting every edit I make as WP:OR which is not true and ignoring my attempts at a civilised discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Honorary Aryan and Talk:Aryan race. I have checked the user’s talk page archive and I can see that the user has a history of making false accusations against people, engaging in edit wars and reverting other people’s edits. I have contributed to many articles on Wikipedia and I wish to be able to do so freely without someone reverting my edits and making false accusations.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FriendlyFerret9854 (talk · contribs) seems to have trouble abiding by (and understanding) our original research guidelines. Let me provide diffs of such conduct:

• Here, they didn't bother to look into the cited source prior to (incorrectly) removing the text and distorting facts.
• When I reverted that edit requesting them to re-read the cited material, they opened a thread asking me to quote the source, which I did here and explained our policies concerning the usage of WP:PRIMARY of subjects related to the article here.
• However, they were skeptical and asked if the author himself provided a source for his claims, which is clearly exhibiting unfamiliarity with WP:SECONDARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - something which I literally asked them to get familiar with on my very previous reply.
• They further accused me of not verifying that scholarly material here. On these diffs (here, here and here), they relentlessly engaged in disruptive behavior (holding on to their WP:OR) and didn't care to WP:LISTEN, even if another editor stepped in and tried to explain our policies (here, here and here).
• This behaviour continued at a related article. At our talk page discussions, they continue to cling on to their WP:OR (here, here) and accused me of being disingenuous and difficult to comprehend here. They continue to disruptively remove sourced text here, following their original research.
• I tried to explain to them about our WP:OR policies here and here, which they ignored.
• This disruptive behaviour and edit warring was continued on other articles, see this, this and this.

I tried to explain our policies (about 3 times), but I think it's best to sanction FriendlyFerret9854 on these topics to avoid further disruption. Thanks, WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with citing sources. I am well within my rights to ask if an author has provided a source for his claim. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true. I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack. All you have done is stalk my edits and continue to revert my edits e.g. using a quote from a book is not original research yet you seem to think it is! You have engaged in this type of behaviour before (admin take a look at the user’s archive) so this isn’t a new thing. The disruptive behaviour is on your behalf when you were so disingenuous to think the Aryan article and the Aryan race article are referring to the same meaning of the term ‘Aryan’. Also, I have shown on the Talk:Honorary Aryan page that a lot of what is on the Honorary Aryan article doesn’t even belong on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true - See, you're doing it again. You seem to lack the understanding of how scholarly peer review works.
• I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack - They were referring to Generalrelative's reply when they claimed of knowing more than the scholar himself. This is not how our guideline defines a personal attack. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You don’t need to patronise me. You don’t need to stalk me. You don’t need to be asking other people to keep articles on their watchlists. Etc, etc. It’s all just so weird. With regard to questioning Anthony’s claim in his book, see WP:TRUTH - “If it’s written in a book, it must be true!” “In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible.” “Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.” And so forth. I have every right to question Anthony’s claim when “Czechs” is not mentioned in the Grant’s book in relation to Germans mixing with other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is very clearly a content dispute, and I suggest hashing it out on the talk page (especially @FriendlyFerret9854, before a BOOMERANG hits them square in the face). MiasmaEternal☎ 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@MiasmaEternal: I see this as more of a WP:CIR issue (and failing to WP:LISTEN) than a mere content dispute, especially if you look into their shenanigans at Talk:Aryan_race#Poles,_Czechs_and_Italians. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 12:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, you're right. MiasmaEternal☎ 20:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It just doesn't stop... so for example, I checked the sources that were used to support a claim and none of them supported it so I removed it and he now has reverted it back [[116]] with the reason, "No consensus at talk page. Stop your disruptive editing until there's a result at WP:ANI." This is getting ridiculous now. I am quite capable of checking sources and removing unsourced text. Just for the sake of it I have created a section on the talk page here showing that the sources don't support the claim so the text doesn't belong in the article and should be removed. Why this user is behaving like a moderator on here is beyond me, but it's actually very odd.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And again, the stalking begins... I added text with a secondary source and he has decided to remove it on the Nazi racial theories article. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PERSON? WHY IS HE FOLLOWING ME AND UNDOING ALL OF MY EDITS? IT NEEDS TO STOP!--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not stalking when you are editing in a narrow range of overlapping articles and including basically the same challenged information across several pages.Slywriter (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Challenged? Please see Talk:Honorary_Aryan#Turks_and_Iranians_-_Part_2 - do you think that unsourced material belongs in the article? I've checked the sources and they do not support the claim because it's an erroneous claim. I don't need to wait for this to be resolved to remove unsourced material.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I said challenged and no you are not the final authority on what is correct or erroneous. If you can not arrive at a consensus, you should be using WP:3O to get a 3rd opinion or wider community input through WP:RFC.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also given sources are listed, the material is not unsourced. You seem to disagree with what the sources purport to say, which is different.Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@FriendlyFerret9854: WP:SHOUTING is unhelpful and unconstructive. Also, I have Nazi racial theories on my watchlist; when someone makes a change, I get notified. So I wasn't stalking you. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also when you're in a dispute, FriendlyFerret9854, edit-warring with other editors without arriving at a consensus on the talk page is disruptive. I suggest that we revert back to the stable version, discuss the dispute, then make the edit. Not on the reverse order. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know best... I created three separate sections on the talk page and you didn't reply so I've created "Part 2", so you can check the sources yourself and quite clearly see that I'm in the right.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Sourced information about Greeks and Turks has nothing to do with Finns and Hungarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Negativity created against me again by IP user 2409:4063:2309:89E2:1554:4974:27D8:1185

2409:4063:2309:89E2:1554:4974:27D8:1185 (talk · contribs) is blocked User Princepratap1234 who brutually stalked and harassed me in past. After I reported him he got blocked. Since then he's trying to create Negativity against me by using my real name everywhere about which he came to know about by sensing e-mail after which I blocked his 4 mail ids also. Few days back I removed a contribution by PriyaMishra0121 on Anupamaa because it was unconstructive and lacking source also. I also mentioned the reason for reverting the edit. But after that Princepratap1234 through his new IP created negativity against me on her talk page. Yesterday I removed that negativity part against me as it'll create negative image of me in wikipedia editors eyes. But he reverted it again. I request administrators to permanently block his IP on wikipedia and please remove that discussion from Priya's talk page. I'm providing links to it. [117]Pri2000 (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 2409:4063:2000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs) blocked by Primefac. El_C 11:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Julienor94

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

---

After being told at stop deleting sourced material, Julienor94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed restoring his preferred version of Ligures, still without engaging in discussion at Talk:Ligures#Problème with Toulousien-ancien. Toulousien-ancien (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Brave of you to post this here when it’s extraordinarily obvious you’re a sock of User:LambdofGod. Quack. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Bravery knows no limits when you can hide comfortably behind your screen" -- Confucius

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:34, 2 April 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.

Suspected Block Evasion by 107.218.228.92 via 96.74.200.230

I suspect that 96.74.200.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually 107.218.228.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – an anonymous user who is a long-term vandal that is currently blocked for two years for persistent vandalism. Both editors seem to edit National Football League and World Wrestling Entertainment-related articles, often adding a false information that is spelled incorrectly or not formatted appropriately. For example:

• 107.218.228.92's edit on Eddie Kennison from 11/25/2020
• 96.74.200.230's edit on Warren Moon from 3/11/2022

In both examples, the city name is misspelled and formatted in all-lowercase.

Both IPs are also based in the Chicago area. 96.74.200.230 presently does not have enough warning to merit a report to WP:AIV. I apologize if this should be filed under a sock puppet investigation, but it seems more like block evasion to me. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A MAC address user posts an inappropriate discussion on an article's talk page

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

---

A MAC address user (2601:204:202:4860:794B:14D2:B601:86A5) twice added an inappropriate discussion (which I already reverted) on the talk page of Haruka Tomatsu. Centcom08 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a MAC address (and Wikipedia would absolutely never have those user-visible), that's an IPv6 address. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:33, 2 April 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.

To be fair, although it wasn't mentioned in the report, an admin was needed in order to revdel something.  Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Protecting Users Globally on the Ukraine-Russia Pages

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

---

The Russian government has possibly send users from their region to remove sourced information which they believed it fake news. (even if its EEP) They have arrested a user recently. Can the admins and Wikipedia policy enforcement expert help create security plan to help protect working Wikipedia users on all regions of Wikipedia.? This unacceptable. Arresting someone for editing a Wikipedia.

• 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Russo-Ukrainian War

Patent2022 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There's not much Wikipedia can do about the Russian government arresting people for editing Wikipedia, I don't think, as Wikipedia lacks a private army or security force to protect editors. The courts in Russia clearly are in the pocket of the government, so legal action probably wouldn't help. If Russian government agents or even just pro-Russia civilians are clearly removing content against policy they will be dealt with just as any other editor. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Think these group of users from Russia are making so called "non disruptive changes but also parts of their changes are removing so called fake news information" Try to sneak in the changes...making harder to catch them even if you review the history Patent2022 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will note that Russia falls into WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe's topic area. Subtle POV-pushing is amongst the things that can draw discretionary sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I share grave concerns about this arrest but we should all try our best to be accurate. We have an article about this, Detention of Mark Bernstein, and it is clear that Mark Bernstein was arrested in Belarus, not Russia. Some might argue that Belarus is Russia's closest ally, and that is also true. But at this time, they are two separate nation states. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 3 April 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.

Pakistan crisis

There is an constitutional crisis is going in Pakistan, between Government and Opposition parties and there is no clear status of Parliament and national assembly, I request to wikipedia admistators please protect & not allowed any edits at Parliament of Pakistan and National Assembly of Pakistan pages until situation clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.74 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks (both), after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No-confidence motion against Imran Khan -related. El_C 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Turkic Perfect

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

1. Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safavid order page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[118]
2. Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safi-ad-din Ardabili page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[119]
3. Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Turkish" at the Abbas the Great article. No edit summary/explanation.[120]
4. Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Azerbaijan" at the Afsharid dynasty article. No edit summary/explanation.[121]
5. Tried to swap "Safavid Iran" with "Safavid Azerbaijan" at the History of Azerbaijan article. No edit summary/explanation.[122]
6. Warned on several occassions.[123]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this "user" is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Turkic_Perfect#Indefinite_block. El_C 11:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks

User: 604editor making religious and personal attacks on a talk page [124] and disruptive edits on Sikhs where he removed sourced content without any explanation [125]. Granted the IP was definitely disruptive as well and deserves to be reprimanded but it doesn't allow a user to make bigoted statements like that. IIBxtrerII (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

what about this is a threat? i told him stop making disruptive edits or he'll be reported, he already has several warnings on his talk page, this is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary was a personal attack. However, no warning had been given to 604editor before this report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User has been warned about personal attacks.[126] —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred, glad this could be resolved immediately. Hope to see less disruptive editing and bigoted statements on wikipedia. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That was definitely unacceptable and justified a warning. If there is any repetition I would support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There definitely won't be repetition so no need for a block, but let's focus on the fact that you IIBxtrerII reverted my edits on the Page Sikhs, talking about "sourced content removed without any explanation" except everything I removed was already unsourced, Guru Nanak was born into a Buddhist not Hindu family(there's a BIG difference), this is well recorded in multiple sources. Furthermore, you reverted my edits and even reported my efforts against vandalism as "attacks" which yes some were(only on his talk page), within MINUTES, yet you let the Hindu extremist disruptive edits stay unchecked on the page Sikhs since the 31st of March, that is FOUR days, hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend that you move this comment and discussion on the talk page of Sikhs, this page isn't really appropriate for content disputes. I would be happy to engage with you there. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You're really pushing your luck here, adopting a belligerent battleground attitude in a thread where you've already been warned about personal attacks really isn't helping your cause. At this point I'd strongly suggest you find another unrelated topic to quietly work on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive addition of uncited content and attacks on editors by IP

86.87.191.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively adding uncited content and insists that the content will be continuously re added to the Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). Editors have been called "propagandists", amateurs and self-important novice editors""

• 1, 2 , 3
• Also this golden statement "Clearly there are people monitoring this article very desperate to maintain a propagandist approach and using this as a vehicle for spreading their incoherent economic ignorance. I don't expect much on Wikipedia, with all the amateurs and self-important novice editors flying around adding their little tags randomly. I tell you now though I will republish the facts on this article as much as you try to remove it"

-UtoD 05:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Warned: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Warning, Talk:2019–present_Sri_Lankan_economic_crisis#Propaganda. El_C 11:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In light also of today's edit by different IP's, semi 10 days. El_C 12:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Upon further thought, probably excessive at this point. Sure, the Civil War ended in 2009, but this seems like a good faith edit, whose contents were at least partially retained (and notwithstanding the original reported IP's threats, which they have not carried out thus far). El_C 12:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C Nope its back and also trolling in the talk page. -UtoD 19:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Block. El_C 19:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP returns on century articles

2601:146:4100:AC60:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for three months in May 2021 for persistent MOS:CENTURY violations, including things like The term is often used to refer to the 1800s, the century between January 1, 1800, and December 31, 1899. They also evaded that block as 2601:147:300:EDE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log).

Now they have returned as 2601:14D:4581:4370:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 2601:14D:4581:6710:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) adding the same The term is often used to refer to “the 1800s”, the century between 1 January 1800 and 31 December 1899 nonsense as before. FDW777 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Billh07882

• Billh07882 (talk · contribs)

This user has made the same unhelpful edit to Pork roll eleven times in the past couple weeks and has been reverted by five users. The latest was after I gave a uw-vandalism4 on User talk:Billh07882. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• On the contrary, clearly here to make an article better, albeit ineptly. Why not write the sentence better to avoid this problem? It reads as if somehow there's permission granted to do this, especially as it immediately follows a discussion of legal requirements. If you want to say that even though it's actually named pork roll, is not a ham, and is not necessarily a Taylor product, people still call it "Taylor's Ham", then there must be a way of saying this that doesn't get people wanting to add-in the missing counterpoint. Yes, this is bad writing and slow-motion (less than 1 edit per day on average) edit warring by Billh07882, but it's being triggered by existing writing that could be better too. ISBN 9780811746274 and ISBN 9781467139267 (Arcadia Publishing again) seem to be places to start on this. Bryson and Haynie even make the "I'm looking at [the wrapper] right now." argument. ISBN 9781614237273 (yet more Arcadia) talks about genericization. So it's not that this is some personal observation by Billh07882. It's actually a genuine point to be made, better than the article is making it; and the editor is actually trying to address a failing in the article, and simply doing so not very well. Fix the article with good writing to explain, and I predict that the problem with Billh07882's bad writing will go away of its own accord.

  The north calls it “Taylor ham” and eats it with mustard; the south calls it “pork roll” and eats it with ketchup.

  — Bryson and Haynie, op cit., p. 109

  Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a routine content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:Pork roll which has been silent for nearly a year. The goal of that discussion should be to build consensus. Any editor who edit wars against consensus is, of course, at a very high risk of a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • And since I made this post, Billh07882 made the edit again, which was reverted, and Drmies made a reasonable edit rewording that section. Billh07882 for a thirteenth time made his change, this time saying it's "also wrong" to eat it with mustard, here inputting a personal observation. This has been appropriately reverted, and I will again say that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, even without a talk page discussion that obviously inappropriate and disruptive wording is inappropriate. Being reverted by now six users (and warned on his own talk page by three) is an implicit consensus and it's not our onus to bring his inept editing to the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, perhaps you know what to do here. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a page block to force communication on the talk page, hopefully get them experienced in consensus building and develop them into a good editor? They'll end up proving, one way or another, if they're WP:HERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I thought about this a bit more, and there's a pork roll SPA, which I find amazing. It really takes all kinds, eh? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
        • It's not one person. It's an entire state. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Well there I was poised to tackle South Atlantic Quarterly and now I find myself having to bloody write about pork roll instead. The entire state of New Jersey owes me some articles. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Hamilton, William Baskerville, ed. (1953). Fifty Years of the South Atlantic Quarterly. Durham.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
        • Durden, Robert F. (1988). "Hamilton, William Baskerville (7 Mar. 1908–17 July 1972)". In Powell, William S. (ed.). Dictionary of North Carolina Biography. University of North Carolina Press.
        • Mott, Frank Luther (2002). "The South Atlantic Quarterly". A History of American Magazines: 1905–1930. Vol. 5. Harvard University Press. pp. 273–285. ISBN 9780674395541.
        • Fredrickson, George M. (1987). The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914. Wesleyan University Press. p. 291. ISBN 9780819561886.
        • Hart, James D. (1986). "South Atlantic Quarterly". The Concise Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 377. ISBN 9780195047714.
        • MacLeod, Kirsten (2018). American Little Magazines of the Fin de Siecle: Art, Protest, and Cultural Transformation. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442643161.
        • Hart, James D. (1995). "Bassett, John Spencer". In Leininger, Phillip (ed.). The Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780195065480.
      • Right. Some 5KiB later and I'm still annoyed. New Jersey definitely owes me those articles. ScottishFinnishRadish is right. If the editor comes back after this, xe isn't contributing in good faith. Clearly a Southerner, too. Block the bloody nuisance if that happens. Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit wars on Dyson (company)

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: )

I'm here to report a lot of edit wars on Dyson (company). I reverted a edit on that page considering it was just a single vandalism, but then I found that there were terrible edit wars on it. Could any sysop take a look at the edit history of that page?Pavlov2 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Dyson (company) for two weeks. Let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot. By the way, the IPv6 vandal even tried to make a false report against you on 3rr noticeboard. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the Gary0987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock based on this[127] — Czello 22:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

More disruptive behaviour[128] — Czello 22:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit wars at Dyson? Sucks to be them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Get out. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Sola8273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list of socks that require blocking. — Czello 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion 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.

---

Hello, I have a concern over here, Which I as a part of the community thinks that I should know.

I am an editor over here with interest in Pop culture, Indie Music etc and since I am from India I do edit on India based Artists pages more specifically. My concern is about a few of the pages which have been repeatedly created, although they have sources available but still they get deleted just because some sort of sock farm or COI related accounts have been involved into it, I am curious about knowing a thing what if the available sources somehow do passes gng yet due to some of the senior editor who abruptly are ignorant about the fact that the sources which are available are there because they DO have possibly grabbed the media attention due to their notable work.

for example

• Emiway Bantai
• Vivek Verma
• Pav Dharia

Like I am pretty sure if searched more properly there will be many other names too which hasn't been allowed to be created just because someone possibly or intentionally spoiled the record of these pages on WP, and the biggest problem which occurs over here is this that if someone with good faith even tries to work on these pages, such editors are unnecessarily seen as someone who be editing them in return of money etc, but the fact is sometimes editors like me edits on such pages with good faith, for example I have recently tried creating a draft on Vivek Verma then an editor started calling me a sock of someone who had tried creating the same page earlier read this for example, but the fact was I found the artist on spotify and later I liked his song and searched for him on google and found sources which are equivalent to many other Indian Artists having WP on wiki and just because they don't have been repeatedly recreated they pass GNG and pages like Amiway and Verma doesn't. Although it probably been done as a good faith for WP but it fails to justify that Why doesn't anyone is allowed to create such pages.

for instance see in the case of verma read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma and over here per Wikipedia:THREE there are certainly enough sources available, Infact This NDTV source has been published few hours ago.

there is similar situation for Bantai and other one as well. Needs suggestion on the same issue. Thanks Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• To the extent that this is yet another discussion about Vivek Verma, I endorse the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma, its deletion review, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (2nd nomination). I also endorse the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (musician) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma. I also endorse RHaworth's G4 and salting of Vivek Verma singer and his G8 of Vvek Verma. I also endorse the blocking of User:Vivek.k.Verma and his 20-ish sockpuppets, and I respectfully invite Suryabeej to write something else.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment but that doesn't satisfy the question of why someone who has refs like this, this, this, this or lets say This, this, this and this aren't considered as passing gng? Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Before I answer that, I have two questions for you. First: what's your connection with Vivek Verma? Second: Has anyone offered you any money or other incentive to get a Wikipedia article about Vivek Verma published?—S Marshall T/C 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I found his music on spotify Randomly, and searched for him and found that he has the potential coverage along with his weak but satisfactory contribution in Bollywood which makes him satisfy GNG and WP:MusicBio that is why I took the attempt to create the draft of him, Secondly I am clearly aware with the WP policies and COI, No, No one has offered me nothing to make Verma's page on WP, It was my own decision, which made me curious after I found Draft:Emiway bantai this which is being made by some editor who is trying to change the letter into small and create a draft which again is wrong but I found that these fellas do pass WP:THREE and I felt like asking the question about it over here, Rest I edit mostly music related stuff over here on WP. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Mr Verma has exhausted the community's patience with his persistent socking and self-promotion, so we no longer want to talk about him. I suggest you write something else and come back after you've got a dozen other articles published in the mainspace.
  This board, the administrator's noticeboard, is a place to raise conduct issues with other editors. We don't make content decisions or decision about sources here. Someone will be along shortly to close this thread.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 4 April 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 and abusive IP editor

• Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Liturgy of Addai and Mari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Suriyani Malayalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP editor 2402:8100:3903:1960:355B:C14E:5CD3:2EDC, who also appears to edit as 2402:8100:390C:CF8B:92D7:F55F:6220:A38 and 2402:8100:390B:EB54:5088:8C3F:4E40:860C, has repeatedly edited in an abusive, vandalizing, and self-admitted POV manner. Besides using crass language when asked about their edits, the editor proceeded to accuse me of "arrogance and ignorance" twice and has refused to address a request for sources on their edits, particularly this one. Another editor has attempted intervention, not receiving any response. If I need to do anything else, let me know. ~ Pbritti 14:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

2001:F40:910:83C:9906:7198:2565:37D9

Hello, This user has made extremely unconstructive and disruptive edits to wikipedia within the last hour. User claims to be "Hacked", which is impossible as this is an I.P User. Edits include major content removal, Block requested. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Report to ARV is more faster.. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked for a few days (via a report at AIV). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Eyetie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I are involved in a content dispute on Taron Egerton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) involving praise for Egerton's performance in a play. Eyetie proposed adding a review from Londonist's Franco Milazzo, which I found unsuitable. I then saw that they added a separate review by Milazzo in another article. A quick Google search I did on Milazzo to learn whether their (and Londonist's) reviews merit attention presented something interesting. I'm not going to state my findings per WP:OUTING, but I believe this needs administrator action. KyleJoan^talk 04:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• In fairness, not needing Outing, they mention on their user page they're an "award winning critic", so there's already room there to question things. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it simply be better to ask the editor on their User talk page whether there is a conflict of interest before coming here? As the editor clearly identifies as an award-winning (a horrible phrase that can mean anything from a certificate for swimming ten metres to a Nobel prize) critic there is a fair chance that they will also be prepared to say which award-winning critic. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sounds quite fair to raise the potential COI discussion with them directly first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    • In this discussion, Eyetie called Milazzo the Londonist critic and Londonist verifiable ... for WP purposes, which reads like an attempt by Eyetie to maintain objectivity or conceal any external relationship. You'll also see that they had never answered the questions I had asked them, so I thought it would be futile to ask another one. KyleJoan^talk 14:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Futile or not, I have asked the direct question here, as you seem to be be too shy to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• For what it's worth if the only other edit that I can find of that nature going all of the way back to 2006 is Special:Diff/1043100629, this isn't even in the same class as the normal sort of conflict of interest case. If someone with just an account name on a WWW site said of your job "What is Londonist and how known are they for theatre reviews?" whilst erasing mention of it, what would you think? Egerton received praise, but the SF Chronicle's Mick LaSalle positively panned xem. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would add that some people may find the user name "Eyetie" to be offensive, although its intent is probably not. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  What's wrong with an eyetie? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:NIAOF

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.

---

Rapid changing of music genre on a variety of pages, ignoring all comments and talk page notifications indicating that the listed genres are backed by sources. Does not appear open to collaboration or communication. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:12, 4 April 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.

Seattle hoaxer, BLP violations from blocked HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo

• User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo
• 2601:0603:4b00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• User:BellaYesCaylieNo

User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo in Seattle has been using a range of IP6 addresses for hoaxing, date vandalism and violating BLP since September 2020.[129] (Before that, they were using the IP Special:Contributions/71.212.194.148 from July 2019.) One persistent hoax theme they keep adding is the word "Amadeus" or "Amadaeus", for instance in the false film The Bella & Amadaeus Movie[130] or the false TV show The Adventures of Amadaeus.[131] They often add the surname "Gammons".[132][133]

Perhaps a long-term rangeblock would help to keep them away from frequently visited articles. I listed the /40 but maybe it could be tightened for less collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding User:BellaYesCaylieNo as an obvious sock, repeating the vandalism of blocked IP Special:Contributions/168.212.100.64. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a mix of both vandalism and tendentious editing. Definitely SPA terrority. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it anything but vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Belovedeagle / User:JayBeeEll

JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of disruptive editing in Strategy-stealing argument. Specifically, the accusation was in this edit summary and on the talk page. It relates to an underlying content dispute (which also involves David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but I feel this accusation stands over my head preventing me from editing the article or working with content dispute resolution, and I don't agree that I've engaged in WP:DE.

I will attempt to explain the underlying content dispute, to establish whether I have engaged in WP:DE: JBL stated on the talk page that "Once your changes have been objected to, the onus is on you to find a consensus. So far, you have yet to convince anyone that there is anything wrong with the section you've been editing, which is about as far from establishing a consensus to make changes as is possible." I believe this is not an accurate statement of policy, and begins to lean toward status quo stonewalling. After my initial ill-advised reversion of User:David Eppstein's first revert, all of my subsequent changes to the article were different attempts to find WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Every attempt was reverted in its entirety by JBL or DE prior to any discussion on the talk page 1 2 3 4. Only some of the reversions were accompanied by useful explanations of what could be improved, and those only when I pressed for them in the talk page. For example, "bizarre formatting" in the edit description was not actionable; after I begged on the talk page I got a more detailed explanation of what was wrong, but by then I couldn't restore the change with better formatting because then I would be edit-warring instead of BOLDing. I believe the process which should have been followed would be for JBL to just make the formatting fix themselves, or to discuss on the talk page first instead of reverting to the status quo ante. I acknowledge that JBL expressed entirely new reasons for disagreeing with my change once discussion happened on the talk page, which would explain why a simple fix was not made. However, none of those reasons appear to be good WP:ONLYREVERT reasons. I believe that in my 4-5 attempts at improving the article, there is something that JBL could have found useful and kept.

I also feel that JBL has used language in describing my contributions which, taken together, is excessive enough to be inflammatory: "analysis hinges on a strange and unnatural reading", "a sign of a poor decision-making process", "your use of emphasis was bizarre", "the fact that your edits don't make things better is not terribly surprising given that you have yet to articulate a convincing basis to believe that there is something here that could be improved" (from talk), "bizarre formatting", "Your inability to communicate" (edit summary). I feel that an experienced editor such as JBL could have chosen less inflammatory language even when communicating my lack of competence, or at the very least, just less of it. I got the point that I lack the required competence the very first time, actually; the next five were unnecessary.

In summary, I believe my edits to the article constitute a search for WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, and they are not WP:DE or WP:TE. I'm seeking confirmation of this so that the underlying content dispute can be treated as such, without the threat of WP:DE. If my changes are in fact not WP:DE, then I am further seeking mediation for JBL's stonewalling behavior which their accusation of WP:DE is part of, and for the inflammatory language used to communicate their disapproval. Otherwise if I really am unintentionally engaged in WP:DE then hearing it from uninvolved editors will be a learning experience, and I will at minimum sit down and shut up.

To be clear, I haven't behaved well myself in the talk space, especially by venting my growing frustration by accusing JBL of bad faith. I should have left that bit out and just proceeded by assuming good faith. (Unfortunately I had not yet discovered the suggestions for what to do when one feels stonewalled.) I recognize this is probably the most pressing matter when considering the dispute so far, as I may be the only one who made it directly personal. Likewise I expressed my frustration with User:David Eppstein inappropriately. This is as good a reason to be here as any. Belovedeagle (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is I think mostly a content dispute, but over what content I am not entirely sure, because of Belovedeagle's prolixity. After some incivility on my talk page I warned them, perhaps too obliquely, of further drama; instead, after a second clearer warning on Talk:Strategy-stealing argument by JBL re WP:AGF they have rushed headlong into it here. I doubt their behavior has yet risen to the point of being block-worthy, though, so my suggestion would be an early close. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The diff links I have provided should be more than adequate to identify the content being disputed. I trust you realize that an early close would mean settling the content dispute in your favor. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sad to point out that you're not assuming good faith, again. I was not trying to win an argument, here, but actually to help you. The intent of my suggestion was to close this discussion quickly before it turns (as so many discussions here do) against its instigator. As to the content dispute, I am more interested in having the article reflect the scholarly consensus, and secondarily in getting agreement on whatever that might be in the discussions at the article talk page, than I am in getting my way (whatever "my way" might be when I still don't even have a clear picture of the point you are trying to make, and so far have mainly been trying to keep the article intelligible rather than to push any particular mathematical philosophy). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm completely lost at this fresh accusation as I find my previous comment does AGF.

In this case I wish you would not attempt to help me by closing the discussion early, and I explained why I felt that was not in my best interests overall. During the whole encounter your attempts at assistance have felt condescending rather than collegiate. Since I do assume this is unintentional, I ask you now to stop taking up this position in your interactions with me. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

To be explicit: You falsely accused me of trying to win a content dispute by shutting down the discussion here. Neither the presumption that I am here to win disputes nor the accusation that I would use underhanded means to do so are assumptions of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I see now how it could be taken that way, but I was just trying to be less verbose as you have requested. This leaves me feeling I cannot do anything right in your eyes: if I explain myself, I am too verbose; if I do not, I am not AGF.

We should back up and both assume good faith from here on out. I'm really trying to do so. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Belovedeagle, but this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Further, administrators have no special powers when it comes to content disputes, except possibly from the credibility thst comes from more experience. So, take a look at the options available to you at Dispute resolution instead. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand this is not the place for content disputes. But I thought this was the place for resolving the WP:DE accusation, and I want to resolve it before it festers. (Content dispute resolution won't be fruitful if I can't make any edits due to having been informed by JPL that further edits are WP:DE.) Please direct me to a more appropriate forum if not, and sorry for the confusion. Belovedeagle (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

From the past month of watching ANI I can pass along what I have seen to be excellent advice when it comes to content disputes, submit a Rfc using Template:Rfc. The first step is to figure out exactly what you want to have included on the page and then add it to the Talk page. If you want help drafting the Rfc I would suggest reaching out at the Teahouse. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Autobiography

Md Sunnat Ali Mollik has created Md Sunnat Ali Mollik multiple times. This clearly does not belong in main space, yet they persist in putting it back and have paid no attention to the messages on their TP. After my last draftification, they have blanked my user page. MB 07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted again and create-protected. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The user has subsequently been indefinitely blocked by another admin. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Guntapaki

Guntapaki has been Changing match times in various Wrestling Matches in a lot of Pay per views from WWE and WCW like Crown Jewel (2021), Survivor Series (2021), WWE Day 1, Royal Rumble (2022), Elimination Chamber (2022), Mayhem (1999), Halloween Havoc (1999), Survivor Series (2021), Armageddon (1999) and WrestleMania 38. This is has been going on since September 2021 and i think that Guntapaki is WP:NotHere. This is the only thing that this user does.

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138]
6. [139]
7. [140]
8. [141]
9. [142]

Chip3004 (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully to the OP, this ANI was not written well, and the difs are not actually difs. Since such poorly formed reports often get ignored, I'm going to try to help out.

First things first. All of Guntapaki's edits are changing the duration time for matches on pro wrestling PPVs without leaving an edit summary or any other commentary. A lot of the "not-difs" are months old, although a review of Guntapaki's contributions shows that the edits are ongoing. On the page for Starrcade (1999), the match duration times were sourced to 411mania, a site of "limited reliability" per WP:PW/RS. Guntapaki changes several times without adding a new source, and Chip3004 reverted.

Which brings us to communication. Guntapaki has not posted on any talk pages - not his user page, not article talk pages, not on Chip3004's talk pages. Meanwhile, Chip3004 has posted a rudely phrased query that was overwritten with a vandalism template an hour later, another vandalism template 8 minutes later, one month later, another attempt at communication consisting mainly of threats, another template 3 months later, and two months after that one last template and an ANI notification. No other users aside from the one that originally welcomed Guntapaki to Wikipedia have ever posted there. I'm including all this not to throw shade at Chip3004 but to help illustrate the situation - repeated threats from a single user may easily be ignored if no consequences are forthcoming.

So, is what Guntapaki doing vandalism or an attempt at good faith contributions? Well, I think he is vandalizing and I'm using this edit as the reason. In it he removes a source, and changes the access date of another source - I think this is evidence that he knows what he's doing. Guntapaki has, by the way, reinstated information he added that was reverted (once, twice) and has been reverted by editors other than Chip3004.

Guntapaki should be blocked, preferably by an administrator with the patience to discuss WP:RS with him if it does turn out that he's interested in being a legitimate contributor. 184.15.47.224 (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The Problem is when Guntapaki changed the Match Time for Match #7 it didn't match the source [143] Chip3004 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Guntapaki is still changing the match times for WrestleMania 38, he continues to change match times for WrestleMania 38, he always leaves the edit summary blank and does not use his talk page at all and it is ongoing. Chip3004 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think admin action is needed here. Chip3004 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as WP:VOA. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sparkle1

Can I please bring, yet again, User:Sparkle1 to the attention of this board?

We have their attitude on their talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080506106 ("Not even bothered reading")
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080200568 ("Not interested in the ramblings")

We also have a borderline edit war :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Saudi_Arabian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1080201226

I understand they have been reported before and I wonder if we can discuss their tone, their behaviour, and their attitude problem.

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would probably have been a more appropriate place for a thread like this, not that it can't be discussed here as well, but edit warring does have it's own separate board. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Additional note User:Sparkle1 was notified of this ANI (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080210382) and reverted it with a dismissive and uncivil edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&direction=next&oldid=1080210382 "Not even bothered reading."

doktorb _words^deeds 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• I see no issue with Sparkle1's user talk edits or the correlated edit summaries. A user can remove messages from their own user talk page because they're not interested and can say as such in the edit summary. Nothing of substance here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equivamp (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This report is vexatious in my opinion. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• I do not consider administrative action warranted here. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the 2010s and 2020s-present section

Every user who has committed each and every ban evasion has kept asking me to restore the 2010s and 2020s-present section of the Horror film page. They have been doing this to me time and again, every chance they got. So could you please do something about this before another ban-evading user starts bothering me again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You may need to report this to WP:SPI Pavlov2 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please file a report containing all these socks to there, which may be helpful.By the way, you can try to request a protect for your user talk page. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is about Jinnifer (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer). Jinnifer commonly uses sock puppets to harass on user talk pages both here and on other Wikimedia projects. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also found his socks on wikiquote, seemingly he is cross-wiki vandalizing. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve gotten this nonsense too. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A rangeblock on 166.205.141.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would be helpful, Jinnifer has been editing from there the last few days. See for example their trademark deuteragonist nonsense. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See CrakerLaers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a real time example. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Luisguzman22

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 does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia; they are repeatedly creating hoaxes despite warnings on their talk page, and this seems to be the only purpose of the account. Moved from AIV due to not being persistent vandalism. EDM fan 2 (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by User:Bbb23 as a WP:VOA. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 5 April 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.

Long term pov-pushing IP hopper

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.

---

2003:D1:CF0D:2A10:2D00:EEC0:871E:1DC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A10:F0CC:94D5:7900:161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A50:D00A:F43F:75A6:F9F6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A50:E919:BC02:A8BC:3134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:49AB:F14A:FC38:5714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:E8E9:32BA:A1BA:895A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:3461:4916:3F26:44FF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A36:5CE8:20E4:F112:DC80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A77:59CC:B514:C8CE:2217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A15:1DC5:6F51:F37D:A286 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:d1:cf0d:2a09:b45e:c9ba:a921:7ef4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A59:F9C3:784D:2439:A3A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A48:6819:367F:395D:B29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A87:D05F:A2C1:F40A:1D8F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A62:F113:2287:F41F:EC92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A33:28EC:375C:A4F:5918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A82:38FC:2758:A155:E17F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A79:315E:7A9A:F32D:A51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A45:3461:4916:3F26:44FF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A42:A12D:E246:66D4:5B7E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A06:5DFA:1A2D:5187:990B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For an extended time these particular IPs from the same location has been making religious related pov pushing, often with non-WP:RS as well as WP:RS which don't even support the added information. There are probably more IPs than this, and I suspect the person behind these IPs has made user accounts as well ([144]).

Here are some diffs. Mind you, there are many, these are just some examples;

[145] - Added information filled with a mix of unverifiable "sources", non-WP:RS, and even WP:RS which don't even support the added information.

[146] - Replaced a well-sourced revision of the article with that of WP:OR and non-WP:RS which fits with his view.

[147] - Added a barrage of non-WP:RS (Youtube, https://www.al-islam.org, etc) riddled with a bunch of POV info.

[148] - Same here.

[149] - Same here.

I could go on.

Some of his comments, notice a pattern here? This is clearly the same person;

"Reverted vandalism. if you look close at the sources of which those that do not mention the Naqshbandi literally, work as a supportive source to hint on the violent conversions made. It does not matter if an Iranian tries to hide the dark sides of his history, that every nation has. Stay unbiased."

"The new article made by History of Iran is nothing else than a subjective Pan-Iranian version of an islamic scholar.

"rv, administrator please ban this unneutral, discriminative and abusive user

"Only because Iranians do not accept that, it is not right to delete this citated title all at once. That is not unbiased and neutral.

"If a person specialized in Iranian history from Rasht, does not know him, he should minimally stay neutral."

Again, I could find more diffs, all these IPs speak/edit like each other. They even target more or less the same articles, especially Hazrat Ishaan (title), which was created by a user now banned for sockpuppetry (most likely him) [150] [151] [152] [153].

Based on this, I really think a huge rangeblock should be made, as this person is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is really persistent.

EDIT: Found one of his user socks [154] that tried to reinstate the IPs edits [155]. Moreover, this user just fixed the comment of another user whose edits and comments are very similar [156], another sock? Or maybe a meatpuppet? They both edit in the same article, in the same section [157] [158]. Created a SPI [159]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Whoever operates these sock accounts and sock IPs, they certainly managed to violate about every guideline there is. Clearly not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This look a lot like User:DedicatedFollower13, a sock of User:Sayyid Mir Israfil, per all the summaries ending "Thank you..." on the same /56 range. e.g. [160], [161], [162] LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month (/56). El_C 11:37, 3 April 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.

96.242.144.8

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 i.p user has only created hateful contributions, more specifically, defacing the transgender community, they have been warned in the past several times and have not improved. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please provide specific WP:DIFFs. Canterbury Tail talk 21:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Transgender rights movement these edits. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I've notified them of this discussion. They might not be a fan of transgender issues, but I'm not seeing anything resembling hate speech or defacement. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Im concerned due to their edits pretty much solely revolving around transgender topics, and seemingly nothing else as far as i can tell. If he is innocent then thats fine, I just felt wrong about the situation and felt i needed to address it. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I see some WP:SOAPBOXING and pushing WP:FRINGE ideas in an area covered by DS. They definitely need to tone down. Isabelle ^🔔 21:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am glad to see you have dropped any pretense of neutrality. Please acknowledge the removal of your own "NOTFORUM" posts. Thank you. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I just had to revert this bizarre and unpleasant rant of theirs which is, at best, disruptive use of the talk page as a forum. The IP seems to have been stably associated with one person since 2020 when their very first edit was this abusive screed. I suggest a good long WP:NOTHERE block. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Will you at least remove the comment calling me immoral for disagreeing with the author? It's bad enough for your "neutrality" that you allow no alternative viewpoints, but to give him the last word insulting me while removing this response -- which is NOT "unpleasant" or "hateful", but merely something YOU DISAGREE WITH, is surely beyond any standards of fairness. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I rolled the whole discussion up as unproductive, making that comment less visible as well as all the others in that section. I don't have any strong feelings about whether the comment you object to should remain or not. I don't think it makes you look any worse than you made yourself look but the whole thread is moot anyway. Maybe we should remove it all? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Forget this ever happened and just move on? Absolutely. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, your removal of my comment was in violation of Wikipedia rules since you are not an administrator. At least according to the other user, who reverted my removal of his own comment. I would suggest removing his comment and moving the discussion to the archive -- I will not willingly give you the satisfaction of being able to delete everything you disagree with. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to remove disruptive or inappropriate content that impedes the project. If you object to the selective removal of your inappropriate comments then the other option is to remove the whole section, which would be less embarrassing, but it seems that you don't want that either. I see absolutely no point in continuing to argue or edit war about the contents of a rolled up discussion that nobody is likely to look at anyway. Please just stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it. The disruption was started by the other editor accusing me of holding a particular viewpoint, then calling me immoral when I confirmed my position in a wholly respectful manner. The section, up until that point, posed no disruption. Just as people who SUPPORT a controversial issue can edit an article, people who OPPOSE a controversial issue can edit the same article: that is called fairness, objectivity, and representing both sides. (And no, you cannot decide what is and isn't controversial, something is controversial by the mere fact of there being controversy, which there is.) Moreover, I strongly object to your "please just stop" when you people are the ones getting all upset over someone holding another opinion and asking merely IF an article might be edited to include a section offering an opposing viewpoint with reliable sources. Why don't you all "please just stop," leave the page be as it is, and let an actual administrator take care of it (isn't that the whole purpose of this page?) The one administrator who did remark here is the only one displaying an absence of bias. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

D/S notices handed out. I've been weighing up blocking the IP, given their historic (2020), more recent (2021) and latest comments, which all suggest a very static user. The claim made by the IP that transgender people "did not exist in broader society anywhere in the world until 2014" is a common, yet demonstrably incorrect, trope tossed around and one I enjoy refuting — the Gala priests of Inanna in 5000-3000B.C. are thought to be the earliest documented instances of people with non-binary gender identities, with the Galli priestesses (200-300B.C) being attributed as early transgender figures. Slightly more recently, but much earlier than 2014, the 18th century Itelmens of Siberia recognized a "third gender" (Koekchuch) to describe individuals who were assigned male at birth, but expressed themselves as women.

If you're going to edit Wikipedia to push your agenda, at least do us the courtesy of doing the most basic of research. Any more abusive comments like the ones I've linked to above, and I'll block you. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The problem with what you're saying is I did not edit Wikipedia to say that, and this isn't the place to argue that -- I don't know why you think that's appropriate, when any rebuttal on my part would lead to a deletion or ban anyway -- this is a TALK PAGE. I merely asked: would the editors welcome a section on criticism? This would have reliable sources. Nobody answered that, I presume out of an inability to plainly acknowledge their abject lack of neutrality. Instead, they attacked me personally on the basis of my beliefs, which have no bearing on objective and well-sourced writing (if they do, you should bar activists and people with intimate connections to these issues from editing as well). So when I respond to those personal attacks with my beliefs, which are centered around HELPING people who I believe are being given improper treatment, now there is abuse and a bannable offense. Would you please clarify? 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That presentation is somewhat misleading. I explained the role of WP:V in NPOV and the importance of sources, and you replied without sources but extolling the acumen of the medical advisory announcements made by the Trump administration. You didn't really make a proposal based on Reliable Sources, nor did you acknowledge the mass of RS on which the articles you were complaining about are actually based. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, you call what I said misleading but claim I "extolled the acumen of ... the Trump administration" which I never ever did, I am not a Trump supporter anyhow. You compared what I said to flat earth garbage and falsely claimed over 30% of Americans believe in it (with no source), and I replied that the critical position is supported by the former chairman of psychiatry at John Hopkins University, which it is. Now, I merely asked if the section would be WELCOME because I am not wasting hours digging for reliable sources only for you to just delete everything in a flash. And still, no answer to that question at all. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your opening post has a lot more than simply asking "would the editors welcome a section on criticism?" You start by using scare quotes around "transgender rights" and "transgender" (followed by the word phenomenon), and go on to add, without sources, that it is not accepted by large portions of the population (outside of privileged corners of majority-white countries), almost assuredly the majority of the world population. Isabelle ^🔔 23:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is to provide justification for a section on criticism, because it is something still being debated. For example, abolition of slavery needs no criticism section. But nonetheless, when discussing slavery the viewpoints of the slavers are put out there for people to see and understand, and to revile. This is everyone's intellectual duty, to earnestly understand different sides of an argument. Shutting down every opposing viewpoint only multiplies ignorance and animosity on both sides. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a supreme waste of time, even for ANI. I've blocked the IP for 6 months without TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 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.

Test edit of Rjyok

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.

---

Rjyok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) test edited a lot by changing pictures in articles of mainspace, what should we do? Pavlov2 (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing for now. For the time being, it looks like they stopped after the last warning. El_C 11:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, test again and a block is given to it. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Them, not it. They are a person, not an object. El_C 18:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, I don't know why we usually use they instead of it. Thanks for mention that. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. To answer your question: because it in this context refers to an object (it is a bad car / good cat). See It (pronoun). They is about a person (see singular they) or persons. HTH. El_C 18:30, 3 April 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:Iphone5Sgold

Iphone5Sgold (talk · contribs)

I blocked this editor for 48 hours in early March for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs - after a few weeks off they are back and still doing it (the stats are not supported by any of the databases present on the article, namely NFT, Soccerway, or Football Database, and I cannot find any other sources). Long history of this kind of behaviour, no edit summaries or talk page replies. Indef? GiantSnowman 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain? The stats given by this editor appear to the causal eye to be exactly as well sourced as the rest of the stats in the infobox. —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the sources aren't reliable. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not currently able to discern anything warranting administrative action here. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma, JulieMinkai, and Stifle: this is an editor repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs, despite multiple warnings stretching back 4 years, and despite a recent block. Since when did that become acceptable editing? GiantSnowman 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Then revert it. BLP policy only kicks in for contentious/negative material. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

One cannot revert indefinitely. GiantSnowman 15:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

---

Lecen and Nutez seem to think that this pathetic little rant is appropriate. – ².O.^Boxing

Just like you seemed to think that the edit summary you used in removing that comment was appropriate[163]? Fram (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, but what about three? No? Oh well, nevermind. The pathetic little rant still needs removing. – ².O.^Boxing 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Move on, it's almost been half a year, and it's not your talk page. It's a stale conflict, and you're the one relitigating it. Drop it, please. Nutez (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: It's Nutez's talk page and removing comments from someone else's talk page is a violation of WP:NOBAN and WP:TPO (unless otherwise specified) and also constitutes edit warring. You bringing this to ANI after Nutez objected to you removing comments from their talk page is entirely inappropriate and (borderline) retialiatory.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This is a crazy and unfounded ANI. We're talking about edit warring on a personal talk page. Not to mention User:Lecen is an upstanding member of the community who has contributed hundreds and hundreds of hours of well sourced and wonderfully written content which is visible in the tens of good or featured articles he has brought forward. This ANI is petty and in the wrong. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mythdon: removing personal attacks is one of the examples given in TPO of appropriately editing others' comments, so there's that. Nutez objected to the removal of a blatant policy violation and told me to go somewhere else, so yes, here we are. Hardly retaliatory and entirely appropriate. Thanks.

@Cristiano Tomás: I'm confused as to which part is crazy and unfounded. Are you saying that the diff I provided was not a personal attack? Or that the personal attack is appropriate and acceptable? Additionally, could you point out the aspect of WP:NPA that states personal attacks are acceptable as long as they're on a user's talk page and made by an upstanding member of the community? I can't seem to find it. – ².O.^Boxing 19:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• If I had seen that at the time, I'd have probably bowdlerized it some, or removed it. But I'm not sure it does any good now to re-litigate. Four-fifths of the job here is to keep as many of the ongoing sprawling unresolved conflicts as possible down to a low simmer. We don't have the time/energy/wisdom/ability/skills to actually cool the water; success is anything that prevents a rolling boil. This was boiling three months ago, and is now simmering; bringing it here is bringing it back to a boil. --19:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Although now that I look at it further, there are two complicating factors. One, it was not there for 3 months, it was just restored today after not being there for 3 months. And two, Squared.Circle.Boxing is making personal attacks too. And, to a lesser extent, so are others. At this point - now that the toothpaste is out of the tube - I wonder if the best thing would be to remove the comment, block S.C.B from Nutez's talk page, and make it clear that blocks will be dealt out if the comment is restored? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Lecen so fixated on how a woman spends her time in retirement, and why is he still trying to ignite a conflict on 2 April 2022 that I had nothing to do with when it was closed by Iridescent on 30 December 2021? This whole thing is beyond creepy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 April 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.

Russian fascism 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.

---

Russian fascism (ideology) page was very soon redirected after it was Kept at AfD as No Consensus. Although, the page has numerous problems, as many broad topic political hot topics, it was too hurriedly redirected (soft-deleted) to disambiguation page. The discussion for redirect took a place, but it was not quite broad and more users should have been involed I think. I ask here to assist with this article. Best, --IgorTurzh (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is already taking place at AN. Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Careful_attention_to_the_page_Russian_fascism_(ideology) Please keep the conversation there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 5 April 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.

Assume bad faith of commonedits

Commonedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) assume bad faith again Special:diff/1080304347 after the final warning is given to himSpecial:diff/1079940196, I'm here to request some help from sysop after two days of consideration. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• User blocked for 2 weeks – last chance to change. If I come across this user again, they are very likely to be indefinitely blocked under WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. I nearly closed this as not-done given they haven't been active for the last 2-3 days. Blocks are considered preventative not punitive, therefore it's advisable to report issues much sooner after they arise rather than waiting for 2 days. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Stifle: I'll have to take some responsibility for not reporting sooner; I've come close a couple of times (and that's mostly just watching from the sidelines), but always held back in the end. They sail close to the wind, but (AGF and all that) never quite crossed the line on any one occasion, IMO; it's more of a cumulative effect. The fact that they keep removing previous warnings and other messages from their user talk page may also have helped to cover the extent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's totally reasonable. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your help. I'd like to say I had to consider a lot about his situation. His case is a little not that obvious, without blatant attack or some stuff like dirty words. I held back the first day, then a few days later I came out that he already created an attack page to other editors. He cleaned all the warnings on his user talk page, that make the situation more concealing Pavlov2 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Pavlov2 and DoubleGrazing have got it right, with comments such as "a little not that obvious" and "sail close to the wind, but ... never quite crossed the line on any one occasion". It's difficult to take action because of a fairly trivial incident a couple of days ago, but there comes a time when one last straw is one too many. JBW (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

An Observation about User Talk Pages

I have an observation that may be worth what you paid for it. This is an editor who regularly deletes messages from their talk page without archiving. This practice has long been recognized as permitted, but archiving has always been preferred. Some, although not all, editors who erase messages from their talk pages show in other ways that they are ignoring the messages. This has been another such example. This case seems to confirm that, when an editor who has what seems to be a clean talk page is being cautioned about something, it may be a good idea to check the history. It may also be necessary to conclude that the erased messages are being ignored by the recipient, and so should not be ignored by admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Based sogdian

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.

---

Based sogdian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[164] [165] [166] [167] Keeps trying to add the Tajik Cyrillic alphabet, which is quite anachronistic

[168] [169] Replaced Persian with Tajik, completely disregarding sourced info

[170] A good ol personal attack in another language; 'boro gomsho kosmadar irani', which means 'Get lost your mothers p*ssy Iranian'

Seems like WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TENDENTIOUS issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Loving the language lesson. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Dronebogus (talk) 06:59, 6 April 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.

Khajaah

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 the edit history of the user Khajaah's talk page. Although they are banned, they are making very innappropriate comments on their talk page. Please revoke talk page editing from them. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Email also yanked by Cyberpower678, and most edits revdelled by them too. stwalkerster (talk) 21:59, 5 April 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.

Threat (maybe)

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

---

I think I was just threatened with [this edit]. When the editor states "finds you by cyber security from your ip address and then you ownself will be in danger for changing history according." If this is a threat then the editor should be dealt with accordingly. If this is not a threat then please forgive me for filing this concern. Kind regards. --VViking_TalkEdits 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked indef. GiantSnowman 21:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would add that this was almost certainly an empty threat, but it was nevertheless a threat, so you should not feel shy about reporting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A threat that may be considered "empty" in the real world may still have an unacceptable and intimidating impact on an editor. I have received threats that, at least briefly, have thrown my family into an intense self-defense mode, since my very young granddaughter was the subject of threats of violence, and they scraped photos of her off my Facebook page and mentioned her home town and the driving distance from where that criminal resided. Any marginally credible threat should be reported immediately without hestitation. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 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.

Suspected Block Evasion and Disruptive Editing

• 1234comrade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Partha protim konar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Admin, please look into these two users. First User:1234comrade has been constantly adding founders list in Communist Party of India (Marxist) without providing any reliable sources. Second interesting thing I noticed, User:Partha protim konar all of a sudden deleted the entire talk page of User:1234comrade. Something fishy is going on and pattern of edits are quite similar it looks like WP:SOCK. Please check thoroughly about these two user accounts. Another thing I would like bring to you attention User:Vif12vf too adds information's without providing reliable sources. But first you check thoroughly about first two users. User:Partha protim konar has again added founders list in Communist Party of India (Marxist) without any source. It looks to me clear cut sock puppet. Admin @Girth Summit: and @Rosguill:. Please look into this issue with utmost urgency and take necessary action in this regard. Thank You!--Mariam57 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no relation to the above mentioned accounts! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is some suspicious overlap in 1234comrade and Partha protim konar's editing, but would prefer to see technical evidence before taking action as I was only able to give this a quick look (you may be able to get CU eyes on this faster by filing at WP:SPI). As for the other issues, looking at the CPI-M page history and the lack of relevant discussion on the talk page, the unsourced content issues could use some discussion between involved editors on a talk page before bringing it here for admin attention, as I'm not seeing any discussion despite a fair amount of back and forth edit warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright @Rosguill:! I am starting a discussion at the talk page of the article let see whether they start any discussion on this subject matter or not. In the mean time I'm filing one case at WP:SPI. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I have blocked 1234comrade and Partha protim konar as  Confirmed sockpuppets of each other. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Partha protim konar. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As he has been identified as a Sock puppetry someone should revert all his edits made from two user accounts. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vif12vf: I noticed some of your edits regarding political parties/organizations please ensure to add reliable sourcess. If you add unsourced or poorly sourced content then it shall be challenged and removed immediately. And I'll be forced to bring this issue over here and then admin will get involved. Whatever information you put always add reliable sourcess such as academic or research scholar articles published in academic journals or books. You can take peer-reviewed academic journals which are excellent sourced. Authors who write such articles have an authority on the subject matter basically they're top notch academicians/scholars. Always remember without reliable sourcess your information's shall be challenged and removed immediately. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Mate, I never add new info to articles, whatever I add to infoboxes are usually already present in the article itself, and the sources are usually in the main body of text where they belong, seeing as guidelines regarding the infobox now specifically states that sources belong in the main text, not the infobox which is easily cluttered. None of the info I ever add to infoboxes is new to these articles! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian nationalist in Cyprus

• ‎62.228.21.105
• ‎46.199.248.88

There are two IP addresses, both in Cyprus, which are preoccupied with editing the same articles (Vytautas, Napoleon Orda, and Church of St. Anne, Vilnius, among others) over the past few days with an identically clear Belarusian nationalist POV: removing Lithuanian language for places that used to be or still are part of Lithuania [171], [172] and removing/distorting sentences that have WP:RS justifying them like [173], [174]. This is repeated behaviour, and the user has been warned twice to stop ([175] and [176]), but they did not. I ask that both IPs would be blocked.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Persistent poor quality edits by RoMiqaelwashere69420

RoMiqaelwashere69420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persist in making poor quality edits, almost always to the first sentence of the lead of articles, despite repeated warnings and advice offered by @Acroterion: at Advice. Examples are;

• [177] At Lyndon B. Johnson adds After the Assassination of John F. Kennedy in the middle of the existing first sentence, obviously "After" and "Assassination" don't need capitalising.
• [178] At John F. Kennedy adds detail about Lee Harvey Oswald to the first sentence, despite it being covered later in the lead.
• [179] At John F. Kennedy adds president to the sentence near the end of his third year in president office, which isn't good English
• [180] At Lyndon B. Johnson adds adds "the 1960" to the sentence before winning the 1960 election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1937, which requires no further explanation
• [181] At Dwight D. Eisenhower amends date to 1916 in the lead, it's 1915 in the article body
• [182] [183] At Lyndon B. Johnson repeatedly adds and a former high school teacher in the middle of the first sentence in the lead
• [184] [185] [186] At Ronald Reagan repeatedly adds him being an actor to the first sentence, despite it being covered in the sentence right after, and elsewhere in the lead
• [187] At Steven Pruitt amends the first sentence to read with one of the most highest number of edits

The editor refuses to communicate, and their low quality editing isn't an asset to the encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU applies here. They are editing via mobile and aren't getting alerts to their talk page, therefore they have no idea that Acroterion has reached out to them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps an indefinite block will get their attention. They cannot be allowed to continue disrupting the project simply because they edit via mobile.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Hopefully they respond at this point (though my theory of any account having "69420" being a disruptive account is likely true again). RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I resent the implication! Truth69420 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Truth & 69420? (insert scanners GIF here). RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Change of birth and service years of Ken Lay (police officer) and Christine Nixon and Neil Comrie and others

• ‎113.210.108.149
• ‎113.210.99.239

These IP addresses have made changes of birth and service years on the pages Ken Lay (police officer) and Christine Nixon and Neil Comrie and others. Changing them all by 1 year without a citation. See [188], [189], [190] and [191] Gusfriend (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thus far the IP addresses have changed 40 pages with dates moving forward or back by a year plus sometimes forward or back by a day. Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

113.210.96.0/20 blocked for 36 hours. Please let me know if you see any more of this, Gusfriend. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Cloud and 71.217.173.85

Recently, an IP with the address of 71.217.173.85 has been vandalising the page for Cloud (See here, here, here, and here, with mostly gibberish edit summaries. They have been consistently warned about their behavior on their talk page, but to no avail. I am seeking an admin to take action on this. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, but you can use WP:AIV to report petty vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and my apologies. I will use that from now on. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

73.210.101.146

Continues to add content sourced with IMDb to the article Get a Clue (1997 film) and remove content w/o explanation from the page JP Sears. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Said user has been reported to WP:AIV. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Epoch Times pov warrior

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:Itaj Sherman has been engaging in edit warring and WP:POV warring over the Epoch Times, most recently here, and has been warned about it multiple times. I think a topic ban under threat of blocking might be in order. Dronebogus (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There are discretionary sanctions on anything Falong Gong. Secretlondon (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the egregious and reality-distorting nature of the comments by the user on the article talk page, I would support a hard ban of Itaj Sherman from the entire page itself. When someone is that far gone down the rabbit hole, it makes no sense to entertain their presence. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You harshly misrepresent what I said. The issue is reliability of a media outlets when they publish hit pieces against a rival.

And it's not an anecdote, the entire Epoch Times article is made up from these hit pieces.

It's a pitfall for Wikipedia, apparently one that cannot be overcome.

Sad and unfixable.

You can ban me if you like, I lost any hope Wikipedia could fix this. Itaj Sherman (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You can just retire. No need for us to block/ban you if you cease editing in that area. Dronebogus (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I see I warned Itaj Sherman sharply about tendentious editing related to Epoch Times a year and a half ago, and their response then was quite disingenuous.[192] Not sure why I didn't follow up, but it's apparent that they're still doing it. I've page-blocked them indefinitely from The Epoch Times and its talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC).

  yeah there we go.

  Aparently expressing opinions, even with explanations, in the talk page is worse than editing the article.

  This is what will get you silenced.

  I was and am talking in absolute good faith. I explained all my opinions.

  "disingenuous".

  just to make it clear, I am not and will not apply to get unbanned.

  it would be a far stray from the point of this conversation.

  just wait and see what I get for replying here... Itaj Sherman (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  p.s. I never responded to your comment on my talk page from 2 years ago, because I didn't see and practical outcome.

  Unless you really feel the need to know the difference between the possiblity of covid starting in a lab and SpyGate and its evidence, on one hand, and on the other hand the tinfoil strawman Qanon.

  It would be a waste of both our time. Itaj Sherman (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  You can go ahead and look at these NBC/NYT sources, and see that they never say "ET says that Qanon is true".

  Nor anything that can logically infer that.

  There's a reason for that, and it doesn't put these sources in a good light. Itaj Sherman (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  At the same time, its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream. [193] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  A series on the occult, Edge of Wonder, became a firehose of content about QAnon, amplifying its foundational proposition that Washington is run by a pedophile cabal. [194] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Through 2020 and into the early life of the Biden administration, Epoch Times and NTD alike promoted conspiracy theories related to the QAnon movement, the supposedly compromising international ties of Hunter Biden, and even sold merchandise outlining half-forgotten conspiracy theories such as “Uranium One”, which held that Hillary Clinton, as US secretary of state, engineered the sale of uranium deposits to Russian interests in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.[195] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 7 April 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.

Concern

92.76.99.82 (talk · contribs) is adding Category:Russian individuals subject to the European Union sanctions to a bunch of BLPs at a rapid pace. I checked two of the names and neither are found in the link in the edit summary. Can somebody more experienced have a gander? Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 20:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

They are marking every member of the Duma. That's can't be ok. StellarNerd (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs) This user has been meticulously removing my sourced contributions and has accused me of vandalism without valid reason, despite having been accused of various violations as per his talk page. I initially thought that the user was attempting to be of assistance, though I soon realized that his behavior has been reported regularly by other Wikipedians. I apologize for any misunderstandings, as I am doing so in good faith. Upon closer inspection, this user has previously been investigated for sockpuppetry as well. The comments are worth checking into. I apologize for any inconveniences, as I truly want to help. — 162.84.166.10 (talk)

1. I took the liberty of analyzing what specific edits by this user were reverted, and the reasons for reverting appear to be reasonable, such as overkill hyperlinking, overkill citations in the head and others. Furthermore, you removed a notice of disruptive editing placed by this user, who, keep in mind, is an extended confirmed pending changes reviewer. I would personally say that aman is in the right here. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the relevant facts of this case, but I would note that the facts that the target has previously been investigated for sockpuppetry, that the OP has removed a message from the User talk page, and that target is an extended confirmed pending changes reviewer are all irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. I suppose I may have taken Aman's actions personally, as I found it strange that his reasons for removal sometimes appeared arbitrary. I do acknowledge that the sockpuppetry investigation and mentions of potential violations on his talk page are objectively irrelevant, but the ancillary comments made by other Wikipedians in both areas may be worth notice. Perhaps I am wrong here, though I found it strange that he claimed overkill here, and removed the etymology I had provided for "masala", though if that had truly been the issue, he could have removed this addition as it cites the inheritance of "garam masala" into Japanese, without any etymological relevance as to how it was borrowed into Hindi-Urdu from Arabic, which was aptly reflected in my contribution. I'm not certain about this removal either, though I'd like clarification. Although FamousFix was definitely an improper source, I'm not sure why there would be reasonable doubt against the University of Bristol. I am still relatively new to the website, though I am eager to learn and contribute, which you may be able to discern through my other contributions. Thanks. 162.84.166.10 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Given Special:Diff/1074348922, the both of you should be at Talk:John Abraham#Maternal ancestry confusion, which was opened back in February. Uncle G (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User Teishin refuses to provide citations for claims they make on Greek Philosophy topics

User:Teishin refuses to add citations or references for information related to articles on Greek Philosophy, edit wars, and attempts to push their own interpretations of sources. They have been warned about this behavior in the past, were given a chance to do better and have not improved their behavior.

When I reverted a change they made t o Heraclitus, they reverted back, and cited WP:BLUESKY as the justification[196]. This is not a content dispute - I have no opinion on the truth of this statement, but I do not believe it is WP:BLUESKY obvious, as they have claimed. After I requested sources, they have gone to great effort on the article talk page, the talk page of the article they linked to, their own user page to justify any other approach than doing so. They are citing[197] a consensus on a talk page that information should be included as justification for not citing that information, which is not how WP:V works. Additionally, throughout our whole discussion, they have accused me[198] of personally attacking them for providing feedback on their editing behavior instead of responding to any of the concerns I raised. Based on this, and the fact that they have admitted to me that they interpret ancient sources on their own to come to conclusions [199], I am not optimistic that they will change their behavior in the future and abide by WP:V and WP:NOR.

Based on their prior warnings in this subject area, I am recommending a topic ban from Ancient Greek Philosophy as they do not seem to believe that they need to provide reliable secondary sources, in a field where there is a lot of misinformation and it is very easy to come to incorrect conclusions if you attempt your own analysis of primary source material. Given their prior warnings about this and their refusal to acknowledge that they should ever need to cite sources, a chronic and intractable behavioral problem, I am taking this here rather than starting at a different venue first.

Pinging @SebastianHelm: as it looks like they may be able to provide additional background on this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carchasm (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It took about 2 seconds with a search engine (keywords "Heraclitus" and "impermanence") to see that this idea is out there, sufficiently to name it as related. BLUESKY works for me. Trout to Carchasm and request that they leave Teishin alone. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled by this, but no, the fact that you can google something and find results does not mean that it does not require citation. You can google "heraclitus logos" as well and get plenty of hits, but as citations in that article support, that is a common misconception about Heraclitus. At any rate, as I have challenged the material in good faith, I expect to at least be able to add a tag without a major argument. This is again, not a content dispute but an issue with an editor's repeated refusal to cite sources and insistence that they do not need to do so. - car chasm (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Quite aside from that BLUESKY is an essay that scarcely trumps WP:V's bright-line assertion that "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations," I submit that BLUESKY does not apply to anything for which a casual user needs to rely on a search engine to verify, full stop. I had no idea off the top of my head that Heraclitus was associated with "impermanence," and demonstrably, neither did you. It is not only not remotely unreasonable to provide reliable sourcing for such an assertion when challenged, it is the responsibility of all editors to do so ... and doubly so when you've already been warned at ANI to do so. Ravenswing 07:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There was not a quotation, just a mention of a related concept. The web search was enough to establish the association. Wikipedia's own article impermanence discusses Heroclitus's take on it as well. From the web search, here is a paper on the topic. I can only see the abstract, but I'm more than satisfied. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

then cite it. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

1. Your personal satisfaction, or lack thereof, does not trump the black-letter requirement of one of Wikipedia's core policies. Ravenswing 09:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that carchasm has erased from their talk page all negative incididents. There's one in particular that should be inspected at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058 Carchasm Reported by Smuckola. Note in particular the comments there by Xxanthippe, especially Xxanthippe's concern that carchasm has previously edited under another account.

I further wish to point out what little time has elapsed between my pointing out a few issues with some of carchasm's recent edits and carchasm's escalation of matters here. It seems to me that less than a day is insufficient time for allowing other editors to get involved who might calm matters.

Regarding carchasm's issue about the association of Heraclitus and impermanence, note that it was not me making the change - every editing issue between carchasm and me is about carchasm's changes, not mine - but carchasm acting to overturn a previously established consensus. One can go through Talk:Impermanence and see how this consensus came to be. Carchasm resuses to recognize this consensus. It seems silly that I should be accused of refusing to add citations when I'm just pointing out that carchasm's edits are not in line with prior consensus. It seems even sillier that this is over a strange insistance that impermance somehow is wildly different from panta rhei, change, being/becoming, anicca, and flux (which is why I cited WP:BLUESKY); that it's wrong for Wikipedia to discuss all of these topics on a single page; and that I'm somehow personally responsible for this wrong doing.

Even more baffling is the discussion on [200] where carchasm accused me of imposing my own original research on the template when what I was doing was explaining that there are various ways the material gets organized in which I made a parenthetical comment about a lesser used way that I happen to prefer because it lacks the internal inconsistencies of the other methods, while pointing out that it's not the generally received way and because of that we need to stick to one of the more common methods.

I think those who read the talk pages where I've tried to reason with carchasm about these matters will find the discussions Kafkaesque.

I suggest that carchasm be scolded for making personal attacks, for refusing to recognize previously established consensus, and for excessive haste and escalation. I suggest that they be told to calm down and to focus their editing attention elsewhere for a while. Teishin (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• And I suggest you drop the filibustering and your fishing expedition (what, citing an unrelated year-old ANI complaint that went nowhere?). The bottom line is this: material that is challenged needs to be bolstered by an inline citation. I have no idea at all why you and your IP supporter (with just a handful of articlespace edits) are so curiously resistant to doing so. But you do not get to handwave this requirement, nor ignore it, nor claim that some consensus somewhere absolves you from needing to do so. I suggest that you focus your editing attention on performing this fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 13:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Aside from the fact that consensus does not override WP:V's requirement to cite "any material which has been challenged", I do not see in Talk:Impermanence the consensus that you are claiming – can you be any more specific about where I should be looking for that? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  First in 2008 there's this discussion Talk:Impermanence#Impermanence_is_not_a_weird_technical_term about it being inappropriate to treat "impermanence" as some technical term associated only with Buddhism and that it needs broader treatment, which subsequently happened. There's also this discussion Talk:Impermanence#Merge_Change_into_this_article about the article being duplicative with an article that focused on Western philosophical conceptions of change. So there was a merge. Remember, the actual issue is whether Heraclitus is known for the idea of impermanence, which carchasm removed, claiming that he was not. In response to this I noted that panta rhei is obviously about impermanence. And because I did this it warrants a post here titled "User Teishin refuses to provide citations for claims they make on Greek Philosophy topics." I think this is Kafkaesque, and as such I think it explains why there's a suggestion above that carchasm deserves a trout for this. Teishin (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Surely if it is obvious, it can be sourced. So why not add a source and be done with the drama, rather than insisting on a very weak SKYBLUE claim.Slywriter (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if anyone has said it yet but beyond the fact you should just cite something if challenged, I'd strongly disagree WP:BLUESKY is meant for things where probably most Wikipedians and most people in the world have very little understanding of what you're talking about and may not have even heard of one or both things you're talking about let alone the linkage of the two. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Slywriter and Nil Einne. Refusing to cite a source because you believe it's too obvious does a disservice to general readers who most likely lack your knowledge on the subject. (And on the content side: if it's in the infobox, it should be explained in the body. If it's explained in the body, it should be sourced.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  As a follow-up to this ANI thread, I have nominated WP:BLUESKY for deletion here. I may still be somewhat new, but if this essay is still managing to confuse editors who have been here for over 15 years, perhaps it just needs to go. - car chasm (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  But that's not what happened. I didn't refuse to cite a source. That's just the accusation. I got accused of refusing to cite a source because I said WP:SKYBLUE, which led to a torrent of abuse from carchasm. And all of this happened less than 24 hours ago while charchasm was inundating my talk page and several others. Teishin (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying you cited a source while saying SKYBLUE? Because I do not see any source cited in this diff [201]. And the next edit was not by you. I assume that an experienced editor does not need to be told that SKYBLUE and something that doesn't clearly mention the term is not a source. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Now you're just making things up, Teishin. Having looked over the pertinent edit summaries AND the talk page, I see nothing supporting your claim; just, several times over, exhortations for you to source your changes to the article.

  Since you consistently refuse to acknowledge your responsibility to do so, and seem to be ignoring your previous warnings in this regard, I would be willing to support a topic ban on Greek philosophy edits for you, broadly construed, until such time as you can convince the community that you accept that the provisions of WP:V apply to you too. Ravenswing 15:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  As was pointed out before by another user, it is easy enough to find sources saying that Heraclitus is known for impermanence. Just enter the terms into Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&q=impermanence heraclitus&btnG= One problem one gets into beyond this is that the really good academic discussions of Heraclitus on impermanence - the kinds of sources we like to cite - normally use technical vocabulary. They discuss panta rhei, everything flows, flux, being/becoming, and change. These are the terms that have been used for hundreds of years in technical discussions of Heraclitan thought. As no one disputes that Heraclitus is associated with these, the question boils down to whether those are about the same general topic as is covered by "impermanence" and our corresponding article on that topic. From what I'm understanding from what you have written, that thinking the answer to this question is yes, like plenty of other scholarly sources do as can be seen on Google Scholar, is such an affront to the provisions of WP:V that it warrants a topic ban on Greek philosophy - which is the topic of most of my 3,700 edits since 2005 - all over a kerfuffle that's only a day old. If this is what you believe, you really should just go ahead and ban me entirely on the grounds of wrongthink. As I said before, I find this all Kafkaesque. Teishin (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If you wont follow our standards, and this appears to be the case judging from what you posted, and continue editing, then you should be made to behave or go away. I suppose that you could be considered a newbie based on your editing, so there is a small excuse, but nevertheless. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be a profound case of WP:IDHT going on with Teishin. He just does not seem to get (or else this is a playground screech of "I don' wanna and you can't make me!!") how simple an issue this is -- that it is his responsibility to source his own edits, and no one else's responsibility to do it for him. These attempts to change the subject aren't going to fly. But we should at least be thankful that Teishin is forthright in demonstrating his indifference to our standards. Ravenswing 17:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Teishin for restoring contested content while declining/refusing to provide references to reliable sources. Please note that indefinite does not mean forever. As I explained on their talk page, Teishin can be unblocked promptly if they acknowledge and agree to comply with Verifiability as a core content policy, and agree to provide references to reliable sources 100% of the time when restoring contested content. Any administrator is welcome to unblock at any time if Teishin makes that commitment, although I would appreciate the opportunity to comment if I am around at the time. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• That being said, instead of making any more constructive a response, Teishin is canvassing his buddies for help: [202] [203] [204], and got one at least to protest on Teishin's talk page, claiming to be a "totally uninvolved" observer. [205] [206]. Ravenswing 07:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

IP user 152.32.85.105

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 § Question

• 152.32.85.105 (talk · contribs)

Hello. I just want to report this user because of his violation on WP:SOAPBOX, as seen in the user's contributions. I don't know if this user and User:Jaymark 220 are connected to each other since the two users have putted the words "vote" and "re-elect" in Philippine local election pages here.

Oh, the said IP user is doing the same thing again. I think that the user has a problem why he is putting promotional edits here. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Admin: I need help right now. The said IP address is undoing some of my reverts to his promotional edits that violates the WP:SOAPBOX rule. Please refer to the IP's contributions. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Pinging an admin for you. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hasn't edited in over a day, so I'm not convinced a block is achieving anything at this time. Please note pinging "Admin" does not get a response any faster; there's only a thousand or so of us and we can't be everywhere. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The said user has edited recently on 2022 Philippine general election wherein he putted there a 12-man Senate lineup of a certain coalition, together with a presidential and vice-presidential candidate. Also, he did the same in 2022 Pasay local elections. Local elections-related pages must contain only local candidates, not national. NewManila2000 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User Emir of Wikipedia (awaiting resolution)

Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) This user is involved in consistent vandalism and WP:POV pushing, re-adding repeated content and duplicate citations on page ]]. He was partially blocked on Feb 2022, still repeating the same. Wikipedia CANNOT be a one-man show involved in pov pushing. Abby1101 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Could you give an example? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've just put the notice on their talk page, as you posted it here instead. Secretlondon (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Restoring a tag and reverting you is not vandalism. Also, if you are not a new user it would be wise to disclose your previous account name. It appears you have contacted two admins instead of waiting for any kind of a response by Emir on the article talk page. I would suggest a close with no action and let this work itself out on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• I am guessing Mir Osman Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but I could be wrong. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Abby1101 posted on Emir of Wikipedia's talk,[207] then without waiting for a reply, reported Emir to AIV 8 minutes later,[208] then without waiting for action, posted on El C's talk page.[209] Abby then opened this ANI and then 5 minutes later posted on EvergreenFir's talk.[210] Abby1101, as you're new, you need to be aware that posting on multiple noticeboards and talk pages is inappropriate. Emir has not edited since you first posted on their Talk page. Wait for Emir to reply and have your discussion. It's premature to make any reports. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Troll Like an Egyptian"

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.

---

Pace The Bangles, but there's some wierd stuff emanating from 105.41.118.58, which includes a pretty clear legal threat. It's something to do with a deleted lady, but I can't see the ins and outs. Cheers, SN54129 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop deleting ladies, SN. I thought we'd moved beyond that as a culture. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The article they are complaining about is Mirette El Hariri, looks pretty clear cut. Secretlondon (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be the same as this post to WP:XRV. Greetings, I have a complaint. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it seems to involve x-wiki socking and vandalism too? That's a nice little wasps' nest! SN54129 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's a thing? Count me out. Forget I was here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Was about to !v on it and I see RickinBaltimore did the needful. That was ...weird. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Me too, and didn't get an edit-conflict oddly enough. I see rick has deleted the article, Bbb23 has blocked the IP, so, that, as they say, is SN54129 16:01, 7 April 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.

Submitting draft... to have it deleted

No major drama, but thought it might at least benefit from some admin eyes. I've just declined this Draft:Ubabebi at AfC, and only then saw the edit note in[211], as well as the remarks on the editor's user page User:Pierpail75. Don't know if this breaks any actual rules (well, I guess NOTHERE, by definition!), but seems curious to say the least. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Because — Alas! — an administrator at the French Wikipedia told xem to: fr:Special:Diff/192632637. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • How odd.

    And now a mystery IP editor has requested speedy on this draft, so I guess the author will soon be getting their wish fulfilled.

    Feels to me like someone is gaming the system... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

    • The French Wikipedia dealt with the problem by declaring fr:Utilisateur:Pierpail75/Brouillon a wholesale copyright violation of the WWW site, which it is indeed identical to, and revision deleting it. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @DoubleGrazing: I've tagged the draft for deletion as a copyvio since it is a copy paste of another website on the language that does not seem to be under a compatible licence. Their sandbox on the French Wikipedia has all its history revision-deleted for the same reason. Deletionpedia doesn't archive pages deleted as copyvios (or a few other things, like attack pages) for obvious reasons. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm mistaken, the page has to exist long enough for deletionpedia bots to actually crawl it, which given it was created just under two hours ago (and now deleted) seems unlikely. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

        Understood, thanks. Live & learn... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

        Hi,

        Could someone explain to me what is happening? Difficult to follow...

        1) I declare clairly my purpose with this article on my user page and my request.

        2) I am not gaming at all...

        3) There is not "wholesale copyright violation of the WWW site" : I write both texts!

        I am not a specialist but my only target is to have the article edited in my trash transfered directly to the Web site Deletionpedia. And before all, NOT LOSING YOUR TIME.

        Could you "configure" the "state" of my article in such a way that my target could be reached (in limiting your annoyance to a minimum).

        In advance SORRY and thank you.

        PP75 Pierpail75 (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

        Info: I have tried to edit this article directly on deletionpedia.org to not distrub Wikipedia people, BUT they have a 2-step account creation process: I have successfully validated my email adress (step 1), but I am still waiting the sending of my provisional password (step 2).

        So I have decided to come here hope that their bot catches my article.

        You know everything now. Pierpail75 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

        @Pierpail75 — I can't speak for others, but I for one am not here to jump through hoops to get your content onto some other 'pedia. I came across this draft at AfC (where, incidentally, there are nearly 3,000 others waiting to be reviewed...), and was naive enough to think at first it was a bona fide attempt at creating an article. Lesson learned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

        I understand... Pierpail75 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• If the only reason they are here is to create articles with the full understanding they will be deleted but they want them to be picked up by the Deletionpedia bots, that is a clear WP:NOTHERE situation. Based on their user page, it is clear they are trying to "improve" Deletionpedia while being indifferent to the fact that it causes us work. Those are the only (deleted) edits they've made. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be indef blocked for wasting our time on projects that do not benefit Wikipedia (English or French). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  100% agree with you, and sorry for the inconvenience. I just get my account on deletionpedia.org : I will transfer my article by copy / paste as soon as I can see it again in my Trash. When done, I will crush my article here. Thank you for your help et sorry... Pierpail75 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Pierpail75 is there any reason I shouldn't block you for WP:NOTHERE? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I just need to see my Trash again to copy/paste its content on the other wiki. After I will clean my trash myself to clean my account that I may use one day for admissible Wikipedia work. But for the time being I do something else. Pierpail75 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  That answer is insufficient, and in fact, reinforces the idea you aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Blatant trolling at Talk:Bucha massacre

• JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.138.188.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above user has managed, in the week since they started editing as an IP and in the 5 hours since they registered an account, to demonstrate that they're either A) a troll or B) editing in such a way that their edits are undistinguishable from those of a genuine troll.

They've managed to,

1. Essentially attempt to dismiss every "western" source because, supposedly, this is a propaganda war and they are not to be trusted ([212] [213] [214])
2. Accusing Wikipedia editors of being "activists"; "crazed activist editor" and of "gaming the system"
3. Ignore every single warning or piece of advice that has been given to them, (instead dismissing it as "nonsense") [215] [216] [217]
4. Attempting to muddy the waters with arguments which are at best false equivalences, and at worst are clearly deliberate such fallacies. (for example, comparing to the Hunter Biden controversy [218])
5. Refusing to get the point about the requirement for content in articles to be based on reliable sources (of which they have so far cited exactly none) [219]; instead substituting their own opinion about how everything is propaganda [220] and making ironic comments about McCartyhism and such (clearly, again accusing other editors of censorship) [221]

In short, their edits are nothing but soapboxing, and at this point the little bit of AGF that was there to begin with after such non-sensical comments has evaporated. Some action is in order. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wow, that is definitely trolling or trying to inject propaganda if he's serious in his belief, neither of which is a good sign. Open to hear others, but that is pretty much a WP:NOTHERE indef block waiting to happen. And yes, my best guess is that the IP and editor are the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Came here to comment on the same troll. I'd support an indef block as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• As above, I've been watching this devolve through the day. User is absolutely in WP:BATTLE mode, and there are a number of IPs that seem to be providing backup as well. Editor also removed warnings re applicable sanctions calling them "strange threats". Applying said sanctions, at the least, might be a good way to get their attention. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As someone who participated in that discussion, I would agree he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. He also seems to have called me a Nazi although his statements were confusing. He gives UNDUEWEIGHT to WP:FRINGE viewpoints and engages in numerous personal attacks.

There is something more concerning though. In this edit he "revenge-tags" a user (Elinruby) who gave him a WP:ARBEE General Sanctions tags by copy-pasting the same tag onto Elinruby's talkpage, even including Elenruby's signature. His contributions also seem to show that after RandomCanadian removed some of his content that was abusing the WP:NOTAFORUM principle, JoseLuisMoralesMarcos removed RandomCanadian's edits in what looks suspicially like a revenge edit and possibly even a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and pulled the trigger, indef for the troll, 3 months for the dynamic IP. Pretty clear there is going to be a consensus no matter how long we leave this open. I think we're done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: Sock puppet? Similar style, unable or unwilling to actually read the guide to appealing the block that is prominently displayed a few lines above. Boud (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • That IP has problems of it's own, no matter who they are. Stuff such as this leaves little doubt about it either... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Also gems like this, i.e. Wikipedia is just an echo chamber of safe space seeking weaklings.; wokism disease, ... Sad that there are even people like that, but oh well, let's net dwell too much upon that: seems like the same kind of NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

    Maybe, but the IP banned along with JoseLuisMoralesMarcos is geolocated to the Canary Islands while this new one is geolocated to Quebec, so I would advise caution before making conclusions. This does not change that the edit patterns are very similar. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. By way of RfPP, independently (unaware) of this report. El_C 10:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I got scared. No shortage of nonsense there, either, but not at the same rate. El_C 10:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think, just after a casual investigation, that POINT #2 - Accusing Wikipedia editors of being "activists"; "crazed activist editor" and of "gaming the system" may need to be revisited. I did click each of the three links. Mr. MoralesMarcos stated in one link: "I feel this article is currently hostage to activist editors. Then again I may be wrong." If a person is willing to admit at once, after saying something is a "feeling," not a "fact" mind you, and then immediately after, make a statement that "I may be wrong," this seems hardly to suffice as an "accusation." That is my two cents. I do not profess to know anything about the other points, but am only restricting my question about the point #2 that refers to the statement about an accusation of editors being activists. Also may I say, if someone is cordial enough to have the humility to admit the fact that he "may be wrong" that may be an indication that the person is not here to be disruptive. Have a nice day. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's trolling and sealioning. Please don't feed the trolls. Acroterion (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts being uncooperative / battlegroundy-ish

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.

---

• Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emma Hinze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On the linked page, I removed a template, with justification that it provided too many unhelpful external links. Lugnuts reverted not once but twice. Since they did not seem to want to give their reasons in their edit summaries, I left a note on their talk page (User_talk:Lugnuts#Not_using_edit_summaries). However, they either do not seem interested, or just decided that they were exempt from having to discuss their edits with others and have essentially dismissed my comments (with statements such as Get back to me when edit summaries are mandatory - despite me pointing out to them that something not being mandatory doesn't mean it isn's good practice), going as far as accusing me of, and I quote, Yep, they're trying their best to WP:BAIT me.

Now this is not only unhelpful and uncollaborative (Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and communication is required), but it's also very fine on the border of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND (since they're dismissing me as though WP:AGF wasn't a requirement). I'm at a loss what to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Diff of notice for avoidance of doubt since it's been reverted. 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)

• I wonder if you could explain why exactly you removed the template in the first instance? Your edit summary says that you had no idea what it does. It took me about three seconds to figure out a) what it does and b) that it's clearly useful in the case - especially as a way of expanding the article. WP:ELMIN, which you cited when you removed the template, relates only to official website style links - so, we wouldn't want to link to Hinze's twitter, facebook, instagram, official website, blog etc etc... Isn't that exactly what the template you removed isn't doing? Or am I missing some nuance in your edit summary? Fwiw the second Lugnuts diff cited above does have a very brief edit summary - lots of people use "rv" in the same way that they might use "ce", "rvt" or "rvv" etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  What I meant was "I have no idea where the template is getting all these links from" (since none are given in the template). WP:EL in general supports having fewer links (WP:ELPOINTS no. 3) - a template which lists 4 different database-like entries is not helpful in that matter (one good and authoritative one would be enough) - ELMIN was just a shortcut, since it implies the same thing. But that's the content dispute part, and you're free to take me up on the talk page on that. Lugnuts not doing that is the problem here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Regardless of whether the template is useful or not or the merits of Lugnuts reversion, you pestering Lugnuts on their talk page for the sole reason they did not provide an edit summary is itself a mix of WP:BURO and WP:HARASS. Using edit summaries such as "I've had enough of this, off we go" is also itself WP:INCIVIL and WP:HARASS and Lugnuts removing your notice is perfectly fine as per WP:UP#CMT. That isn't to say one way or the other whether Lugnuts should've reverted your edit or not provided an edit summary, but I will say the way you're approaching them on their talk page with the pestering and the rude edit summary is itself lacing in collaboration and a sort of bad way of communicating what it is your disputing with them. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Communication is required. If you do something and somebody asks you for an explanation, it's rude in itself to dismiss it as "come back when edit summaries are mandatory". The last part of WP:BRD is "D", and you can't do that alone. Politely asking others to participate is not harassment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Since you brought it up, the acronym is BRD, not BRRD. You don't get to revert an extra time before starting the discussion. You removed the template (Bold), he undid your removal (Revert). Your next action is to Discuss without reverting them back again. So, if we're going to start being real nitpicky about who isn't obeying best practices, perhaps you need to remove the plank from your own eye before complaining about the mote in theirs. --Jayron32 15:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Reverting a second time is a valid alternative (so long care is taken to avoid edit warring, which I hope evidence shows I did take care). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Reverting a second time is a valid alternative - BRB is not permission to edit war. As it says, it's a suggestion to try a different edit, not just push the first one through again. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake... is what the text of the page says. You already knew the reversion wasn't a mistake, you just didn't like it. --Jayron32 15:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  No reason was provided for the revert. The only case where not doing so is kinda acceptable and it's not a mistake is when it's obvious vandalism. And, I've had my disagreements with Lugnuts, but I wouldn't think that they would assume bad faith over something like that. So the only two options are A) there is no reason for the revert (hence it is a mistake) or B) it was done out of more sinister reasons. But I've already ruled out B, so yeah, that revert was a mistake, either in reasoning or in decorum. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Look, play all of the games you want. Reverting, especially repeated reverts, is not a strategy for collegial editing. Doing the wrong thing yourself doesn't make the other person more wrong. It just makes you less right, and it also brings unneeded attention on you. Take my advise, if you really want to not distract us admins with your own editing, be better about not doing things, like multiple reverts, that will distract us from dealing with the real problems. --Jayron32 17:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's a bit of a recent history between the two of you though, isn't there? (correct me if I'm wrong) I can see a) how that could be misconstrued and b) why removing a comment from a talk page in those circumstances is understandable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  BRD has nothing to do with whether you should've kept posting to their talk page or not. Lugnuts told you to "give it a rest" and to "drop the stick" and you continued posting on their talk page multiple times. Heeding this suggestion would've been a much better course of action as it's not classy to continue to post to someone's talk page after they've asked you not to, regardless of why you posted there in the first place. Starting a discussion at Talk:Emma Hinze (or some other related venue) and trying to reach a consensus there would be much better than continue to pester Lugnuts and insist they communicate with you (which is in itself combative and uncollaborative). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. That, I suppose, can be the problem with edit summaries at times - they're brief, often written quite hastily and can easily be misunderstood as a result. As I did. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think the issue is likely that it's adding four ELs that repeat the same information to varying degrees. WP:ELNO says Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page... Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. Cycling archives contains all of her races and is used as a source. Shouldn't be an EL. The other ELs repeat the same information that is either in that source, or is or should be in the article itself, so shouldn't be used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Personally I probably wouldn't use it, but isn't that an issue for TfD rather than removing them - especially as it's so widely used. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)some

I will say I really dislike that template, it pulls all its sites from Wikidata which can be problematic in itself. The main problem with it is that people tend to put every site on Wikidata that has profile information about the athlete and usually it's just duplicated info. So you need to go to Wikidata and remove the extra links that add nothing else unique. Canterbury Tail talk 14:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• If I removed a template, and someone reinstated it, I would assume that they did so because they thought it was useful - I don't know how much of an edit summary you need for that. You should probably have started a talk page conversation about why it should be removed, rather than reinstating your deletion and demanding an edit summary. According to This article has no link in Wikidata, it's used on about 47,000 articles, so I guess lots of people also think it's useful - perhaps rather than try to address each article one at a time, you could nominate it for deletion, if you think it goes against external links guidance? I don't see how this is ANI-worthy however. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't read people's mind, so I started a talk page conversation. Lugnuts has refused to participate, hence why I've taken this to ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Mind reading isn't necessary to work out that people think it's useful - it's a very widely used template, found on thousands of articles like the one you removed it from. Again, I suggest you nominate the template for deletion if you think it goes against guidance - then you won't need to initiate 47,000 talk page conversations. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  The template wasn't on the article before. It was added three days ago, I reverted that edit, Lugnuts reinstated it without providing any reason (not even "this template is widely used"). You know well enough how things work on Wikipedia that I don't need to explain why that didn't fly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  That it's on 47,000 articles does not mean people think it's useful. It's quite possible, even probable in the area of sports, that one person or a couple people added all 47,000 instances. Still, it's a TfD issue for the template, I don't see a BRD issue for Lugnuts (added three days ago? are you sure?), and no one will care about not using edit summaries (except at rfa). Levivich 15:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  The template wasn't on the article before. It was added three days ago - It was added two years ago. A different template was added three days ago. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Look, I misread the diff (am not the only one, for that matter). Doesn't change the external links issue (which at least's been solved for the time being), nor the non-discussion problem (which might have entirely been avoided if this had been pointed out earlier). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I realise Lugnuts doesn't help himself by doing these things without discussion, but it doesn't seem to me like there's any case against him here. This report was completely unnecessary and I don't see any reason for action. Can we just close it, please? Deb (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Deb: What else would you do if there's obviously a disputed edit but the other party does not even wish to discuss it? The whole of Wikipedia is built on people resolving their disagreements through discussions. Obviously, you can't do that if there's no discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I originally closed this as no consensus to bollock Lugnuts, but, and no offence to Lugnuts, it occurred to me that the discussion might be on-going. So re-opening after consultation. SN54129 15:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Random, old man, drop the link and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's literally one link, at the bottom of one article. It's a link to the German Olympic Committee and the article is about a German cyclist who competed in the Olympics, so it's neither spam nor an unreasonable link. You've spent a thousand times more text on this than it takes on the page. Is this really the hill you want to die on? --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @GRuban: It's only one link because I had to go to Wikidata and remove the others ([222] - and yes, I kept the one link which seemed pertinent and non redundant). Doesn't change anything to the non-communication issue (which might have entirely avoided this whole situation), or the bad-faith accusation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Great! So is this solved then? User:Lugnuts has been hit unusually hard recently, as you've been on his talk page, you can read and know this. Yes, he could be kinder and gentler and more communicative - but so could we all, right? Being grumpy at times is part of being human. If this were a larger problem, that wouldn't excuse bad behavior, and we would still need to pursue it, but this just isn't. Can we consider this tiny issue solved? --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

    This is the problem with wikidata, editing doesn't appear in the edit history and details are generally obfuscated. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

    • Not great. This is practically vandalism in the context of Wikidata. The purpose of Wikidata is to provide open linked data. Removing linked data, making wikidata less functional, because you don't like how it's being used on Wikipedia is not appropriate. Yes, flexibility in what data is used here (or lack thereof) is an ongoing tension between the two projects, but harming Wikidata is not a viable workaround for inadequate templates/tools. Use the template and take all of the links, fix the templates to allow greater selectivity, or just add the helpful links manually. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Unfortunate that you want to go that way, this is Wikipedia, not Wikidata, and in the context of Wikipedia, then, this is positively a violation of WP:EL; so this edit was correct and should not have been reverted, even less so twice without so much as an explanation and with a bad-faith accusation on top of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Template now TfD'ed, since the problem can't be fixed through regular editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
        • go that way? Go what way? The "don't disrupt Wikidata when you don't get your way on Wikipedia" way? ANI is about conduct, not content, and as far as conduct goes, the most we can say about Lugnuts is they didn't use edit summaries and should've communicated more. When your bold removal was undone, you should've opened a talk page section and found consensus for your interpretation of EL. There are plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms that don't involve ANI (especially when the thing you think you're right about is not remotely urgent). But instead of saying "yeah, I made some errors re: the sequence, BRD, and opening this thread", you're digging in and trying to find workarounds to force your preferred version ... meanwhile there's still no discussion on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Wait, so I make a thread to discuss this exact issue with the editor who reverted me (namely Lugnuts). They refuse to participate. And somehow I'm the one that's "digging in" and not following dispute resolutions mechanisms? Their user talk page didn't work, so ANI was the next logical step. Look, I know, Lugnuts has a fan club, but being rude and dismissive is not something that should be allowed to slide just like this, let alone when they were blocked for the exact same kind of thing (namely, being combative and accusing other editors of bad faith) less than two weeks ago!
          • As for Wikidata issues, the use of Wikidata on Wikipedia should comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which WP:EL is a part of). If you think my edits on Wikidata were vandalism (i.e. you're accusing me of bad faith, which you know it is not, but neverhteless), you can go and report me to whatever their equivalent of AIV is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND the OP states in their opening post. Is that the same user who only a few weeks ago made comparisons to me and/or other editors with Hitler? And this user wonders why I want to have NOTHING to do with them. But wait, this same user admits that they have "no clue about what that template does", by removing it from the article in question. When it's restored, they then go to WikiData to remove the data properties for the same article. And when that was rightly reverted, they go to their next plan of nominating the template for deletion! Are you serious? How on earth is that not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point by using this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? They go on about WP:AGF, but this the very same editor assuming bad faith of other editors, including linking directly to WP:ABF. Now imagine if instead of the OP doing all those things, it was me. How fast would I be blocked? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not only did I never compare you or anyone to Hitler (correctly pointing out an instance of guilt by association does not have anything to do with you personally), the rest of your comment is a sliding slope of ad hominems. I tried to discuss the issue on your talk page, but you were not interested, and instead accused me of baiting you. What do you want? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 7 April 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.

Death threats

FYI

 – Created section header. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/46.19.100.26 just threatened to kill User:Snowflake91 on their talk page. It has been reverted but you can see the message here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowflake91&diff=1081474160&oldid=1081269969&diffmode=source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notcharizard (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. They were quickly blocked by @Widr:. For really obvious cases like this, WP:AIV is often going to get faster response times (though in this case, it was taken down pretty quickly). --Jayron32 16:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I also have gone and WP:REVDELed all of the threats. --Jayron32 16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I will use that if something similar happens again. I wasn't sure where to report so just went the first place I found as I was very concerned! Thank you to you and Widr for being so quick. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Notcharizard, you should have seen Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents when editing this page here, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharizard—If you are still worried, contact emergencywikimedia.org, or read the instructions at WP:911. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Snowflake91 - the person who does this is well-known to a few of us (nods at Deepfriedokra); they are quite persistent, and given to hopping to new IP ranges to evade blocks. If you'd like your talk page semi-protected, let us know; you may wish to disable e-mail, if this kind of thing bothers you. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 17:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ah, yes. Always good to here from old fiends. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  "The paper holds their folded faces to the floor-- and every day the paperboy brings more" --Pink Floyd. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Snowflake91: Don't let them bother you. It's just something they do --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Azerbaijanian 777

• Azerbaijanian 777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Attempt #1 to "Azerbaijanify" the Manneans (an Iron Age region in what is present-day Iran). No consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not.[223]
• Attempt #2 to "Azerbaijanify" the Manneans. Idem; no consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not.[224]
• Attempt #3 to "Azerbaijanify" the Manneans. Idem; no consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not.[225]
• Attempt #4 to "Azerbaijanify" the Manneans. Idem; no consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not[226]
• Attempt #5 to "Azerbaijanify" the Manneans. Idem; no consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not[227]
• Attempt #6 to "Azerbaijanify" the Manneans. Idem; no consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not[228]
• Warned on numerous occassions.[229]

Looking at the compelling evidence and their single-purpose efforts (52 of a grand total of 80 edits were made at Manneans[230]) focused on violations of WP:RS, WP:WAR, WP:BRD and WP:CON, its safe to say that said editor is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"No consensus, atrocious sourcing and what-not." This shows how biased you are in what you write. There are more authoritative sources in my contribution to the article. I sincerely believe that you have not read even 10% of what I have written. However, I searched for various sources to write it and worked hard for weeks. What I wrote is not OR, and I left the names and links of the sources there. You can evaluate my writing in a neutral way by looking at these sources. Azerbaijanian 777 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I checked every one of your edits. You are trying, since 2021, in order to shove historical negationism and WP:OR into aforementioned article. People have been indefinitely blocked for a whole lot less on Wikipedia and the sole reason you've managed to avoid scrunity so far is because of irregular time intervals between edits. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"However, I searched for various sources to write it and worked hard for weeks." Doubt that, your addition [231] looks very similar to that of the Mannaeans article in the Azeri Wikipedia [232]. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that European/White Americans lived in America before Columbus even discovered it. There's not a single WP:RS that support this addition. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• What this is is long-term edit warring; with very little indication that 777 is willing to go about otherwise. Their only substantial edit to the talk page is [233], which begins right off the bat with a personal attack. Their only other attempts at discussion, beyond a few questions "why did you revert me", are things like [234], or their various edit summaries, which speak for themselves... If this isn't NOTHERE, it's at the very least disruptive and tendentious. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Warned. Azerbaijanian 777, you're being too bold at Manneans. WP:EXTRAORDINARY very much applies for bold claims. Also, if you want to change the subject name in an article, you need to first change the subject name of that article (which you do through the page move procedure).

Anyway, I don't know if you realize this, but to a passing observer, you're coming across as a single-purpose account who communicates poorly. There is no way around the requirement for you to provide especially strong sources (per EXTRAORDINARY). If you are able to use those sources to convince other editors to form a consensus favourable to your changes, then those changes will be kept. But that is the only path, your changes will not be retained any other way. Anything else short of that would be sanctionable behaviour. Thanks. El_C 23:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ellinewilliams231

I am writing to express concern over Ellinewilliams231 (talk · contribs), for still adding unsourced changes, despite numerous warnings, as documented in their talk page.

On 2 and 3 April 2022, the user was given two final warnings by Engr. Smitty (talk · contribs), for adding unsourced changes to 2021 PBA 3x3 season – Second conference.

However, I discovered since then that Ellinewilliams231 added unsourced changes to the list of countries that banned Russian airlines (2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus § Airspace closures), mainly through this edit and this edit.

There is substantial doubt if countries like China would ban Russian airlines in their airspace (we would know if that is the case through NOTAMs), and if China still allows Russian airlines, then it is a serious act of misinformation on the context of a major conflict. --Minoa (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Ellinewilliams231#Indefinite_block. El_C 09:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

72.138.0.0/16

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.

---

Vandalism has been coming from this IP range for the past few days, would a rangeblock be in order? Here are some of the IPs I encountered:

• 72.138.49.106
• ‎72.138.20.6
• ‎72.138.179.150

— Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months (Thames Valley District School Board). El_C 01:54, 9 April 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 additions of unsourced content despite many warnings

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

---

Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the second time I've brought this user to ANI in the past two weeks. Here is the post from earlier. The first issue was for constant edit warring, and this one is for repeated additions of unsourced edits despite many warnings. They were warned about unsourced changes in September 2020, twice in January 2021, by me in March 2021, by a different user in March 2021, and again in October 2021. I warned them about unsourced changes on April 1, once yesterday, and a second time yesterday after they ignored my first message and continued the behavior. Today, they made yet another unsourced edit. This user has already been blocked for three separate instances of edit warring, and I'm not seeing a willingness to change their behavior. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but their edits don't even match with the sources that exist, for example the edits I reverted [235] [236] [237] don't match with the NFL.com source in any of the three cases... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 7 April 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 personal attacks and harassment by 124.170.172.106 aka Jobrot

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=1081438814&oldid=1081437862

I've had enough of this.  Tewdar  11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've done a short block and we will see where it goes from there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. User has been doing this for months, uses multiple ips, and used to be Jobrot.  Tewdar  12:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that's Jobrot? Mvbaron (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Tewdar would like to disclose a previous account they've used on Wikipedia? Jobrot stopped editing on 16 June 2019, Tewdar started editing 4 July 2019… Robby.is.on (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not great evidence. Secretlondon (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

😂 This is hilarious. I cannot wait for the checkuser report.  Tewdar  14:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Robby.is.on, I think others are interpreting your comment as a suggestion that Tewdar might be Jobrot. I had interpreted it as a suggestion that Tewdar must have been editing on some other previous account, as how else would he know anything about Jobrot or their editing patterns? If that's what you meant, you might like to know that when Tewdar started commenting at the article talk page in January, there was a big discussion about a Jobrot draft. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe your interpretation is incorrect. But perhaps Robby can provide some evidence for me to laugh at.  Tewdar  15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps @Robby.is.on: can clarify their allegation and provide a smidgen of evidence, or retract their allegation. For the record, I am not Jobrot, nor did I use any previous accounts, nor do I have or use any other accounts now, nor do I ever edit as an anonymous IP.  Tewdar  18:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I had interpreted it as a suggestion that Tewdar must have been editing on some other previous account, as how else would he know anything about Jobrot or their editing patterns? Indeed. If that's what you meant, you might like to know that when Tewdar started commenting at the article talk page in January, there was a big discussion about a Jobrot draft. Thanks, that clears things up. Would have been helpful if Tewdar has stated this. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you read any of the RfCs associated with the creation of the Cultural Marxism article? Jobrot makes rather a lot of comments. BTW, I know about the RfCs because I like to educate myself about stuff like that. WP:AGF (as Jobrot might finish a sentence on...)  Tewdar  18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mvbaron - I cannot prove that the IP is Jobrot. But there are several stylistic similarities, and they are from the same area, and say many similar things.  Tewdar  14:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Tewdar, would you like to keep discussing the potential connection, or are you content with the action taken so far? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep discussing? Why, so that other people can chuck more bullshit unfounded allegations at me? Oh yeah, sounds great - perhaps ANI can prove that Tewdar shot JFK or something...  Tewdar  15:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

and @Tewdar did you shoot JFK??? you know at ANI all your behavior is being examined... But, uhm, I'm sorry I did not mean to start all this. I was just curious why you're so sure. Mvbaron (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of WP:POLICY links is very idiosyncratic, use of exact same quotes to illustrate points, knowledge of and editing of obscure sandbox subpages just after Jobrot "retired", similar writing style...  Tewdar  15:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Stylistic similarities are sometimes enough to prove a connection. Would you be willing to say more? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Could an admin step in and close this discussion please? This seems to be veering into a fishing expedition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Who is the fish?  Tewdar  18:20, 7 April 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.

JP7i1-u contrib stalking, harassment, threats and retaliatory 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.

---

JP7i1-u has crossed the line completely. [238], [239], [240], [241]. Needs immediate action. oknazevad (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've left a message with a level 4 immediate warning stating they're lucky not to be blocked already. Reviewing their edit history further. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, when a week old user with 50 edits calls someone with years of experience and thousands of edits a sock [242] it is they themselves that is the sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, threats of real life harm should be an auto-indef until they, at least, show some awareness of why that's a problem and agree to never repeat it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked JP7i1-u for one week for harassment and violent threats, even if fanciful. If any administrator thinks that I am being too lenient, please feel to modify the terms up to and including indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I firmly believe that's the kind of behavior that needs actual reflection before allowing them to edit again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, as Gomer Pyle as played by Jim Nabors used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" The editor has expressed contrition, admits they were wrong, and is promising to do better. Cullen328 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Though is shouldn't be a surprise that the SPI I also filed came back positive and this account is indeffed now. As are the other socks. It's obviously a serial sock master, as noted on the SPI. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 6 April 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 2600:1700:6B40:2380:107B:1E2A:812E:1E0

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

---

2600:1700:6B40:2380:107B:1E2A:812E:1E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brandon Nozaki Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User is edit-warring to remove sourced content from the Brandon Nozaki Miller article - their claim [243] that material sourced to Motorcycle.com [244] is "autobiographical" is demonstrably false, and their removal of "allegedly" from the article violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I advised them to discuss on the talk page, advising them of relevant policy, but they have instead to repeatedly revert, without discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I see Cullen328 has now blocked the IP. I've restored the article to its prior state, per the WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR, which hopefully will settle the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 5 April 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.

There is a bit of a slow edit war at Korean conflict

Hi, not particularly notifying against anybody but somebody might like to take a look at this. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No slow edit war. Just routine reverting of sockpuppet edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdbolivar (and the archive) for details. FDW777 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

FDW777, I wasn't aware of the details but figured it was something like this. It doesn't hurt to draw attention to the issue. Confirmed protection would help then? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: try reporting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and see how that goes. or don't, i'm not your boss. 晚安 (トークページ) 13:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Outing a potential victim

I hope that no-one minds, but I'm moving this to the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bruxy Cavey, because having read it I think that this article needs some serious BLP work, not just some of its editors needing administrator attention. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Racist discourse

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.

---

• WikiNutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 198.44.220.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:WikiNutt was blocked several days ago[245]-[246] by admin El C for persistent disruptive editing (personal attacks/harassment/TENDENTIOUS editing). A vandalism-only IP then appeared,[247] probably a sock IP of LTA disruptor ClassicYoghurt[248]), larping himself as an "Iranian", and started making racist/inflammatory comments on WikiNutt's talk page. WikiNutt didn't hesitate, and started making racist/inflammatory insults too: Some excerpts:

(Redacted)

I think WikiNutt's two-week block should be extended to indefinite. Regardless of whether a disruptive editor visits your talk page, such comments are absolutely unacceptable and only reinforces everyone else's earlier concern, that is, said editor is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:04, 9 April 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:OWNTALK violations

Hi everyone. I haven't looked into the content dispute the post seems to refer to. But posting the same message on someone's Talk page again and again, surely that's harassment? Diffs: [249], [250], [251], [252], [253] The editor in question appears to be around long enough to know WP:OWNTALK and their last edit came after I linked to the policy. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have reminded Radiohist that it is a 3RR violation to re-add the same message to a user's talk page. [254] —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I did nothing wrong. I started a discussion regarding the content of the page in question and the editor just kept deleting my message. The user removed an edit from Vladimir Zhirinovsky's page without any explanation, so I contacted him regarding the subject and provided and provided an example for my position on the page. It did not contain any threats or harassment. I also might add that what User talk:Robby.is.on is doing is Misrepresentation of other people in regards to my actions.Radiohist (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Deleting a message is equivalent to acknowledging the message. I will note that Radiohist has not re-added the message since the other user requested that they stop sending the messages. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, deleting a message does nothing more than shut down a potential discussion and resolution. Having in mind the fact that he removed a category, which contained a source in the article itself - 1 - warranted an explanation in the edit summary. Since he did not provide said explanation, I went to his talk page. I will admit that his constant deletion of my question struck me as condescending. Radiohist (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
        • And how do you think that your edit warring struck xem? Try and put yourself in the other person's shoes. It's not as if you couldn't have instead discussed this with other people at Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky#Gay but closeted on the article talk page, either. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Radiohist, you are incorrect. Users are within their rights to remove any post from their own talk page and are under no obligation to answer your query. Messages removed are assumed to have been read and should not be re-posted. (See Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments.) A better place to go for discussion about an article is the article's talk page, not a user talk page, as other editors of the page might be interested in discussing the issue. By the way, looking at the guidance at the top of Category:LGBT people, it appears these categories are only for people who self-identify as being a member of one of the categories should be added to one. I don't think this person has done that. — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Diannaa You are also incorrect. That isn't necessary. If enough factual information is presented in the form of interviews from people who knew the deceased he may be placed under that category. To your point about them publicly not self-identifying as gay, neither did Roy Cohn, Rock Hudson, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Rudolf Nureyev, Michelangelo, George Cukor, Liberace, Georgy Chicherin, Laurence Harvey, etc. Perhaps changing the guidance would be best to reflect the way it is being implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
            • That's the kind of discussion you should be undertaking at the article's talk page. Discussion regarding the guidance for the category needs to take place on its talk page, not here.— Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
            • @Radiohist: WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you should not let poor work in other articles influence your adherence to our policies and guidelines. If you think our policy isn't supported by practice you're welcome to open a discussion to change it e.g. at WT:BLP. I'd note though that in all of the examples you gave, the people have been deceased for long enough that BLP does not apply. This is not the case for Vladimir Zhirinovsky who died only a few days ago. As for the rest, as other editors have said, if you want to discuss article content you should always discuss it on article talk pages. If an editor kept deleting an attempt to discuss something on an article talk page you might have a reasonable complaint here. You do not have any since you tried to force an editor to discuss something on their talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ewdqwdq and User:Eluike are the same and reviewing GA requests

This edit is an admission that User:Ewdqwdq is a sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binary_search_tree/GA2&diff=prev&oldid=1081667589 . I'm reporting User:Ewdqwdq and User:Eluike to be blocked. This user agreed to review GA requests, so an administrator needs to undo the damage. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, User:Ewdqwdq was hacked, so I made a new acount. That is fair use

@Timhowardriley Eluike (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've indeffed both accounts. The whole thing smells to high heaven.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if both of them were socks of some older master. I think that a CU would reveal a lot. wizzito | say hello! 23:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Could be related to User:Frog989238242, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If you really think it's a sock, file an SPI. Otherwise, what are you doing speculating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwedwsdaqa (talk • contribs) 06:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

disruptive editting of User: GANESH PICTURES

This user GANESH PICTURES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps changing all the producer into GANESH, could any sysop lend a hand to help to stop him? PAVLOV (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @PAVLOV: you'd get faster help for this kind of disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 9

There have three things in here,

1.This LTA create sock account User:Brinkofaw,see [255],please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 2.Also,Special:Contributions/119.237.44.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 16 August in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

3.Please protect some page,

3.1.Backpack, start at 14 September in last year,spam, DE and vandal.

3.2.FIFA 18, start at 5 December in last year,spam, DE and vandal.

--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/219.73.68.56,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjj. But Brinkofaw could be just test edits unrelated to the link spammer (no link spam from them thus far, will warn). El_C 16:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"djjjjj"?? 晚安 (トークページ) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 10:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

ah, i get it now. that makes sense. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C,I am very sure Brinkofaw is sock.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 10:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/119.236.212.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 17 November in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

They, not it. Oh, and dlllllllllp. El_C 10:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

har har very funny 晚安 (トークページ) 10:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Casting of aspersions by user Duffbeerforme

I am taking part in this AfD Debate in which I am the creator of the page. One participant in the debate, user Duffbeerforme, left an unsigned comment accusing me of political campaigning and dirty tricks without evidence. Their comment read "Partisan attack page created on the eve of an election. Personal essay built on discreet events joined together in an original synthesis. Wikipedia is not a venue for political campaigning and dirty tactics. 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)"

Whether or not the page is an attack page is a matter for discussion in the debate, but I believe this user's behaviour is in breach of WP:NPA, WP:AFG, and WP:CIVIL. I am a newcomer and am not familiar with the procedure in this situation, but have searched for appropriate avenues to raise this matter. I am asking for an admin to advise what the best course of action would be and if applicable, for the comment to be removed and any appropriate sanctions applied against the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combustible Vulpex (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy link to the diff in question. I will also notify Duffbeerforme as per the guidelines. SunDawntalk 14:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edit: It seems that you have placed a notice on his talk page but you don't create new section for that. Apologies. SunDawntalk 14:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    • My bad, wasn't sure how to use the template correctly and must have scuffed it somehow. Thanks Combustible Vulpex (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've got to suggest that a new contributor who, after making 10 rather minor edits to miscellaneous articles, goes on with their next post to create a properly-formatted 4000 word article on such obviously-controversial subject matter shouldn't be surprised at scepticism as to their motivations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• I was just about to say what Andy just did. Beyond that, good grief, this was absolutely written as an attack page. Duffbeerforme was caustic, I agree, but this is indeed a long essay, designed to disparage the subject, with a federal election due in a little over a month. The first sentence of the lead is "Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made numerous false and misleading statements over the course of his political career." The final sentence of the lead is "Public perception of Morrison's tendency to deliver false statements has been seen as problematic for his political party, the Liberal National Coalition." The first sentence of the main body of text is "Scott Morrison's history of making false statements has received significant media attention, which has led to issues for Morrison with public trust and repeated criticism from the Australian Labor Party." And so on and so forth. Ravenswing 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • We already have the AFD discussion and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison for discussing the article. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Indeed we do, but that's not the point. The point is whether Duffbeerforme was justified in his assertions. Those quotes are evidence that he was. Ravenswing 03:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I was first alerted to this article by the use of a political attack blog as a RS in a BLP article. On further investigation the problems kept getting more and more disturbing. This sort of behaviour by a new editor is highly unusual and it is very hard to AGF, especially given the timing. My concern is that if we raise an article on untruths told by notable politicians, we are going to have to add in a lot of new articles and they are all going to be BLP nightmares. To be generous, stretching the truth is something all political figures do. Plato pointed this out 2 500 years ago and I doubt that we're going to see much change in how spin and hyperbole is perceived by political opponents. --Pete (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Given the timing and the other circumstances Duffbeerforme's suspicion is a reasonable one, and multiple editors have made similar points. The AfD seems well in hand; I would suggest Combustible Vulpex withdraw this and focus on the deletion discussion. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, my comment was a little on the caustic side, sensibly I toned it down before posting, could have said it better but the evidence seems clear. Funny thing is bringing it up here was probably the death of that attack page. Consider the audience before whining about a perceived slight. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

School block request

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

---

Can a long term school block be placed on this range, Special:Contributions/208.67.140.0/22 due to persistent abuse. WHOIS link. Blocking individual IPs seems to have little effect either, as there seems to be some way that "editors" are vandalising as IP address one moment, then switch to another, before switching back to the original one soon after. I'm not too sure how to notify an entire /22 to visit this page, but something tells me they are more likely to replace the notice with "beans" anyway than to actually act on it in any meaningful way. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for a year. Pretty much every edit is vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attack and disruptive editing by IP

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

Continuous personal attacks and disruptive editing throughout Wikipedia. Immediate admin action is required. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Elinruby

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

No one can follow what's happening here. But wrt the question RE: the overturning of a consensus that has been 'codified' through a properly closed WP:RFC (or any WP:DRR) — that does require a similar DRR and its subsequent closure in order to overturn or otherwise significantly adjust that prior decision. Yes, consensus can change, but when backed by a closed DRR, not by fiat.

BSMRD, others, in case I missed something, you may file a report at WP:AE concerning this matter/editor, where you will be required to observe the word and diff limits. I've also given the reported user, Elinruby, a logged warning (AEL diff) semi/independently of this complaint. No, I have not read most of this lengthy thread and I have no intention to. It is basically impenetrable to an outside reviewer. El_C 12:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Azov Special Purpose Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment

(I've done my best to have diffs where I can. As far as I know no post has been deleted here, so people can look at any mentioned page and see conversations in full if they feel I may have misrepresented anything or that they need further context than what I have provided. In addition, I have notified all users mentioned by name below, and all who received a D/s notification from Elinruby, which seemed the fastest way to get the interested parties.)

Recently, User:Elinruby and I have been involved in a content dispute regarding multiple issues surrounding the article Azov Battalion. During this time they have demonstrated multiple policy violate and generally belligerent behaviors, most egregiously I would say is their most recent misuse of D/s notifications to tell editors not to vote wrong on an RfD I created.

Our initial interaction came after the creation of this RfC (made unilaterally without prior discussion I might add), in which they expressed unfamiliarity with the source material, but nonetheless had skepticism regarding the article's sourcing for certain claims, specifically regarding the far-right, neo-Nazi character of the unit in question. Later, they would post this source "rebuttal", too which I offered mine own here. The editor would continue to call into question the validity of sources used in the article for ideological claims, alternatively insisting they didn't exist, or that they were unusable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that editors needed to "READ THE RS POLICY" (this one gets repeated a lot).

Not long after, I received this notification for an RSN discussion, technically involving one of the sources above, all though seemingly presenting it as the only source, instead of one of two for a particular claim, and five in that particular sentence. This is also the first time of two that I encountered WP:INAPPNOTE behavior. After I received my notification, I decided to check Elinruby's contribs to see who else they notified, and saw this (it continues on the next older page). Apparently, Elinruby took it upon themself to notify everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page since the last RfC, including several editors (and multiple IPs, SPAs, and blocked accounts) who had not posted on a single unarchived thing on the page and who had absolutely no involvement with the current dispute. This post ultimately went nowhere, as myself and several other editors were unconvinced by his arguments (and several others dropped in rather confused as to why they had been pinged).

The following day, I saw this post by User:Ymblanter regarding the article Azov Special Purpose Regiment. After reviewing the article, I concluded it was a woefully inadequate article, and an obvious WP:POVFORK and so took it to AfD (here). Now, I will admit the article has improved somewhat in the intervening days, however that does not change the fact that it is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK that never should have seen mainspace. It seems fairly obvious to me that Elinruby, dissatisfied with the reception at Talk:Azov Battalion, decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage (at the time of creation of the AfD quotes had not been properly attributed, and seemed to be Elinruby's own voice in the article, I'll likely go back and strike that part of my AfD once I'm done here). Normally, I would expect an editor of their tenure to be more than aware that this is not OK, however they have expressed multiple times to thinking it's just fine to go and make your own article on the same topic if you don't like the coverage at any particular article (including encouraging the proposer of the split to just do it unilaterally during the split discussion, in the case of User:Mhawk10). They seem very fond of unilateral action, having unilaterally moved Russian-Ukrainian information war to Russian information war against Ukraine, causing the conflagration on that talk page (I'm uninvolved in that dispute, and am only commenting on it as a further example of the user's bizarre ideas of acceptable behavior). Finally, during this AfD, Elinruby admitted to WP:CANVASSING Ukrainian Wikipedia for editors to fight my AfD (and seemingly wanting Azov members to escape Mariupol and... set the record straight on Wikipedia?), also calling me a "sneak" in the process.

Now, all of this would have been... fine. Frustrating and annoying yes, but not something to get upset over. There are some serious policy misconceptions and some bizarre personal attacks, but IMO that's not something I really feel the need to come here with. Then however, I received this D/s notification. Now I have already received one of these, in this topic area, but User:Elinruby later apologized for the doubel warning and offered to self-RV, so it's no big deal, if annoying. Of course, after I had recieved this warning I decided to check his contribs once again, seeing if I was a part of another wave of talk page edits, and surprise surprise I was. As can be seen right now, Elinruby apparently took it upon themselves to warn recent participants in the disputes they are involved in of EE D/s, including some rather experienced editors in the area such as User:Mhawk10 and User:Mhorg. Even this, though a fairly obvious attempt at intimidation IMO, wasn't enough to push me here. No, the final straw was this edit, repeated at each talk page (excepting my own) that a D/s notification was placed on. Placing D/s notifications on editors pages and then telling them it was because they voted in an AfD you disagree with (apparently RfC and RfD were meant to be AfD, per this, though they also take umbrage with the existence and voting in of every process in which they are involved in a dispute, and seem to think they are dealing with the same "group" of editors in each case) should absolutely not be acceptable under any circumstances.

Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. The pattern of behavior is consistent and has only been getting worse. I have no idea how an editor with a tenure like this could act like this. Hopefully an administrator can provide some assistance here. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest condensing this? You're going to be hardpressed to find anyone to read such a lengthy complaint. Maybe bullet point the issues...CUPIDICAE💕 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to break it up chronologically by paragraphs, but if you want a TLDR the issues are as follows:

Multiple kinds of WP:INAPPNOTE

Repeated and inappropriate spamming of user talk pages

General belligerence and personal attacks, as well as a habit of projecting behavior and accusations between users, or inventing it altogether (he seems to think I've called him a brainwashed Nazi, when as far as I am aware I've never done such a thing, nor could I find anyone who has in the past few days)

I figured it would be best to be thorough due to how this has crossed multiple pages and covers multiple issues, hence the paragraphs and diffs, but that's the quickest summary I can give. BSMRD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This [[256]] contains some PA's "All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC", telling another user how they should have voted in an AFD (not to be a fair major issue, but I see they may have done to same to everyone who did not vote they way they wanted). I think all these need is a mild warning, but they are trying to bludgeon an AFD on multiple talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support sanctions against Elinruby. They posted this discretionary sanctions notice on my UP: [257] and then, an hour and a half after I deleted that, posted this canvassing: [258] Mztourist (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I also would support sanctions. There behavior on Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine has been sub-par, to say the least, move-warring over the article ([259]) with multiple allegations of personal attacks against another editor ([260], [261], [262]), combined with a general BATTLEGROUND approach ([263], [264]: It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever, you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have) to the topic and whose sole technique seems to be to BLUDGEON the discussion (they have 173 edits to that talk page compared to the next highest at 35; they are also responsible for two thirds of its text). SN54129 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for compiling some diffs regarding Russian information war against Ukraine. I knew there had been drama over there, but my post was already long enough and I wasn't a participant to begin with, so I decided to leave it at a passing mention. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that your diff 145 diplays quite an attitude, but I have never seen that text before and definitely didn’t write it. I assume it was something that was in your editor buffer from some other discussion. I don’t dispute that I changed the article title. The one that was there did not reflect the contents of the article. When it was unilaterally changed back, based on some erroneous notion of the topic, the article-title mismatch again required either a retitling or the move or deletion of a massive amount of cited material. See comment to Buidhe below. As for the amount of work I have put into the article—-in what way is this against policy? It was bad machine translation when I came to it, or at least broken English, with many diatribes about Russian oppressors and Goebbels and at least one BLP violations. But well sourced! So I fixed a lot of language and removed a lot of diatribes and documented what I was doing, shrug. Then I worked to improve it from there, in particular as to what I too initially saw as a point of view problem. This is what we do with WP:PNT articles ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read through the entire text above. There are a few things that I'd like to note:

• Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. It isn't a novel POVFORK; Elinruby decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage is true only inasmuch as the coverage comes directly from a sister project.
• I was surprised to discover this because I have participated in discussions on the Azov Battalion page before, but I can't actually find an EE topic area notification in my talk page archives. I'm certainly aware of the general EE restrictions (I've given the template out to people), but I didn't find it particularly intimidating.
• People should not boldly make moves that they know are going to be contested, especially after people have explicitly written that the move was not supported. I've recently learned that there is a way to request that these be undone at the RM noticeboard without having to open a full move discussion. The way that this actually appears to have played out was that there was a Bold move by Elinruby on March 6, followed by a reversion of the undiscussed move by Buidhe on March 22, followed by Elinruby moving the article to their preferred title for the second time on March 23. I can excuse a bold move, but the second page move is clearly disruptive and out-of-process; gaining consensus to move a page name when it is contested is not optional. Unlike the fork of Azov Battalion, this doesn't appear to be a case where the user is simply importing the title of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article to English Wikipedia.
• Technically you don't need consensus for an article split along the lines of the one I proposed (leaving the source page unchanged but making a second page to cover a subtopic in more depth), since it's more or less the same procedurally as just writing a new article. I also think it's unwise to spend a lot of time on doing so if consensus is against a split, since any such split-off article is going to wind up at AfD and likely be redirected back to the article covering the top. Giving unwise advice isn't exactly disruptive.
• The diff BSMRD links to as evidence of a canvassing confession contains the line If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway. Elinruby understands their actions as being opposed to censorship, but also says that Everything I am doing against sneaks is in the open, which suggests that the user is intentionally POVPUSHING against people they consider to be sneaks. This attitude is not consistent with the collaboration that is necessary to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.

I propose that Elinruby receive a three-month one-month WP:TBAN from making edits that pertain to the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed. All of the disruption appears to be in this topic area, so I think a TBAN is going to be better here than a WP:CBAN. If disruption continues in other areas, then we could expand it, but I don't see evidence of that yet. If disruption resumes following the TBAN's expiration, a longer and more permanent one could be imposed at WP:AE. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 04:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC))

I appreciate your taking the time to read everything above (I know it was a lot), and taking the time to formulate a well reasoned response. WRT the POV nature Azov Special Purpose Regiment, it's not that I think Elin came up with that article on their own (they obviously didn't), but rather that after being largely rejected at Azov Battalion they decided to simply import the Ukrainian version (which they clearly see as superior) to it's own space, rather than attempting to bring Azov Battalion more in line with its Ukrainian version. This is obviously a fork of Azov Battalion (they cover exactly the same subject, though in different ways), and is clearly done to promote Elinruby's POV, hence my calling it a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps that is not strictly accurate, but I feel it fits the spirit of a WP:POVFORK. BSMRD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Much less here than meets the eye. Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a prolific contributor in numerous topic areas with no blocks in sixteen years. I don't always agree with him, but we have cooperated on major topics in the past and he is tireless in improving topics and cooperating with other editors. Elinruby always has NPOV in mind, and he can get impatient when he runs into a situation where concerted POV-pushing goes on at an article, and he tries to combat it, sometimes feeling alone at protecting the encyclopedia and causing frustration which can come out as crabbiness sometimes. We've probably all been there, and it's disconcerting to say the least; maintaining one's equanimity (not to mention AGF) is hard in situations like that. Unfortunately, that can spill over into other situations, when one sees what superficially looks like similar behavior to what just got one's hackles up in some other topic, but in this case is actually GF editors who disagree on points of policy or content.

I think that's where we are now. When Elinruby feels that others are acting contrary to NPOV or the best interest of the article, he is vociferous in protecting it. In fact, the whole reason that Eastern Europe/Balkans have an AC/DS alert in the first place, is because there is a long history of bad behavior going on in this area; Elinruby both knows this is the case, and has experienced it, and he may have come into it with his guard up and too ready to see a battleground where there was only (mostly) civil opposition. The initial unilateral page move deserves an eyebrow-raise, the second is clearly against policy and should not have been made. I've commented at his Talk page, trying to calm the waters, and I think we're basically done with the problem.

Calling for a three-month TBAN is ridiculous; what's needed here is a TROUT for some uncivil behavior under pressure, and a reminder about WP:RM#CM requiring controversial moves to be put to other editors for comment first. Perhaps an admin clarification may be needed on his UTP about when and to whom one may give AC/DS alerts; WP:AC/DS is actually unclear about frequency, and I see nothing on that page that says an editor may not place several or a hundred {{Ds/alert}} templates if several or a hundred editors starting editing at an affected topic (as long as they meet aware.aware and aware.alert, which in one case, they did not; Elinruby has since apologized in that case). Bottom line, other than a reminder and a TROUT, and perhaps a friendly tip to cool off or disengage temporarily when he feels the temperature rising at an article under AC/DS, I see nothing actionable here. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in your position if it weren't for the comment that broadly referred to their actions as being against sneaks. I'm not really bound to 3 months as being the perfect length (I'd prefer the minimum amount of time that allows for the user to cool down), but I think the editor needs some time to cool off before returning to this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am involved in the discussion around Russian–Ukrainian information war and unfortunately, I don't think that their editing in this area is entirely constructive. It's understandable that strong emotions are going to come out over an ongoing war, but we cannot tolerate advocacy favoring one side or disruptive editing. I think Elinruby would benefit from taking a break from the Russia–Ukraine conflict, either voluntarily or by a topic ban as suggested by Mhawk. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, you’ve repeatedly been invited to add anything into the article that you think is missing, or to join the ongoing discussion about is reorganization. The problem is that the original title caused a huge false balance problem, which would be even worse if restored now as none of the sources *I* have found say anything about Ukrainians hacking Russians, as you seem to think is happening. The ones you put at the top of the request for merge don’t say that either, and one of them is already cited in the article. I have no objection to the other sources or any other reliable sources being added to the article. Alternatively if you want an article about what the Ukrainians are doing, or about what the Ukrainians are doing vs what the Russian doing, please do write it. I’ll even point you to some recent material for it that only came out this week afaik and so far is only on the talk page of the Russian disinformation page. But look. A title is supposed to reflect the contents of the article and if we name this one “Russian-Ukrainian information war” then a lot of information will need to be removed about the Russians because with the exception of the material mentioned above, the Ukrainian information war so far has consisted of Zelenskyy making speeches Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that Ukraine hacked Russians. Misrepresenting other editors and constant bludgeoning is not cool. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree! Not cool at all! So great! Now, buidhe, can you please explain why you think there should be a Russian-Ukrainian information article? I might possibly even agree with you about that also. But more to the point, what I don't understand why it has to be this one, which is currently on a different topic. Alternately, if sources support whatever it is you think is happening let's add them in, by all means let's use them, and maybe it even *could* be this article. But if not Ukrainians hacking, then what is it you think I am not including that should be in the article? I ask in all humility. Again. Btw the new materials I was talking about involved speculation that Ukrainians had disabled the Russians' secure communications system, but industry experts say it's more likely that the Russians did it to themselves by blowing up cell towers not realizing that their Era cryptophones required 3/4G 02:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

• Support TBAN for Russia-Ukraine topics. After reading this comment I think an indefinite ban for all Eastern European topics is correct. The user is too involved in a political defence of Ukraine, his\her work risks being manipulative. The user also left me a DS on my talkpage (which honestly I still don't understand what it is for), perhaps to intimidate me?--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  An indef ban on all Eastern European topics is way too broad. I don't see how that comment (or any others) reasonably shows that the editor cannot edit on topics involving the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, or even for that matter relatively mundane topics (such as rapid transit systems) involving Russia or Ukraine. The limits of the disruption are very clearly related solely to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, so I don't think that a ban on all of Eastern Europe would be anywhere closes to narrowly tailored towards prevention. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhorg: Re: the DS alert, no, I don't think they were trying to intimdate you; it was probably because the vast majority of your editing is in Eastern European topics... SN54129 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Mhawk10, you are right, perhaps limiting the ban to the Russian-Ukrainian question is right, my proposal was excessive.

  Ok SN54129, thanks for the explanation. Anyway maybe I have problem with the translation from English, I can't understand well the functionality of the DS. I have to read it better. Mhorg (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhorg: DS allows administrators to block users for less severe conduct violations than they would normally be able to if the violations pertain to specific topics. The notice Elinruby posted on your talk page is simply informing you need to be more careful how you edit within that topic than you normally would. Although people sometimes take it as a personal attack, it is merely intended as a courtesy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The user continues to argue as if he were cheering for one of the factions being talked about.[265] I'm even more convinced that a TBAN is needed.--Mhorg (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I forgot to add one thing: the accusations of INAPPNOTE by the OP is belied by the OP's own statement at WP:RSN: "As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants)." (diff). That is the very definition of WP:APPNOTE. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but pinging everyone who has posted on a talk page in the past six months (most of whom had nothing to do with the dispute in question) is textbook 'spamming' per WP:INAPPNOTE BSMRD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  APPNOTE bullet 5.2: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'd still consider what Elin did spamming, but I suppose it could technically be considered an appropriate, if particularly excessive, notification. BSMRD (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  that's a real technicality you're going off there. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi there. I have been seeking help with BSMRD’s uncivil and retaliatory behavior from Drmies on his talk page for a couple of days now. The editor’s utter refusal to actually read the Reliable Sources policy figured prominently, although I did not mention a name.

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

In fact there had been an RFC on whether neo-Nazi should appear in the lede. The prior RFC the editor refers to: I went through it rather carefully when I was sending out notices, and I did not see a conclusion that neo-Nazi should be in the lede. I am not prepared to say it isn’t there, and I can’t research this right now as I am overdue in dealing with urgent RL matters, but if it seems important I will look again later. What I did see was somebody trying to close it with a conclusion that it should not. I thank the editor for finally realizing that the article is not an editorial in my personal voice and but meanwhile a dozen people have voted to delete the article based on the editor’s false statement. I am not particularly injured that the editor did not read the article closely enough to notice the translation tag and the discussion of a translation issue on the talk page, but I would think that this might have seemed an important thing to do when trying to delete an article, you know? Read the talk page?

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

Mhawk10 probably sincerely believes that I have done something wrong at that article, since a couple of editors who were also in the Reliable Sources “discussion” at Azov Battalion are saying so over and over again. The requested move would require the deletion of almost all of the article’s material and 299 references, so I have objected to it fairly strenuously. The editors from Azov Battalion who are trying to do this have not discussed any of the matters raised elsewhere on the talk page, including a proposed reorganization, which is on hold lest the editor doing it also be dragged over here. AGF, I question whether either editor has read the full article, although on March 21 one of them did fix two typos in one section.

I really need to go do some paid work where they won’t call me names, but before I do I’d like to mention that the comments about the light of day were not about the creation of the regiment article but were instead a reply to the suggestion that I should not for some reason have notified editors at the Ukrainian Wikipedia of an effort to delete a translation of their work.

I hope I have answered enough to demonstrate that there is a lot more to this than has been presented to you, and will be happy to answer questions or discuss anything when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Repinging Drmies for you; your attempted fix of a typo in a previous ping will not work, per WP:NOTIF. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERs this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

What I actually said. You still have yet to present a convincing reason why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS disqualifies the sources in question. You can't just say "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS go read the RS policy" and expect that to be enough.

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

All I said was that you unilaterally moved the article title (twice apparently, which I neither realized nor incuded in my original post), thereby inciting the current drama, which is by all accounts factually accurate. BSMRD (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Based on my communication with user Elinruby, I would oppose to sanctions beyond a warning. She/he is agitated and probably behaves like a new and very inexperienced user, but I do not see them sufficiently disruptive to warrant sanctions, at least based on my interactions with them. Other users might have a different opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Elinruby has 65,446 edits, and has been editing since 2006. They know better. BSMRD (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @My very best wishes: Elinruby has >65,000 edits. I also think you may be missing a "not" in the second sentence of your rationale. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) was coming in to say that. I don’t usually get involved in wikilawyering though, so apparently I had some misconceptions about procedures. I erred on the side of notifying people I disagreed with as well as those I didn’t, when apparently I should not have notified at all.Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Since I was notified of this discussion and I've been one of the most active editors regarding the invasion, I feel like I have to throw my 2 cents in. That said, from my limited interaction by being on the periphery, my view is simply that Elinruby didn't get the consensus they wanted at Talk:Azov Battalion and got upset by it, created a new mirror page, and then that mirror page got shit on at AfD (rightfully in my opinion, as it was pretty clear that it was made to circumvent the consensus from the main Azov page in order to push Elinruby's preferred objectives; additionally, it was a bad translation and still a work-in-progress that would have benefitted more from being in draftspace). Now, that's not necessarily inherently disruptive, and it's been handled easily. Considering that Elinruby is an editor-in-good-standing and has been a longtime contributor without incident, they should be sternly warned not to pull that shit again (i.e. trying to circumvent consensus without further discussion), but a TBAN is just an overreaction at this point, in my opinion, especially if it is a full EE TBAN. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a mild problem of a POV-pushing OWNership with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Turning to Russian-Ukrainian information war, recently renamed "Russian information war against Ukraine" by Elinruby after his editing had turned it into a one-sided indictment of Russia:

• Elinruby chose WP:Move war, and then attacked both Buidhe and me (as first commenter I guess) saying e.g. "If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there."[266]
• Elinruby comments on Buidhe's RfM (to the article's original name): "sigh. Another canvass of people who haven’t read the article they are commenting on." [267]
• Elinruby edit wars to strikeout parts of Buidhe's RfM statement that he considers personally attacked him [268][269][270]
• Elinruby removes from Buidhe's RfM her statement " In the event of no consensus, it should revert to the original title." [271]
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby added 2 new sections to my talk page, "Edit warring and vandalism" and "You believe some strange things"
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby changed article talk page section header from "Discussion" to "Editor tantrum"[272]

WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. The project suffers when bullies are left to thrive. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support sanctions against Elinruby: I disagree with Mhawk10's argument that Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. Editors are expected to follow WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for an already existing article. They are expected to gain consensus and expand existing article and not start a povfork. A neutral reader of wikipedia would get a different picture of, say, Narendra Modi's article on english wikipedia or the 2002 Gujarat riots vis-à-vis the Gujarati-languange wikipedia articles on the same subject. What if I or someone else decides to misuse the policy to start a fork article to suit my narrative. Elinruby's comments like this and this show that this user is more than happy to muddy the waters with emotional appeals and ramblings and use the talk page as a forum for chitter chatter. Combined with their forumshopping on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion and canvassing and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment, I strongly believe that this user cannot be neutral on this subject and deserves long/indef sanctions on this area. - hako9 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Request Is there any way we can break this up to address one page at a time? Because all these accusations are moving targets. First I wrote an editorial opinion, then I translated an article with bad sources, then I unilaterally renamed an article that nobody seems to realize began life as bad machine translation, and now I am being lectured on the proper procedure for contacting a translator.

I am a translator. Almost all of my edits involve translation and/or remediation of machine translation. Russian information war against Ukraine had been languishing for a very long time at WP:PNT, which is where I wikignome. I contacted everyone listed as a Ukrainian or Russian translator before beginning, and have contacted editors with Russian skills about the reliability of specific sources and specific translation problems.

This and more can be found in the “chit-chat” on the talk page that Hako9 so dismissively refers to. I documented questions that arose, discussed things undone that should be done, and occasionally got an answer. I would like to start there, since this request for merge is preventing work on that article from proceeding. I am still on deadline for paid work, but was able to take a moment to make this procedural request. If this sounds ok to everyone will come back with some diffs and links about this article when I get done with the paid work. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is reflective of the problem a lot of users are talking about, it's not one page or one issue. Rather it is multiple issues, over multiple articles. What you need to do is take on board the idea that you can't just create POV forks because you cannot get your way. That you should not tell people how to vote in an AFD, or RFC. That you should not actively canvas users to vote (or change their vote) the way you want. That you should not attack other users, either by calling them names or questioning their neutrality if they disagree with you. Nor should you wp:bludgeon a discussion either directly on a talk page or indirectly by WP:FORUMSHOP or over multiple talk user talk pages. That (in essence) you will agree to not do any of the things users have complained about here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that I do those things and urge editors not to rely on the erroneous statements made in these complaints. In particular, while I am here, let me mention that I haven’t told anyone how to vote. I did as a parenthesis to another statement tell a handful of people that I thought their vote was mistaken and offer to explain why. Nobody said please do, so I have not. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question BSMRD, having refused to hear this all the way to ANI, has finally registered that the regiment article is a translation and not in my voice, and has struck that out of the AfD request, which is progress, but editors have still voted on the basis of the statement. Also, the editor has now substituted another inaccurate statement, that its sources are not reliable. The most often-cited source is Ukrainian Pravda, which has a stellar reputation per the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in particular my recent query there about it. I have recently been educated to realize that an AfD statement does not have to be neutral, since the requestor doesn’t get a vote, but shouldn’t it at least reflect some version of reality? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to make clear that I did not say that the article as a whole was in you voice, but that it was peppered with comments in your voice. What lead me too that conclusion was lines like Yes, most of the guys present in the Azov Battalion have their own perception of the world. But who told you that you can judge them? Don't forget what the Azov Battalion has done for the country. I spent many hours talking to Azov fighters. There is no Nazism or swastika there. which in your initial copy had no attribution or indication at all that it was a quote. Such indication has since been added, and I have retracted my statement in the AfD. I did not say the sources are not reliable, I said that they do not support the idea that "Azov Battalion" and "Azov Special Purpose Regiment" are separate topics. While Ukrainian Pravda may be reliable, that does not mean all the sources are. Indeed, a fair few of the cites are directly too Azov themselves. Additionally, I did not "replace" my struck comment with anything about sourcing. I added this: I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied. For someone who complains so much about editors misrepresenting the truth and not reading, the least you could do is bother to do it yourself. BSMRD (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

pretty sure it was always attributed in the text above it, BSMRD. I am still confused about why you would ever think I would blockquote anything in my own voice or for that matter use my own voice? Also, yes, it is copied and edited machine translation, which does not bring over the markup. No “poorly” about it. References have to be translated by hand. I said this already when I was explaining why the AfD was premature. Would have been fixec long ago if you hadn’t decided to bring wiki procedures rather than actually read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. But I see that some other people are looking into reliable sources at the Battalion article, and have deleted some Russian propaganda (according to them - not verified by me) so I would like to deal with the inappropriate merge request at the more important article first (Russian information war against Ukraine) and let that effort proceed before commenting further. Elinruby (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I do not really have an opinion regarding sactions, but I have to admit when I read on here that Elinruby had been editing from 2006 I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a new user who mistakenly thought it is okay to just translate an article from another wiki, even though it is very likely that it might not have been written with a WP:NPOV, considering the current events and the wiki it was written on. So, perhaps Elinruby should have taken this into account, as they could/should know better. My stance on any sanctions is neutral however. This is just my two cents. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your neutrality, thanks. It is refreshing. I did want to let you know however that it is definitely ok to translate articles from other wikis Elinruby (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Request block until Elinruby acknowledges that other editors on Wikipedia are entitled to disagree with him without being bludgeoned or attacked. His utter carelessness about facts in his talk page arguments does not suggest good things about his work in article space, for example:
• Accusation that I have never edited the page, posted in 3 different places.[273][274][275]
• Random insults including a false accusation that I wrote the March 2 article lede, an accusation also made without checking the article history[276]
• If you did not write the lede then I will apologize, pending verification of that statement....By the way I see that you did in fact correct two typos in one section of the article on March 21...I have not had a chance to verify whether it was before or after I asked you why you were trying to rename an article you had never edited.[277]
• You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process?[278]
• Focus on PAs rather than improving the article: welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true ...I am in a car in a wilderness area and not in a position to verify your statements...So who is owning the article?[279]
• You are berating me ...I am begging you to please please please please please read the article you want to rename. One of the other referenced your buddy wants me to use in the article is also in fact used in the article, or at least profoundly informed my thinking on the topic[280]
• A claim that "she" (Buidhe) and "her friend" (me) are telling Elinruby to re-write the article and telling me to use sources as if the article doesn’t have 299 independent references[281]
• More bludgeoning, more PA unsupported by fact it would be great if you would read it so we can talk about how to summarize the article in a title, because the move you support is not it[282]

Rather than using this ANI to continue content disputes, Elinruby needs to review WP:CIVIL and start to be more collegial. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would love to do so and in fact have just made a superhuman effort to be polite while asking this editor the purpose of another plaintive post saying that I am shortchanging Wikipedia readers by omitting subtopics at Russian information war against Ukraine, which as a matter of fact are included in the article. They also appear to still believe that the article is about disinformation, which is only part of its scope. They nonetheless claim to have read the article. I am now saying for the sixth time that if they feel the article is missing something then gee, why don’t they add it, as opposed to parachuting into the article and telling me it doesn’t include factoids that the sources don’t support. All I ask is a freaking source and a specific proposal. Their sources are pretty good, but their point remains mysterious. Since they have now wasted a couple of hours of my typing time and goaded me into replying here again, I suggest that if this most recent effort does not reach HouseOfChange then perhaps a topic ban is in order for that editor, as they appear to be seriously WP:NOTTHERE on this topic. They haven’t and they show no signs of doing so. Although I am not here to do HouseOfChange’s bidding, I am feeling sufficiently harassed that I probably would, if only I could figure out what it was. And while we are here, I’d like to mention that yes I did tell this editor that they believe some strange things, and I stand by that statement. In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. AGF they do not travel through wilderness often enough to realize that this meant I was losing cell service, and in retrospect I didn’t owe them an explanation and should have merely ignored them, but it’s a bit...sensitive...to run to ANI with an incivility complaint rather than just ask me what the heck I was talking about. I don’t have time for the rest of that list and neither does anyone else most likely, but perhaps if the editor tried starting from AGF they would not get their feelings hurt so much when other people don’t acknowledge their inability to ever be wrong. Yes I am annoyed. I have stuff to do and the editor seems bent on preventing me from doing it Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

also yes, It is true that HouseOfChange corrected two typos on March 21. I missed this the first time that I looked and apologized, because hey, this is constructive as far as it goes. But it isn’t exactly a substantive contribution and still doesn’t entitle them to tell me what the article is about, especially since they demonstrably do not know. I am unavailable to read silly accusations for the rest of the day now. Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Elinruby's latest utterly false PA: In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. Your statement that you were "in the wilderness" and unable to fact-check my statements[283] did not reflect any homework assignment from me, because I have never given you even one "homework assignment." The uncivil part of that diff is not being "in the wilderness," is it the accusation without proof welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true.

Now see if what I actually said meant that being "in the wilderness" was itself uncivil: Elinruby, being harried or busy or in the wilderness, etc. does not exempt you from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF [284] If you are so careless about facts in attacking other users, I shudder to think what POV-pushing you've done in article space. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN After the above refusal to get it, and in fact the claim they have been " made a superhuman effort to be polite" (or the same amount of effort everyone else has made here) I think it is clear they need cooling of period. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve spent entire days trying to get the user to read the article he wants to rename. Yesterday was one of them. He appears to believe that discussing Russian military doctrine (as cited to NATO and the United States Marine University and its own information warfare manual) is somehow being mean to the Kremlin. And has now deleted a huge chunk of carefully cited material about it without any attempt to discuss. Then edited my talk page post about it. Slatersteven I have already advised you not to rely on the way he portrays events. I don’t think it should need to be my full-time job to explain NPOV to this user, and he definitely isn’t listening anyway.Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And he does not want to rename it, he wants to delete it, and I have seen your (and his reasons), and I have made up my mind based on both sets of arguments. I would ask you to start and wp:agf. And I reiterate what I said above, this tells me the user can't edit in this topic area in a way that is conducive to collaborative editing. Please do not try to badger me into changing my mind again, it is having the eclty opposite effect (as you would have relasied had you bothered to listen to what people are telling you). Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, he wants to rename it. You are confusing him with another editor who pinged him to this page, and what she wants to do about a different, although related, page. Based on his talk page I am also not the only one who has recently had these problems [285] with him. I do realize that there is a dizzying array of accusations here Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There are three different editors that Elinruby is abusing on this talk page, all three of whom he calls "she" and treats with utter contempt, although he has been marginally more polite to me since I notified him that I am a "he."[286][287] The other two are User:Buidhe, a prolific and distinguised editor in the military history space, and BSMRD, a newish editor for whom WP:BITE would be relevant. Editors who identify as "she" are rare on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that Slatersteven didn't realize Elinruby uses this ANI to bludgeon three different editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that Elinruby felt a little more... hostile (perhaps hostile is the wrong word, maybe 'took things more personally') when referring to Buidhe or myself as I was digging through diffs and talk pages for my initial post. I didn't want to add it and still am not comfortable making any sort of direct accusation (I do actually believe in WP:AGF), but since you brought it up I will say it is something that crossed my mind. Also, and this I am comfortable saying directly, Elin seems to mix us up and cycle between us with annoying regularity, though they usually catch themselves before long. BSMRD (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions beyond a warning or guidance. An established editor with a clean block log should be warned or guided first (if needed). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I for one would be happy if being warned or guided can persuade Elinruby to treat Wikipedia as a group project where collegial editing is a pillar of policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So have they been warned yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I would consider this whole thread a warning, as there have been multiple comments from others explaining problems with their behavior. Which Elinruby has ignored. A formal warning is just process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I guess the "warning" here is for people who got attacked and accused without evidence: WP:CIVIL is NBD for an established editor with a clean block log. I'm taking the page I tried to improve off my watchlist. Congrats, Elinruby, you win! Life is short and Wikipedia is large. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I commented in the more recent RSN discussion[288] about the Azov Battalion lede but am basically uninvolved. I was invited to the RFC RSN discussion because I had posted a link on the AB talk page. I haven't looked into other parts of the story but I can see that Elinruby has been up against some rather obnoxious editing behaviour. Particularly, Elinruby was right about the rather thin sourcing being used to support an editorialization in the article lede that the AB is currently neo-Nazi. Maybe it is, I'd even say it probably is, but you need something close to WP:RS/AC to editorialize like that, and it still often ends up making us look like idiots. (Example: the article Hunter Biden's laptop currently redirects to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory even though even the NYT finally acknowledges[289] that the stuff on the laptop was real.)

  The thing about sneaks doesn't refer to any specific editor so it isn't a PA. As a take on the topic area in general, it does reflect known history such as the EEML arb case, which was about off-wiki coordination, i.e. sneaking. It wasn't the most decorous AFD post in history, but I can't get upset about it. Eggishorn's RSN comment I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to read through the entirety of a complaint that starts with "I am getting shouted down"-type allegations. Please read WP:CONSENSUS is either naive or disingenuous, since anyone who has been around contentious articles or Wikipedia DR knows that 1) getting shouted down really is a thing, and 2) consensus is not supposed to be synonymous with "mob rule".

  I can't comment on the wider pattern of Elinruby's editing, but in the small corner of it that I've had contact with, I see a justifiably frustrated editor who doesn't need a sanction. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I move we close this now, as it is clear no warning will be left on their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made an RFCL posting. Hopefully we can get a proper closure soon. BSMRD (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• 'Support topic ban for Elinruby. For me, this is enough. The comments by the user in this entire thread does not show that they understand any problem with their contributions. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support sanctions of some material kind. Not "warnings", those have been issued, and high-handedly blanked. Not "guidance", which they evidently don't believe they're in any need of. If their "frustration" is "understandable", and justifies their subsequent behaviour, then we're declaring all user-conducts bets off, as clearly other users will be no little frustrated by them. We see rampant incivility; we need blatant derailing of discussions, and incessant creation of duplicate discussions, some of them decidedly "wall of text", of the ones they've elsewhere whatabouted to a halt with their tangency. Whether this should be a page ban, a topic ban, or a block of some duration, or some other actually actionable measure I leave up to the judgement of our infinitely sagacious admin corps. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole Azov Battalion page needs administrator attention[290] [291][292] and this editor is especially a case in point.[293] [294][295][296] I have explained the reliable sources policy to them ad nauseum [297][298], and they persist in calling me a Nazi apologist* rather than actually reading the actual Wikipedia policy.[299][300][301]

• (later) the IP is the most recent offender but this takes place in a wider context also:
  • explain RS:[302]
  • Nazi/activist/too lazy to read etc: [303][304]

A white paper on hate groups in the US* is not a reliable source for proving that the defenders of Mariupol are Nazis, I am so sorry, even if Azov does receive a two-sentence mention deep in the guts of the thing as supposedly people Rise Above members met one day years ago. I’ve met my anti-vaxx neighbor too, but that doesn’t prove that I endorse his views. If editors refuse to hear,

[305][306][307][308][309][310][311][312] then what remedy is there but to show and tell using current sources? Yes this does result in walls of text like this one.

• (Cite web |url=https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states |title=The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States |date=7 November 2018 |website=csis.org |quote=Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology. |access-date=26 May 2021 |archive-date=12 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220212041104/https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states |url-status=live)

And where pray tell is mention of the Siege of Mariupol on the page? Not allowed to be mentioned. [313] [314] I ask you.

I have tried to give this user sources that do comply with the policy that *support their position*[315]][316] [317][318][ and these sources been treated with complete contempt.[319] I thank the editor for posting here and demonstrating fluency in ANI sanctions, as it saves me the trouble of looking up whether this editor have received a discretionary sanctions notice. Discretionary sanctions apply to that page, 109.255.211.6. That is all.

This case complains that I think some editors at Azov Battalion confuse Google search returns with reliable sources. Commenting every few days to keep this case from closing proves that no lessons have been learned by the editors there,[320] [321][322][323][324][325][326][327][328][329][330][331] although this case has attracted some fresh editors*[332][333][334] [335][336][337][338][339][340][341][342][343][344][345][346] to the Azov Battalion page, who have been similarly dismissed [347][[348][349][350][351] [352] [353][354][355] as have the comments at the three reliable sources noticeboard queries.[356][357][358] Me, I have learned that trying to apply Wikipedia policy is unsafe.[359] I refrain from speculating further on this point. I do not know exactly what the problem is on that talk page,[360][361] but a group of editors is certainly determined[[362][363][364][365][366] that nothing will be said [367][368][369][370][371][372][373][374] about the military activities of the Azov Regiment or anything other than the Azov Battalion’s alleged plans for world domination or whatever.[[375]] I exaggerate, but only slightly.[376]

As for this particular editor, if refusing to be agreed with [[377][378] isn’t uncivil editing I don’t know what is. Oh and check out their edit summaries.[379] Diffs at 11. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• not singlehandedly, of course

PS (much later) shout out to editors who have quietly improved the portrayal of sources, notably Bobfrombrockley but also Mzajac, Black Future, Mhawk10, Xx236, Ergzay

• RFC2 Elinruby (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

{{| have explained the reliable sources policy to them ad nauseum, and they persist in call me a Nazi apologist rather than actually reading the actual Wikipedia policy.}}

NO ONE HAS CALLED YOU THIS Zero people in any of these incessant discussions have called you a Nazi apologist, and yet you keep saying they do. If you have some diffs of editors calling you a Nazi apologist, go find them, otherwise its a WP:PA.

And where pray tell is mention of the Siege of Mariupol on the page? Not allowed to be mentioned. I ask you.

This is again objectively false. It is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead, and again in the body. This is a repeated assertion of yours without basis. No one is stopping you from adding further content about Mariupol to the body if you think coverage is insufficient.

I refrain from speculating further on this point. I do not know exactly what the problem is on that talk page, but a group of editors is certainly determined that nothing will be said about the military activities of the Azov Regiment or anything other than the Azov Battalion’s alleged plans for world domination or whatever. I exaggerate, but only slightly.

Again, an entirely baseless assertion. You have never even attempted to add content about the groups military activities to the article, in fact you have only made 7 edits to the page, every one of which is adding some tag. What you have done is complain repeatedly in every forum you can find about how some WP:CABAL of editors is controlling the page with their wild disregard for WP:RS, followed by running off to make your own POVFORK at Azov Special Operations Detachment when no one bit. BSMRD (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of personal attacks. I am already unfit for Wikipedia, and I haven’t even touched the article yet ;) Your “POVFORk” contained many cited and objective facts about the military unit you claim to discuss and was tag-bombed immediately on its creation. I don’t know that you are a member of a cabal; your word not mine.

Perhaps you truly do believe that the only important thing about these people is that some of them have tattoos and in 2010 one of their founders said a thing. All I know is, you definitely initiated an AfD that kept a lot of information about this group out of main space Wikipedia while I was busy answering an attack on a page about the Russian information war. As I said, I decline to speculate. But I have worked on the biography of Vladimir Putin, Operation Car Wash and the Panama Papers, and all of them were less venomous than the talk page of Azov Battalion. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of personal attacks.

From WP:PA "What is considered to be a personal attack?":

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

Your “POVFORk” contained many cited and objective facts about the military unit you claim to discuss and was tag-bombed immediately on its creation.

Take it up with Liz and everyone else who voted in that AfD. Clearly I'm not the only one who saw your fork for what it was.

you told them it was a POV essay in my voice. I would vote to delete also. Then when I called you on it, up above, you changed the request to say it was “poorly copied”. I would have voted to delete on that basis also, thinking you meant copyvio. Liz just counted the votes. I have no intention of giving her a hard time. I do wonder why it is so important to you to keep that material out of mainspace, but I am going to let somebody else figure that out.

By the way, you keep calling me a liar. That’s really annoying. Please stop that.

Now. The reason I have been saying that Azov Battalion doesn’t have anything in the body about Siege of Mariupol is that I asked you where it was, and you didn’t answer me. I couldn’t find it because I assumed it would have a section at least; it’s pretty notable. All that stuff about keeping the Russians out of Europe, etc, yanno?

I did want to let you that I found it! It’s (checks notes) the very last bullet point under “Further dates and activities”. It shares that bullet point with a mention that its commander’s been declared (checks notes) a Hero of Ukraine. Somebody else added that. I haven’t found the edit for Mariupol yet. There are also some other battles that I haven’t found a mention of in the body yet, but I am working on it. They lost 25% of their men in one of the 2014 battles, and heads rolled for sending them in there without support. This is also pretty notable and something that NPOV would normally require a mention of.

NPOV is wildly violated in Azov Battalion, at least where the current regiment is concerned. I am not yet really sure about the battalion. But yet you don’t want any other article to be created about the regiment either. Creating an article about the fighting unit wasn’t a POVFORK against consensus. You guys were preoccupied with making sure the battalion and the regiment were called neoNazis. There never was consensus to call them that btw. It isn’t me saying that. Also, I don’t actually care about removing neo-Nazi from the lede as long as it is sourced; that’s just something else you guys keep saying. I am done with this conversation and going back to the diffs. Elinruby (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

All I know is, you definitely initiated an AfD that kept a lot of information about this group out of main space Wikipedia while I was busy answering an attack on a page about the Russian information war.

Being involved in one dispute does not prevent you from becoming involved in another. I have and have had nothing to do with any disputes at Russian information war against Ukraine, and have not made a single edit to that page or its talk page.

There a big scare warning at the top of the page saying please seek consensus before making any changes. And you guys went nuclear when I tried to discuss! Of course I haven’t touched the article ;) Elinruby (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point I genuinely wonder, do you think you have done anything wrong? Do you think that, at any point, your behavior has been out of line or otherwise at odds with Wikipedias policies and guidelines? Or is this all just some conspiracy to keep you from writing the truth? BSMRD (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just one more quote from Elinruby above, emphasis mine: All I know is, you [BSMRD] definitely initiated an AfD that kept a lot of information about this group out of main space Wikipedia while I was busy answering an attack on a page about the Russian information war. Looking at time stamps, BSMRD "initiated the AfD" at 21:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC). Elinruby was not "answering an attack" then because Buidhe did not even re-name the disputed page until 22:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC), and Elinruby first answered that "attack" almost two days later, on March 23, both edit-warring to undo Buidhe's page move and [on March 22 talk page, blaming the Azov AfD for the page move. It's wearing when editors know..definitely things that aren't true. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• a whole hour later huh. Definitely no connection then. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: No, a whole hour BEFORE, which means definitely not while. The connection is not Russian trolls colluding against you, it is editors who object to your high-handed disrespect of other editors. First, Buidhe reverts your renaming an article without seeking input from others. Second, BSMRD AfDs your POV fork of a different article. Meanwhile, both disputes show up on my watchlist: Buidhe's because I had made grammar fixes to the re-named article and later the ANI because I had reminded you about WP:CIVIL on your talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I can’t tell if you are actually serious. I am not currently available for this conversation. Two editors on the same talk page are affronted that I think they don’t understand the reliable source policy and within the same hour start separate unfounded wiki proceedings. Obviously not connected. Clearly. I am sure that you would think it uncivil of me to point out that I said nothing about Russian trolls; that’s BSMRD’s straw man, like claiming I attacked them when I said I wasn’t a sneak. So I won’t tell you that. I’ll just point out that I am capable of being busy reading or thinking or doing a number of other things that don’t involve typing on Wikipedia. If that is your point. I am really not sure. Have a good day. Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

you have ANI on your watchlist? Really??? Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: After my March 23 edit to your talk page, I had your talk page on my watchlist; therefore a March 25 ANI notice on your talk page b up on my watchlist. I do, now, have ANI on my watchlist but look forward to removing it once this thread is finally closed. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not questioning your word; I am just surprised. I also thought I had finally conveyed to you that articles get into the WP:PNT queue because people can't read them but it seems worthwhile to try to rescue them rather than delete them. But carry on, don't let me stop you.Elinruby (talk)

I'm astounded. Genuinely. I have no clue how an editor with Over 60,000 edits and over a decade of editing experience can act like this. Somehow, in the 68 diffs you added to your reply up above you've barely managed to substantiate your case. The majority of your diffs don't even relate to what they are next to. I think my favorite is this diff, which is purportedly you "explaining RS ad nauseam" but in fact is just you going "no, you are wrong". Do you think people just wouldn't click the diffs you added if you put enough in? I can think of three explanations here. Firstly, you've somehow misplaced the diffs compared to where they should be (this one feels unlikely considering how many there are and how many edits you have made). Secondly, you genuinely believe these make the case you say they do, in which you have a persecution complex the size of which I have never seen before. Thirdly, you've deliberately spammed misleading diffs in the hopes that editors wouldn't bother to click them and would just agree with you. Oh, and in the 68 diffs you added, you still couldn't find one to substantiate they persist in calling me a Nazi apologist. If you think that @Buidhe and I are somehow working together or the same person, prove it or shut the fuck up. That you still can't see any problem with your behavior at any point in this process is just mindblowing. BSMRD (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If you must post above another user, please indent. The diff you cite as an example is the ad nauseum part ;) Yes, the post needs work and that is why I am not going to talk to you anymore; I am going to go do that. Yes ther are a lot of diffs. There is a lot of material. For the record, though, I don’t think you are Buidhe. She is polite, if cryptic. Now I am not going to respond further, or I will probably be a misogynist all over again. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue with the diff that Dhawangupta posted. It's possible I'm missing something, so I can't even say whether I sympathize with Dhawangupta's reaction or not (slightly rewritten). The diff seemed ok to me from multiple perspectives. I want the AB to be non-Nazi because obviously, Nazis are bad. OTOH, I've seen the US blamed for the violence in the sense that (according to the critics) inept diplomacy and unreasonable demands from the Biden admin and its allies made the war inevitable. I hadn't heard the Nazi angle as part of that specific criticism, but looking for ways to blame the US government for anything bad in world politics is a time honored tradition, so I can't get upset with Elinruby observing that. There is basis to be cynical (remember the US arming the Taliban with Stingers as I mentioned at RSN: is it really misplaced to worry about the same mistake being repeated?). I did notice an article by Robert Parry (journalist) from around 2016 saying the AB was Nazi, and I'd consider him reliable (he died in 2018 though). So that supports the viewpoint further. Generally though, it usually seems to me that the people wanting Wikipedia to embrace a viewpoint in its own voice are the ones who are agenda pushing, as opposed to the ones willing to let the sources speak for themselves. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The text Dhawangupta is objecting to was about a reference used to support neo-Nazi in the lead, in which some an American right-wingers soldier wanted to meet met with somebody from the Azov Battalion one day in... 2016(?). I can’t remember if this was before or after Charlottesville, but the point I was trying to make is that that it’s two sentences in about a court case, that weren’t vetted for accuracy about Azov, or even required to be neutral, and even if accurate don’t prove Azov told them to go run over a demonstrator in Charlottesville.** My post was in response to an essay about not letting our feelings guide us,shrug. Dhawangupta is obviously a contentious editor but I can’t help the way the editor interprets things,* so I ignored the post. Since I wrote that post, I have found several sources that might maybe support the Nazi statement, at least as to some members, but they are being ignored, just like the one you left on the talk page. Which was a good source, btw. So are these and these and these. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Likely thinks I am defending Nazis. It's getting said on that said on that page.
  • sorry if the markup is confusing but I realized once people had already answered me that I had actually been ranting about an earlier reference in the lede sentence, the one that went to the RS noticeboard, which was replaced by the one I originally described here. Italics are words I added. I think it is telling that they were similar enough that I could slightly edit this sentence, which makes me think that the editor that did that still thinks that passim allusions make good references.Elinruby (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2022 (UT

I think Elinruby needs to step away from this topic for a while or needs someone to make him. There seems to be a bit of forum shopping on the RS notice board [380] [381] trying to get individual sources discounted rather than directly addressing the result of the RfCs. For me adding the recent POV tag [382] is the final proof that this editor is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Maybe some of their points are valid but if so other cool headed editors will see to it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I would love for other cool headed editors to see to it. Please bring one here. Every post I have made at RSN says please bring help. But if you think questions on individual sources are forum shopping, you would appear to not be familiar with RSN procedure. As for the tag ... Considering the sources are basically getting laughed at on the RSN board, and at least two of the editors have written out loud on the talk page that the important thing is that we continue calling this unit neo-Nazi (diffs above), and also, another one who has recused himself from admin duties related to this war still opened an AfD RfM on a unit the Kremlin is blaming for its war crimes, it didn’t seem undue. I have definitely used that tag for much less. Also, I fail to see how it is forum shopping if the RSN is one board with one set of policies, but do tell. I usually avoid wikilitigation so I suppose that it is possible that you may know better than I, but I have never heard that one before. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

also, you may not be aware that there is an AfD, an RfM and an ANI case on one article, one of the editors of whom made a long series of cryptic posts on yet another RfM on a related article, then pinged an until-then uninvolved editor.

He badgered me, as did she, (above) about somehow being being uncivil to her, until I finally told them (above) that if they couldn’t enunciate the change they thought I should make to the article in the name of balance, to go ahead and make the change themselves, then. He then deleted approximately the top third of an highly-cited article on the Gerasimov doctrine in Ukraine, slapped on a lede fit for an Information Security 101 primer, which Wikipedia already had, then left me to clean up the mess while he came over here to complain about how uncivil I was not to realize that he knew more than I do about a field where I hold professional certifications. But do tell me some more about how I am forum shopping by asking at RSN about individual sources and the context in which they are being used.

This is exactly how this is supposed to be done, btw, since, for example, the article about a Belarusian policeman was about a lawsuit filed against him in Germany, and not about what the Azov logo looks like. In fact, he clearly *didn’t* know because the man he beat up was wearing a Marvel The Punisher t-shirt. And let us suppose he was completely correct, the article was being used to prove that the Azov Regiment is a neo-Nazi unit, and even if a random dude in Belarus had in fact been wearing their logo, this does not demonstrate that the Azov Regiment is in fact currently a “neo-Nazi unit”. How do you not see this by looking at the diffs? Ugh.

You may also not realize that this case is out of scope in the first place for ANI, whose description says it is for urgent issues, which this is not, or chronic and intractable problems, which, on my part at least, this also is not. But please do mansplain forum shopping to me some more. Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The editor in question is now insisting that this RfC was not closed in favor of calling the battalion neo-Nazi, and is attempting to push forward the claim that a new RfC would not be needed to overturn its consensus (that apparently doesn't exist?). BSMRD (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  As someone who received such a message, I don't see how you could possibly read The descriptor "Right-wing/nationalist"(A) attracted no support and the descriptors "Far-right"(B), and "neo-fascist"(E) little more. The debate was between using "Neo-Nazi"(C) or no descriptor at all(D) and the clear preponderance of commenters was for C and see anything but a consensus for using the "neo-nazi" label. Endwise (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

so you told me last night when I warned you that there are behaviour problems in the article. I haven’t had time to look for that yet. I asked you for a link for that last night, and I would still like one, as I am pretty sure at least two other editors have said otherwise, diffs above. If I misread them, fine, I will withdraw the statement. However BSMRD has made some erroneous statements in the recent past about matters being voted upon by other editors (see above) and hmm possibly sees herself edit-warring in the diffs above whose number she is complaining about, so I am not taking her word for this, sorry. You on the other hand I have no reason to doubt, except that I don’t think you’ve had time since last night to read the whole talk page, and there has been a lot going on and in particular more than one RFC. Assuming you are correct, I question whether it really can be Wikipedia policy to ignore BLP, NPOV and BLP the way that article does, regardless of the number of editors who vote to do so. But I stand ready to have this explained to me if this should somehow turn out to be true.

I agree with Xx236 about the defense tools, btw, and that is a professional opinion. I also agree that the members of this unit may well have died in Mariupol. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been linked to you multiple times now. I linked it to you in my talk page, and it was linked in the comment I was replying to: Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. Endwise (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - there is no reason to assume that the Russian-Ukrainian information war does not influence English Wikipedia and this discussion. This Wikipedia needs some defence tools. It may be be interesting to check Contributions of all participants of this discussion since February.

There is no symmetry between any invider and any invided, not only in this war.

Civilian victims of the war are mostly Russian speaking, it is not a war between Russian speakers and neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists. It is an imperialistic Russian war and mass crimes.

Some forms of socialism were genocidal like Nazism, so a 'socialist' is not obviously ethically higher in this discussion than a right activist. Social Democratic Party of Germany helped to corrupt Germany with Russian money.

The Russian state has some totalitarian and neo-Nazi issues. Why do we discuss in several places a group of Ukrainian soldiers (we do not even know if they are still alive), rather than to discuss Russian state ideology threatening the whole world with nuclear weapons? The recent RIA text is exactly Nazi, but similar genocidal project was known before the war.

Will sanctions against Elinruby make the pages better? How? Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions - I'm not involved in the discussions about the Azov battalion's history, but I just participated in two of the RFCs. Ukrainian Nationalism, anti-Semitism and Ne-Nazism are not black and white issues in a war provoked by Russia under those pretenses, so our coverage requires a high degree of nuance. Elinruby is an experienced editor who is frustrated by what they perceive as a lack of nuance in these discussions, and open RFCs. Sanctioning editors with intimate knowledge of subjects will not benefit the project. CutePeach (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Intimate knowledge of subjects, you say? Elinruby would disagree with that statement I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group - hako9 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support some sort of topic ban. I've been editing that page and have been involved in the dispute; and no matter how strongly Elinruby feels about the content, their behavior has mostly made things worse. In addition to the other WP:BLUDGEONing mentioned above, they behaved the same way in the RFC on the Azov Battalion's political ideology. This is absolutely a situation that requires naunce and caution; but Elinruby has been one of the editors aggressively pulling the page away from that and making discussions so difficult. Table-pounding forum stuff like this or this is not what the topic area needs right now. Stuff like calling the other side of the dispute a big lie sufficiently repeated, randomly taking unrelated jabs at American politics, and concluding with I’ve done some reading on Russian disinformation and I am getting a whiff of it here are not appropriate for approaching such a delicate topic area; neither is going on about how Yeah well those citizen soldiers are saving Europe’s butt. Some editors have argued for leeway based on Elinruby's long clean history, but experienced editors should know better, and beyond that they haven't even expressed any recognition of what they're doing wrong; without sanctions, there is no reason to expect it to improve. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: what a shameful display this all is. I notice there are several names that spend more time and effort on this noticeboard than they do on actually reading and evaluating sources, contributing to the Talk Page discussions, and improving articles. The hounding of this editor, Elinruby, on this page is an absolute disgrace. Any admin will see this for what it is. This really is Wikipedia at its worst. Some editors ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and at what they've spent their time doing over the past few days. Please remind yourselves of what it is we're actually supposed to be doing here WP:PURPOSE. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  ironically, your statement could be used on yourself. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Except, not at all, in any way, under any possible interpretation. But kudos for adding to the overall mound of pointless nonsense already present in this pitiable, juvenile display. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Classic WP:POINTY editing, edit warring and sockpuppetry by User: Jaideep thakur

Jaideep thakur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ankit solanki982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disruptive editing and edit warring. Wants a section on Haryana added to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 page. Editors are trying to discuss with them on Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857, however they have now decided to start WP:POINTY editing, and apparently, sockpuppetry.

• POINTY editing: [383][384][385]
• Edit warring and personal attacks:

[386][387][388][389]

A block for a week or two (on the main account, with the sock indeffed) to give them some time to read up on the policies may be enough, but I wouldn't oppose an indef on the main account too if an admin thinks it necessary. Other editors are doing their best to engage, but they just don't seem interested in discussion. Maybe a block will make them more interested in discussion? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all this is not sockpuppetry and secondary we have took consensus Ankit solanki982 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus. — Czello 12:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaideep thakur which I started yesterday. Fram (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

And this [[390]] which the user has twice fucked about with [[391]] (not making an edit in my name) and [[392]]. Both the users have breached 3RR. Also they did not have consensus as at least two users by edit, and another couple on the talk page, objected to the edits in question. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week indefinitely. User talk:Jaideep thakur#Block. Even if a legit account (sock-wise), almost certainly WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. El_C 12:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I indeffed User:Ankit solanki982 at the same time, as they're clearly not here for any useful purpose regardless of the socking issues. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look at the sock edits, and it's hard not to hear quacking. I did some cleanup of the disruptive and unsourced edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I ran into this mess whilst on RC patrol. You find some interesting stuff that way. I'd agree with El_C that this doesn't need to go on any longer than it has. If this isn't sockpuppetry, it is most definitely meatpuppetry, and it is clear that the person/s involved in it aren't interested in discussion as anything more than a distraction and stalling technique. (Y'know, like how, when you're an evil dictator, you offer to have peace talks etc. with a country whilst very obviously preparing to invade said country?) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There was some copyvio image uploading and use between accounts that leads me to strongly believe that it is sockpuppetry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

And you hit the nail on the head. CU confirmed sockpuppetry. I've requested a close below. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

And un-requested said close. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've indeffed everyone else listed in that SPI and set the reported user's block also not to expire. Whatever nonsense is going on, it should be nipped in the bud. El_C 12:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I've also indef ECP'd the page (AEL diff), which apparently I indef semi'd almost a year ago. (What do you know? It all connects!) El_C 12:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Requesting close: (Feel free to copy the wikitext of what I've written here, to make it easier) Jaideep thakur, Ankit solanki982, and several other users all indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry (along with with disruptive editing, copyvios, personal attacks etc. etc.), by El_C, and subsequently CheckUser confirmed by Girth Summit. Protection of Indian Rebellion of 1857 upgraded from indefinite semi-protection to indefinite Extended-confirmed protection as an AE action by El_C. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC) As suggested by El_C, let's keep this open for a few days. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Not yet. I don't understand this rush to close. No harm in monitoring developments for, say, a few more days to see if additional problems surface. El_C 11:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, probably better actually, thinking about it. This thread might be handy if new socks pop up too quickly. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

One DUCK did show up: Staverson (talk · contribs). Blocked and tagged; the affeced pages were semi-protected (which can be raised to ECP if/when needed). Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Weird draft creations with fake AfC declines and probable socking

I am not sure what's going on here. Draft:The Bride (2022 film) and Draft:On a Wing and a Prayer (film) were both created yesterday with fake AfC declines and notes copied from Draft:Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, with a couple of AfC reviewer names changed to Lorick2021 (talk · contribs), who was blocked last year, for CIR and socking reasons. The drafts were created by an IP, 120.29.68.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The On a wing and a prayer draft has also been edited by Sostank (talk · contribs) whose first edit, two minutes after registering, was to create a sandbox with the text "The entire non-sockpuppet and never blocked been seen". Sostank also created another draft, Draft:Green Ghost and the Masters of the Stone, which was submitted by the IP.

I'm pretty certain that the user and the IP user are the same individual. I suspect they are a sock of Lorick2021, but I'm not sure about that one. And the creation of pre-declined AfC drafts is just... weird. Anybody recognise that behaviour? --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Sostank as a sock of Lorick2021. I suspect there is an earlier account; NinjaRobotPirate may know more. I've also blocked the IP for a slew of reasons. Finally, I've deleted all drafts created by Sostank or the IP per G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The other account was User:LorickIsBoyThatStopDeleted. All the registered accounts geolocate to the same city. I don't remember seeing any registered accounts earlier than that, but you never really know with these kinds of accounts. There's usually a bunch of failed "clean starts" and such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Aqşin Abbaslı

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

1. Changed "Persia" into "Qajar Empire" at the Ja'far Pishevari article. No edit summary, source or explanation.[393]
2. Changed "Iran" into "Qajar Empire" at the Ja'far Pishevari article. No edit summary, source or explanation.[394]
3. Tried to add "Azerbaijani" to the infobox of André Hossein although the existing sources in the article differ on his origin. No edit summary/explanation.[395]
4. Tried to remove "Mountainous Republic of Armenia" from the infobox of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. No edit summary/explanation.[396]
5. Changed the contemporaneous (historic and relevant) Azerbaijani-Arabic spelling at Javad Khan to the post-20th century Latin Azerbaijani spelling (which is solely used in the modern Azerbaijan Republic). No edit summary/explanation.[397]
6. Tried to change a direct quote which uses the spelling "Azeri" into "Azerbaijani" (i.e. hampering with a quote) at the Mirza Fatali Akhundov article. No edit summary/explanation.[398]
7. Tried to change "Azeri Turkic" (which was sourced) into "Azerbaijani Turkic" (which was unsourced) at the Azerbaijani language article. No edit summary/explanation.[399]
8. Swapped "Turkish people" and "Turkmens" (both sourced) at the Azerbaijanis article, with "Turkic peoples". No edit summary/explanation.[400]
9. Talk page is littered with warnings (to which he never replied, not even once).[401]

And this is just the tip of the infobox, i.e. being just some of the diffs from the past few weeks/months. It is very easy to make good edits on obscure subjects. It is also very easy to make bad ones, to make deliberately bad ones. And it is easy for that faulty content to remain there because of the obscurity and specialization of the subject. Making some infobox fixes on obscure villages won't mask a rather long-standing pattern of disruptive edits. Looking at the overal pattern, I don't think said user is really here to properly build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• For information, all of those diffs post-date the discretionary sanctions alert at Special:Permalink/1034048447#Discretionary sanctions alert. However, the edit history seems to be uniformly Mobile Web as well. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure if this user plans to stop their editing pattern. Similar edit today while there is an ongoing move discussion, no edit summary or explanation (diff). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User: Thalialioo

Thalialioo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently spreading misinformation on Puteri Indonesia 2022 by discreetly changing contestant names and heights, and reverting Wikipedia edits so only their own sourced informations are the ones that got displayed, as you all can see in the edit history. I have given them several warnings (including the final warning) over a period of some months, but it seems that they have continuously deleted them on their talk page, while at the same time falsely warning me for a vandalism that i did not commit.

At first i thought that she might be a bit confused regarding how to edit a pageantry-related page and have helped them in building the page for these past few months. However, after consistent vandalism and disruptive edits, i have come to the conclusion that their edits might be in bad faith and were just meant to spread misinformation. Attached below are the "revisions" they have made: [402][403][404]

As much as i respect their contributions, it seems that they are not ready yet to contribute for the betterment of this website, and it is disheartening to see everyone else's hardwork being turned into dust just because of their ego. Hope to see a solution soon. Call me PI. (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Call me PI., When you start a discussion about someone you have to leave a talkpage notice so I've done that for you, in the future please try to comply with this requirement on your own, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, will keep that in mind Call me PI. (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Out of control vandalism at UFC 273

I know we aren't supposed to request semi-protection here but this is getting ridiculous. Multiple vandals are hitting the page every minute and have been for hours. Multiple requests at WP:RPP have not gotten a response. --Here2rewrite (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Here2rewrite, I have semi-protected the article. Please do not remove a report when an administrator is in the midst of responding. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you just happened upon the article. I was just trying to get it semi-protected with minimal drama but obviously screwed even that up... --Here2rewrite (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it does get quite ridiculous when AIV/RFPP is backlogged and no admins are on, but there's an active vandal. Had that happen quite a bit; esp. with LTAs. I swear that some of them purposefully target in the middle of the night ET when no admins are on... wizzito | say hello! 03:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't normally encourage folks to report vandalism here, but thank you User:Here2rewrite for escalating this so User:Cullen328 was able to see the need and address it. When I saw the backlog I reduced it but I'm sorry I was afk when this broke out. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User: Excommunicato

Excommunicato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently spreading misinformation on political articles by removing some small texts from other users always under the allegation that the text is "without sources" - being that, in the referred text, it usually has a lot of things without sources, but he only takes the part that interests him, as in the articles Republicanism in Jamaica, Benito Juárez, and others. In the Abraham Mazel article he put copyrighted text which was taken down by Diannaa. In the article Regions of Brazil, he is insisting on fighting with an IP to "remove text without sources", since the previous text was already without sources and the IP improved the article, linking it with other articles that already have sources. In short, it's a user who is abusing Wikipedia's structure to prove a point of view.Gtroviz (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Gtroviz, when you start a discussion about an editor, you are required to notify them on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ . I've notified Excommunicato for you. Quid Est Squid (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Gtroviz, why didn't you try to discuss your concerns with Excommunicato before filing this report? I see no evidence of vandalism, and most of the edits look productive to me. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts at Talk:StandWithUs

There are two single-purpose accounts that have been making illogical, politically motivated edits to Talk:StandWithUs for over a year. Their specific goal appears to be aligning the article on StandWithUs with the organization's self-description as apolitical and nonpartisan, despite the existence of reliable sourcing for a description of the organization as right-wing and the lack of sources disputing that characterization. One of them was previously discussed in this archived discussion back in October where I did an even worse job than I'm doing here of making my opening comment concise.

MtTamlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OzMulik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been active there and only there for over a year. Both MtTamlady and OzMulik became active in late January 2021, rapidly made more than 50 minor edits to an assortment of noncontroversial articles, and then began editing there on February 21 and 23 of that year respectively. After a year of interacting with them and viewing their interactions with other editors, I no longer believe that these accounts are editing in good faith; they are repeating the same arguments in an attempt to have our article's description of StandWithUs align with the organization's self-description as non-partisan. They have continued to do so despite repeated warnings beginning as early as March 2021 about tendentious editing and other issues with their conduct.

I will provide diffs upon request but, given that these two accounts have been active in all but one of the sections at Talk:StandWithUs, I think ANI readers will have no trouble assessing the situation. I believe some form of action is needed to address this ongoing disruption. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Ongoing" is debatable. The second account hasn't edited this year at all, having stopped in November 2021, and the first account has two edits this year so far. Uncle G (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• WP:ANI is for things that require immediate attention from administrators. While I tend to agree the argument those accounts are making is weak, a single talk page edit in the past four months requesting their desired change to the article isn't really enough to sound the alarm just yet. Also, more importantly, did you say they rushed to 50 edits? That may be attempted gaming, but isn't that article under 30/500 protection as a topic that clearly falls under ARBPIA? Rushing to 50 edits wouldn't accomplish anything. If they had gone to 500 edits that pattern of edits would be highly suspicious, but it doesn't look like they did that. EDIT: Although the extreme similarity between the behavior of the two editors in that regards makes me wonder if they're the same person. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

PamukPrudhomme

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

I do not know, where to complain, but this is definitely an incident. Please look contributions of PamukPrudhomme. 3 times during every month the user makes a nonsense edit in a sandbox. If a sandbox is not edited for 6 months, it can be nominated for speedy deletion, and these edits avoid that. This user can be unapproved bot and the sandbox is likely created for promotion. In my opinion this is gaming the system. Taivo (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

An IP associated with editing that sandbox has also been involved in large promo editing at Wikidata on the same subject. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Taivo, When you start a discussion about someone you have to leave a talkpage notice so I've done that for you, in the future please try to comply with this requirement on your own, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This also appears to relate to the salted Prem Raj Pushpakaran. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Help with block evasion

• 5.55.193.224 (talk · contribs) has been identified as a sock of Dealer07 (talk · contribs). The persistent disruption is obvious, but there's no help on a Sunday night at AIV. So, maybe here we can get a block. And user really doesn't need to be notified--they know what they're doing, as many times before. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:ACDF (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • We may also need a lot of pages protected....2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:ACDF (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The evasion has already continued, with another (62.74.59.205) IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's whack-a-mole with Athens IPs now. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:ACDF (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I've request page protection. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The webpage describing Thomas Palley (myself)

Thomas Palley was recently changed. Paragraph one was edited to describe me as an "avid apologist" for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is a slander. I have corrected it to describe my true position of "questioning the US government and mainstream media account". Please would you ensure that no more such slanders are entered. I think the person who made the change should be banned from making further changes. It may be necessary to freeze my page temporarily until the intolerance unleashed by the Ukraine war subsides. Sincerely, Tom Palley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.168.24 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that no source was cited regarding any of this, I have removed all mention of Ukraine, per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I'll leave others to comment on the broader issues raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It should further be noted that we have no way of verifying for now that the IP '71.126.168.24' is Palley, and accordingly any content regarding Palley's 'true position' likewise needs a source. I would strongly advise IP '71.126.168.24' not to edit the article further, and leave others to deal with it. The article should say nothing whatsoever on this matter without a verifiable reliable source AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean in his own words, he certainly is as the initial edit suggested. But is it an opinion that has been noted by mainstream media, and is an economist's opinion about war relevant? Probably not, to both, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, Palley has expressed opinions on current events in Ukraine. As have many other people. We don't generally include commentary on such opinions in biographies without coverage of such matters in secondary sources. And even when we have sources, such opinions rarely belong in article ledes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that the IP is who it is claimed, I've issued a PBLOCK from the article. As is usual in these cases, the talk page remains open to raise issues. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is really necessary: there seems to have been an element of misunderstanding here, and regardless of who the IP was, it would have been perfectly OK for them to have reverted the previous 'apologist' edit. We shouldn't be giving the impression that subjects of biographies can't remove unsourced negative content (WP:BLP and WP:CoI policy is quite explicit on this). The only issue comes if they add new unsourced content, and the appropriate course of action in such circumstances should be to them inform of policy, rather than blocking, unless it persists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

↑ This. How about semi-protection instead (as they've requested)? Also, can we not indef-block IPs? It's a future maintenance nightmare. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some days; let's see how this develops. Lectonar (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:Meatpuppetry?

• HiChrisBoyleHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flix11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a banned user)

I see Flix11 want to use HiChrisBoyleHere (talk · contribs) account to update about COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia articles, but HiChrisBoyleHere (talk · contribs) rejected. However, HiChrisBoyleHere (talk · contribs) accept to help Flix11 update about COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia articles by copy-pasting. So I think Flix11 still do block evasion these days. See w:id:Pembicaraan Pengguna:HiChrisBoyleHere#Access your account. Also I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flix11 because Flix11 still use IP sock to update articles. Some information I have written on this SPI Hhkohh (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

He left a message: Since you are such an anti-sockpuppet warrior why don't you read Wikipedia:Penyalahgunaan jangka panjang/Agus suharto and block Pengguna:Ciko chanzia instead of stalking me to the core? HiChrisBoylehere has nothing to do with me. Leave him alone. Unless you want to shut him up as well and leave Indonesian COVID-19 articles left obsolete. Don't stalk me and talking about me on ENWIKI behind my back. Flix11 (bicara) 11 April 2022 04.32 (UTC)

And what kind of villain has a hater? Wikipedia:Penyalahgunaan jangka panjang/Pembenci Flix11 see for yourself. I did mistakes that I regret (edit warring with Hjk110x and making other accounts) but I have to step up if editors like you do not. Calm down. Don't you have a real-life job? Flix11 (bicara) 11 April 2022 04.36 (UTC)

Just note that I did not hate Flix11, just prevent Flix11 from WP:Block evasion. But Flix11 use IP sock to update. Now Flix11 threaten me with a idwiki LTA Hhkohh (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Then he left Threaten? Are you joking? Because it is not funny. It seems like you can't read. I serve you a blatant LTA sock to deal with instead on a silver plate. He is blocked anywhere in both IDWIKI, ENWIKI, and also on MetaWiki with over 100 accounts, one of the most prolific I believe. But you won't accept that because I am the worst sock ever right? If you do not hate me why wouldn't you would take my suggestion to stalk him the way you do to me (profoundly) and report him to SPI? Don't answer. Flix11 (bicara) 11 April 2022 04.52 (UTC) on my idwiki user talk page. Also he wrote Canceled by ENWIKI. Stalked by Hhkohh. Tapi tak apa. Orang baik dan berdedikasi banyak yang benci. Seperti Pak Jokowi. Yesus berkata: "Jikalau dunia membenci kamu, ingatlah bahwa ia telah lebih dahulu membenci Aku dari pada kamu" (Yohanes 15:18). I forgive you, Hhkohh and ENWIKI admins. on his idwiki user page Hhkohh (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Also see w:zh:User talk:HiChrisBoyleHere, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Sakib Chy99

User:Sakib Chy99 keeps modifying sourced content and adds unsourced even after final warning at their talk page. Also edit wars [405] [406] [407], [408]. They have been doing so in other articles as well [409] [410]. Most are in teh topic area of 'Barak Valley' and 'Sylheti', going as far as creating mirrors of established articles like Sylheti Nagri Language, South Region of Tripura Sylheti nagri language, so that they could POV push their own agenda in those articles.

I have a hunch that it is a sockpuppet of some other user trying to pass of as an inexperienced user considering the edits and edit summaries like this looks forced (trying to look like someone having poor grasp of spellings and English). So I'd like to request checkuser as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was here to report the same incident after another user warning on their talk page appeared on my watchlist. Please also note that the user has repeatedly (re)created copy-paste articles as shown above. Special:Diff/1078654810 & Special:Diff/1073979935 are pretty self-explanatory that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 13:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Denial of high quality (scientific) and ministry sources

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.

---

• Ethnicities in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Two users deny the credebility of high quality (scientific) and ministry sources. See Slatersteven (talk · contribs)'s and HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)'s edits or the previous noticeboard. They claim that the Ministry of Jihad of Construction (since 2001 Ministry of Agriculture Jihad) is not a ministry and thereby do not count their census data as reliable. Neither do they see the University of Tehran and CNRS reliable enough to count as a source for a simple map.--2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and ani should not be used to resvolfe them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Note I have now informed the other user (as you should have done). Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for that I didn‘t know. -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Also where is the right place to start the request (link)?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss the issue at Talk:Ethnicities in Iran. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How when a previous noticeboard ended in denial?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue is about the reliability of a source, thus Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place, where you already have failed to achieve consensus. Just WP:DROPTHESTICK please. This is starting to get disruptive. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the entry and do not derail. Thank you.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Note I did not (and never have) said that either ministry is not a ministry, I have said that the source for the map may not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 11 April 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 veiled threats

73.28.205.23, which I'm assuming to be Ryan Kavanaugh, is making veiled threats at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh and accusing me and another user of conspiring against him. Wearisome indeed! With all the abuse that's been going on, a range block seems overdue imo. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Throast, persistent aren't they? The "we are watching" part feels very threatening. --ARoseWolf 16:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Im extremely concerned about the way that this is written, it sounds like potential mental illness, especially with the "We are watching" part. I hope we can get that resolved before further damage is done. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

thing is, that's their only edit... 晚安 (トークページ) 11:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lettherebedarklight, you're not familiar with the Ryan Kavanaugh lore, my friend. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

the

what 晚安 (トークページ) 10:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No admin response in over three days, tagging Jayron32 who handled the last incident. Is there anything that can be done to keep him off of the platform for good? Throast (talk | contribs) 20:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:Silverije reported by User:Slatersteven (Result:Page protected )

• User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Matija Zmajević (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is involved in WP:DE by removing ALL(!) sources/references (WP:RS) and sourced content from Matija Zmajević article [411] (despite being warned), causing the shortage of verification (WP:V) and admin’s putting the tag "more footnotes", although the sources exist. All this finally resulted in page blocking in the version containing only one reference and one source. User Slatersteven erased sources here [412] and here [413] as well, following his disruptive behaviour and WP:POV pushing. It should be also mentioned that there is another user who disagrees with the content (containing sources) and keeps repeating continuously that it’s “not an improvement” *[414], *[415], *[416], without any explanation. Both of them don't allow other users to edit/improve the article.

Questions for admins: Can it be tolerated? And if the page must be blocked, why should it be a version without sources and not the one WITH sources? --Silverije 22:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Non-admin response: this is a content dispute, of which you are both involved, and neither of you have used the article talk page to discuss the issue. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Not quite. This is a tit-for-tat noticeboard posting, and the actual edit war participants are Silverije (talk · contribs), Jackfork (talk · contribs) (1 2), Jingiby (talk · contribs) (1 2 3), and 200.137.75.2 (talk · contribs) (edit history speaks for itself), with a whole chorus of background actors chiming in sometimes with deceptive edit summaries (e.g. 1 2 3 4). And as Slatersteven noted on the Edit Warring noticeboard, this is a long-standing dispute with talk page discussion in 2006, but not much since. It's also about ethnicity and Eastern Europe, so covered by discretionary sanctions, which Silverije has known about since 2009. The first request to Silverije to apply Bold, Revert, Discuss and take it to the talk page seems to be Special:Diff/1080237781 at the end of March. I think that protecting The Wrong Version is the right course of action here, and if we don't see some talk page discussion from Silverije and those others, the sanctions should actually be given some teeth. Enough is surely enough, ne? Uncle G (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    • • The point here is a removal of all sources from an article without explanation, rather than edit warring. As for “tit for tat”, I warned Slatersteven at the same time [417] as he did, although I sent a report to Administrators' noticeboard later. And if anybody mentions something from a long time ago (2009), it would be good to explain what exactly happened then and why it happened, not just to say ”covered by discretionary sanctions, which Silverije has known about since 2009”. It was something (what?!) “regarding an issue with which I MAY have been involved”. But I have never done something like Slatersteven (his erasing all sources) to provoke a situation in which “the sanctions should actually be given some teeth”. It doesn’t matter whether it’s about ethnicity, Eastern Europe or whatever, it’s the matter of Wikipedia principles. If citing sources (WP:CS) and writing sourced contents, as one of the principles of Wikipedia key policies and guidelines, causes discretionary monitoring, I agree to be monitored. But when someone erases sources without any explanation and then acts recklessly, I strongly disagree. Because, in this specific case, when I put several references to the article, I was warned by admin [418] that one of the sources ('Adriatic News' journal) wasn’t a reliable one, and I agreed with that warning and later restored a revision of the article without that source [419]. There were no objections to other references. So, instead of the matter being settled, soon after that, suddenly appeared Slatersteven who jumped in, removed all the references and triggered an edit war, a behaviour I couldn’t accept. That’ the point! --Silverije 21:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Fortunately, the version protected wasn't any of the wrong ones, but one where I made some badly needed cleanups (which the happy edit warriors also trampled over and I had to manually reinstate it the other day). The article is woefully under-referenced, and needs work, but none of these participants have approached this entirely properly. Silverije has added some references, but they've not all been good, or interpreted correctly, and they didn't explain further on talk either. There's been some response to my appeals to use talk, but nothing of real substance. I would suggest we enforce 1RR after the protection expires. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I urge editors to look deeper I have no connection to this dispute but I have previously encountered him in a number of venues and I firmly believe that it is not possible to discuss anything with Slatersteven. I will drop back by later with some diffs -- my ISP seems to be really struggling right now -- but as a case in point I give you a current case at the reliable sources noticeboard, about an attempt to source "Azov battalion is a neo-nazi unit" with an article that mentions the unit in passing in a discussion of a lawsuit filed in Germany against a policeman who beat someone up for wearing a Marvel The Punisher T-shirt. I am not going to attempt to paraphrase his argument in favor of this source, as it baffles me in the first place and doing so, I am convinced, will lead to several more rounds of ranting about how uncivil I am to fail to recognize the correctness of his opinion. FWIW I believe that he may edit in good faith, but somebody really needs to make him pass a quiz on the reliable sources an NPOV policies. Since he is quite prolific and does not realize how much he does not know I think it would be a good idea to make sure he understands these policies even if he may well be trying to apply them in good faith. Knowing nothing about this article, I simply wonder how the deletion of reliable sources serves Wikipedia. I suspect the issue was that they were not in English. I seem to recall that he believes this is a requirement. In any event, this is my comment: there is a lot more there there than some here seem to believe, and to say the sources cannot be restored until there is a discussion Slatersteven, I firmly believe, means that they will not be restored. Which would be a shame, if, as I suspect, they are in fact reliable. Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • A not entirely coherent spillover of WP:ANI#User:Elinruby, it seems. El_C 01:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • For someone urging people to look deeper, commenting based upon "Knowing nothing about this article" is pretty silly. Clearly you are jumping onto the coat-tails of something else entirely, and not even looking yourself at the incident at hand at all, let alone "deeper". You have your own section about Azov at #User:Elinruby above. This incident isn't anything to do with that, or even primarily with Slatersteven really, who reported an edit war, that's clearly amongst a rather different set of editors if one does in fact look deeper, pushed for Bold, Revert, Discuss (which one sees plainly from the edit summary, let alone from looking deeper) in a topic area where that very much applies, and got a very unwise tit-for-tat report by the person reported. And it isn't about you, either. As you say, you know nothing about it. So please stop trying to wedge yourself into it. That's probably desperately unwise given that it's an Eastern European discretionary sanctions topic and an edit war over ethnicity. Sensible people would stay away. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the page, enough to see that yes, there is an edit war and yes it is something about the man's ethnicity.

But it is however relevant to this discussion that Slatersteven has a history of wrong-headedly trying to enforce policies he doesn't understand and of urging other editors to take people who don't agree with them to ANI. On a discretionary sanctions page. This should not necessarily be read as a defense of the other editor, who does seem to have gotten quite heated, and probably would have been wiser to provide some diffs in his own case rather than open this one, I agree. I also have no intention of trying to discern whether the subject of the article was Croat or Serb given my lack of knowledge in this area, but would it not have been better to try to suggest dispute resolution than to open a case here? Shrug. For the record, it wasn't Slatersteven who opened a case against me here for trying to explain the reliable sources policy, so this isn't tit for tat. I am not asking for sanctions, just a quiet talk about what Wikipedia's policies really are.

I am unfamiliar with the ways of ANI, but I don't think it enjoys being asked to be a playground monitor. I also really think someone should make Slatersteven pass a quiz on BLP, NPOV and RS. Having said that, I will now, as requested, butt out, since it does not sound like anybody wants to see my diffs, which yes, would be somewhat incoherent. This is my point. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Still wedging yourself in, I see. I am logging a warning for you at WP:AEL. This is sanctionable behaviour. You are risking your access to the WP:ARBEE topic area, not only with the WP:ASPERSIONS that are behind your clumsy attempt to get the reported user in trouble, but not getting it after two admins told you it's problematic. El_C 09:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that a number of users are edit warring, rather than obeying BRD and making a case at talk. Note that I had not in fact edit warred as I made I revert (unlike the filer who had made at least 3). Thus this is a frivolous report, and the filer should be warned about making it. As to the rest, well I stand by "this was decided by RFC, you can't change it without a new one". Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please proofread your comment directly above. It is too incoherent for me to parse atm (a trend here, it seems). El_C 10:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I will leave the original in place, I hope this is better

This is a frivolous report (and any attempt to weaponize ANI), and the filer should be warned about making it. As I had no edit warred (as I had made 1 revert) and no attm4epot had been made to justify the edit once (another users) has reverted it the first time. Thus this was a clear violation of BRD. The comments by Elinruby are irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes, this is a frivolous report, but you did participate in the edit war with that one revert, nonetheless. El_C 10:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

But I did not breach 3RR, which was my point, but you are correct, I worded it badly. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Also, Slatersteven, just so it's clear: WP:BRD or WP:ONUS ≠ Consensus required, or they'd just be that. El_C 11:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

They would just be what, as I was reverting back to a pre-edit war version? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

They'd be effectively as narrowly-restrictive as CR. El_C 13:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I see, well as they did not have consensus either then (you are right) I should have said: "no consensus" in my edit summaries. But it is sometimes easy to forget which particular rule is required to be invoked when any number are being breached. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Talk:Matija Zmajević is not getting any new useful content (such as any attempt of an analysis of reliable sources with regard to the contentious issues at hand), rather there's just more WP:NOTAFORUM violations there, I request that a fellow administrator, who is not involved there like myself, impose WP:1RR on this page (as previously authorized by WP:ARBMAC / WP:ARBEURO#Standard discretionary sanctions / WP:ACDS#sanctions.page). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus @ MFD

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

I'm deeply concerned about the actions and judgment of Dronebogus at WP:MFD. Yesterday he nominated a massive spate of userboxes for deletion. Now some of these userboxes probably do well warrant deletion. However, several of the rationales given do not reflect policy but instead reflect an emotional and ideological bent ([420], [421], [422]). The more worrying thing is his soapboxy commentary ([423]) and BLP violations ([424]) when defending his reasoning.

Dronebogus's judgment has been questionable at times in administrative sectors of Wikipedia, and this is not the first time in which it seems as if his emotions have gotten ahead of his reasoning. I'm not sure what the answer is here, and I'm certainly not about to criticize anyone's proportion of edits to various spaces given my heavy focus on WP:ITN. But I do feel it would be best if a break from WP:MFD were imposed on him to prevent further disruption. At this point I'm beginning to feel that it's for his own good. WaltCip-(talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just voted on a lot of the nominations this user has made and I'd say the majority are userboxes that deserve to get deleted. It's actually good that someone decided to go through all of that user's userboxes and start cleaning up Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd ask Dronebogus if they'd maybe reconsider this particular campaign? Most of those userboxes are trolling, and MFDing them is troll-feeding. Users who get involved in Wikipedia's various historical userbox wars have often regretted it. It's longstanding custom and practice that good faith Wikipedians are allowed wide but not unlimited latitude to express themselves in their userspace, and also, if someone does have those opinions, it's good for them to be clearly stated up front so others can avoid them more easily. We wouldn't want to breed wasps without the yellow stripes, would we?—S Marshall T/C 22:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No. I’ve heard this a million times, policy is clear on this, no disruptive userboxes. If this was nazis we wouldn’t be discussing this. Dronebogus (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder. As a survivor of the Great Userbox Wars I regret ever getting involved, and it's a topic that is entered into carefully, with tact and discretion. "Stupid irredentist nonsense" is not that. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Well that one was withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like nitpicking over the mote in my eye over the giant sequoia in the disruptive user’s eye. I recall an admin who had userboxes on his page calling Boris Johnson a “complete nincompoop” and trump a “nazi sympathizer who values golf more than human lives”. I described trump as a pathological liar because he is. “Dimwit” is an insult but a mild one that you could have just told me to remove. I said the Userboxes were “tankie” because they are— the creator was defending genocide in deleted ones, and others claim German reunification is “occupation” and attack anyone who is critical of Stalin/Putin/other authoritarians. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The only one you’re probably right on is the Falklands ones, and they’re still in my opinion objectively disruptive since it’s pro-invasion/pro-annexation against an unwilling population. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve since withdrawn both per your arguments and arguments of voters. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve also redacted the comment about trump being a dumb-dumb. Now can we just close this? Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, but as I said there, generally I'd like to see some type of assurance that you'll maintain civility and proper discretion in the future. WaltCip-(talk) 13:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t believe you that you’re going to accept whatever I say since you went through the effort of opening an ANI thread for a WP:TROUT level offense, and nobody else seems to be explicitly agreeing with your proposal. I think you’re just trying to create a chilling effect. Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not out for blood. Ultimately it's your decision how you want to move forward. If you don't think there's any adjustment needed whatsoever, then that's your call. WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Well I think I’ve adjusted as necessary. I’m trying to learn from my mistakes. Dronebogus (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus nominated a couple of my user boxes at MfD, which I speedy deleted per WP:G7 because I always said I would get rid of them at the first obvious objection, whether or not I agreed with it. As far as user boxes go, WP:OWB says "The best content contributors often neglect these things, and vice versa." so from my point of view, having them or not is several orders of magnitude less important than writing an encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that's an awesome list! I should bookmark that. WaltCip-(talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! That's immediately applicable. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

While getting into scuffles every once in a while is surely human nature, the extent to which this editor is fascinated by scouring the project for potentially offensive userboxes is concerning, as is their conduct while doing so. This edit, for example, adds "Donald Trump is a well known pathological liar and dimwit so why his opinion matters I don’t know". Okay, whatever, I don't like Donald Trump either, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for insulting political figures. More importantly, what the hell does this have to do with a userbox about Soviet intervention in Afghanistan? Even in this very discussion, they say "I said the Userboxes were “tankie” because they are"... while linking to the article on the term, which describes it in the very first sentence as "a pejorative label for communists". Again, I am not saying this to stick up for Communists, but there is no reason to use deliberately inflammatory language here. The userbox is bad. It's probably against policy. You would expect it to be a pretty uncontroversial nomination... so why go out of your way to act like this? I would recommend taking a break from MfDs, or from political arguments, or whatever, if you are having trouble staying cool. There's no shame in doing so, it doesn't mean admitting defeat, and there are plenty of other parts of the project that need help. jp×g 03:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I brought up trump because the “keep” argument seemed to use trump’s endorsement of the invasion to legitimize the position, so I pointed out Trump is dishonest and doesn’t come across as particularly bright so his opinion on the topic is not reliable. As for “tankie”— how is this different than patently insulting, but widely accepted and used, wikiterms like “wp:lunatic charlatans” and “wp:nonazis”? Dronebogus (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is that you should not engage these specific types of arguments, whether you're initiating them or responding to someone who provokes you. The closer will be reviewing whether or not the basis for keep or deletion is based on policy or consensus, and they are trained to ignore those comments that address neither. When you get involved with invective, you raise the temperature of the room for an already delicate sector of Wikipedia, when the goal should be to WP:STAYCOOL. The fact that you responded to my observation of this by getting defensive and casting aspersions against my conduct is not a great look. WaltCip-(talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel compelled to point out User:Dronebogus often seems to be engaged in a series of conversations where they tend to insult other users and their actions, somehow thinking themselves above reproach. I call everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue where out of nowhere they call a respected and longterm administrator a "wikigeezer" fully knowing that admin is still active and will defend their essay in that MFD, reading the insult in the process. This is definitely not STAYCOOL practice, as User:WaltCip points out correctly. Deliberate inflammatory language, and playful way Dronebogus regularly normalizes personal attacks demonstrates once again that they may appear not necessarily here to help. Hey, I like a good wrecking ball as much as anyone, but I strenuously try to avoid swinging such a permanently damaging tool where the debris field encompasses the entire wikipedian family. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn’t trying to be abusive by saying someone was a geezer. But I’ll remove it if it was offensive. Dronebogus (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Calling loose and frequently acrimonious organizations “family” is not a good rhetorical device. I can think of some other examples that aren’t exactly flattering comparisons. Dronebogus (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a voluntary consensus democracy dedicated to building an encyclopedia. It is nobody’s “family” Dronebogus (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please note: Dronebogus ignores my central arguments then makes a reluctant retraction, but instead of leaving it there, latches onto a single noun and twice vainly tries to discredit my entire comment by arguing my usage of the word family. The user must lash out. This is why the OP brought them here. This is NOT about MfD or a self-imposed non-binding break from single venue. This is about user conduct and a failure to display AGF, especially when opposed. BusterD (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please, the stick, drop it. I was just criticizing your rhetoric as poor, not trying to “vainly discredit” your argument. You’re the one with AGF problems right here. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  I just want this to be over so I can move on with my business. I am not arguing with you over the validity of a throwaway comment. Dronebogus (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, I personally don’t think my behavior was that offensive let alone ANI worthy but since several users have raised reasonable objections and I want to get back to editing important things I will take a voluntary and non-binding wikibreak from MFD. Dronebogus (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  I’d like to amend this by adding I will not explicitly avoid making or participating in MFDs for WP:G1 or blatant troll content. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I’m withdrawing my attempt at an olive branch because none of the above users except BusterD and WaltCip have shown sufficient concern about my actions to justify this whole thread, and the aforementioned two have done nothing but make vague accusations and assume bad faith even after I tried to diffuse the situation. This thread seems like a WP:POINTy waste of time designed specifically to WP:HOUND me out of MfD. Dronebogus (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'll have to agree with what User:Super Dromaeosaurus said. Most of the userboxes that Dronebogus is nominating for deletion - including the ones the OP is pointing to - are ones that are likely to close with a consensus to delete, and I don't think it's a bad thing that someone decided to comb through userboxes looking for ones that might be eligible for deletion per our userbox content restrictions. Most of their nominations were userboxes created by User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор, and just about all of them are likely to be deleted. If Dronebogus didn't nominate them at MfD I probably would've done that myself. Some of the ones that likely won't be deleted are still worth discussing too. I'll admit that I don't really have any past experiences interacting with this editor as I only recently became active at MfD after stumbling across some of the userboxes whose MfDs I !voted on, so I can't comment much on their behavior. It seemed like some of their interactions with SmokeyJoe were a bit too heated, but in those instances SmokeyJoe seemed to be the one that initially threw out some unwarranted personal attacks at Dronebogus. All of that aside, I simply disagree with the OP's premise that going through the list of userboxes to look for ones that might be unacceptable and nominating a lot of them for deletion is a bad thing, much less something that deserves some sort of punishment or an enforced break from MfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside, there's nothing wrong with throwing out the word tankie to describe those userboxes nominated for deletion, and just about everyone who !voted in those discussions used that term at least once.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• As the OP, I acknowledge Dronebogus's response above that he will be taking a voluntary wikibreak from WP:MFD, which to me seems satisfactory. I'd still ultimately would have preferred some type of agreement to cease from further argumentative/WP:IDHT-behavior (as in this diff, which unfortunately came a couple hours after he agreed to take a break), but I will leave it up to an uninvolved administrator to determine whether that is necessary or not.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Never mind. I retract my last statement about being satisfied with the current outcome. At this point WP:IDHT seems to be the issue here. WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What’s your problem now? Dronebogus (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Will you not be satisfied unless I completely avoid MFD under threat of blocking? Even when my current participation is limited to nominating and voting on vandalism and non-controversial additions to discussions I already participated in? Dronebogus (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You don’t even have a reason for retracting your statement of detente. What point are you trying to make? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the purpose of this discussion is presumably to get User:Dronebogus to modify their behavior, I'd like to offer some specific constructive feedback:

1. Bundling highly similar nominations together is a good way to prevent MfD from getting as flooded as it is currently & requires editors to spend less time having separate discussions to find consensuses. When I !voted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Against discrimination of Russians suggesting the very similar User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Apartheid in Palestine and the Baltics be nominated as well, I was hoping it'd be bundled into the same nomination rather than listed separately. It is true that deletion nominations of Поль Крол Злой Диктатор's userboxes have failed in the past because there were too many in the same nomination to discuss them all, but creating 20 separate nominations for individual userboxes made it hard to discuss them too. If you know you'll be nominating a lot of things for deletion, think of which ones should be grouped together first.
2. I've noticed that you have a habit of replying to yourself three or four times in a row, which can make it much harder for other users to add comments of their own, either in response to you or in response to what you were originally replying to. If there's more you want to say and no one's replied to your comment yet, try to find a way to include it in your original comment as long as the original comment isn't already excessively long. I'll admit that I'm guilty of this myself sometimes, but I think it'd be good if you keep this in mind in the future.

Just to be clear, I don't think the behavior you've exhibited recently warrants an enforced topic ban from MfD. But I felt that those who argued you've already failed to modify your behavior haven't done enough to articulate what exactly they want to see from you in the future, so this is my best effort at getting something constructive out of this discussion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Dronebogus (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Japanese nationalist editing by Nanshu on Okinawan/Ryukyuan topics

Could a more established editor or an administrator take a look into Nanshu's edits? They have been (and seems so for years) trying to erase or re-write many aspects of Okinawan history, identity and language, including removing the usage of Okinawan with Japanese, removing the mention of 'Okinawan' as native, and many, many more examples of anti-Okinawan/Ryuyukan edits. Some recent examples, 1, 2, removing the entire Flag of Ryukyu article, 3 and also 4 and 5, replacing 'Ryukyuan surnames' with just 'Japanese-language surnames' on Okinawan surnames and Amami surnames. Thank you. 222.109.201.2 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello 222.109.201.2, When you start a discussion about someone you have to leave a talkpage notice so I've done that for you, in the future please try to comply with this requirement on your own, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I thank 74.73.224.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for letting me know. I am not an active user and often miss this kind of short-lasting fuss.

It's a good opportunity to re-inform the community of a post-truth situation on Okinawa-related topics in Wikipedia. We have a fake national flag, and a fake national anthem, and what's next?

• For the fake national flag, discussion took place in many pages. See commons:File_talk:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg, for example.
• For the fake national anthem, see Talk:Ryukyu_Kingdom#No such thing as national anthem (Wikipedia as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation).

The fake national anthem has its origin in 2014 when a Japanese Wikipedian misread an old-fashioned Japanese monograph. But that's not a big problem. Every one makes a mistake. The real problem is that certain individuals are intentionally building alternative facts in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia serves as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation). Worse yet, it is trapped in a vicious cycle. External pages that are in fact deceived by Wikipedia are cited in Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article with the fake national flag in it was copied by the Confederation of Independent Football Associations, and that was used as an external source. For more information, see Talk:Confederation of Independent Football Associations#A fake flag.

Now a post-truth guy cites a YouTube clip as a "reliable source" of the fake national anthem.[425] Obviously, the YouTube poster was fooled by Wikipedia, but that doesn't matter to someone who has contempt for facts. --Nanshu (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Jesus I thought this had finally fizzled out. Nanshu has a near-decade history of making massive POV edits and edit warring before disappearing for months or years and then dumping another massive round of POV edits in a seemingly endless cycle. He is out to "right great wrongs" which is anything that makes Okinawa seem "non Japanese" and attacks people who don't agree with his POV. His last wave of edits seem to be mass reverts and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR "rewrites". ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

IP removing images from India related articles

I have made multiple reports at AIV recently about images being removed from Indian film related articles without any explanation. So far,122.182.201.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 122.167.77.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 122.171.44.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been blocked. Today, more deletions have occurred from 122.162.106.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Assuming this is the same person, I have no idea if they are even aware that they have been blocked and their edits reverted. As they have hit some articles multiple times, they ought to realize there is a problem. Can something more be done to end this bout of wack-a-mole? MB 04:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Kerala/Malayalam-film focus hints at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eswaran_Naveen/Archive. That SPI has a bit of ambiguity, but Libra cursa for example had gone on image removal sprees more than once. Their ranges were different though (Jio ISP and Chennai), but proxy use might be the reason for the new range. Hemantha (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3 close paraphrasing from Fandom without attribution

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rtkat3 has been copying or close paraphrasing from Fandom (website) (formerly Wikia) without attribution, including an edit after I approached him around a week ago. He was reminded of this requirement in 2020 and 2016 and was blocked for 24 hours in 2015.

Fandom sites generally use the CC BY-SA 3.0 license,^[426] which is compatible with Wikipedia, but attribution is required.

• WP:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
• Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text
• WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources

From Fandom

Article	Diff	Apparent source
List of DC Comics characters: L#La Dama	29 March 2022	https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_(New_Earth) (history) https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_Cardenas_(Prime_Earth) (history)
Chimera in popular culture#Books (Percy Jackson)	21 March 2022	https://riordan.fandom.com/wiki/Chimera (history)
List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Ripley Ryan	5 January 2022	https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Ripley_Ryan_(Earth-616) (history)

Rtkat3 has also copied between articles without providing attribution as required by the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. He received {{Uw-copying}} warnings in 2020 and 2016.

Within Wikipedia

Article	Diff	Source	Notes
Warcraft#Major races and factions	21 March 2022	Races and factions of Warcraft
Power Rangers RPM	15 March 2022	List of Power Rangers RPM characters	Revision deleted under WP:RD1 criterion
List of DC Comics characters: G#Grid	28 January 2022	Grid (comics)
Gotham City	7 January 2020	List of mayors of Gotham City	WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Rtkat3 and autopatrolled

Rtkat3 received several CorenSearchBot "possible copyvio" notifications between 2009 and 2015: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, and diff 6. I spot-checked two:

• Rtkat3 removed the tag from Monster High: Why Do Ghouls Fall in Love? without fixing the problem, and Crow removed the copy.
• Tricephalous (comics) was confirmed by MLauba and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2009 August 12.

This is a long-term pattern of copying edits that needs to be addressed. While attribution can be repaired later, actively creating problems is unacceptable. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In my defense on some of these charges, I have been trying to do some of the recent entries in my own words as best as I could. For some of the Wikipedia things, I was only trying to keep them from deletion in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Some characters in comics had to have to have their media appearances placed somewhere on this website. I also like to take this time to apologize for not leaving a special statement like how it was displayed on the page for Wonderland. Did I leave anything out in these comments of defense? --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've pointed to this before: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It's a great resource to help you fix the close paraphrasing problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was able to do that with the examples listed above today. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing them. I added {{Fandom content}} to List of DC Comics characters: L#References because there were two source pages. Do you need guidance on the edit summaries required when copying between Wikipedia pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll contact you if I need it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In the last day, you copied a phrase from Maia Mitchell#Personal life (permanent link) to Good Trouble (TV series)#Casting without an appropriate edit summary. All you have to do is enter an edit summary like copied content from [[Maia Mitchell]]; see that page's history for attribution, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution and WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia (guidelines). Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I was only adding the references and rephrasing information to the page because nobody else has added that information to the page to explain why Maia Mitchell departed from Good Trouble that involved being with her family. If that was wrong, I apologize for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That edit's content seems fine, although I am not familiar with the subject area. Its edit summary is the issue. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So I guess you want me to start being more specific about those types of edit summaries. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3, when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary must say where you copied it from. Flatscan wrote out above what your edit summaries need to say, all you need to do is replace the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So mention that the content was taken from Fandom or another Wikipedia page is what you are saying. How does one replace the article title? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3, do not take content from Fandom. When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary should be the following: copied content from [[ENTER ARTICLE TITLE HERE]]; see that page's history for attribution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the article title help. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! Regarding Fandom, Rtkat3 fixed its three examples on 31 March, so I have no open concerns about it. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Why should Rtkat3 not take material from Fandom? It's perfectly okay to do so, under the same terms that one may copy content from another Wikipedia article. As others have already stated above, as long as you attribute material copied from Fandom, it's fine. The attribution statement can be almost exactly the wording you showed above; the only difference being that the bracketed article name should be a Fandom link. See below for an example. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, I worded it that way because it seemed clear from the conversation that Rtkat3 is struggling with nuanced explanations of how to avoid copyright/attribution problems. Once they get a handle on copying within Wikipedia properly, maybe then they can progress to using Template:Fandom content. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: okay, that makes more sense, now. Normally, I see a don't or shouldn't as being an interpretation of P&G, and if it isn't, then I might word it differently, saying something about for now, or subtle guidelines, or until you gain more experience, and so on. But I take your point, and thank you for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, I can see how my original statement specifically to Rtkat3 might be misleading for other editors so I appreciate you asking so I could clarify my meaning better. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If the licensing is compatible, then why paraphrase at all? Just copy with attribution, then make edits if necessary to suit Wikipedia's style. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 2602 is correct; there is no need to paraphrase at all from Fandom; just copy word for word if you wish, and follow WP:CWW to provide attribution, including a link to the fandom article. To link "Amparo (New Earth)", just do this: Copied content from [[wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth)]]; see that page's history for attribution, which in an edit summary, would generate this: "Copied content from wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth); see that page's history for attribution". Given the different structure there, I might represent it this way, instead, for clarity: Copied content from Fandom DC Database at [[wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth)]]; see that page's history for attribution. Given the compatible license, that should be fine, Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd helpfully points out above the availability of the {{Fandom content}} template, which you can use to construct an attribution statement; see the template's documentation for instructions. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

When copying text from compatibly-licensed external sources such as Fandom, the attribution needs to be provided in the article (attribution templates such as {{Fandom content}} or {{CC-notice}} can be used for this); the edit summary alone is not enough. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution has some more information about this. DanCherek (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: It is enough, and there is no such requirement. Please don't mix guideline recommendations and observations, or template usage instructions, with actual policy, especially policy with legal implications such as our licensing requirements. And although this is now getting into precisely the kind of subtlety that Schazjmd rightly wished to avoid, especially for a newish user, the fact is that the plagiarism page is a content guideline, not policy. And the guideline doesn't require what you say "needs" to be provided, and doesn't even go so far as to "recommend" it; rather, it merely observes that "attribution is generally provided" in the way you specified. "Generally provided"—that's as far as this guideline is willing to go.

This is roughly the non-compulsory equivalent of the observation found in the statement at WP:CWW concerning translation attribution, which says, "Where applicable, the template {{Translated page}} may also be added to the talk page to supplement copyright attribution." That is also an observation of behavior and not the policy itself, not a requirement, and not even a recommendation; more like a nice-to-have, which is (sadly) much ignored, because it is good advice. The statement you quoted regarding Reference section in-article attribution is merely an observation of one way that users customarily attempt to implement the actual policy with legal implications that underlies what the WP:Plagiarism guideline attempts to describe in simpler words.

Neither does the actual licensing of Fandom require attribution in the article itself (it mentions it as one in a list of alternatives), nor do WMF's ToU and licensing requirements require in-article attribution, but are nearly word-for-word identical with Fandom.

Imho, placing attribution exclusively in the "References" section is a poor idea, because 1) it can be modified, deleted (on purpose, by accident, or through ignorance), and 2) it lulls the user into thinking that the edit-summary attribution is not needed. Imho, the better way is to follow WP:CWW's interpretation of ToU and add a statement with a hyperlink to the source in the edit summary, as stated in 7b(i) of Wikipedia's licensing requirments, which becomes a permanent record visible in the article history, and also includes a link to Fandom. This unquestionably fulfills WMF's Licensing requirements and is a matter of established practice, and if you read Fandom's ToU and licensing requirement it fulfills that, too; not surprisingly because they are near-identical. (Admittedly, an attribution added to the Reference section which is subsequently deleted does remain in the history, but good luck ever finding it again, or even being aware that it ever existed in the first place if you don't have the edit summary attribution.) We can quibble about whether edit summary attribution is superior to in-article attribution, but I don't think the ToU or LReq (at either website) supports a claim that in-article attribution in the "References" section is a *requirement*; it just isn't.

However, I fear that the upshot of all the good faith attempts here to clarify this point by all concerned is that we are to some extent hijacking this thread, and confusing the situation for a user rather than clarifying it, and perhaps this portion of the discussion should be moved to WT:Plagiarism, WT:CWW, or perhaps WP:VPP for further consideration. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was able to read your message this morning Mathglot and agree with the proper use of the Fandom template that you recommended for any future additions like how I had to fix the examples listed above earlier in this discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, as I wrote at Template talk:Fandom content, I agree with your analysis of the licenses, having skimmed them independently. The WP:Plagiarism concerns are similar but distinct – WP:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources: Most compatible licenses require that author attribution be given, and even if the license does not, the material must be attributed to avoid plagiarism. Filling in the templates is not onerous, so I do not see a good reason to WP:Ignore all rules them. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to fill in the templates, it's fulfills one of the three alternative ways to do it, so it's acceptable. WP:Plagiarism is merely a content guideline, which you are free to ignore anytime it isn't required by policy. Also, I don't know what you mean about "even if the license does not [require author attribution]"; it does require it—that's the entire point of the "Attribution" section of the license. I think where the Plagiarism guideline is helpful and relevant, is when we are dealing with non-Wikimedia, non-compatibly licensed sources, such as most books, magazines, newspapers, and websites. But there's nothing there that's very helpful for compatibly-licensed sources, imho (with the possible exception of sites that are CC BY SA 3.0, but not GFDL). Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes

WP:Plagiarism and Fandom licensing

WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources applies to content copied from Fandom and should not be ignored as Mathglot recommends above.

1. WP:Plagiarism is not made redundant by WP:Copyrights or wmf:Terms of Use. It has a few links to WP:Copyrights and is in Category:Wikipedia copyright, but its lead is clear that copyright infringement is distinct from plagiarism.
2. WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia is the only subsection with an explicit exception to in-article attribution.
3. Guidelines are best practice, supported by WP:Consensus. WP:Policies and guidelines, WP:Consensus#Levels of consensus, and the {{Subcat guideline}} tag all mention or hint at this. WP:Ignore all rules allows for exceptions, but filling in an attribution template is not difficult enough to "prevent" anything.

Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. I don't "recommend" that anybody ignore WP:Plagiarism (or any guideline), but much to the contrary. What I said was that "you are free to ignore it anytime it isn't required by policy", and that's perfectly in line with Five Pillars. However, you may not ignore policy with legal implications, under any circumstances, no matter what the Plagiarism guideline says, and as it happens, COPYRIGHT is one of those, as it depends on Wikipedia's Licensing. Not even WP:IAR nor WP:CONSENSUS—both policy—can top that, and WP:Plagiarism, merely a guideline, certainly cannot. That's what I was saying. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge your objection and clarification, but I still think your series of comments invited my interpretation. My feeling is that we are talking past each other, so I propose we drop this. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Misconduct at Ahmose-Nefertari

• Ahmose-Nefertari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was originally going to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt for views from other editors, but instead I am forced here. A bit of background information. For a year now, C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena (Charles) has been attempting to push a Afrocentrist point of view into the article Ahmose-Nefertari. This has received substantial pushback from editors in the Wikiproject Ancient Egypt group. There have been long drawn out discussions between Charles, Wdford, and myself (see the archive). Other editors and admins that have involved themselves at times are A. Parrot, Doug Weller, and Bishonen. In the end, Charles received a month long editing page-ban from Bishonen for 'persistent bludgeoning'.

They recently returned to editing the article and have made substantial edits there. Yesterday, I took a bold action to rollback their edits, before reinstating the majority of them (I also apologized for an error that I made in that I saw the first half of the edit but neglected the second). I did so because after a spot-check I saw POV-pushing, and I will be in particular citing issues surrounding one cited source: Martin Bernal's Black Athena. To keep it brief, Bernal's work is notable, but controversial, and Bernal is not viewed as a mainstream voice in Egyptology. Hence, it is cited with a note regarding its status as controversial. Charles has spent a lot of time trying to cover-up the fact that Bernal's work is poorly received by the Egyptological community. He has repeatedly removed the fact that it is a controversial source, and has instead counter-claimed that other sources are controversial (presently Mary Lefkowitz and Guy Rogers, but he does cite a book review published in the Journal of Black Studies which does support the claim).

The breaking-point is the present attempt to censor the talk page by claiming that discussion of Bernal's work (of which I am presently the sole contributor) is 'off-topic' because the article is about Ahmose-Nefertari. It's a cited source and thus it is relevant to discuss it (particularly regarding its status as a reliable source), even without a direct reference to the article subject. Bear in mind, all this while actively undermining other Egyptologists within the physical article. I'm to be prevented from raising issues with Bernal as a source on the talk page, whilst Charles creates issues within the article. Just to give you my perspective on this conduct.

I don't particularly want to see a TBAN implemented, because the Afrocentrist viewpoint is a significant one here. Charles is its sole advocate that I am aware of. However, an action does need to be taken. Charles cannot simply push a narrative in a Wikipedia article, and certainly not one that is rejected by mainstream scholarship. What to do?

PS: I have pinged the editors that have been involved in previous discussions, however, there is no obligation to respond.

PPS: Nearly all discussion over the past two days has taken place through edit-summaries, but I have opened two talk page sections (one regarding my manual rollback ; one regarding Bernal (which was repeatedly closed as off-topic). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Even though I do believe they edit in good faith, I'm strongly tempted to indef this editor, or at least page-block them indefinitely from Ahmose-Nefertari and its talkpage. They have eaten up much too much of the time and patience of admins and constructive editors already, and, to my impression, quite uselessly so. But in view of Mr rnddude's point about the Afrocentrist viewpoint, I will wait for input from, in particular, Doug Weller, who is more au fait with the subject than me. Perhaps he or someone else can come up with a less wholesale solution. I will note, though, that from previous experience I've very little faith in warning, reasoning or arguing (or mentoring, if that should come up). Bishonen | tålk 08:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

@Mr rnddude: not the only Afro-centrist editor active on articles about Egypt as User:Wdford will confirm. But for this editor I think the least we should do is an indefinite page ban, to be extended to the talk page if he bludgeons there. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I've placed an indefinite block from Ahmose-Nefertari, with a warning about the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

Sydney Scouting IP user (multiple issues)

These issues relate to several IP accounts which I reasonably believe to be the same user, as they are all from Sydney and preoccupied with scouting:

IP.115.42.10.126. [427] IP.115.42.6.87 here, IP.115.42.5.133 [428] IP.115.42.3.5 [429] IP.115.42.15.148 [430]

The user has engaged in personal attacks, calling me "pathetic" on two occasions and telling me to "stop disgracing myself". This is part of a tendency of confrontational posting, I had already explicitly accepted the user's edit when this occurred. [431]

The user has edited my comments on a talk page, though not seemingly with the intention to deceive. [432]

The user has engaged in edit-warring across multiple pages, attempting to impose their preferred lede without consensus. When I reverted to the status quo prior to the content dispute, they reverted. Requests to self-revert were ignored. [433], [434], [435]

The user nominated the three above articles for merger (something I have no opinion on)[436], when they did this, they changed section titles with details of the individuals lives to read "Non-notable details", changing encyclopaedic content in order to make a case for merger. [437], [438]

I feel some action needs to be taken to stop this pattern of disruptive editing.

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a fairly small range so far, 115.42.0.0/20. I've given it a week off for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Hoping they don't have access to more IPs. Bishonen | tålk 09:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

That seems fair enough, thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Michael Riconosciuto

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 would like to point the admins to a persistent vandal at Michael Riconosciuto: 69.125.152.43/63. This editor claims to have done prison time with Riconosciuto, and is inserting defamatory claims repeatedly.

Michael Riconosciuto edit history

First edit from 24 December which stuck for months.

An interesting edit from 1-hit wonder 91.230.225.198.

This bio may need some kind of protection. Thanks for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:09, 12 April 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.

Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project

• 216.10.214.46 (talk · contribs)
• Brittany Hudson (talk · contribs) — User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox (MfD discussion)
• IamWestleyKeating (talk · contribs) — Gender Analysis of "Drag" (PROD'd)
• Fay Wesley (talk · contribs) — Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty" (AfD discussion)
• Queen Unstoppable (talk · contribs) — User:Queen Unstoppable/Gender Analysis of 'Roll It' (MfD discussion)
• Prinipeace (talk · contribs) — Gender Theory In 'President Daisy' (AfD discussion)
• Abbigh (talk · contribs) — Draft:Art, For Fucks Sake (MfD discussion)
• Dino Marc (talk · contribs) — Love Silk food (AfD discussion)
• Bright Sparks29 (talk · contribs) — Gender Analysis of 'What He Is' (AfD discussion)
• Suchhmann (talk · contribs) — The Inability to Smile (AfD discussion) Draft:The Inability to Smile (MfD discussion)
• S-Kay Kin (talk · contribs) — User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox (MfD discussion)

They are all peer-reviewing each other, too. Witness the talk pages.

(Hello Timtrent, ReaderofthePack, Star Mississippi, and LPS_and_MLP_Fan.) Uncle G (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• thanks. Courtesy ping to @JBW & @Guettarda who also have some familiarity. I wish there was some way to reach the instructor. Dino Marc has been responsive on their talk page, but there's no clear outcome. Star Mississippi 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I've emailed the instructor to let them know about this thread (I had been asked by a mutual acquaintance if I could help Dino Marc). Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks @Guettarda. I offer some technical assistance whereever possible, but am not affiliated with them or the University. The project is a new initiative within the "Gender in the Caribbean" undergaduate class at the University of the West Indes in Jamaica. It's a small class (usually about 10-16 students) who are tasked with creating content about unknown/uncovered Caribbean women, and their literary works.

      We can certainly do more to reach out about the existence of this project, but support from the community on Caribbean initiatives is slim to none. However, I am open to connect and converse more about the project, and what can be done to satisty the needs of the community. JamaicanEditor (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

      • It's unfortunate that it's women and literature, because we just found a Carribbean article that is woefully under-written, from events on this very noticeboard. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 92#Combermere. Although a quick chase along another of the little magazine strings (that Drmies has been pursuing, see Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Magazine) finds that Velma Pollard, for starters, doesn't mention some of Pollard's works. This isn't new article work, but it is writing work, Jamaica, and the works of a female author.

        To give you an idea of how Drmies chasing down these chains uncovers stuff: In the Morris & Diaz 2015 book on little magazines Charles Henry Rowell editor of Callaloo recounts meeting Pollard, Olive Senior, Lorna Goodison, Pamela Mordecai, and Carolyn Cooper on a trip. Pollard in turn is a source for at least one of Senior's works. And so it goes.

        Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

        • Ledent, Bénédicte (2011). "Review of Velma Pollard's Considering Woman I & II". Moving Worlds: A Journal of Transcultural Writings. 11 (1): 128–129.
        • O’Callaghan, Evelyn (June 1991). "review of Velma Pollard's Crown Point and Considering Woman". Jamaica Journal. 24 (1): 60–62.
        • Pollard, Velma (Summer 1988). "An Introduction to The Poetry and Fiction of Olive Senior". Callaloo (36). The Johns Hopkins University Press: 540–545. doi:10.2307/2931531. JSTOR 2931531.
        • Brown, Wayne (1970-08-16). "The Little Magazine in the West Indies". SG: 9.
• Thanks for the pointers you left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty" and here. I have tagged User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox for deletion. You can view its MfD here. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• I find this depressing on two counts:
  1. That the instructor is unwise and has set an injudicious project
  2. The Wiki Education does not embrace projects like this on a global basis.
• I am desperately sorry for the students who are working in good faith at a project unlikely to succeed. They have been let down badly. Even so, unless the end results meet Wikipedia standards they must go. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Uncle G: @Timtrent: @Star Mississippi: @JBW: @ReaderofthePack: @Guettarda: @JamaicanEditor: I tagged most of the other ones without MfDs/AfDs for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Inability to Smile, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Inability to Smile. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @LPS and MLP Fan It had to be done despite being depressing on the students' behalf 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've left the students some recommendations on one of their talk pages about how they could contribute to Wikipedia, as well as an explanation as to why the page was deleted. I've closed some of the deletion discussions and emailed students a copy of their work to show their professor. I haven't closed the MfD ones yet, but I likely will soon.

In defense of Wiki Education (full disclosure, former employee), it's not that they won't embrace outside classes but more that they just can't. The decision to limit the classes to just North America (Canada and US) was done because there just isn't enough staff to take on classes from all over the world. They do try to provide resources whenever possible and if there's time, volunteer off the clock, but there's not always the time to do this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack It is the "don't" rather than the "won't" because they should at least provide a framework. If the English language Wikipedia is meant to be universal so must Wiki Education. One thing that might come of this discussion is a strong recommendation to those providing the staff to do more. WMF is a charity, yes, and this is what fundraising is all about.

You may be uniquely placed to feed this in to the right place. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• It's not really as easy as saying fundraising - keep in mind that the WMF and Wiki Education are two separate entities. They do get some grant funding from them, but it's only a portion of the funding needed to run the organization in its current state. As far as other fundraising goes, a lot of places that would have otherwise donated became more conservative with their giving once COVID-19 hit. It's the reason they had to let go of half their staff, they just didn't have the funding to keep everyone on. Prior to that we were all stretched pretty thin but could cover the classes we had. Since they have only approximately half the staff left that is stretched even thinner and they're also unable to take on the amount they could before. Rather than three employees who directly worked with students, they have one, for example. The other employees are doubtlessly helping as they can, but there's a lot that goes into running an organization. WE has always wanted to help other countries and students, but there just isn't enough manpower or funding to do this. I try to still help where I can, but my ability to edit Wikipedia in general has been far more limited with my current job, even more so at times than before I was working with WE. Basically, they really really want to help but the funding just isn't there to enable them to do this and getting more funding is very difficult nowadays.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the conversation so much. I am trying to help the students as much as possible, but so far they haven't been responding. I do feel bad for them, as their professor really should have looked into things beforehand. I'd say that this is more of a failure on the professor's part than anything else, as a quick search for "Wikipedia college assignment" brings up quite a lot of resources. I know that geographic area can cause some differences in search results but resources are more or less easy to find. That said, I can understand where the misunderstanding could come from and I'm always optimistic about instructors' ability to adapt and fix the assignment. It doesn't always bear fruit, but when it does it's pretty awesome. Hopefully this instructor will reach out to myself or to someone about this. I'll try and keep my eyes on the students as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello. I am a student of this gender studies course and our assignment was to write an article on a story from the book Come Let Us Sing Anyway: A Collection of short stories by Leone Ross, based on the themes we see emerging. Our final requirement for this project was to move our draft from sandbox into the main space, after making all necessary edits so the article can be more reader-friendly and aligned with Wikipedia standard. After completing this step, my article was moved to drafts due to being reviewed by an editor as not ready for the main space. I then made more edits and adjustments to my article based on the feedback given and moved it back to the main space in order to complete that requirement for the assignment. I do apologize for any issues created due to my actions. I was only trying to accomplish the weekly activities set out by my lecturer. Bright Sparks29 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Echoing Special:Diff/1081493497/1081633737, anything that you could do to help get your lecturer in touch with some of the people above (not me, but the people who have dealings in projects of this kind) would be appreciated. Because it's your lecturer that people want to talk to the most. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Bright Sparks29 You have done nothing wrong. Your tutor has been well intentioned, but either unwise or is uninformed. Tutors with limited experience of Wikipedia often expose their students to frustration and worry about course grades by accident.

  Please ask your tutor to come here. They will see for themselves the issues this is causing their students, and we hope they will care enough to adjust the course grades to reflect work done, not work accepted for publication.

  For yourself, I think I speak for everyone in saying that we hope the marks om this course go well for you all. No-one wishes either students or the tutor any ill will. We need to speak to the tutor to advise them on now better to proceed next time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"In defense of Wiki Education (full disclosure, former employee), it's not that they won't embrace outside classes but more that they just can't. The decision to limit the classes to just North America (Canada and US) was done because there just isn't enough staff to take on classes from all over the world. " Oh dear. Can someone please either just disband WikiEdu, or get them to do the exact opposite of this? Focusing only on the groups that least need extra support, coverage, ... and abandoning the groups that are actually underrepresented, more often lacking funds, and so on, is going directly against things like UCOC and the WMF Human Rights Policy, and more importantly against what is actually needed and wanted. Fram (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hold the front page: "WMY spunks shedload of cash up the wall on unnecessary and unrepresentative projects". Now, where have we seen this before... SN54129 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fram @Timtrent: It's more complicated than just staffing. For starters, Wiki Education was spun off as a separate non-profit from within WMF's Education Program in part because it was something that WMF (at the time) didn't see as part of their strategic goals. The US/Canada group organised Wiki Education. Various other chapters have continued to support programmes in their own countries or language Wikipedias. So there's a historic reason that Wiki Education is limited to supporting the Education Program in two countries. We've done everything we can to support programmes outside that narrow mandate - for example, almost as soon as the Wiki Education Dashboard was built, a second instance was made available to the community as a whole, and Sage has continued to do most of the support for the Programs & Events Dashboard (which support and funding from WMF; I don't mean to minimise their contribution). The training modules we built are there, and are customisable and translatable (and, of course, everything we do in available under a free license).

Yes, staff is a big part of why we only work in the US/Canada. As a member of the leadership team for m:Wiki Cari and staff member at Wiki Education, I could add support for the English-speaking Caribbean tomorrow (or almost tomorrow - we'd need our Board to approve it). But I couldn't do anything to support Spanish, French, Haitian kweyol, or Papiamento speakers. But adding support in other English-speaking countries would require partnerships with local chapters, and more importantly, cultural competence. (People who worked on the pilot programme in Pune back before Wiki Education split from WMF still cringe at the mention of it.) We can't just plant a flag and declare ourselves the global educational org.

And money is a big part of it. While we do get support from WMF, the majority of our funding comes from other sources. Most of the money is restricted funding (which means that LiAnna gets to do fun things like estimate how much of my time I spend supporting classes working on science communication), so we can't just shift from one thing to another.

Ideally this is something the Hubs model can fix. If we end up with an education hub, and if WMF funds it adequately, it could be a body to coordinate (and fund) the creation of support programmes across countries, regions, and languages. I have no idea the extent to which WMF will actually devolve authority to the Global Council and the Hubs, but I strongly believe that's a way forward. (Now back to the pile of student issues that are waiting in my email inboxes.) Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

you lot are getting real off topic here. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

82.173.160.29 and List of roads in Iceland

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

The IP adds a (sourced) text to the article which I believe is not compatible with WP:NOT (see the last iteration, in which they accuse me in "hiding" information from users). They have done this five times. They did not respond on their talk page, and I was also not the first person posting there (though the first one concerning this incident). Could an uninvolved user have a look please. I might of course very well be wrong, but I believe what they add is not encyclopedic information.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I guess driving in Iceland is unsafe...? El_C 12:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. We will see whether it still remains unsafe after 60 hours. Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I miss the old Ice Road Truckers. Good times. El_C 12:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor deleting my talk page comment

Here [439]. And deleted my attempt to talk about it.[440] Kokomel (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is about Generalrelative, and I've given them the necessary ANI notification. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers. I believe that my edit summaries say all that needs to be said. If anyone is not aware of the pattern of abuse on that talk page, I'll be happy to answer questions. Generalrelative (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Folks new to the situation should have a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev. MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I just engaged with these comments. The filer here is attempting to argue against the scientific consensus which is so well-documented at that article by claiming the consensus's "absurdity is self evident" and wildly misrepresenting sources. Happy (Slap me) 15:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Blocked - I've got enough evidence to be sure this is Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of 72.138.81.218

Resolved

 – TPA has been revoked

72.138.81.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this IP vandal uses his talk page to attack others after being blocked, TPA revoke is needed. PAVLOV (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5

2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Denial_of_high_quality_(scientific)_sources, this IP has attempted to prove that it is reliable. However, when met opposal, he resorts to harrassing other users until they give a yes for an answer, even making accusations/attacks.

Some examples;

Your statement is based on assumptions, blasphemic insults and claims that you cannot prove. You are also denying obvious facts. There is nothing more to add.

Again, all these guidlines are a pale reflection of your wishes how the fellow discussant has to behave in order to please your mind. Nothing to to with the subject.

I do not really feel inclined to answer to this strange word game. Why are you trying too play this word game card now. Everybody know the institutions name. There is no rational reason to continue this misleading style.

I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April, ca. 11 hours ago). Unfortunately I am now here again because you manipulated the conversation thread. It is apparently clear why you felt inclined to do this.

Not when you provoked a clear revival (there has been 2 hours between your first answer and your second manipulated answer).

HistoryofIran just tries to push through a reverse sovereignty of interpretation. See my comment on his manipulated comment (with a time difference of 2 hours) to revive a pointless discussion over who is right or false .

It is interesting to see how you try to interpret my words (repeatedly), while you are actually only describing yourself. Might sound weird to you but take it with serenity.

Ok. Showing an manipulated edit from the revision history is also part of accusations now.

Apparently, when someone disagrees with him, they are in 'denial';

Denial of high quality (scientific) and ministry sources

Denial of high quality (scientific) sources

Two users deny the credebility of high quality (scientific) and ministry sources. See Slatersteven's and HistoryofIran's edits

or it means you are in denial and you warnt me to file a dispute resolution.

How when a previous noticeboard ended in denial?

This looks like a pretty big WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me, and perhaps even WP:JDLI. I could add more, but I think it might look random and offputting, as these comments are part of a pretty big 'discussion'.

Moreover, I also believe he is abusing the system at this rate. After he failed to achieve consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, he went to WP:ANI [441], and now WP:DRN [442].

All this might be a bit out of context, I'm sorry for that, tried to make it as understandable as possible. Hope an admin will look into it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t bypass the Dispute Resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ethnicities_in_Iran_discussion —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Said IP 'started making edits on Wikipedia today on 11 April 2022,[443] yet their editorial pattern mimicks that of an experienced Wikipedia user. They know their way around extremely well. Within just a few hours, they have made sections at WP:DRN[444] and WP:RSN, and are involved in making complex edits overal. The odds that they are just a random user who just somehow happened to be "blessed" with skills that quite a few don't possess even after 1-2 years of large-scale editing is from the realm of wishful thinking. There are strong WP:GAME violations going on (forumshopping, wikilawyering), and I'm not even necessarily speaking about the quality of said source which they insists on adding to Wikipedia (already left a comment about that at WP:RSN). - LouisAragon (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And here[445] they just struck the ANI notice left on their talk page by user:HistoryofIran. These are not skills someone possesses after a few hours of editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You call it skills? I learned these 14 years ago when I went to the Vocational school. Why are you so upset with me? —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t bypass the Dispute Resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ethnicities_in_Iran_discussion and don’t copy paste your accusations which I have already answered: wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arbitrary_break —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't bypass the ANI case. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I had nothing to bypass [446]—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have closed the DRN case because this WP:ANI thread is also pending. A dispute at WP:ANI takes priority over a dispute at DRN. If there is a remaining content dispute among survivors after this thread is closed, a new DRN thread can be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this priority. For now we are in the final phase: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arbitrary_break. So far, HistoryofIran (and LouisAragon) are the only ones who want an early exclusion of me even before the discussion has ended. I feel sorry that my person created such a mess here. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea about the allegation of what (I assume) is socking. I would say they seem to be an SPA, that only want to add one map to one article. Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

But I am also not sure about how Historyofiran has acted either. Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As for my part, I am overwhelmed of how deeply polarized this matter is (considering the revision history of Ethnicities in Iran). Never thought 1 map could evoke such a reaction (interupt at any cost), ′especially when other users like Alaexis and Austronesier began to oppose him.—2A02:3030:C:6060:6C36:47C1:F18D:8396 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with people apparently "opposing" me. You created several threads and attacked other users, no wonder it got polarized. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t know where to go with this, I admit that was my personal dilemma. But I don’t see any personal attack I would have expressed against you. Also, saying that other people are “lacking sth.“ is also not nice. THAT wasn‘t polite (= polarization). —2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SANCTIONGAME. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how you try to interpret my words (repeatedly), while you are actually only describing yourself. Might sound weird to you but take it with serenity. I invite you to calm down with me together, so we can wait for the RS results. After that I won‘t bother you anymore. Promised.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case. I'll let the admins handle the rest. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

At the RSN discussion, the IP was warned yesterday that they're doing themselves a "disservice by trying to dominate the debate", which they responded to by apologizing and saying "I will withdraw from the discussion". Since that comment, they've edited the discussion 18 times. The page could use a break from the bludgeoning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have alteady refuted this claim on the RS page multiple times, see: [447], [448]. The allegations of HistoryofIran do not include the engagement of other user’s constructive content-related comments. HistoryofIran also asks for Unasked advices from other users. Thanks.—-2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The best way to show you're not harassing a user is to follow their contribs to other talk pages, and the best way to show you're not bludgeoning is to respond to someone pointing out you're still bludgeoning after you were warned and said you'd stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But what should I have done after this manipulation aiming to provoke the continuation of a non-content-based interaction. It‘s kind of being in a trap with no exit for me.--2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You should've ignored it and waited some time for other editors to provide feedback. Trying to say the last word rarely works on Wikipedia. I think that both editors have made their case and should just let uninvolved editors weigh in on the issue. This is a garden variety content dispute which escalated beyond all measure. Alaexis_¿question? 18:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

BrickMaster02's conduct

• BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs)

I patrol recent changes, and I've noticed an unacceptable amount of incivility from BrickMaster02, especially directed towards new editors. The most egregious case I found was on 25 Words or Less, where an IP editor was reverted with the edit summary "FUCKING UNSOURCED!!!!!". Although the IP was blocked for disruptive editing, not even a template was placed on their talk page.

On occasions where they did warn editors, BrickMaster02 was a bit uncivil even with the templates, appending "Go away." to {{Uw-vandalism4im}}. They would have to go out of their way to do this. In the case of 108.202.57.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), their edits didn't even appear to be vandalism, yet they were reverted and severely warned. Mardecayrigboi12436 (talk · contribs) was warned in a similar manner, but they appear to be a good-faith editor learning the ropes. BrickMaster02 eventually reported them to AIV, and no action was taken. A previous block mentions similar behavior.

I hate conflict and don't like to drag folks to ANI, but this behavior is unacceptable and appears to be a systemic problem, judging by their block log. Someone with this temperament can't be patrolling recent changes. Sunmist (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC); edited 03:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• The user also has been undoing edits on iCarly (2021 TV series) wrt the awards the show received at the 2022 KCAs without providing any form of explaination as to why he reverted our edits. Interestingly after undoing mine and another user's edits, he has added back the awards to the article. Not sure what his deal is 190.83.141.216 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's the view from the other side, leaving the profanities in edit summaries aside: We get a whole torrent of random changes to film, television, and sports articles changing data in those articles from release dates to actors' names and more besides. We even have the odd long-term persistent vandal or two.

    Special:Diff/1081948152 is barely distinguishable from this, and BrickMaster02 isn't the only editor to insist that edits to entertainment articles cite sources. Indeed, if you go User talk:BrickMaster02, where neither of you have actually talked to BrickMaster02 about this, you'll find, in the section immediately above the ANI discussion notification, EvergreenFir talking to BrickMaster02 about an editor without an account that is going around making edits like Special:Diff/1081763488 to entertainment articles, that one just yesterday.

    Best practice to distinguish onesself from the vandals is to cite sources. All that said, this leaves aside the edit summaries and doesn't furthermore explain what happened in the edit history of that iCarly article. But, again, neither of you has actually asked BrickMaster02 about that latter. You have a problem with an editor with very poor communication skills and a lack of self-control. But you aren't communicating either.

    Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked twice for personal attacks and battleground behavior. Putting aside the sourcing concerns, which I agree are valid, it's clear this user has not learned their lesson. If they cannot control their anger, then they have no place on Wikipedia. I certainly don't claim to be perfect, as I have gotten heated before, but it's not a recurring problem. Amaury • 07:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

stop it wikipediatards, just shut the fuck up! I just did the whole fucking thing for fun and you guys fucking hate it? you don't understand freedom. Mardecayrigboi12436 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Mardecayrigboi12436 was Warned by BrickMaster02 on 10 April ("You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Go away.") Not clear how that led to M's outburst above, except that a draft by M was Speedy deleted as a hoax by an Admin on 11 April. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I think we've heard all we need to from Mardecayrigboi12436. The sooner indeffed the better. Ravenswing 11:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And with that little outburst, I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that Mardecayrigboi tried to get a blatant hoax draft accepted by appealing to the teahouse, knew it was a hoax, not a good-faith editor. That seems to have been noticed here too, however. casualdejekyll 18:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

CoolChib124

Edit warring with multiple users at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 [449], [450], [451], and now bombarding my talk page with "fuck off" messages at least 10 times in a row. Geogene (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed. That's just ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
•  
  • "FUCK YOU LOL"
  • 10 "fuck off" edits in that many minutes.
• Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Although to be fair, he did say that the "fuck off" didn't apply if you were Malaysian. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
    • ☺ Checking the edit history, this isn't the first time. Warnings were issued to the account for Special:Diff/1057031068. It occurs to me that a tag for uses of U 1F595 on a talk page might be useful. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can't see a productive use for it. I'll add it to the EF requests. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
        • I just checked the edit filters to see whether one could be extended to cover it, but there does not seem to be anything in that area. The closest is repeating characters, filter #135, but that's for article space. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

          Would support a filter for U 1F595. There is honestly no valid reason why anyone should be using it on-wiki in the first place. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

          what about those lists of unicode character articles? 晚安 (トークページ) 13:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

          This can be handled by a warn and log as opposed to a disallow... but honestly, I would disallow just because of how little valid use it has. Plus afaik it wouldn't catch edits in the past casualdejekyll 19:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like my AGF with them is wasted. There are many actions before this that would get the user indeffed immediately. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:8803:5902:2B00:E512:E524:29BF:8324 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Continued vandalism on own talk page despite rangeblocks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

TP access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Cassiopeia inappropriate deleting, dictating what is and isn't a sources, inappropriate up for deletion

This is my firct time making a complaint so please excuse me if i get this wrong. Cassiopeia Is the person I making the complaint about. Over last couple of weeks he has put multiple Articles for deletion despite the articles meeting the notibility criteria under WP:NBOX. On top of that when I go to add information and add sources into the articles to meet his demands he goes on and deletes them stating its unreliable. Granted one is Facebook and the other is Youtube, but the Youtube footage are the offical broadcast and sources of the information provided. He also claims a News source in Australia called Courier Mail is unreliable even though there is no such thing that suggest otherwise. Despite if he doesnt agree with it they are still a source, even there is a weak source. I feel he is making inappropriate editing to these pages, inappropriate articles up for deletions, making comments that are inappropriate to the conversations when up to debate and instead of fixing the articles that doesnt have enough sources (even though the is literally hundreds of articles on google) he would rather put the articles up for deletion. Article I am refering to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izu Ugonoh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Kelleher, Benjamin Kelleher, Izu Ugonoh. I dont know if I have the right to complain or if this complain fulls into the right category but i feel this is not in good will or good spirit of wikipedia and make editing anything on wikipedia very difficult. --Bennyaha (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Pls understand Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. Pls note that nomination of AfD is not an offend and discussion should be in the AfD page. Secondly, you disagree with not reliable source removal such as facebook, utube and courier mail then pls go to the article talk page and raise a discussion which ANI is not the right channel. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• The comment about hundreds of articles was referring to Izu Ugonoh however it is in multiple different languages. Bennyaha (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Generally the best response to the sourcing issues pointed out by Cassiopeia to you is to find better sources that are in compliance with Wikipedia policy, not to complain at ANI about the editor's enforcement of the policy, which extends to inappropriate use of primary sources like fight broadcasts. The articles you mention appear to have been nominated in good faith, and the AfD process is playing out. I note that one was withdrawn by Cassiopeia, which argues for Cassiopeia's reasonableness. I see nothing actionable here. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• And as for Special:Diff/1081517714: The idea that The Courier-Mail is unreliable just because it is in tabloid format is an error derived from a lingering Briticism ("tabloid journalism") that hasn't been true since some reliable British newspapers changed format many years ago. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 222#All newspapers that publish in tabloid format are not reliable sources?. There appears to be no specific discussion of the Courier-Mail at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at all, let alone a consensus that is unreliable and a listing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

  Question the source for the fact that it isn't actually reporting the result and supporting the article content, or that it doesn't seem to stick to a single spelling of the person's surname and probably wasn't proofread let alone fact checked. But we don't currently have a consensus for the Courier-Mail being blanket unreliable for no other reason.

  Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Cassiopeia User:Cassiopeia in reflection of this i would appreciate you put back all the references you deleted from courier mail. --Bennyaha (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Done. Ping one place and not a few other pages for the same request. Cassiopeia talk 01:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Same applied to Zac67 User:Zac67, this user did a lot of inappropriate deleting, dictating what is and isn't a sources, inappropriate up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.129.10.135 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Cassiopeia appears to have they're own interpretation of what meets GNG [452], this is problematic when you realize they've opened several AFDs based on their interpretation, and not on policy. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the deletion discussions are ongoing. What do you wish to accomplish at ANI? I see no pressing issue with Cassiopeia's conduct, and there has been no evidence submitted that there is a consistent or longstanding issue. Editors are permitted to disagree on notability guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if making AFDs is in good faith which i can accept, dictating what sources are or are not reliable in his own interpretation is not in good faith. Making massive amount of edits without discussion and saying its not reliable is not in good faith. Talking about courier mail here in the Benjamin Kelleher page. Bennyaha (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop with the accusations of bad faith, please. Disagreement with you is bnot evidence of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the first place for the discussion is the article talk page and not here which is the norm and procedures. If there is a discussion reaised, and after many discussions and things will be extremely hostile and disruptive, then you come to ANI for ANI is the last resort to seek for assitance and intervention. Cassiopeia talk 01:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Shantae related pages

Over the last couple of days, there's been multiple instances of a user making edits to pages related to the Shantae game series (see: [453] [454] [455]), then immediately reverting themselves with a passive-aggressive message about myself, presumably due to some bizarre grudge over my reverting their edits and getting them temp-blocked for disruptive editing over a year ago. (If you look at the histories for Shantae and Shantae and the Seven Sirens, you will see them attempting to do so under multiple IPs beginning with 2601:280:c600:cfa0, dating back nearly two years). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we be honest for a second? Shantae is both racist and sexist. 2600:387:F:4012:0:0:0:B (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Can any admin see that this is blatantly WP:NOTHERE to the highest degree? (Some people would have a VERY GOOD argument for blocking me over NOTHERE, but this is way, way, way more of a problem) casualdejekyll 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem wp:nothere yourself. 107.115.5.118 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sabbatino

The participant breaks the rules WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:CIVIL.

• Sabbatino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flag of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Remove template {{Fact}}, falsely claiming that the source is in the file description (The file itself has a source). Re-deleting the template {{Fact}} with an unfounded accusation (rvt Putinist editor). Please remind the participant about the rules and limit editing of the article Flag of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know - you were supposed to notify Sabbatino using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~.

Don't worry, I've done that for you - just a reminder for in future. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It is you who should not be allowed to edit topics related to Lithuania. You have always edited in pro-Russian manner and always caused problems in Lithuania-related articles in the past. In addition, the fact that you were insulted by my last edit summary just shows that you truly are that. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You should only make accusations backed up with evidence, and make them at the appropriate place (here not in edit summaries). If there are long term issues with Лобачев Владимир editting you need to supply that evidence in the form of diffs, or drop the WP:ASPERSIONS.

I'm going to drop a comment at Talk:Flag of Lithuania about the flag, as content is a separate issue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that this explanation of the reason for the cancellation is typical for the participant. Here is an example in relation to user Uladzislaw Gumiennik: Rvt Litvinist (Lukashist) nonsense (Grand Duchy of Lithuania). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Another example: Rvt nationalist editor --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• I believe, that such edits ([456], [457]) are unacceptable. There is no place for discrimination of any editor based on their language or origins in the Wikipedia. By the way, the point of view that the modern Belarusians are the rightful heirs of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania has nothing to do with either Lukashenko (as the head of the Russian occupation administration of Belarus), or the Russian regime as a whole. What they both really do is Russification of Belarus (the more complete article in Belarusian be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі), and the Belarusian (so call "Litvinist") point of view is based on the dominance of the Belarusian language in the GDL. On the other hand, statements that Belarusians have nothing to do with the GDL are very convenient for Putin's supporters, as they justify the Russian occupation of Belarus, which is presented as a liberation of "White Russians" (other Russians, who never have their own state in the history according to such chauvinistic point of view) from the "Polish-Lithuanian yoke". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Pogchamuepeo

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's userpage alone admits to block evasion. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on their talk page. If they were blocked in the land of long ago, and have abided by that block for multiple years, they might be a candidate for a standard offer. Let's get some details before hitting the indef button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping Drmies. You want to take a look at this? They were fairly upfront on their user page that they were previously blocked. He claims the block was lifted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

PerryPerryD, please put links in your post. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, you're pinging me either because my son is a pog champ, or because I'm a CU--but I'm loath to run CU which is probably not going to show anything anyway if it was years ago. Let's see where the user goes--ROPE applies, and I doubt we're dealing with a prolific and disruptive sock master. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 14 April 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.

Editor GULAG4U14413 seems to be here only to push a POV agenda and/or harass people

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.

---

GULAG4U14413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the edit summary for their first edit. in which they state: " I hate gay people"

And then the edit warring over their addition on the Abortion statistics in the United States article.

In my opinion, this editor seems unlikely to be a positive contributor.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 22:48, 13 April 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:Dimitrovja

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.

---

Dimitrovja (talk · contribs) has been adding some incorrect and borderline incoherent material to Java (programming language), as well as nearly incoherent drafts and duplicate articles in other languages (speedied now, see deleted contribs). Their response to warnings about this has been to post repeatedly on my talk page - 28 times over the last few hours, including 6 after I've told them I'd come to this noticeboard if they kept going. I'm not 100% sure if this is deliberate disruption (they are blocked as a vandal on sv.wikipedia.org) or the result of poor English skills, but I suppose either way the result is the same. Please place a WP:CIR block. - MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 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 and subtle vandalism

RafaelHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subtly vandalising fight records for a while now and/or replacing sourced information with that which isn't sourced. In [edit], RafaelHP goes so far as to completely alter a entire fight record in contrast to all reliable sources. They have changed a no contest to a loss and adapted the entire page to make the change. This is subtle vandalism and a big problem in MMA pages. The MMA fighter infobox contains a link to Sherdog, which is what we use unless stated otherwise by RS. The most common alternative is ESPN.

To return to the vandalism example, please see the two prominent RS on the fight Sylvia vs Arlovski, which have the fight as No Contest.

Sherdog: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tim-Sylvia-1061 ESPN: https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/2354048/tim-sylvia

Now see RafaelHP's edit, which undoes the correct result and adapts the entire record to accommodate the vandalism:

[NC becomes a loss and the article is changed]

In another example on a different page, RafaelHP here changes an extraordinary 8 different pieces of sourced information and provides not a single source to back up the changes. Please see here for the source: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329

[8 sourced results without a single source]

Attempts by other editors and me to address this include:

[[458]] [[459]] [[460]] [[461]] [[462]]

Their responses, other than to delete the comments, tend to be petulant, as [[463]] and [[464]].

It's enormously frustrating having to identify subtle vandalism in fight records, and this editor's disruptive editing has, in my opinion, gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[465]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This response does not address the issues raised in the complaint. NEDOCHAN is not saying that Sherdog is the only source that can be used; their complaint says that you changed it from something that was supported by both Sherdog and ESPN, and you provided no source when doing so. If you have explained that change somewhere, feel free to post a link to that explanation rather than typing it out again - I don't see anything on the article talk page, or on your own talk page (although you seem often to blank that, so it's not easy to read through older discussions, so I might have missed something). Girth Summit _(blether) 22:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the issues in the complaint and what I did. I changed the result because I was sure there was a source somewhere that would corroborate my edit, but there wasn't and that's my mistake for making the edit in the first place though. I also found it interesting that NEDOCHAN reverts edits that are supported by Sherdog without any sources given, essentially removing sourced content for strictly no reason. See here: [[466]] [[467]].

I'm also pretty positive that this ANI post was made in revenge. Notice how after he reverts my edit for the third time (without any proper explanation given) 20 minutes later an ANI post is made about me. [[468]] [[469]] [[470]]. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See the above example of vandalism on Tim Sylvia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tangentially, not having looked deeply at the MMA edits above, I'm concerned by Rafael's non-response to a query about a disruptive move. I'll credit that Rafael moved the article back, but I would have liked to see an explanation for why the edit happened in the first place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RafaelHP can you expand a bit more on why you made a change before you had checked to see whether it was supportable by sources? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that I have tried on many many occasions to discuss Rafael's problematic editing, as have many others on many, many occasions. I have linked to five attempts above. This is not an isolated incident and the Frank Mir edit is just as egregious as the Sylvia one. Although Rafael chooses to delete their talk page, a review of it will reveal a litany of posts seeking explanation and cessation of these editing habits. I'll let admins do their thing but I would suggest that Rafael no longer be allowed to edit fight records. This would allow them to continue their other work and encourage them to stop with the kind of edits their talk page shows cause disruption.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The problematic edit I identified is outside of the topic of fight records; IMO the pattern of problematic editing doesn't seem to be subject-driven. A topic-ban from BLPs could maaaybe address the issue, or at least move it away from sensitive subject matter, but my sense is that unless we get a good explanation and about-face from Rafael here, escalating blocks may be the only adequate response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say removing my ability to edit fight records would solve nothing, considering only two of the examples you've brought up are in relation to fight records. I'm honestly not sure what to say at this point, I've tried cooperating with nedochan but they continuously revert my edits with loose explanation given half the time. Personally I'd say we should both be blocked from editing for a week to cool off, but that obviously won't happen. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill above has brought up another example. Rafael's unwillingness to address the actual issue either here or on their talk page is worrying. Deletion, obfuscation and whataboutery seem to be the only response. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Above, I asked you to comment on why you changed content without checking to see whether any sources supported the change. You haven't responded to that - I'd appreciate an answer. At the moment, I tend to agree with Rosguill that someone who is willing to change content on BLP articles because they are sure that sources would support a change without bothering to actually check the sources first needs not to be editing BLPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I was sure I had seen a source that corroborated my edit beforehand. There's no deeper story, I just made a mistake. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also funny that you agree I shouldn't edit BLPs because of that mistake, yet when OP changes sourced content for no reason [471] [472] or even overrides a talk page consensus to change a result to one used by ESPN [473] [474] [475] (ESPN has a business deal with the UFC, making them not independent so why are you using that for UFC results in the first place?), there's no issue apparently. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is that everyone seems to be disregarding nedochan's disruptive editing, which I don't think is very fair. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the first one of your diffs. Pride 32 had said since 2006 that Esch defeated O'Haire by TKO. Here, an IP editor changed a TKO to a KO, without mentioning why they did it or referring to any source. Nedochan reverted that unexplained change here. I don't necessarily see it as disruptive to revert an unexplained change to long-standing content - sure, it's better practice to check the source, but if people don't provide an explanatory edit summary they will often find their changes get knee-jerk reverted. You reinstated the IP editor's change here - your edit summary makes reference to a source, but looking at the article I can't actually see which source is supports any of the content in the table so I'm not sure what you were referring to there. I put 'Pride 32' into Google; I don't know much about reliable sourcing in this topic area, but I clicked on the first two results I got: Tapology labels it 'KO/TKO' and MMA-Core just calls it a TKO. so, my question to you: what source currently in the article supports the change you reinstated? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Source is Sherdog, aka the placeholder source we're supposed to be using case by case but nobody in WP:MMA actually does and alot of people seem to think is the standard for fight results and can never be wrong. But the reason I changed it back to that is because to change fight results you need to actually prove that the majority of independent reliable sources have that result. And I have zero problem with changing fight results as long as they're properly sourced, I don't like the idea of Sherdog being the only source people use for fight records and results. I should note too I've been guilty of changing fight results in an improper manner in the past, but this isn't judgement, it's only to bring attention to fellow disruption. (source btw: [476]). ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand - you say the reason I changed it back to that is because to change fight results you need to actually prove that the majority of independent reliable sources have that result. The IP editor changed the result, without proving anything at all or even leaving an edit summary; NEDOCHAN just put the outcome back to the way the article has been since 2006, but you reverted them to reinstate the IP editor's edit. I can't square what you just said with what you did. I'll add that the source you linked to doesn't appear to be cited anywhere in the article; it would have been better to cite it when you made the change. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'll explain further; Sherdog is a database for mixed martial arts shows, news, and fighters. We use Sherdog as a placeholder source for fighter records (even though Sherdog is technically considered to be less reliable than ESPN and other reliable sources). I'm not sure why we do this but the WP:MMA community seems fine with it, even though it causes tons of mishaps and edit wars. The IP editor changed the result to one that is used in the Sherdog databases, meaning it's technically the right move since there was no source in the article with the previous result. I'm not actually sure if the IP editor meant to change it because it was used by Sherdog or if it was just a random edit, no explanation was given. Also Sherdog is always linked for MMA fighter pages. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As much as I understand BOOMERANG and it's part in ANI, I think I should make clear that this ANI is a long time coming and is not only the result of the edits linked above. If you look at Rafael's talk page, you'll see dozens of warnings and requests. It is not simply a case of subtle vandalism of fight records and taking issue with sources. Sometimes it's just plain vandalism, such as [edit, which also contains an inappropriate edit summary]:

Here is [editor's warning]

Undeterred, Rafael continued with outright, unsubtle vandalism, this time with a misogynistic edit: as [[477]]

Amazingly, in spite of the warnings, Rafael once again goes back to another page and mimics the same gross misogynistic hate speech in his next unsubtle vandalism effort, [[478]].

The point is that we have tried to discuss this editor's habits on many, many occasions. They deleted the comments and/or ignore them. As stated at the beginning, this has gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RafaelHP, you've given two completely different reasons for reverting NEDOCHAN at that Pride 32 article. If the first reason was accurate, then your revert was inappropriate because you were reverting to a new, unsourced version, rather than to reinstate long-standing content; if your second reason was accurate, it was inappropriate because the source you used to support the change was not cited anywhere in the article, and you failed to add it when you reverted. As such, especially since you raised this as an instance of someone else being disruptive, this incident gives me serious misgivings about your ability to source content appropriately.

The first diff that NEDOCHAN posted above - which I have just revision deleted - was a serious BLP violations, of the sort that I would block you for on the spot if they had been done recently. You must never post content of that nature to our articles without citing a reliable source. I don't just mean that you need to think that the source exists somewhere, I mean you need to have read it, and you cite it immediately, ideally in the same edit as adding the content. The edit summary you used, which I have also rev deleted, is ridiculously inappropriate in all circumstances, even if the content were to be sourced. The second two diffs are obvious vandalism, which again would have resulted in your account being blocked from editing if they had happened recently. I am going to post some information on your talk page about discretionary sanctions and our WP:BLP policy. Please allow me to make this very clear: if your editing in the area of BLPs continues to be unsourced or poorly sourced, you may be topic banned from the subject area. If you ever make vandalistic edits similar to those that NEDOCHAN posted again, you can expect to be blocked entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Addendum - I actually think that you have been notified about BLP discretionary sanctions already, so I won't post the notice on your talkpage. If you aren't sure what I'm talking about, the BLP policy is at WP:BLP, and discretionary sanctions are explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit You really aren't understanding, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible; The edit that the IP editor made WAS CORROBORATED BY SHERDOG, which is the place holder source for fight records and results. NEDOCHAN reverted the edit with no explanation. I reverted it back because its sourced info? How could that possibly be innapropriate? Sherdog is literally always linked in mma fighter pages in external links, because we copy the records straight from the site and make changes as needed to fit our article structure. To say my revert was unsourced is simply inaccurate. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

And I apologize if I sound mean or rude, it stresses me out a lot when I'm not properly understood. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RafaelHP I do understand that it was supported by the Sherdog source you linked to. However, that source is not cited anywhere in that article. It's not good enough to say that it's a standard source, or that it's cited at other articles - it needs to be cited in the article that you are making changes to, so that readers, and editors who are unfamiliar with your WikiProject's sourcing norms, can verify the information. Is that clear enough?

You have not commented on the obvious vandalism you added to two BLPs last year. Do you understand that such edits can never be acceptable under any circumstances, and undertake never to make edits like that again? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright I guess I'll put the source in the article, I always just assumed it was fine since readers can scroll down the page to see the sources and external links. I am aware of my previous edits from last year (quite embarrassed actually), and have zero intentions of continuing vandalism. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the sources and external links: as I said, it wasn't in the sources. It's not OK to be taken from an external link - that's not what ELs are for, information in the article should come from cited sources (which shouldn't then be duplicated as ELs). This is particularly important when you're reverting another editor - they need to be able to check your source for themswlves to understand why you reverted them. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit. This is now turning into BATTLEGROUND. Rafael has immediately gone back to changing STATUSQUO and sourced info without consensus or talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081602240&oldid=1079427575&title=Fedor_Emelianenko

They then throw some not CIVIL comments at another editor who has noticed their disruptive editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1081959229

This doesn't bode well and for me shows clear intent to continue to disrupt and treat editing as battle.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If I was treating editing as a "battle" I wouldn't have said "if you'd like to continue that discussion i'm open to it, but even that talk page showed an obvious majority from RS for my edit" in my editing note. We HAD a discussion about this exact dispute, that let to a compromise that WE BOTH REVERTED, not just me YOU did as well. No idea either why you're playing the victim because I included myself in an ANI post regarding AFDs, I brought up a concern regarding the editors views on GNG, it had absolutely nothing to do with previous edit discussions, and it's quite annoying that you're trying to twist my attempts to work with you as "an intent to disrupt". ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

While this ANI had been taking place, here are some of your edits:

Here, you return to an article that we have discussed and disagreed on. Your edit summary says you have 'proved' something, although the talk page doesn't suggest that at all, and you're still changing sourced info without discussion or WP:CONSENSUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081602240&oldid=1079427575&title=Fedor_Emelianenko

I reverted the edit, with what I think to be a clear edit summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedor_Emelianenko&diff=1081914646&oldid=1081602240

Without recourse to further discussion as I would expect via WP:BRD, and again while an ANI is taking place, your next edit is to revert again without discussion, saying that you're 'open to discussion' while reverting a sourced edit and not discussing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081944137&oldid=1081914646&title=Fedor_Emelianenko

It is my understanding that sourced/stable info should stand while discussion is ongoing per WP:STATUSQUO. More to the point, a majority of your edits since I opened this ANI have been either to revert my edits or criticise Cassiopoeia, the other editor who has regularly called your conduct and edits into question. That, for me is BATTLEGROUND behaviour and I'm not sure that's going to change.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion ended, it's been inactive for several months, how can WP:STATUSQUO apply here?. Furthermore, I did prove what I claimed; "the majority of independent reliable sources have it as KO" with then a table of sources establishing a clear majority. Your points in that discussion pretty much boil down to "you don't have consensus to change these edits". The claim regarding "a majority of my edits have been either to revert my edits or criticize Cassiopeia" is just plain false. I made one post towards that ANI regarding a concern that Cassiopeia was wrongfully opening AFDs and dictating sources. All I did was shed to light that Cassiopeia has their own interpretation of GNG, and is using it to get pages deleted which I saw as problematic. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also I reverted your edit on Conor McGregor [479] (a page they were previously blocked from editing for a week for disruptive editing), because you directly bypassed an established talk page consensus [480] (which you even participated in), to put results from ESPN (a source that has ties to the UFC). Strange bit of hypocrisy considering how much you get on my case for not having consensus for edits. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@RafaelHP: WP:COI applies to editors, not sources. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 17:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

ESPN is a green RS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that for the Fedor Emelianenko edits, I already did attempt to WP:BRD [481](different page because the fight results were to be changed for both the Fedor page, and this page), and he eventually stopped replying after another editor (Cassiopeia ironically) agree'd with my edits. If that's not a consensus I'm not sure what is, but he seemed to pretty much ignore it and is now asking for yet another discussion where I will have to plead my case a third time, and he'll ignore it and continuously tell me "you need consensus for these edits". It's extremely frustrating, and I don't like to unjustly accuse people, but at this point it really seems like he has a vendetta. I'm more than aware that I've caused some disruption and I have vandalized pages in the past, but I'm doing my best to change here, and it's not helping that he constantly reverts my edits to fight results for essentially no reason other than he doesn't agree with them, and that's fine but I've engaged in the proper discussions and methods to get consensus, but it just never seems to work out with him. I don't know what to do here, it feels like I'm going in circles with this ANI post, at this point just block me or don't, I don't see a reason to keep this discussion going any further. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You are reverting the sourced info, not me. I am reverting your changes and restoring the stable version. This is ridiculous and a good example of disruptive editing.Girth Summit please can you address this and it's clear Rafael is not changing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous to claim I have a vendetta when you are going back to info we've been over on pages I edit to impose your preferred version. I can't believe you appear to have escaped a ban and the amount of evidence I have provided and time I have spent appears to have made no difference, which in my opinion is an error on the part of the admin. You are literally engaging in disruptive editing while an ANI is open regarding your disruptive editing. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in disruptive editing, that's what you're doing. I already followed BRD, I already achieved consensus, and still you're fighting it. So what that the discussion took place on another page? That literally happens all the time on Wikipedia, people will discuss things on talk pages that can have an impact on other pages. I see absolutely no reason to have the exact same discussion yet again, just because it's a different page, it's the exact same edit. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. You think, in your own words, you have 'proved' something, but that is not the same as consensus. I would ask you to seek consensus on the talk page and stop making the edit, at least until an admin has taken a look. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

My difficulty here is that when I look at the history of the Fedor Emelianenko article, I see both of you reverting each other, and using edit summaries rather than the talk page to communicate. That is edit warring, and it's not OK to do that even if you're 'right'. If you care enough about this to be willing to hit the revert button, you need to be using the talk page. It seems apparent that sources don't agree on the matter, so you need to decide figure out what the article should say, and you might want to consider asking for a WP:3O. I will say that the next one of you to reinstate your preferred version without getting consensus to do so is likely to end up blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Way ahead of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quinton_Jackson#vs._Fedor_Emelianenko_at_Bellator_237 ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a discussion from January at the talk page of a different article, in which only three people participated. Since you clearly still don't agree on this matter, go to the talk page of the article you want to change, start a new discussion, and if you like, ping that third party. If you want wider participation, post a neutral message at the relevant WikiProject. Start an RfC, if you really want. Talk it out. But leave off on the reverting - whether you're right or wrong, edit warring gets you blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Rafael, that's a link to an old discussion on a different page. Girth Summit, I don't think this is 50 50 at all. Rafael started making this edit after this ANI was opened, which doesn't seem like as coincidence. I would also remind you that I am restoring sourced, stable info, which I think BRD and STATUSQUO is fair enough.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont like to involved in ANI but would say a few things here since I have posted many warnings and guidelines and comment on User:RafaelHP talk page.

(1) RafaelHP do know info changed/added should be supported by source for verification as per -WP:BURDEN and WP:PROVEIT, so not adding source and change the info is not the way to go or a mistake on his part. My take is RafaelHP edit the fight method as his liking/what he saw fit even he well known source need to be provide.

(2) To accuse me to having agenda or celebrated with other editor to against him is no unfounded, as I have warned literally thousands of thousands editors who harm Wikipedia (either vandalism, disruptive edits and etc) for the last 5 years and working with many mma editors to resolve mma issues. I have never have any communication with NEDOCHAN outside what you find in Wikipedia history log and all those refer to Wikipedia pages/issues. Giving a Banstar toward an editor has nothing to do with hidden agenda/secret editorship but provide an acknowledgement of editor contribution toward Wikipedia and I have given many banstar to many editors.

(3) RafaelHP unwillingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines and unwilling to discuss matter civilly and about issues is at times frustrating and problematic. I have advised RafaelHP to collaborate with other editors and work together many times but it seems the same behavior continue. This ANI starting from Tim Sylvia to many other pages and also the same long history of disruptive editing in other pages prior this one. I do hope RafaelHP would finally learn from this ANI, a part from there are many messages posted in his talk page prior, to edit constructively and work and collaborate with other editors civilly. I will leave it to the admin to decide the outcome of this ANI. Cassiopeia talk 02:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 65.188.214.10

65.188.214.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Diff on Fulbert of Falaise Adakiko (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

IP editor blocked one week for legal threats. IPs get off easy. Let me know if this behavior resumes, and the next block will be longer. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism streak

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

Please block this IP vandal who has defaced nearly 50 pages this morning ASAP. Two reprts have been filed at WP:AIAV. Swift action would be very much appreciated.--Chanaka L (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just reverted them myself actually. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Mass WP:BLP violations. Pretty much every edit is a personal attack, and most probably need to be rev/deleted. An admin may be able to suss out whether this is a repeat offender. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:F31 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • A non-admin might, too. It's not just administrators who do this. Uncle G (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• I got five diffs into the contributions history, and then skipped to the end. Block applied. The last edit was within the last half hour. I leave the more detailed work of revision deletion, if necessary, to another administrator. I've spent too much time as it is on a matter on another noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like he is back. 112.134.210.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). @Uncle G:, if you are online, kindly have a look. Looks like we need need to implement a range block.--Chanaka L (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

SquarePants122 - uncivility as an IP (again)

SquarePants122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question was previously discussed for the same reasoning in October 2021, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#SquarePants122 - uncivility as an IP. Despite the ANI discussion as well as warnings on SquarePants122's talk page, the behavior has still continued on.

Just a bit ago, I had come across 2001:56A:FBD7:400:6C73:7E0F:4199:6EC via The Patrick Star Show. Upon checking the /64 range, I came upon some interesting recent edits on Elizabeth Banks:

• SquarePants122 makes an edit
• Edit is reverted
• IP reverts revert with uncivil edit summary

Thought that was a bit interesting, and checked my previous report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquarePants122/Archive#15 October 2021 and noticed one of the ranges I had reported there was 2001:56A:F170:7200:0:0:0:0/64, quite similar to the current 2001:56A:FBD7:400:0:0:0:0/64 range. Even Vistadan had suspicions the IP belonged to SquarePants122. At this point, it seems clear enough these IPs with these reverts containing uncivility within their edit summaries do indeed belong to SquarePants.

Given their complete ignoring of the previous ANI discussion, the SPI report, as well as warnings on their user talk page, I'm thinking the most effective way to deal with this would be applying an indefinite block on SquarePants122's account until a legitimate explanation is given/a valid promise to end this behavior is given. It's very disappointing that this user (who's been here since 2015!) feels the need to resort to using IPs to attack other users to keep their user account in good-standing. Magitroopa (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Just came upon 137.186.195.148 which appears to include similarly edited articles to SquarePants122, including yet another similar history of edits on The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder:

• SquarePants122 makes an edit
• Edit is reverted
• IP reverts revert with uncivil edit summary

This even more makes me believe that my indefinite block on SquarePants122 as I stated above is the best option to go with. Absolutely terrible to see what they are attempting to hide. Magitroopa (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

SquarePants122 has been checkuser-blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuous Disruptive Edits by User:Avish773

The User is repeatedly removing the content which was added after a brief discussion and removing content which was added after a brief discussion on Anupamaa's talk page. Sufficient number of warnings has been issued. But the User neither responds to those messages neither stops himself from doing those unconstructive edits. Administrators please look into this matter. Pri2000 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant {{u|Avish773}} rather than [[u|Avish773]]. The square bracket version opens the Wikipedia entry for "U". - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You are also required to notify users when raising issue at ANI, as per the editing banner. I have done this for you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Debashreedhar19 and COI editing

Debashreedhar19 (talk · contribs) heavily edits Arunita Kanjilal and Pawandeep Rajan articles (and some related articles). The overall edits are often POV in nature [482] for example, and sourcing has required a lot of pushing for sources, removing unsourced, adding social media sections [483]. All this feels like either WP:COI or WP:PAID editing happening. I've left multiple messages around the needed disclosures most recently, but they haven't responded. They have commented on their talk page in the past [484], so they are aware of it and several of the paid editing messages were on the talk page at that time. I'm hoping for some review of this and if warranted, a block to prevent further POV editing around these articles. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)