Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080

User:Neverrainy

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

Despite numerous warnings and blocks, Neverrainy continues to be a problematic contributor. Recent offenses include blanking sections of their own talk page instead of communicating, unexplained deletion of referenced material, and refusal to use talk pages to get a consensus. As Swarm put it, the only option eventually becomes to block them indefinitely. Stewartmurdock (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he's blanked his AN/I notification kinda speaks for itself. Is there enough grounds for at least a semi-permanent block here? Stewartmurdock (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is free to remove content from their user talk-page, including ANI notices. This report (with exactly one potentially problematic diff) does not do an effective job of illustrating a pattern of disruption. If there is a genuine pattern of disruption here, it should be easy to document it. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Check their contribs and block log. Known history of disruptive edits. Here's two more examples just from the past month, where they've deleted referenced content without so much as communicating first on the corresponding talk page: [1] [2]. Also have a look at their talk page history - I'm not the first to have complained about their edits and I'll probably not be the last. Stewartmurdock (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, in [1], the source doesn't support the text. It was right to be removed. Am I missing something? -- Mike 🗩 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I also do not see a problem with [2], the source used was WP:PRIMARY and the information was too detailed. -- Mike 🗩 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(Of course it would be much better if Neverrainy had used explanatory edit summaries that said that!) --JBL (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

True. My biggest grievance is overall lack of communication. Explanatory edit summaries and use of talk pages would solve that. Stewartmurdock (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Avram Biafra'im disruptive editing/POV-pushing/blanking at Igbo Jews

User:Avram Biafra'im, seemingly a single purpose account has, after first adding unsourced opinion/WP:OR to the lead of Igbo Jews ([[1]]), has repeatedly deleted sourced material without explanation: first here [[2]] and then again here [[3]]. I reverted their edits, restoring it each time with explanations in the notes, and they continued to edit war. Another user, User:JellyMan9001, has also reverted them with explanations and posted notices to their user page, but Avram continues to edit war and ignore warnings. In my last reversion I added new sources to the lead (despite having explained previously that the statement it was sourced in the body of the article), asked them not to edit war but instead to discuss on the Talk page, and warned them that if they continued edit warring they would be reported. But Avram continues to delete the material again without explanation. They then reverted my restoration (again) including the additional refs and replaced it with a statement sourced to a non-WP:RS religious website (see here [[4]]). My edit was then restored by JellyMan9001 here: [[5]], whom Avram then reverted.

Avram continues to edit war and has ignored three notices placed on their personal Talk page by JellyMan9001 to not remove content without a valid explanation (here [[6]]). They are persistently and disruptively deleting material they do not like while not explaining why it should not be included (other than unfounded claims of bias).

In two earlier edits on the same page, months ago, the same user, Avram Biafra'im, had deleted sourced information and added a significant amount of unsourced material, here [[7]] and here [[8]] saying that they were doing so because they were offended by the article. Both then and here, their deletions seems to be a case of WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They seem unwilling to listen to explanations and are disregarding policies after having had them explained.

Avram continues to edit war and blank sourced information without explanation, and refuse to engage. They have reverted, first mine, and then JellyMan's edits/restorations more than once, without explanation (in their first reversion of Jellyman claiming to be "deleting biased information", here: [[9]], and then reverting him two more times (here [[10]] and here [[11]]), with edit summaries that seem to be incoherent/not to make sense.

Here is the page's history for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Igbo_Jews

Any help/attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

So warn them for edit-warring and make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeE11 They were warned more than once (in the edit notes by me and on their personal page by JellyMan9001, here [[12]]). Are you sure the edit warring noticeboard is a better place to file a report than here? There seems to be a conduct issue on their part beyond edit warring (repeated blanking without explanation, refusing to engage). Perhaps you are right, but I am not sure. Their continuing disregard for Wikipedia policy in the interest of POV (along with the seeming single purpose nature of their account) makes it seem like they are WP:NOTHERE. Skllagyook (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Partial block. User:JayBeeEll, your comment is both unhelpful and chilling to people who take the trouble to write up a full and clear report here. This is obviously not just about edit warring. I have partial-blocked Avram Biafra'im indefinitely from Igbo Jews. Bishonen | tålk 12:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: Thanks for the feedback, sorry to you and Skllagyook for the bother. --JBL (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

just some vandalism

• 1912 Normally I just revert vandalism when I come across it, but on this page the events of March 1912 were deleted and my "wikiskills" are not good enough to figure out where in the history of the page they are. I also just left the nonsense at the end of february because, I believe, it's possible it would aid you guys in detecting the whole thing. --Dutchy45 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've fixed it. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Near-identical designs

A user I frequently interact with is designing their user page, user talk page, and signature in a way that's almost identical to mine. While this is somewhat irritating, I'm more concerned about other users growing suspicious about sockpuppetry being at play in the future since I know these similarities are used as evidence often. Would it be helpful to ask them to disclose that they have copied my designs (if indeed this was the case) to ward off any potential suspicions? I've been accused of sockpuppetry multiple times, so I'm trying to be precautious. KyleJoan^talk 07:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If the editor has copied anything then they should disclose the fact to comply with our copyright licence. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone copied my userbox months ago, and I just though it a little odd. Is this some new form of impersonation, then? - Sumanuil (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

But I'm not sure whether formatting similarities violate the copyright policy. This is where the confusion is for me regarding what to do. At first, it was minor similarities between our user pages, then signatures, then they formatted their user talk page's archive box and table of contents almost exactly like mine right after I made my changes. KyleJoan^talk 08:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's just formatting, I wouldn't be concerned unless there's either intent to deceive or the potential for misunderstanding. "Someone made a similar change to their own userpage shortly after I made it to mine" isn't at all unusual—people seeing a change on a page they follow, thinking "that looks cool, I didn't know you could do that, I'll copy the formatting for my own page" is a tradition that goes back to the earliest user-editable sites like MySpace (and arguably back to prehistory). Wikipedia's internal instructions on formatting are incomprehensible when they exist at all; virtually everything non-standard you see when it comes to formatting derives from someone seeing something they liked the look of and copying the code. ‑ Iridescent 08:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the potential for misunderstanding in relation to sockpuppetry is there because the similarities are noticeable in many respects. That said, what I'm gathering from your response is that these similarities wouldn't be considered strong evidence to support accusations since it is common for users to copy others' formatting. Is this correct, Iridescent? KyleJoan^talk 08:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Without knowing who the other editor is I can't compare to see if they're imitating you to an unreasonable degree, but variations on "I really like what that person has done there, I'm going to use it as well" and the like are routine (most of the formatting of my talk page was filched from a long-blocked editor caller Jack Merridew, while Pedro has barely edited for years but I still regularly see people using the design of his signature despite in most cases probably not even knowing where it comes from). Without wanting to get you too paranoid, if there genuinely were any suspicions raised as to whether you and someone else were the same person, we have ways to detect that fairly quickly if it were ever to become necessary. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

To add to what Iridescent says, you only have to point to this very thread if an accusation of sockpuppetry on the basis of such evidence is made. Unless you are a very expert fraudster I would think that no-one would believe that after spotting the potential suspicion you would still go ahead and use similar formatting for a sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfair treatment by an administrator and an editor

Avatar317 and I disagreed on the content that should be in Troy Newman (Activist) intro. I edited the intro for clarity, brevity, adherence to sources and and article summarization. My edits were reverted by Avatar317, who wrote "The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and that info is covered in the article". I replaced the information, noting "The information that I have deleted is not covered in the article and I could find no source to support it."

Avatar317 reverted it again, then told me where he or she would allow me to edit: "You could do minor grammar edits separately, those are acceptable." I was horrified by Avatar317's assumption that he or she could dictate where and how I would be allowed to edit. I left a post on Avatar317's Talk page explaining my edits, conceding one of his or her points and asked for the assumption of good faith. Thinking the editor would now understand, I returned the language to how it was originally, before any reversions occurred.

Avatar317 reverted the content again, at which point I chose to walk away. I know I reverted at least three times, and that is something I now regret. I truly thought my explanations would suffice. They always have, so I had no reason to believe they wouldn't now. I have always found that when you take the time to explain your edits, people usually gain an understanding and agree. However, when I realized Avatar317 was not going to see my point of view, I realized the situation had devolved into an edit war and I walked away.

To my horror, the next day I found a flurry of additions to my Talk page from administrator Doug Weller, which included an edit-warring warning. Despite the fact that Avatar317 had reverted my edits at least three times, there was no warning on his page. Doug Weller then posted on my Talk page that he left the warning because he'd "...rather be warned about something that I might accidently <sic> do than not be told," as if he left the warning just in case I might become involved in an edit war. Doug Weller said that he left no warning on v's page because "he already had one."

I wrote to Doug Weller, telling him Avatar317 had several edit-warring warnings, and had even been blocked for edit warning, but there was no warning about the Troy Newman (Activist) article, and I pointed out that I had an unblemished record for 11+ years of editing. Of course, there have been times when editors left messages on my Talk page questioning me, but that is normal for any active editor. I had no formals warnings of any type in more than a decade of editing for Wikipedia.

Doug Weller wrote back giving his Wikipedia credentials, which gave the appearance that he was endeavoring to quiet me out of respect over the positions of authority he has held. He then accused me of not acting in good faith because I questioned him. I asked Doug Weller to treat both Avatar317 and I equally and fairly. My request was met with silence.

In my research over this after the warning appeared on my Talk page, I noticed that Doug Weller had, within about a year, given Avatar317 a Barnstar Award, despite Avatar317's troubled Wikipedia history.

I'd already walked away from the Troy Newman (Activist) article, hoping to avoid what I was recognizing as an edit war. I took time to offer explanations: in the Troy Newman (Activist) article, on Avatar317's Talk page and then on Doug Weller's. Avatar317 never participated in a discussion or offered one. I was the one who walked away, but I was the one cited.

How does Avatar317 emerge from this freely? Does that not encourage continued bad acts, as per his history? Also, I am confused by Doug Weller's behavior. At best, he exercised poor judgment, and at worst, he showed favoritism. Either way, he should be accountable for his actions. Is Doug Weller exempt from oversight because of his position as administrator and the positions on Wikipedia he has held? I believe, based on the credentials he listed, that he would be held to a higher standard and that fair and balanced dealing with editors would be his first instinct.

Thank you for considering this issue. Please understand that I do not believe I escape oversight. I recognized the beginning of an edit war too late, making the assumption that my past success with editors would always serve me. I should have recognized that before I made the last reversion, even though I truly thought my explanations were sufficient. I was wrong. I will recognize warring more quickly now and will walk away before I come under scrutiny. I ask only that Avatar317 and I be treated fairly and equally, and that Doug Weller be accountable for poor judgment.

God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

So you want Doug Weller to warn Avatar317? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No paragraph breaks and the same things linked over and over again, my eyes just glaze over. El_C 02:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Mine do, as well. I will fix. Sorry, my first time here. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, that would be a start... MarydaleEd (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The OP's talk page 'exchange' with Doug Weller is a mess. First, there's a lengthy treatise written in response to the abortion DS alert, even though it was made clear to the OP that these alerts are preemptive in nature (i.e. ...does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.).

Then, there's a 3RR warning about the page in question. The OP contends that they weren't edit warring, but they did revert back their changes: OP removes → Avatar317 restores → OP re-removes. Sorry, but I'm not sure what is otherwise being asked of us to do here. El_C 02:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I get the impression that since MarydaleEd got (mildly) scolded, they wish for Avatar317 and Doug Weller to receive equivalent scoldings. MarydaleEd appears to be disproportionately concerned about their "unblemished record" of not getting scolded until now. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have admitted I made a mistake. However, I bristle at the lack of fairness in how the warnings were assigned. My concern over my reputation is not disproportionate. I have nurtured it for years, both professionally, personally and here. Your reputation is often all you have to fall back on. If it is tarnished, your work is built on sand. I also have a strong sense of right and wrong. It was the reason I pursued journalism. I have built my life on it. All I have asked is what anyone would want: fairness. I was warned but another, who was just as guilty, was not. Regardless if my bold explanation offended you, fairness is at question here. You are administrators. You know right from wrong. I have asked only for fair treatment. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: Thanks for your post (and for adding some paragraph breaks). Just reiterating ScottishFinnish Radish to ask what specifically you'd like done? It seems from reading the history that you and Avatar317 had a minor edit war a few days ago, for which a warning was issued. No other action followed (or was required) and the disagreement itself has blown over. Disputes like this are a dime a dozen: almost every longterm editor has been gently requested to step back from a dispute at some point, even if they were technically in the right. It's not a blemish on your record; more a result of the difficulties of collaborating entirely via text media.

You feel that the admin here might have warned the other party too: possibly so, but they've given their reasoning and there'd be no point in a retrospective warning for a dispute that ended on September 23. So we're kind of left with no useful actions to take, other than to note that the warning is just a reminder not to edit war; if there's no further edit-warring then there's no reason to give much more thought.

Or the short version: this incident is not a big deal or any kind of lasting blemish on your record: Thanks for not continuing the dispute at the time, and all the best for your future editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Euryalus. Your points are taken. However, I can't tell you how many times I have had to eat what I know to be right over 11 years just so this kind of thing wouldn't happen. I know we all have. You do have a remedy. I ask that the other party be issued the same warning. There is a principle at play. That editor is left to believe that behavior has no consequences. Sure, these are a dime a dozen. I realize the moment has passed. However, I ask you all to remember that it is never too late to do the right thing. Unless asked a question I will say no more. Thank you for your kind consideration. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: The right thing to do here is to drop this now. Even assuming one was justified, no one is likely to waste their time giving one for something which ended a few days ago. They are especially unlikely to want to do so over a pointless ANI thread. Also no experienced should need a warning to know edit warning is not acceptable and no experienced editor should need think the lack of a warning means their behaviour was okay. Going solely by your description it sounds like there is a good chance Avatar317 is such an experienced editor. Going by your thread here you are not. So the difference in warnings probably makes senses. BTW while it's good that you've decided to drop this now since as you said it's never too late to do the right thing, you may be interested to know this ANI has likely dented perceptions of you far more than any warning ever did. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry template error. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Consider it dropped. Sounds like a decision has been reached and I am happy to accept it. Still, do not mistake my resolve. I am proud to have stood up for my belief. I know what happened was unfair and I don't believe for a second that each of you don't see it, too. I understand now that you believe an editor who has been cited many times for edit warring and blocked for the same represents a more experienced editor than one who has been effective for 11 years and has avoided warnings. I accept that, too. I delayed in bringing it here to allow Doug Weller time to make it right. I thought three days was appropriate. I will never regret speaking up for unfairness, no matter how small, against me or another person. That will never damage my reputation. It hasn't in 60 years. Thank you for your time and consideration. I have learned several lessons here and I appreciate that. All the best to you all. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: No decision has been made since that's simply not how Wikipedia works. There is no central authority that makes decisions, and even if there were I would not be part of it. It's quite likely someone will close this thread or at least people are going to stop responding. Still any editor who reads it is free to take any action they feel is appropriate and justified by our policies and guidelines.

But also, you seem to be proving the point even more. If the editor has already been blocked for edit warring, there is zero need to warn them. No admin is going to think twice about blocking them again just because they have not been warned. The editor should already know edit warring is unacceptable. If they don't further warnings is unlikely to help. If they keep edit warring, they will be subject to escalating blocks until it reaches indefinite and they're not allowed back until they convince us they understand edit warring is unacceptable and will stop. You should be glad this isn't you and people still feel it's reasonable to warn you over edit warring rather than complaining.

And you're mistaken, opening silly ANI threads does damage your reputation. It's a minor thing since many inexperienced editors do it but if you're wasting everyone's time demanding dumb stuff, of course we're going to think less of you, why shouldn't we? The fact you've decided to drop this definitely helps, but the fact you're ignoring the other advice i.e. how pointless this is doesn't. This doesn't mean that everyone now thinks you're a poor editor, it still likely a very minor dent in any editor's perception of you but also one far greater than the warning.

Since you seem worried about you reputation I felt it reasonable to point this out. An important issue here in case it's misunderstood, while you free to believe whatever you want about what should affect your reputation you cannot dictate to others what affects their perceptions of you. And I'm telling you that personally, this ANI thread has affect my view of you far more negatively than the edit warning notification ever would have. While I cannot speak for anyone else, my experience with Wikipedia suggests I will not be the only one.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

MarydaleEd has indicated they are retiring. This came just after their last post (so before my second), I've apologised to them on their talk page if my message contributed to their decision. I belatedly realised (before I saw their reply) that I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to suggest their reputation had suffered a major dent over this, simply that I felt and still feel since they're worried over their reputation it would be helpful they understand this ANI is likely to have a far bigger even if still very minor effect on that than the warning they seemed worried about. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel MarydaleEd had a point. The two editors involved, User:Avatar317 and User:MarydaleEd were edit-warring.

Only MarydaleEd got a series of "warnings" from User:Doug Weller on Sep 23. The latter's explanation for why they did not concurrently warn Avatar317 was, "I didn't give them a 3RR warning because they've already had one". Whereas in fact Avatar317 rec'd no warnings from Doug Weller on or after Sep 23, the way MarydaleEd did. Why?

The fact that Doug Weller had earlier given Avatar317 a barnstar gave rise to a conflict of interest. Not a good look for an Admin I would've thought.

Nor did I feel that Doug Weller's comment to MarydaleEd, "Oh, a brief research of my background should also show that I was elected twice to the Arbitration Committee and hold the roles of Checkuser and Oversighter" helped.

Doug Weller then posted a third warning to MarydaleEd's talk page, on Sep 24, re "Discretionary sanctions alert for Covid-19."

Doug Weller subsequently posted to MarydaleEd's talk page on Sep 24, "That was a nice talk page notice and edit summary at Janice Bowling Kudos."

MarydaleEd has now retired. That's another editor wp has lost. I feel this occurred as an outcome of the less than satisfactory way her complaint was received here, and the ensuing posts to her talk page. The advice from User:Nil Einne that, "The right thing to do here is to drop this now" is unjustified in my opinion. Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Why does an editor who has been blocked for edit warring need a warning? Okay but it was in 2019, but as I said above, no administrator is realistically going to think twice about blocked them for edit warring when they've already been blocked. Avatar317 should already be well aware of our prohibition of edit warring. If there is some aspect of it that does still confuses them, it is unlikely a template will help. As for my comment, I stick by it. MarydaleEd said they wanted right think to happen. My view is the right thing to happen at the time was for the thread to end. We definitely should not change how we deal with stuff to require warning experienced editors about stuff they should already be well aware of. Indeed it would be incredibly harmful if experienced editors start to think 'no one warned me so my behaviour was fine' rather than what they should be thinking of 'I'm an experienced editor so need to think about this myself, did I do the right thing, maybe not.....' Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: They needed a warning on the grounds of fairness and equitable treatment and to preserve MarydaleEd's dignity and self-worth. There is a warm, breathing, feeling person behind the wp moniker.

MarydaleEd was seeking to upholding her values. As she said:

"I am proud to have stood up for my belief. I know what happened was unfair and I don't believe for a second that each of you don't see it, too."

Despite their attempt to uphold their value of fair treatment, which is not unreasonable among folk who profess to practice WP:CIVIL, nobody paid any attention to this expectation. The whole thing could've been easily resolved very early on. Instead the process-bound wp bulldozer rolled on. Sure there is a place for process and sometimes we need to look further than that. This is especially incumbent on admins. A colleague in another wp project I'm a member of left, this year, for the same reason. Their reasonable expectations of fairness were let down at WP:ANI. Another member of that project wrote: "One meets narcissistic admins who travel in packs…and the only thing to do then, is leave."

Of course we need admins and I've encountered good ones, and unreasonable ones. There's WP policy or article somewhere that says wp editors have no rights to fairness and that the good of wp trumps all, including fairness. That's where the heart of the issue lies. Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: But I don't think what happened was unfair. Avatar317 should have been well aware that edit warring was not acceptable. You've still completely failed to explain why Avatar317 needed a warning, there's nothing unfair about them not receiving a warning. They're an experienced editor who was blocked for exactly that. They should be well aware about our prohibitions on edit warring. There should be no need for further education.

If they were blocked without any warning because edit warring continued it's unlikely anyone would be blinking an eye. MarydaleEd has been here for 11 years so it's more complicated, still editors are much more likely to query why MarydaleEd was blocked when perhaps they should have been better informed about our edit warring policy first. I have not look that much into the history, but I suspect depending on the circumstances here that would include me.

So the fair treatment here is MarydaleEd needed to be further educated about our policies and guidelines about edit warring less they continued and did something that would justify a block. Avatar317 did not and if they had continued they would just be blocked. Actually although I said it was 2019 so doesn't really matter on further consideration I think it would be full justified if an admin blocked Avatar317 for longer because of it. That's fair an equitable treatment.

And I'm not an admin nor do I have any desire to be one so to be blunt, I don't really give a fuck what you think admins should do. What I want to do is avoid stupidity at ANI and on Wikipedia. And sorry but I stick by my point that expecting every editor involved in something must be warned if one editor is, even when one editor is or may be unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines and the other editor should be well aware of them because they've been blocked of it before, is stupid.

I'd note that as I said below, this seem to arise in big part from taking warnings to mean much more than they actually do which sorry is further stupidity. We should not be overinflating warnings to mean things they do not or to make them into a big deal. They're not and they should continue to be treated as minor things intended mostly to educate an editor and try to ward off further problems. Making warnings into a big deal is as harmful as making editors think if they didn't receive a warning what they did is okay which as I said is incredibly harmful.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

One thing I realised I never said. If you feel that it's important Avatar317 receive a warning for fairness and that one us justified, why on earth is MarydaleEd's notification still the last edit to User talk:Avatar317? You seem to be an uninvolved editor, and maybe it's too late for MarydaleEd maybe not, either way it if matters that much and you think it's justified just go ahead. Why make such a big deal here but not do the work you self to fix this unfairness? I do hope you're not encouraging further silliness by making it like it matters whether the warning was sent by an admin or another uninvolved editor, or that we need consensus to give a warning. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

All this over a fucking talk page warning? Mlb96 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

My point, exactly. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Since I mostly feel like Mlb96 I probably won't be replying further, but I noticed something in the opening comment (which I admit I barely read before) the "formal warning" part. I suspect this problem seems to arise in part from a fundamental misunderstanding by MarydaleEd on the purpose of a templated warning so I suspect is thinking of them like some sort of police caution or warning or at least like a warning from an admin in some forum/generic website when in reality anyone can give one and their primary purpose is education and it shouldn't really matter when it comes to a block whether a template was used or the editor was spoken to only with a personalised message. I've tried to explain in my typical great detail on their talk page, whether they'll read it or it'll help I don't know. I apologise for not noticing sooner. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Still can't see the point in issuing a preventative warning to someone four days after a 2x revert just to create symmetry with a warning someone else issued away back then. Warnings aren't a scarlet letter of humiliation: they're a request that someone stop doing something for the good of the editing environment. If that person has long since stopped the conduct, and you have no reason to think they'll restart, you don't need to warn them several days after the fact.

However I do have sympathy for the OP who raised something they genuinely felt was unjust. @MarydaleEd:, sad to see your retirement notice and hope you'll reconsider. I understand your concern, but as I tried to convey earlier the time for a symmetrical warning passed when the issue itself expired. That's not a reflection on your or their relative contribution to this very minor editing dispute: it's essentially that warnings are intended to be preventative and there's no longer anything to prevent. Whether you agree with that or no, given your (still) unblemished editing record you'll be more than welcome back if you choose to return. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I"m sorry that this has led to her retirement and hope that she will reconsider. I never expected that templated messages such as the ones I gave would lead to such a reaction/misunderstanding - the post to my talk page headed (then) "Offensive and confusing comments" surprised me as did her talk page post mentioning "embarrassing or provocative comments." I tried my best to explain but that resulted in an 11 point list and an insistence{her word} that I either removed the warning from her talk page or give the other editor one. Frankly at that point I decided to just stop responding as I didn't think it would help and I simply was not going to give an experienced editor who knows full well about 3RR a templated warning. I felt removing hers might result in her thinking it no longer applied. As for the barnstar, looking at the second barnstar Avatar317 was given it was probably about article cleanup in the areas I gave them DS alerts. I do give DS alerts at times even where an editor's work is spotless, they aren't a badge of shame. But I haven't checked and probably won't. I am supposed to be out walking my dogs right now and virtually never edit at this time, but thought I should given the circumstances. Again, I hope she returns to editing. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

My comment is probably pointless for MarydaleEd even though I wish they would reconsider. However, this comment is for those of us here now. Please don't dismiss what Mary brought here, no matter how erroneous or irrelevant you may feel it is. At the same time, I have followed Doug for some time and through some difficult times in my own life over the last year. I appreciate the way they allow discussions to take place on their talk page and how they handle themselves. I do not believe Doug meant anything ill towards Mary, even as I believe how Mary felt was real and relevant. I understand their position while also understanding Doug's explanation and agreeing that they never expected it to escalate to this point. One point of contention I have is that we shouldn't have to give an experienced editor, that had been banned over edit warring in the past, any warning for edit warring. Okay, if we take that approach then what was done for edit warring in this case? They should know better, right? So what was done? No warning, no scolding, no banning, no blocking, not then, not after, not now, nothing at all. So an editor, one we have expressed we wish would return, felt another editor, one whom we say should know better, got away while they were "punished", however we may feel about said punishment doesn't matter. And all they simply asked for was equal response. Mary has no reason to return here because they have no reasonable expectation anything will be learned from this other than that several very amazing editors and admins, whom I admire greatly, think what they feel is irrelevant. Kindness, civility and understanding comes in many forms and it seems to allude even the best of us at times. --ARoseWolf 17:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the multiple posts and opinions.

As a general reply I feel they are symptomatic of why editors leave wp. Too much focus on process, and "teaching" editors by fire, and not enough focus on the feelings of real people nor on equity in treatment. As I said, the whole thing could have been headed off very early on by a few editors swallowing their pride. Instead, like the OP posted, "All this over a fucking talk page warning?" Quite so. The outcome I look at is the loss of an editor, which I felt was a less than satisfactory solution to such a tiny tiny request, which could have been so easily resolved, raised in a forum like this.

I don't intend to waste any more time here. Here's the essay WP:NOJUSTICE which says wp editors should not have expectations for fairness or equity, since they have no such right. The good of wp über alles as they say. Never mind that the good of wp rests on the fair and equitable treatment of its voluntary contributors. My hypothesis is that wp will die in the long term based on its unfair treatment of editors. I remember the glory days of wp; the current wp experience has declined since then.

As WP:NOJUSTICE says, "Wikipedia is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which sets the terms of usage. Therefore, editors have no legal right to edit it; no rights are being denied if users are blocked; and thinking in terms of a legal framework is counterproductive." What a clusterfuck it is to think that the English wp is based in the USA, the land of the free and fair, and due process, yet no such fairness nor due process is to expected here, and the USA, and its allies, regularly criticise other nations for the lack of fairness extended to their citizens.

It's ironic that I find myself nevertheless enjoying the pure contributing side of wp. I'm not yet sure how to reconcile this with my disdain for the way in which IGF editors such as MarydaleEd were or are treated. Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the OP. And I think you interpreted my comment in the exact opposite way I intended it. Mlb96 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why there is not a charter of rights for wp editors. Fairness and due process would be a good start. Everything else seems to work OK, including discretionary sanctions and blocks etc. Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

To add my two cents here on the formal record, I feel some recent edits MarydaleEd did were problematic on the Bob Enyart page. I made two completely non-controversial small changes to that article which they then fully reverted. It took a pretty long discussion on the talk page for us to hammer a rough consensus on one of the changes, and I decided it just wasn’t worth an edit war to try and get the other change (an improvement in wording to the lead which doesn’t change its tone nor meaning at all) to remain in the article. Samboy (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that both starting this thread and retiring were overreaction, hopefully a temporary situation... —PaleoNeonate – 09:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonnyspeed20 - repeated personal attacks and accusations against editors

Since August, User:Jonnyspeed20 has formed part of a debate/discussion on the UK Geography WikiProject with regard to the way in which the historic counties of England are mentioned in articles about settlements. Throughout this period, this user has made repeated WP:PERSONALATTACKS on myself and other editors. He has made countless accusations/personal attacks against myself and other editors on talk pages and edit summaries, including accusing editors of being part of "cohorts", "vandalism", being members of an organisation, being "militants" ([13]), and referring to editors not aligned with his view as "recidivists". On my talk page today, he described me as having "been proved to be a member of the ABC" (I am not a member of this organisation) and "part of a cohort vandalising pages" [14]. He has accused me and a number of other editors of being members of this organisation on a number of previous occasions. Today, on edit summaries, he referred to me as a "terminal recidivist" and accused me of "vandalising places in East London for an agenda", and has previously made repeated attacks on editors (including myself) and called editors names in other edit summaries. The user has been making similar accusations and personal attacks against editors across talk pages, including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography and Wikipedia_talk:_WikiProject_London, my talk page and elsewhere. Editors have asked him to retract personal attacks attributing editors to organisations and cohorts - he has removed some of these, but some remain and the user has in fact continued to make such attacks (some even worse, such as those written today about me) about editors. Previous edits include [15], in which he added a new "PLEASE NOTE" warning section to the top of a WikiProject talk page discussion (against talk page guidelines) making personal attacks/accusations and warnings against a number of editors involved in the WikiProject. The user also made a number of direct edits (since reverted) to WikiProject guidelines (which were the subject of an ongoing discussion) without WikiProject consensus: see [16] and [17]. Once users called him out for this, he decided to establish his own set of guidelines (now deleted) on his own user page [18]. This user has also disrupted talk page discussion by removing correspondence from me (see [19]). This user had not yet been reported to administrators, and I feel now is a reasonable time for their behaviour to finally be brought to your attention. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The user has now left this [20] remark in response to the ANI notice on their talk page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

They are a coordinated, related group or 'cohort'. Repetitively making the same disruptive edits is 'recidivist' behaviour. Deleting London Boroughs and replacing them with the same text, over and over, to say they are in Essex. Some content was removed as requested. Other content was accidentally deleted. What I write on my own page as to Ways of Working is completely up to me. This user is purposely making edits that they know I will revert, and have been discussed as being disruptive. You're welcome Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ohnonotthisagain. It reminds me of the tedious Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Multiple abuses of process and subsequent mass automated edits in contravention of denied bot request, which had different participants. Narky Blert (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a reply but find that you summed it up well in your first sentence. It reminds me of a ruined Sunday afternoon walk with my wife in Laleham a few years ago, where we were collared by one of these irredentists haranguing us about how we were in Middlesex and not Surrey. We thought we had managed to shake her off but she caught us again on the way back. Can't people just get their heads around the fact that county boundaries change, and have always changed? When writing about the past we use the past tense and when writing about the present we use the present tense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This editor continues to make disruptive edits of places in East London. They have an agenda to replace London Boroughs with Historic Counties, especially Essex. Trough discussion, they have been revealed as members of an organisation called The Association of British Counties. I continue to revert their vandalism. Now they are accusing me and other of personal attacks; this is to distract from their vandalism and personal agenda Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jonnyspeed20, don't break up another editor's post like you did here. See WP:INTERPOLATE. If you really need to reply line-by-line, use Template:Talk quote inline or something. But it's really not necessary. Woodroar (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Given this edit by Jonnyspeed20, I have placed a level 3 warning on their talk page [21]. I sincerely hope that ends their personal attacks. If it doesn't, please let me know. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, both your diffs show the same edit (= the PA). I think you meant for one of them to be this. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC).

Hoo boy. Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Work has begun on drafting an RFC to amend, clarify or confirm the guidelines on the underlying issue (whether and how to mention old counties in article leads and infoboxes). This is badly needed; describing the OP's interpretation of the guidelines as a "gross misinterpretation" is entirely understandable.[22] Would any editors with experience in creating a workable and effective RFC like to help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Draft RFC ideas? NebY (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

NebY Keep in mind that it's not uncommon for those not in the know to think that most who post here are admins. Such a non-admin comment tag is reasonable. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, except that we don't normally do it, and don't normally mess with other people's comments by tagging them, as PlatinumClipper96 did mine, as if I'd chosen to preface my comment that way. NebY (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Aiden_Stocking

Note: This is an issue regarding Aiden Stocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back on July 23, 2021 Aiden 34 was blocked indefinitely by Admin JBW for persistent vandalism, now the same person that created Aiden 34, has now created another account Aiden_Stocking and is doing the same thing by doing persistent vandalism on many WWE Articles and this has been going on Since February 2020, Depending on what actions are to be taken by an admin, I highly recommend that Aiden_Stocking be blocked indefinitely but i will leave that to an admin to decide, Here is some diff by both editors

User:Aiden 34

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

User:Aiden_Stocking

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Chip3004 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed for vandalism. I'll leave it to a CU to see if there are any hidden accounts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Are primary sources allowed?

The page emirate of arabistan has had large chunks of information removed for being "primary sources". Is this normal? Are primary sources not allowed on Wikipedia? VivereInPace (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@VivereInPace: - sometimes - see WP:PRIMARY. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have checked WP:PRIMARY and understand that primary sources extracted from a reliable institution such as the national British Archives should be acceptable. Is this correct? VivereInPace (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If they are used for literal quotes or straightforward conveyance of facts that are not open to interpretation, then yes. Otherwise, no. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@VivereInPace: first of all, when you come to ANI, you're supposed to notify other editors involved (see the instructions above), so please do this now. Also be advised that WP:NORN probably was a better noticeboard to go to with this.

As for the removals you are talking about, they appear to me to be in line with WP:PRIMARY, which says Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The thing is that our articles should mainly consist of such analysis and evaluation, but of course only the one done by secondary sources. Large analytical chunks of text only referring to a primary source should be instantly removed. From my experience, in historical topics such as this one, about the only fair use of primary sources is for literal quotes that illustrate something already sourced to secondary sources. Also from my experience, articles relating to somewhat more obscure historical subjects on Wikipedia are generally full of originally researched information of this kind, and there is much that warrants removal still. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Akhtar Raza Khan and image

Akhtar Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2401:4900:52F8:9127:E3B4:AEE9:D930:CB5B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2401:4900:52FE:982E:EC3E:F712:5857:7FF6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2401:4900:52F1:F2AD:63DF:4465:57C0:3B9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2401:4900:52F6:D431:E80B:1413:F4E6:D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

The article Akhtar Raza Khan is pending pages protected. The image of Akhtar Raza Khan has been much discussed, removed and re-inserted under WikiPedia is not censored. One, or possibly two, or possibly an anon IP hopper has insisted on removing the image whilst also making some edits which ought to be accepted. (I have pending changes but frankly can't sort through the pending changes, additionally I have been accused of potentially being an agent of the Muslim mirror.com ( [33]. I'd like to step back at this point at let someone else deal. I have the pending changes right so I can specifically handle good faith IP edits but this has got messy and too complicated. It may need to go to semi-protection but it needs eyes other than mine to look at things. Thankyou. 19:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC) ( Djm-leighpark didn't sign properly Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC) ).

• See some people are working on this and one way of reading the last probable good faith accepted reversion (which removed the image) by @WikiLinuz is I'm involved with a group of spammers. The image has been discussed considerably, notably recently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#Need Discussion On Akhtar Raza Khan Image and more extensively at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Who are you and warring you. the unb of this is the consensus have been in discussions the image remains. If consensus changes, I'll go with that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two revisions that I dealt with in Akhtar Raza Khan pending changes, [1] the removal of sourced material with an edit summary of “fixed typo”, hence I undid the changes, [2] reading through the history of revisions, muslimmirror.com isn't a reliable source so on the second pending revision, I accepted the change by the IP. I neither involved in that article, excluding those two revisions, nor interested. Since you've notified me about an on-going issue, I'll step back and leave it to the editors who work on that article to deal with that. Thanks. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 20:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Except that's not true at all. You reverted all of the recent changes—which was a good edit, as far as I'm concerned—but when an IP editor reverted you, you accepted it. I checked WP:RSP and WP:RSN and I see no discussions about Muslim Mirror. I've reverted back to the last stable version from 10 days ago. Woodroar (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar:, please check the previous history of this ANI, you will see that we have a same discussion in past. Also you had restored other non constructive edits where spam links such as fansite involved and wrong references types along with punctuation mistakes. Pleased go thoroughly through the history of this page, you will definitely find a discussion involving the Muslim mirror. Any admin remember this few months old discussion of Muslim Mirror? 2401:4900:52F8:9127:E3B4:AEE9:D930:CB5B (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, but is the previous discussion you're looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#Need Discussion On Akhtar Raza Khan Image? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not looking for that discussion but for the discussion where the filer objected the Muslimmirror.com and as I partly rememeber It was regarding blacklisting of Muslimmirror.com . I think we should leave it for admin to check this discussion in archives. 2401:4900:52F8:9127:E3B4:AEE9:D930:CB5B (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This one: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 66#Fake news from muslimmirror? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dear ip 192...., The problem is not regarding the removal of image but for spamming of an unreliable source which had been mentioned as "Garbage" in your mentioned link, by experienced edirors. Isn't it? Actually wikipedia takes spamming very seriously. If any editor can insert an image from another reliable source then I will not revert per W.p R.S . Either you or another good faith editor are welcome to insert image from sound and reliable source. Thanks. 04:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:52f8:9127:e3b4:aee9:d930:cb5b (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

My analysis is as follows: The Akhtar Raza Khan is under pending changes protection. The general idea that unconstructive/disruptive edits can be undone whilst non-vandalism edits can be accepted. I requested Pending changes reviewer so I am able to accept non-vandalism changes (on the handful or less of pages with pending changes protection on my watchlist). In practice I almost always undo an edit using normal editor privileges and only use the ending changes reviewer to accept edits which are non-vandistic and which have no obvious problemss. But my intention is to be there to accept good contributions when they are made. Retrospectively it is obvious 2401:4900:52F1:F2AD:63DF:4465:57C0:3B9F's edits betwween 17:32, 25 September 2021 and 17:56, 25 September 2021 show them to be a sophisticated editor somewhat aware of WikiPedia ways. It should there have been obvious to 2401:4900:52F1:F2AD:63DF:4465:57C0:3B9F removal of the image needed talk page discussion rather than a vaguewave discussion on the edit summary referencing some discussion that would have been difficult to find, if it existed. (It's actually likely the discussion is on WikiMedia). In the event I reverted the 17:32 revision and was attempted to work through the other revisions accpting them (when I found I couldn't without re-inserting the image. In general some, likely most, and possibly all, of the constributions between 17:44 and 17:56 were good faith and could and probably should be accepted, however all revisions depended on the removal of the image. (Retrospectively what I should have done was to decline the 17:32 as a pending changes reviewer .. maybe that wouldn't have worked). In the meantime 2401:4900:52FE:982E:EC3E:F712:5857:7FF6 at [34] with an edit summary accussion of stop accusing the good faith editor . Are you an agent of Muslim mirror.com. I've just noted 2401:4900:52fe:982e:ec3e:f712:5857:7ff6 is onder a PBLOCK. In summary either knowingly or inadvertently, and we have to AGD the latter, sophistcated, one of more IP editors have used the pending changes protection level making it difficult and consuming for editors to manage; and their may be need to move to semi-protection level or even higher; whilst leaving regular editors exposed and under attack with little consequence. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark:, I think another ip in this discussion already has made us available the link where there is a discussion criticizing Muslim Mirror as "not useful" (using more beautiful language) . You must check it. Also I may have not accused you but enquired whether you are an agent of Muslimmirror.com and as far as my second edit summary regarding group of spammers, you can check how there were spamming of Muslimmirror.com in the ip mentioned link, Did I mentioned you as a spammer there? I think I may have enquired just because to confirm you whether you are paid to promote muslimmirror.com like others, isnt it? Because you are restlessly attempting to insert that image. Per my wiki experience I have seen COI editors either individually or in a group to do such edits. I may be wrong. But I think instead of reverting me you should personally check the past discussion relevant to muslim mirror (mentioned above). Also I have seen you had reverted my other good edits too. After 24 hours I will again reinsert my other good faith edits. Because Wikipedia works on community not dictatorship. And I assume removing the poorly sourced content, image from unreliable source , spam links to fansite, doing copyediting, removing puffery is not at all against Wikipedia policy. And as far as I see there is no need of another discussion regarding removal of image as source, Muslimmirror.com has been already discussed as unreliable source (see link above) per W.P Bold. Also we had one pending changes reviewer who had already accepted my edits after carefully reading the summaries and analysis of the unreliable source. Hope this help. Sorry to say but, it looks like you have ample time to discuss such a small issue again and again but it can be irritating to others. 2401:4900:52F6:D431:E80B:1413:F4E6:D2 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have family/RL commitments that have severe and have increased since last thursday I really have minimal time which is why this is brought to ANI. You will have to accept my good faith I have very little time but if you insist I email an oversighter to discuss that I will. But if you badger me what seems acussations I of spamming and bad faith I will. There is an argument, and it is a valid one, that with a pending changes reviewer hat the set of changes should have all been accepted and then the image reverted in due to previous discussions and that brought to the talk page ... the accusations flying in the edit summaries somewhat prevented that. I have serious RL stuff I have to twist round for at least the rest of the day. In the meanwhile can someone point a specific link to the any MuslimMirror unliabilty source discussion and note the correct place for the challenge on image suitability is probably on the file itself. .... But I have other RL things to do urgently. If you think I need sanctioning then please propose it. There's admin's here who likely wouldn't mind me being blocked. Thankyou. 10:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not, I am not interested to call sanctions for you because I am not here to fight with you but to develop an encyclopedia in a peaceful atmosphere also can not waste my time anymore. Just go and check my edits. Its okay if you're not interested anymore, let me reinsert my good faith edits. Btw it was you who first reverted my well summarize good faith edits. Anyways, interested editors can have a discussion relevant to the accuracy of Muslimmirror.com here. 2401:4900:52F6:D431:E80B:1413:F4E6:D2 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the Muslim Mirror source. The discussion you linked is archived, so we shouldn't continue it there. But it's enough to satisfy me that MM isn't a reputable source. If there are other changes that you'd like to reinstate in the article, please discuss them first at the Talk page per WP:BRD. Woodroar (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Woodroar: I'm not great at understanding these things, but I am concerned people are not looking at what I understand is the authoritative discussion discussing Muslimmirror.com which I understand to be not at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 66#Fake news from muslimmirror but at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2021#muslimmirror.com. And that discussion lapsed with no decision. Now I haven't examined the source, and it may be right or wrong about it's reliability. But at present it may be kangaroo court dismissed without proper consensus in the correct noticeboard, and that might be censorship. I especially concerned in the IPA area. And while I don't doubt your analysis the fact you did not indicate MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2021#muslimmirror.com specifically because I'd prefer you'd shown you'd looked it up rather than vaguewave referenced it. 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been digging into muslimmirror.com and it's pretty awful journalism. As mentioned at the Village Pump, you've got misleading headlines like Call for investigation into Bill Gates ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘medical malpractice’, but the article's source is a public petition—and one I can't even link here because it's blacklisted. And it's not just misleading headlines. In this article, also about Bill Gates, they write In a 2015 Ted talk titled “The next outbreak? We’re not ready,” the philanthropist had talked about the outbreak of COVID-19, which is ridiculous. Later, they write In the same video he also talked about ‘depopulation’ through ‘vaccination’, a misrepresentation of his comments that's prevalent on conspiracy theorist sites, to the point that Reuters fact checked it. Then you've got articles like this, a clear opinion/editorial piece that's labelled as a "Feature". In fact, the site is absolutely filled with unlabelled op-eds, unclear sources, sensationalism, etc. I wouldn't trust the Muslim Mirror any more than the Daily Mirror. It's apparently not on the spam blacklist because we've been able to add it back to Akhtar Raza Khan, but maybe it should be. Woodroar (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Given this AIV report and the continued edit-warring by the same IP over the image, I believe the time for assuming good faith with this editor is over. FDW777 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I was previously going to report here A new IP, 2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB just performed a series of edits on Akhtar Raza Khan including a removal of the image [35] at a midway point; then subsequently. and subsequently is important here, has raised a discussion at Talk:Akhtar Raza Khan#improvements. I believe it is reasonable to assume 2401:4900:52F6:D431:E80B:1413:F4E6:D2 was used by the same person as 2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB. If we exclude all changes bar the image removal I can reasonably assume all changes are good faith (there might be a details disputable etc etc but they are not vandalism), and some are definite improvements, therefore I am accepting all pending changes. However I am reverting the image removal as disruptively removed under while under discussion and before consensus reached. I have no issue with the image being removed under consensus. I do have issue with pending changes being disruptively abused by clever IP editor(s) which is what is happening here. There seems a case either for extending the PBLOCK of 2401:4900::/32 to include Akhtar Raza Khan or to bring Akhtar Raza Khan to semi-protected; either of which will allow changes via the {{Request edit}} without edit waring via edit summary. Events have subsequently outstripped that and FDW777's actions seem in good faith and his concerns reasonable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: definitely not, but it needs to check for possible spamming of Muslimmirror.com again and again. Admin are requested to have a look at article's talk page where I had discussed it before editing. If there is a team of spammers then I alone may not be able to sort it out but would need an admin's help. Also I may have no problem if an admin too supports spamming but it is against wikipedia policies. I suspect it is a case of COI or coordinated edits or both. Thanks. 2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong. There is no COI or coordinated edits, just multiple editors in good standing who independently object to your attempts to censor the image. FDW777 (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing few lines saying there is no coi , will not prove the spammers right, we have different episodes of spamming in past of Muslimmiror.com . I think you should read before saying anything. Stop abusing me for censorship. May I ask you did you edited this article when previously it was in a bad shape? 2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: It is not my problem that my ip change frequently but it is provider's issue. And no need to give me appreciation like "Clever" and all, because of such a small issue you had already wasted the time of mine and others, just because the article have previous history of censorship. 2401:4900:52FD:1B4F:CC07:E97B:E788:66DB (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I can accept "clever" was a poor choice of word. You argument for image removal was more reasoned than most over the past month; you know your way fairly well round wikipedia, and I have to AGF for bundling image removal amidst other changes was a natural occurrence and not a deliberate ploy to slip it through with other changes. In terms of IP hopping, it is a problem it contributions my the same person cannot be unambiguously identified. The IP hopper has the option of explicitly disclosing his previous IPs (I'd assume mostly that wouldn't be faked but it could be) rather than leaving people guessing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A fresh IP 106.195.3.129 has joined the edit war and I have therefore requested the page protection is increased to semi-protection to bring discussions to take page rather than edit-war. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this will pave the way for right holder spammers to easily spam Muslimmirror.com. If it will be semiprotected, even the gf editors will not be able to edit the article. 2401:4900:52F8:7C6D:7E9:55C7:CA06:CCD0 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You're one of the editors choosing to disrupt the article by constantly removing the image, therefore you're in no position to complain if your ability to edit the article directly is restricted. The file has been kept at FFD, and the use of images upheld at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC: images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars (and more broadly, the relevant policy is WP:NOTCENSORED). If there is any issue with this particular image then I suggest you make a suggestion as to one that can replace it, since we are able to use any image regardless of copyright. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The page has received WP:ECP however Pilotforfuture seems to have chosen to remove the image prior to discussion consensus but with the edit summary: After checking the talk page and discussions at ani I think this image is not verified. at [36]. Given FDW777's arguments reinstatement of the image (the prior status quo from other discussions) seems reasonable and the page protecting admin seem's to have concurred with that in terms of placing page protection. It seems the image should be re-instated, but I'd prefer other eye's on that matter as it would not be best practice for me to re-instate that image myself at this point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to note the image is restored at the time of this post per discussion at article talk page. Thankyou. 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the filing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djm-leighpark by Pilotforfuture, I think we may have a problem here. FDW777 (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the SPI and blocked the filer. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I had my suspicions about logged out editing, but since checkusers won't comment on IPs wasn't sure of the benefit of going to SPI. FDW777 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV pushing across several articles

Wiki Editor from NY has been edit warring across multiple pages, including Moses, Jamaica, and Yosef Ben-Jochannan. He's been trying to add things like

1. that Jamaica is not an independent country because it still had a British monarch [37], and [38], also [39]
2. trying to add that people/events took place "on the continent of Africa" to Moses and various other articles like Kingdom of Kush: [40], [41], [42], and Kush: [43], [44], Zipporah: [45]
3. trying to remove or soften sourced criticism of Yosef Ben-Jochannan: [46], [47], [48].

While none of these have yet violated 3rr, I think that the number of places they are edit warring warrants some kind of intervention. There's some obvious Afro-Centrist POV pushing here.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich has been edit warring on the page Moses deleting important cited information.

1. Moses was born in the Land of Goshen in Ancient Egypt on the continent of Africa. This information is not incorrect and should be included on the page.
2. On the Jamaican government's official website [49] it states the government is a constitutional monarchy or limited monarchy and the head of state is the British monarch. It does a disservice to the reader to mention the country gaining its independence in 1962 and not mention this official statement put forth by the government of Jamaica itself.
3. The New York Times article cited on was misquoted stating "family members" when the article itself says "a family member" Yosef Ben-Jochannan : [50]

Wiki Editor From NY (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Wiki Editor from NY Wiki Editor From NY (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Wiki Editor From NY

• User:Wiki Editor from NY, that repetition is a bit childish. Please stop edit warring lest you be blocked--and please sign your messages. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) User:Wiki Editor From NY (just fixing ping). –Austronesier (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  User:Wiki Editor From NY: Drmies tried to ping you above. (Austronesier: refixing your fix; I don't think a re-ping without a preceding newline will generate a notification.) Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Heyoboyo mass-removing sourced descriptions of genocide against indigenous peoples

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

---

Please see Heyoboyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s contributions in the last day, which consist of mass-removing sourced descriptions, categories, and even sources themselves of the Sand Creek massacre, the Trail of Tears, and many other events of anti-indigenous violence in the United States as Category:Native American genocide. They have been warned and responded by simply doing it all over again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul Erik took care of this and the report can be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

CsifoZsombor

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

User engaging in disruptive and tendentious editing. They have tried to show the Székelys as different from the Hungarians in various edits and articles, changing census figures and removing sourced information. This has happened before, see the contributions of user Magysze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Borsoka and Kun Kipcsak have more experience in Hungarian-related topics than me, so it is possible that they can give some arguments or more evidence to know if this account is a sockpuppet or not, I don't have enough to say so myself. Super Ψ Dro 12:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Please show WP:Dif's. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

First edit on the article Székelys attempting to show them as separate from the Hungarians, second, third, fourth (sources are removed), fifth (sources are replaced by Britannica, which calls Székelys Hungarians) and sixth edit. User has done the same at Coat of arms of the Székelys, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Székely Freedom Day and Hungarians in Romania twice (first, second). Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're against the Szeklers. In each Wikipedia article, szeklers are treated as separate viewers. The University of Szeged is convinced that they are a separate people. In Romania, they are considered to be of a separate ethnicity. Their separate culture, ethnic culture, dialects, etc. Genetic results also show that they are a separate ethnic group.--CsifoZsombor (talk)CsifoZsombor

I don't think I can do anything else, this user refuses to understand how Wikipedia works. At the Romanian Wikipedia he did the same thing, but more with the first account, DirectX3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know why the Szeklers are called a"subgroup" They have a separate culture, flag, dialect, folklore, yet they call them subgroup. This is a separate ethnic group, they are placed in Romania as separate people. The MTA may have written something, but I'm not sure it's true. Organizations in Szeklerland also treat it as a separate people.--CsifoZsombor (talk)CsifoZsombor

Yes, he is obviously a new member of the group of editors who try to demonstrate that the Székelys are not Hungarians. Former members of this group were banned from WP. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Szeklers are not Hungarians, but that they are a Hungarian ethnic group. The Szekler National Council also registers the Székelyföldért társaság as a Hungarian ethnic group. Links: SNC: https://www.sznt.org/images/pdf/01-szekely-nep-2011.pdf Company for Szeklerland: http://www.szekelyfoldert.hu/szekelyfoeld/szekelyek

Notes: The Székelys is a group of people who are an integral part of the Hungarian nation, which is hungarian-speaking, but has its own name and a specific group consciousness. Even in the earliest sources they appear as an independent ethnic group with their own folk name, based on the gaping historical sources, in the 13th century they certainly spoke Hungarian, acquired collective privileges, lived according to their own legal habits, their main task was to soldier. The medieval chroniclers tried to explain their origins, but to this day there is a debate among historians about the origin of the Székelys. --CsifoZsombor (talk)CsifoZsombor

Your edits contradict your first statement above, and there is a debate among historians about the origin of the Székelys. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I have finished the debate, I am just asking that the Székelys be recognised as a Hungarian ethnic group. It's the right thing to do.---CsifoZsombor (talk)CsifoZsombor

User:Wikijahnn

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

User initially attempted to hijack the AfD for To European Union, an article they created. Other than deletion sorting the AfD, I didn't interact with it or the corresponding article at all, but that didn't stop Wikijahnn from cursing me out in Spanish or Catalan. Curbon7 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they return to Wikipedia every two months to make a few edits and then leave so we might not see them again until November. If they are a persistent problem, I suggest contacting me or another admin. I don't think a noticeboard discussion would be helpful with such a sporadic editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring by Character512

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.

---

Character512 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have been warned more than enough times since January, but still almost every single edit Special:Diff/1045879212, Special:Diff/1045878766 they make is genre warring. They also refuse to communicate in any way. Requesting admin intervention to stop their behaviour. --Muhandes (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. A block may be the only way of getting this editor's attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: mobile web users do get talk page notifications (there is a bell icon that turns red when there is a new notification). The mobile app users are the ones having issues with missing notifications. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they get the same notification that is used my most applications for spam, or at least for messages that have no urgency, so many users get used to ignoring it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I get talk page notifications from the Android version of the mobile app (version 2.7.50473), unless I turn them off. It is not at all similar to a "spam" notification, which I'm not sure happens in Android OS. Matuko (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn The editor has chosen to leave Wikipedia so no further steps are necessary. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Draft to be deleted

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.

---

There is a draft of Chicago Fire (season 10) that is already created and it should be removed if you please. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Failure to discuss and disruptive editing

Context: Discussions have been ongoing at Talk:Nina Dobrev about whether or not she should be described as a "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lead section of the article. Previous arguments have stated that there was no proof that the person had Bulgarian citizenship; consequently, only Canadian was left in the lead. However, this is not the case anymore and the claim has been properly sourced. Therefore, per MOS:ETHNICITY, both citizenships should be mentioned in the lead (as the person in question had both at the time they became notable).

On September 11, I requested on the article talk page that editors discuss the matter with me. Kay girl 97 and IJBall disagreed with my point, with IJBall accusing me of being another user's sockpuppet (an investigation was opened and I was strangely notified by Kay girl 97 instead of IJBall, who was the one who opened the investigation). After they stopped responding, I left a talkback to that request on their user talk pages (User talk:Kay girl 97; the message I left on User talk:IJBall has since been deleted, with the reason being that they were "not interested in what this one is peddling."). When I hadn't heard from them in 7 days, I left another talkback. When they still had not responded in 3 days, I tried making the edit in question and IJBall reverted me, still without discussing and, once again, accusing me of being a sockpuppet. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? As a note, I am completely open to my behavior being investigated, too. --Coconutyou3 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are you reporting me when I'm not even the one who reverted the last edit? You're the one treating it all like a battleground. Kay girl 97 (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I pity the admit that is going to have to look into this case (I'm guessing no one is going to bother because it is going to be work...). There has been a long (and by this I mean years-long) pattern of disruptive editing at Nina Dobrev in opposition to MOS:ETHNICITY, which of course is completely mischaracterized above. The WP:DE is almost certainly the result of a single editor who has been socking for years – the same edits are made over and over again, and then the same arguments are made on the Talk page over and over again. The issue is that the consensus at the article, based on years of Talk page discussions, is clear – Dobrev is not notable for being born in Bulgaria ("citizenship sourcing" was never the issue here – there has never been a dispute that she was born in Bulgaria), but is notable for her works as a Canadian alone.

Here is a list of editors who have opposed including "Bulgaria" or "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lede (this goes back to 2012) as per MOS:ETHNICITY and WP:BLPLEAD:

• teammathi
• Nymf
• Qwyrxian
• SQGibbon
• Lawrencekhoo
• Meters
• Apoorva Iyer
• Kay girl 97
• myself

The list of editors of have employed basically WP:BLUDGEONING tactics to try to push for "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lede is long, but mostly began with Sumatro and was carried on by editors who are either confirmed socks of Sumatro, or who employ almost identical (talk page and WP:DE) tactics:

• Dvrt09 (potential sock of Sumatro – started posting before Sumatro, and stopped posting before Sumatro did)
• Sumatro (SPI case)
• IPs likely tied to Sumatro
• JanHusCz (confirmed sock of Sumatro)
• Targatron (unconfirmed sock – but immediately ceased posting when the SPI report was filed, and never posted again)
• Quenreerer (not a confirmed sock, but indef'ed for WP:DE, etc. primarily at this article)

And, now:

• Coconutyou3 – who is making the exact same arguments as before, though SPI could not tie this editor to the Sumatro case as too much time has elapsed

The only editor who has edited on this topic whom I believe is not a Sumatro sock is Abbyjjjj96 whose argument on the subject was about the narrow area of the infobox, and not on the lede – this editor is clearly not a sock, and was acting in good faith.

Bottom line: There is no point in rehashing the same arguments over and over again at the Talk page. It is Coconutyou3's responsibility to check the Talk page archives to get a gauge of consensus at the article. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity", and one editor objecting to a long-standing consensus at an article doesn't change that established consensus. Making the same tired arguments doesn't change this.

At this point, I think it's time to take Admin RoySmith up on his offer, and ask WP:1RR be imposed as a WP:AC/DS under WP:ARBEE on this article for any edit involving the subject's ethnicity (or citizenship) in the lede. This is unlikely to stop Sumatro, et al., but it may slow them down... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

First, @Kay girl 97: I have not reported you for anything; you were just mentioned because the talk page discussion started between me and you.

Second, I have quite literally and unambiguously quoted MOS:ETHNICITY word-for-word on multiple occasions at the talk page and, subsequently, when I edited the article after a failure to discuss, but, somehow, it has apparently been "mischaracterized". Additionally, nothing I have done on the article has granted the use of WP:1RR; I have strictly followed WP:DISCFAIL after being deliberately dismissed.

Finally, we could possibly agree on one thing: I, too, doubt that this report will be picked up. However, as I stated earlier, I am completely open to being investigated as well as having my own behavior under scrutiny as long as the case gets resolved. --Coconutyou3 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:LAME. Good lord. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's always nice to be patronized by Admins. It's why everyone with a clue avoids ANI. Thanks for proving the point. But if you all would rather that the long-time editors abandon watching this article, and concede it to the edit-warring WP:POV pushers, just let us know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

IJBall - There is an 'Ethnic and national feuds' entry at WP:LAME for a reason...because this kind of edit warring seems to happen all the time. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, because it's a ready-made POV-pushing area – which actually means it is a real problem. (I also see it a lot, re: Hong Kong.) But linking to that does nothing to actually help to resolve this issue. In general, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, don't post to an ANI thread. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(General comment, not directed at anyone specific) Posting enormous reams of text about mind-numbingly lame disputes isn't constructive either. I'm unclear as to why anyone outside of this dispute would or should care. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to comment on SPI could not tie this editor to the Sumatro case as too much time has elapsed. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive#11 September 2021. The reason for closing the case was not that "too much time has elapsed" (as in the account had gone stale for CU purposes), but that looking at the edit histories of the various accounts, I didn't see anything that made me believe there was socking. My suggestion is to ignore the socking angle and concentrate on the purely edit-warring aspects of this, which is why I suggested 1RR might be a good tool. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

And is anyone looking at the actual comments made by the various editors (over time) I cited above? Is anyone actually looking at the editing history of the article? Frankly WP:1RR won't be a good tool if everyone just ignores the editing history of what is going on here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-admin Comment) If you want to discuss content then it should be done at the article talk page. Let's discuss behavior. As Roy mentions above the socking angle is out. So looking at the edit history of the page I can quickly see that WP:BRD was not followed. @Coconutyou3, you are the Bold. @Kay girl 97 became the Revert in this policy when they reverted your bold edit. I see where Discussion was started on the talk page but no consensus was met as it was determined that the sources seemed inadequate. During that process you, @Coconutyou3, re-added your bold edits. This constitutes edit warring. One last point and it could touch on every aspect of this case and everyone involved. The biggest take away I have from this is how avoidable this edit war actually could have been if those involved, used loosely, would have listened and been more kind/civil to each other in responses, even when you disagreed. Incivility is not just found in personal attacks but also in assuming the bad faith of others and making unsubstantiated claims without a basis for which to make said claims. Too often we throw around these code words to disparage the intent of fellow editors simply because they are adamant in what they believe and we are adamant the opposite is true. In my opinion an SPI should have never been filed without concrete evidence and the only reason to do so was to discredit the other editor. By the same token, this AN/I case was filed erroneously because the editors involved could not put aside their own differences of opinion to even remotely have a positive discussion in regards to the information provided. It always devolves into incivility and it is quite unnecessary. That's my thoughts, for what it's worth. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Which ignores the long editing history of the article, which has involved either one socking editor or WP:MEATPUPPETRY (does the difference even matter?!) to WP:POV-push one particular edit over the course of a decade. As I've said before, long-term editors are not going to "relitigate" the same tired points over and over again on the Talk page after a consensus is reached – this is a volunteer project, and that is an enormous waste of time. And pretending this is a "good faith" disagreement, when in fact it's a long-term pattern of POV-pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, is exactly the kind of thing that will just get the long-term editors to throw in the towel. If no one is going to actually recognize the problem for what it is, why bother?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not ignore anything. Consensus can change every day if more sources can be provided but typically seen as disruptive if it is a recent consensus because it is assumed that all sources will be discussed if it was fairly recent. We don't ignore and disregard potential new sources just to honor consensus from years ago. You claimed this editor is a sock and the only proof you can point to is this one edit area. It was investigated by an admin who took the time to look into it and found not to be the case based on their edit history. You were wrong based on what was found. I encourage the editor to look at WP:CCC. I don't see a time limit or constraint on when consensus discussions can be initiated or when new sources can be provided even if they discuss the "same tired points" from long ago. It seems to me that some of my esteemed colleagues here would prefer only their point of view while calling all others into question. Isn't that the very definition of pushing a point of view, even if established by prior consensus. You are creating a battleground by not even entertaining the thought that consensus can change. You are doing the very thing you abhor by disregarding others based on preconceived notions. This encyclopedia has provided a means by which new information can be added to it by way of process, even information once thought not to be "notable" can be modified with the inclusion of new sources or by discussion. That is the encyclopedia doing what it should be doing. Trying to silence that by making false claims against other editors without clear and concise evidence is antithetical of the good faith principles by which this encyclopedia is founded. Let me be clear. I oppose the edit warring that took place on the article. I equally oppose this stance that established consensus can't be challenged or brought into question properly and according to policy simply because some editors don't want to hear it. --ARoseWolf 18:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I give up. Taking article off my watchlist. The rest of you people can deal with this. (Well done – P.S. This whole discussion is exactly why long-term editors get driven off the project.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that this was not at all the purpose. You've made valuable contributions to the article and should keep it on your watchlist. However, I would appreciate it if we could have a constructive discussion at its talk page. --Coconutyou3 (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I had a look at the matter. As far as I am concerned, this is an editing dispute. The guideline can be of course interpreted in various ways, but the current interpretation of it by the community is that Bulgarian-Canadian is not appropriate for the lede. I do not think discussing it further at the talk page would be productive, and further attempts to edit the lede without achieving consensus first may be met with blocks. That myriads of socks have tried to make exactly the same edit before does not help either. On the other hand, I do not think we have enough evidence that Coconutyou3 is a sock, and I do not think anybody would block them on just this basis (as opposed to the behavioral issues, if they continue editing the lede against consensus). If Coconutyou3 wants to change consensus they must open a RfC on a broader forum such as WP:VP:P or WT:MOSBIO. If they still think they interpret the guideline correctly and nobody else does, they can probe their understanding by asking a direct question on one of these fora without opening an RfC. I do not think there is anything else to do here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I am appreciative of your advice. Just to clarify, my September 27 edit came about as I followed step eight of WP:DISCFAIL (after having followed all previous steps); it was not meant to be disruptive by disregarding the previous consensus. I think the most appropriate action for now would be to simply ask the question at WT:MOSBIO. I have one question, though: if the other editors at WT:MOSBIO agree, how should I follow that up? --Coconutyou3 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This depends on many details. If the discussion has occurred, it is best to ask there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick question ( I hope)

In a request for comment am I allowed to add a comment under my own initial comment?

For example I posted an Oppose comment and then later on added some more comments under that rather than in the discussion area. Is this OK?

Also I added a response under an editor in the Support area which replied to allegations made in that editor's comment. Is that OK or should it go in the discussion area?

You can see what I did here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Welsh_Not#Request_for_comment_on_including_a_computer-generated_image

Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no particular expertise here, but as far as I am concerned, there's more than one way to pet a cat. So long as your contribution makes logical sense, I think that's fine. I would be a bit careful with chronology--it's helpful to indicate timing in such an addition, like "after having read Dumuzid's imbecilic comment below...." or the like. I am not aware of a hard and fast rule, but I am sure we will both hear of one if it exists. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid Thanks, just wanted to get an idea if I had broken an obvious rule. It's like the wild west out there! Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin Needed: KambizShekdar

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.

---

KambizShekdar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was brought to WP:AN by @Rsjaffe: for bludgeoning an AFD about his company. I partial blocked the editor from the AfD and subsequently from the article. Since then, @331dot and Ponyo: have declined unblocks that do not indicate he understands the issue or why they were blocked. The wikilawyering has just changed locations. Further, the user said that Be aware that if this page is voted to be deleted, especially while I have been blocked from sharing a highly significant article published today in a major biotech / pharma publication, I will be pursuing all available mechanisms on wiki to request a review of this decision to delete the page. All of this, plus his creation in mainspace despite AfC declines, leads me to believe and DGG to say that the user should probably be indeffed because the disruption appears unlikely to stop as he fundamentally does not understand our COI guidelines. I am too involved to act, but would love eyes from another admin. Star Mississippi 17:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please block. I still don't understand how anyone can be clever enough to get a PhD, but not clever enough to recognise that he is engaged in the most blatant of advertising, but it looks like I'll remain ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: The page in question is not about a for-profit company, it is about a U.S. 501(c)3 public charity. KambizShekdar (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Further wikilawyering, ABF continuing at the editor's Talk. Star Mississippi 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• I have converted the block into a sitewide block of indefinite duration per WP:NOTHERE, since this is a single-purpose account which is only here to push marginal POV. I am going to bed now, so if it escalates, or there is consensus here that the block is not appropriate, any administrator may lift or modify the block without asking me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I endorse this block. The behavior was way out of line. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Mortaylor26 - persistent disruptive editing, mainly WP:NOTBROKEN

Mortaylor26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been warned multiple times by multiple users to follow WP:NOTBROKEN, and continues same exact editing after said warnings and a block just a few days ago for it as well. User seems either unable or unwilling to communicate, as not a single one of their edits has occurred on a talk page, even following the warnings and blocks. Just getting plainly disruptive at this point as they continue doing this. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Also see recent AIV report (was suggested to go here instead). Magitroopa (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User ScottMartini25

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.

---

Reported user repeatedly vandalizes the Susa weddings article sometimes as an IP or as a registered editor, here are some examples : [51], [52], [53]. Sounds like a WP:NOTHERE account. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the vandal and semi-protected the page for three days--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I actually blocked them indefinitely and protected the page for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe edit warring immediately after block

Astonishingly, within a week of egregiously violating 3RR at Amanda Stoker, CatCafe has decided to go and edit war at Grace Tame. The history is a bit complex but these look like 4 reverts (possibly it's 3): 1234. Recall that 3RR applies whether involving the same or different material and that 3RR need not be violated for something to be edit warring (as it is here, edit summaries with the gist "okay okay I'll take it to the talk page but I'm just going to do this one revert first" are evidence that CatCafe knows this is edit warring).

CatCafe alleges that the two other edit warring users are the same person, which could be true but is still immaterial as to whether edit warring is acceptable. (Accusations of sockpuppetry like this do not count as sufficient for WP:3RRNO#3.) In this case, Brodiebrock is edit warring also but if they are genuinely a new user then I've just left them a notification explaining what 3RR and edit warring is, and if they're a sock then they'll be blocked at SPI. — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

While I've had some challenging times with CatCafe at AE (though admittedly my recollection of the details there are foggy), in fairness to them, Brodiebrock is failing to explain themselves beyond just staccato claims that are left hanging there. They express concerns regarding POV, but provide no follow up (POV how?). They also express concerns regarding policy adherence, but again provide no follow up (which policy?). I noted this much on the article talk page, using the {{admin note}} template to emphasize my role as an uninvolved admin in this matter (diff). El_C 12:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Brodiebrock's editing history, the first edits were on 29 August 2021:

• Edit 1 removed material from The Australian with the edit summary: "Restored text to consensus reached on talk page. Please do not restore this point of view without discussion on talk page." This appears to be in reference to this 2019 discussion and removed material added by Polyshine the day before.
• Edit 2 undid an edit by Polyshine on the article of Tanya Plibersek, with the edit summary: "Restored original text. Please discuss on the talk page if you want to make such changes." This text concerns Australian Labor politician Plibersek's husbands criminal conviction from before they met.
• Edit 3 blanked a section from the Morrison Government article about a $600 million+ pork-barelling scandal, with the edit summary: "This is not notable. Please discuss at the talk page if you want to add such controversial text." This was also removing content added by Polyshine, and it has since been restored.
• Edit 4 undid another Polyshine edit, this time removing favourable comment (though questionable on DUE grounds) from the article of Mark Dreyfus, another Labor politician.
• Edit 6, made 22 minutes after edit 2, added Plibersek's husband to the lede of the article. I have just removed this addition, pointing to the talk page consensus against its inclusion.

The more recent edit war at Grace Tame has removed content relevant to her activism. Tame has been a critic of the Morrison Government on abuse-related issues. So, Brodiebrock is a "new" editor ​who:

• uses edit summaries the cite prior talk page consensus in their first edit;
• is performing changes all in one political direction - minimising criticism of the Morrison Government (and The Australian is very much a supporter of this Government and anti-Labor), including in distorting the activism of Grace Tame, adding negative emphasis to the Plibersek WikiBio (in the face of an existing talk page concensus), and removing positive material from Dreyfus' WikiBio
• knowingly edit warring with CatCafe (who should not have edit warred back) - this is Brodiebrock's (at least) fourth revert in 24 hours on the Grace Tame article and has the edit summary "Please take this to the talk page rather than edit war your entry into the article page."
  • Bold removal
  • 1 h 48 min later, revert 1
  • 12 min later, a complete undo of CatCafe (revert 2)
  • after a further 5 min another complete undo of CatCafe (revert 3) - this one with the edit summary "You've changed the text. You take it to talk" in response to CatCafe's summary "Take it to talk. This topic is about Tame, and the reason why she became an activist. It is central."
  • even after that, another 5 minutes later, Brodiebrock's fourth revert and all in just over two hours!
• making claims of personal attacks and harrasment [54] [55] and appears to have been following Polyshine at first
• sees a quote from LGBT activist Sally Rugg about her coming out as not passing the notability test for inclusion in her WikiBio.

It seems obvious to me that Brodiebrock is a SOCK, and has a POV that is inconsistent with the pages they are editing, questionable judgement, and is edit warring and accusing another editor who posts a warning about it as engaging in harassment. Bilorv, in posting about CatCafe, did you not notice (a) the edit warring from Brodiebrock and (b) the bias / POV pushing? Has Brodiebrock shown enough to earn a NOTHERE indef? 112.213.147.109 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There's already an SPI open, where your comment would better fit. Brodiebrock being a sock would not justify CatCafe's behaviour. — Bilorv (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added a note to the SPI, Bilorv. I do think it is sad, though, that you are so intent on CatCafe's edit warring (which I wasn't defending) to not have any concerns about POV-pushing and bias in article space editing, whether done by a confirmed sock or not. Article space is supposed to be important, isn't it? 112.213.147.109 (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion is about the behavior of @CatCafe. It is not to discuss any SPI cases. That is why @Bilrov is focused on this topic here. There are proper venues for every discussion. Edit warring usually involves at least one side pushing their own POV so whether its a sock or an established editor doing it doesn't really matter. Neither are a positive for the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 12:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A while back CatCafe was pretty confrontational toward me and a few other editors in the Jessica Yaniv article. I don't remember any editing warring being involved, but they did accuse me of being a raving transphobe. Plus, they said me and the other editors were "wikisplaining and working overtime in order to whiteant the article." Among other things. So there's clearly some behavioral issues that should be dealt with. Regardless of if Brodiebrock turns out to be a sock. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe is on the article accusing any editor who disagrees with them as a sockpuppet. Here is CatCafe's latest accusation of a new editor [56]. Their aggressive editing and using Wikipedia pages of sitting Australian politicians as an attack page on them. CatCafe's hatred of the current Coalition government is very apparent. Also consistent edits with CatCafe's POV and attack on Coalition politicians are occurring with IP addresses popping up. These are very likely to be sockpuppets of CatCafe to back up their POV 'attack' editing on BIOs of living persons contravening policy? Honestyisbest (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Will open a new sockpuppet investigation with CatCafe as the Master sock and using multiple IP addresses. Honestyisbest (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In an ironic (but not unexpected) twist, Honestyisbest has been blocked as a sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I've really got no more to add here as a pile-on initiated by these complaints and the now banned sockpuppet/s has led to some harassment and attempted outing. I'm currently dealing with that and will make no further comment. I believe the explanation by admin El_C above perfectly encapsulates the situation under complaint. The article-space disputes have ceased since the multi-sockpuppet/s was banned, and thanks to admin Mz7 for that investigation. It's now evident the sockpuppet/s was active in conservative POV pushing and actively winding up conflict on a number of pages, and with a number of editors, under 5 undeclared IDs. And now that they're banned there is no further opportunity for investigation into possible COI and/or PAID issues they may have been involved in. CatCafe (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd hardly call these complaints a pile-on. I can almost guarantee that if I had of accused someone of being ragging transphobe or anything along those lines that there would be extreme backlash for it right now. Whereas, apparently it's a perfectly fine accusation for you to make. So you should at least considered yourself lucky that your on that side of the privilege fence. In the meantime, it's at least a good example of the double standards on here if nothing else. Not that they aren't glaringly obvious already. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Can this topic be resolved and closed by an admin now. It's getting off topic, as the above editor accusing me of 'privilege' or something possibly judgemental incorrectly attests to. The complaint at hand was about 3 or 4 changes I made after a conservative POV sockpuppet was following me around on another page I was working on. This sockpuppet and their 5 IDs are banned now and I believed they possibly had COI and/or PAID motives. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The comment is relation to your privilege as an established editor that allows you to insult people in a ways that less established users, including myself, would not be able to get away without either suffering sever backlash or being blocked. Not that I'd accuse someone of being a raging transphobe. What the comment didn't have to do with was your race, gender, disability or other any other status that I neither know anything of or care in the slightest about. That said, if you can provide a better reason then your privilege as an established editor that there would be zero response to the clearly abusive language you've used toward me and other users I'm more then willing to change my opinion about it.

In the meantime, I really don't appreciate your message on my talk page accusing me of making "Judgement slurs." I'd really appreciate it if you either reverted the title of the comment, changed it, or struck it out. There's zero reason to attack me like that simply for having an opinion and I really don't want that kind of insulting nonsense on my talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please wrap this topic up. Adamant1 has been editing at WP for twice as long as I, so their arguments are nonsensical, and a distraction. I have carried this debate of Adamant1's over to their talkpage where it belongs.CatCafe (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Just as a reference for whoever the admin is that looks over this, CatCafe just said on my talk page "you seem to have a history of passing judgement and targeting people based on gender, and you seem to be doing so again here." I've said absolutely nothing about CatCafe's gender here or anywhere else. Nor have I ever targeted or passed judgement on anyone in the past over their gender. So clearly they are just making stuff up in order to deflect from their own bad behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that Adamant1 wants to redirect the complaint - even when the original 3RR accusation had nothing to do with them, or had they even visited the said page under discussion - they need to now make this complaint about their grievance with me that occurred many moons ago. They promise me they will WP:DROPTHESTICK if I do what they say and "apologize in the ANI for the baseless insults and accusations you've made". So, Adamant1, I am sincerely sorry, time for you to move on. CatCafe (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the apology, even if the last part makes it sound a little tendentious and insincere. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, I think that's the 2nd time I have had to apologise to you for the same thing, and I would like to ensure there isn't a 3rd. I'd appreciate it if you would now take your focus elsewhere please. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Indonesian articles

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

---

We have an influx of Indonesian editors creating too many problematic articles. Many of these have been moved to draft or AfD'ed, but it seems difficult to get these people to change their approach. The editors include User:Mataram Putra, User:Anaya Fayola Amijaya, User:The cinnamon, User:Mike herlin, User:Monalisa indrawati, User:Rini milia fitriani, User:Sutarnoaja, User:Dedy Tisna Amijaya, ... (plus a number of edits from different IPs).

Examples of articles (all were once in the mainspace but many have been draftified): Sultan Alif, Draft:Sultan Iskandar Zulkarnain, Draft:Kerajaan Sungai Pagu and Draft:Kerajaan Sungai Pagu 2, Draft:Kerajaan Adat Paksi Pak Sekala Brak; Kerajaan Pagaruyung (while we already had Pagaruyung Kingdom), Draft:Istana Gedung Dalom and Istana Gedung Dalom, Draft:Kepaksian Sekala Brak, Traditional weapon Istana Gedung Dalom, Payan (Senjata tradisional), Muhammad Said Titles Muda Sengatti, Uppu Sejambak, Draft:Islam in Lampung and Draft:Islam in Lampung (2), Draft:Maharaja Diraja...

All this effort needs to be either guided to much better results, or stopped. But at the moment they seem to be the main influx of too many poor quality articles, and reducing this would help. Fram (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting, looks like a serious problem indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

New account Special:Contributions/Jaya_CFJ_99, similar edit pattern at Kepaksian Sekala Brak. 2A01:4C8:41:F1F7:E84E:F4EC:5DB:176 (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Kepaksian Sekala Brak is not really type of articles we want in the main namespace (will move to draft now, though speedy is also an option).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There was already a draft, so I speedy deleted the article--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It's back again, this time from User:Monalisa indrawati. 2A01:4C8:41:F1F7:E84E:F4EC:5DB:176 (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if many (all?) of these editors have been blocked at the Indonesian Wikipedia: it certainly is the case for Jaja CFJ 99[57] and Mataram Putra[58]. And we have what looks to be their equivalent of a sockpuppet investigation at [59]; perhaps best if a checkuser takes a look at all of these here, and if they are indeed socks block them all and delete all their contributions? Fram (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The master account seems to be User:Dedy Tisna Amijaya who is not yet blocked here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

But would still be blockable if confirmed, e.g. Monalisa indrawati moved a Dedy Tisna Amijaya draft to main space. Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JassenMarang17 might be relevant, a recently active Indonesian master on enwiki. The socks in the JassenMarang17 case are all mobile accounts, and the accounts listed above are not mobile (the ones I checked), but there may be a connection.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Anaya Fayola Amijaya (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Mataram Putra (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and The cinnamon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) have all edited Sekala Brak and are all blocked as Dedy Tisna Amijaya socks on id.wiki, so that's a definite policy violation here. And there are other overlaps here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Removing a speedy template in own article is not ok, so I am going to block indef Anaya Fayola Amijaya and The cinnamon, and, per CU investigation, Dedy Tisna Amijaya. I have to go now, will block when I am back in approximately two hours, and will look more closely at this sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the master and three confirmed socks. To proceed, we need either a SPI, or a good argument why the other accounts satisfy WP:DUCK (which is pretty much the same as needed for SPI anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Filed at SPI (better venue for socking, and a CU will be helpful with the amount of accounts here).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Danny Watts, COI, and Legal Threats

Greetings, administrators.

My apologies if this report is incorrect in any fashion, from venue to some other procedural aspect. I'm quite new to reporting things on noticeboards. I tend to just quietly RCP using Huggle, but, this seems significant.

2A02:C7E:FA4:AF00:4DE3:2EFC:6AD5:F2B2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Copying: User:Schazjmd, User:M.Bitton, and User:Spencer.

• IP user claims to be Danny Watts and has attempted to blank and/or edit the page ([60], [61]) to remove information under the guise he does not wish for it to be displayed.
• When the blanking was reverted they made, or at best insinuated, a legal threat ([62]). They were warned by Schazjmd for making said threat ([63]), and then later made a blatant legal threat ([64] in summary).
• The user was issued a notice about a potential WP:COI and has not made any response to it as of this report ([65]).
• The user was issued a level 4 blanking warning by myself ([66]) and then continued to blank the page (per the 3rd diff in bullet 2).
• The user was reported at WP:AIV by M.Bitton ([67]) and was redirected to WP:ANI per WP:GAIV by Spencer ([68]). This isn't really relevant to the IP user directly, but is moreso me providing context as to why this report is here, as I was keeping an eye on how that report went. I originally intended to submit a report but was asking my mentor a question regarding IP users and legal threats before moving forward.

I'm not entirely sure what the resolution should be, and so I request some mop-powered eyes. —Sirdog (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for the very direct legal threats but, for an IP editor, Twinkle's default setting for this kind of block is 31 hours. For registered accounts, it's an indefinite block so I'm wondering what other admins think about this.

I also posted a note directing them to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help which is what I think we should do in cases like this instead of issuing threats. If this is the subject of a Wikipedia article and they are upset at the article content, they aren't going to want to wade into the bureaucracy of Wikipedia policies. Direct them to where they can get information about contacting someone. Yes, they were disruptive but I think you overdid the warnings here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Years ago, an editor managed to get his bio article deleted. Can't remember the fellow's name. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've read several articles about Watts coming out in 2017, I doubt the IP editor is him. But it's not impossible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that my level 4 warning was overzealous considering all the other warnings given to the IP, and I'll definitely attempt to direct people in similar situations to user-friendly resources more often moving forward. I appreciate the swift response, nonetheless! —Sirdog (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I have to admit that I know very little about Twinkle because I carry out all of my administrative actions manually. But I would never allow any app, tool or gadget to impede my choices as an administrator. I suggest that you override Twinkle or exit Twinkle to deal with this in the old school fashion. Overt legal threats by IPs deserve much longer blocks than 31 hours in my opinion unless there is a record of productive editing from that IP address which indicates that other people are using it, and treating obvious IP disruption with excessive leniency is not a good thing, which is also my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328. If Twinkle doesn't provide the best outcome for a specific scenario, don't use it. In this case, as with all IPv6 disruption, admins should always be checking the /64 contributions, which in this case shows that this range has been used repeatedly over the last couple of weeks by the same individual. A 31-hour block on a single IP from within an individually allocated /64 range isn't going to stop anything. See User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well and I would extend it to the /64 range given the edit history on that page. It appears the entire /32 range is being used. As an additional measure, I am going to semi-protect the BLP for 2 weeks. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I asked for your opinions and thank you for offering me yours, Cullen328, [Ponyo and EvergreenFir. I use Twinkle because it posts a notice on the editor's talk page which I find convenient. And, depending on the type of block, it offers a suggested length but I don't blindly follow it and I always alter the length when I find it insufficient. So, I use the tools, I don't let them use me. But I asked this question here, soliciting your feedback, because I have never blocked an IP address for more than a few days and it has always been for vandalism, never a legal threat. I have occasionally seen much longer blocks for IP addresses that were school blocks or for LTAs but I don't think it is common practice. I thought I need to act quickly on this incident and am grateful for you following up on my initial block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The article was mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Danny Watts. At BLPN as I think with a number of regulars, I generally just accept someone claiming to be the subject since a lot of the time it doesn't matter, better to just take their concerns at face value and see if there's anything we can do about them. (We don't always even bother to mention how they can verify their identity.)

But I have doubts that the IP is the subject. Prior to the recent legal threats, the same IP (same /64) was adding stuff about how the subject regrettable came out as gay and emphasising his current alleged? relationship with a woman who is the "love of his life, rock and soulmate"[69] with AFAIK no indication that they were the subject. It's possible this is just the subject who was inititally trying to avoid having to identity themselves and regrets having came out. But it seems more likely this is just some random who doesn't like that the subject having came out as gay since I'm sure there's a lot of that. Still we should direct the IP to how they can get help, although in this case I don't think we can do much without verification of identity and even with verification, there may be little we can do.

As for the blocking issue, I think the reason why it default to 31 is the same reason nearly all blocks of IPs default to a short period, a fair amount of the time the IP is just going to change soon. If there is some evidence it's stable longer term, IMO it's fine to block it for longer. Although I'd still suggest in most cases with a first block or a first longish block, you should limit the block to maybe a month at most since even if the IP has been stable, it can easily change once it's blocked. Of course it does still depend on the history, and notably IMO if you block for a month and a month later or whatever the same IP comes back it's reasonable for the next one to be 6 months or something.

IMO while someone making legal threats cannot edit, and we should not ignore the chilling effect of such threats, I actually consider such threats less important than persistent BLP violations or persistent vandalism. So it doesn't make sense to block for longer if we're not going to for those. And AFAIK it's still the norm that most of the time IPs are blocked for short periods even if someone editing with an account would have been indefed.

I'd actually be much more concerned that the block was for the IP only. It really should be for the /64 as with nearly all IPv6 IPs. See the history for confirmation of that Special:Contributions/2A02:C7E:FA4:AF00:4DE3:2EFC:6AD5:F2B2/64.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking more carefully I realise now the IP didn't start with the regrettable stuff but instead tried adding details about the claimed new relationship a few months ago Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:96B9:BF00:48EC:29D0:A830:F59/64 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7E:F32:5600:C9FF:FD1A:7C6D:B310/64 so my doubts are reduced. In any case I apologise to the subject if I was mistaken, unfortunately fake claims of being someone do happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The various IPs that have been trying to change/remove that content on the article are all tagged as mobile web edits, so I figured WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU was in force. A custom block notice seems to be the only message we can be sure they'll see, if I'm reading that page correctly. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. The IPv6 doesn't help either although it looks like it's just persistent enough they might have gotten messages otherwise. The edit summaries they've been using make me think they've probably reading the edit history at least. (The IP addresses thing seems to be bluster since AFAICT only one editor reverting them has used an IP and there's no signs the WMF is involved. But still I figure if you're leaving messages like that you must have some idea how an edit history works.) Anyway given this and that I can't do anything about custom block notices but I did leave an edit summary trying to explain the situation to them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I too have some doubts that the IP is the subject, but given their geolocation (the birthplace of the subject), they could very well have a conflict of interest. Either way, we cannot ignore the legal threats and protecting the article was a good idea. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation

I have a relatively rare surname, so there there are only a couple of others with the same surname/given name combination, and none of them seem to be active online. I'm an admin, bureaucrat and checkuser on Wiktionary, so it's not surprising that I get the occasional hassment and abuse. Lately I've been dealing with a slow-motion but persistent harassment campaign from someone who every once in a while creates an account with some variation of my name, then either adds something offensive to the dictionary or posts personal information that they've dug up about me on their user page, and finally does something like reverting one of my edits to make sure I'm aware of it.

I was able to put a stop to this on Wiktionary, so now they've started doing the same thing here. So far, the only impersonation account here that I'm aware of is User:Charles Entz, though I'm sure there will be others in time. It's not that big of a deal, but I'd appreciate it if you could do something to shut them down here as well. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser needed Charles Entz (talk · contribs) has been indeffed by HJ Mitchell. You can let me or another admin know if this occurs again and, with luck, a checkuser will see if anything further is needed now. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I thought there was something odd going on there. I've deleted the impostor's userpage and reblocked without talk page or email. As John says above, a checkuser might prove useful but beyond that there's not much we can do besides watch and wait. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have run a checkuser and found a sock of User:Charles Entz called user:Fried Pork Dumplings. No sleepers found. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Iyo-farm

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.

---

Iyo-farm (talk · contribs) is a POV warrior in favor of animal rights, who has lost their way in arguing, among other things, that the killing of companion animals in the UK at the start of WWII deserves mention in The Holocaust, and is now bludgeoning three threads at Talk:The Holocaust to argue their POV [70] [71] ,.

This follows edit-warring to include the British killing of animals in 1940 [72] (note the "speciesist" jibe in the edit summary at editors who dare to object) and disruption to the talkpage by reordering comments to their liking [73]

They've also managed to trivialize the Armenian holocaust by comparing the relative numbers of Armenians killed to the number of animals killed in Britain [74], and are now wandering into very strange allusions to British intelligence operations and Queen Elizabeth. They've been emphatically warned about a variety of issues, and patience is gone. I suggest at minimum a partial block from both the article and talkpages of The Holocaust, and maybe a topic ban from the subject of genocide, broadly construed. Their comments on my talkpage in response to my direct warnings betray a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and process [75], and at this point they appear to be blind to anything but their own demands that articles be coatracks for their views. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Addendum Now i'm getting more strange commentary on my talkpage concerning Queen Elizabeth and Ribbentrop [76], which is causing me to question their competence to edit, and this accusation of gaming the system..[77] Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment  – Iyo-farm has also managed to lecture User:Johnuniq, explaining the error of his ways at User_talk:Johnuniq#Correction, and betrays severe WP:IDHT there, at Talk:The_Holocaust (three different threads), and at User talk:Iyo-farm#Warning; as well as edit warring at the article to repeatedly insert irrelevant, RGW content there. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Iyo-farm is additionally the nominator in a request to move Animal rights and the Holocaust to Animal holocaust. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Right from the start, Iyo-farm has dismissed objections to inclusion of this off-topic material through disparaging comments, describing contributors as 'speciesist' [78] (see edit summary), and as 'knee jerking to a moral outrage' [79], has repeatedly messed around with talk-page comment order (even after [80] I advised them not to [81]), and generally refused to address the substantive objection to inclusion of this material: that sources discussing the specific topic of the article - the systematic slaughter of Jews by the Nazis - don't include the killing of pets etc in the UK as a part of their subject matter. Repeated attempts to justify inclusion are self-evidently WP:OR, from a contributor who's recent editing history regarding other articles (see e.g. this recent RfC at Talk:Animal rights and the Holocaust [82], and the recent editing history of British pet massacre) makes it clear that they are motivated by more than the debate over 'etymology' that they are now trying to present this as. [83] As Acroterion suggests, at minimum a block from the Holocaust article would seem appropriate, though I'm not entirely sure that this is likely to be sufficient. They come across very much as someone attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in an entirely inappropriate manner, via WP:BLUDGEON etc, and I can easily imagine the same behaviour being repeated elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an insultingly disingenuous WP:GAMING of the system & dog whistle, quite deliberately & dishonestly misrepresenting my position & contributions in a prejudicial manner.

If anyone wants to seriously discuss the issues relating to use of the word, as per the September Holocaust etc or my intentions, please let me know. --Iyo-farm (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iyo-farm:, you've not been shy in discussing content issues at the article, even in the face of universal opposition. As you well know, being a ten-year veteran, the issue here is your behavior, which is what we are discussing. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

...And on it goes. In Iyo-farm's latest post to Talk:The Holocaust we see yet more WP:OR - a link to an article which says nothing whatsoever [84] about the slaughter of animals in the UK, being presented as evidence in their ongoing efforts to expand an article on specific historical events into a generalised 'holocausts' dictionary-definition/etymology article to justify inclusion of their personal bugbear. [85] This is getting thoroughly tedious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that any further contributions to The Holocaust or its talk page are of any value and only continue disruption. I will place a partial block to at least limit that damage, while discussion may continue on a broader set of measures--including a block for disruption, edit warring, bludgeoning, and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not damage if it's informative, relevant, supported by references even if the page's gatekeepers WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Let's not fool ourselves, I am the bludgeoned, not the bludgeonees. Some people just don't like change or challenges to their perceived ownership of a topic. That's what my 10 years taught me, especially in topics people are passionate about, & why I limited my editing to stuff I know about.

It's really interesting. So far, we've got to the earliest use of the term directly relating to the Nazis. That in itself is noteworthy. It's literally historic & fascinating, due to the historical characters involved, e.g. Thelma Gray. As is Churchill's first referances to it (also removed). The background to how its usage arose is, likewise, noteworthy (albeit briefly in the main article). And there is still a little more to document on the evolution & adoption of the term from general usage, even relating to WWII, to specific capital T, capital H use which is not in the either article, but is supported by academia.

We accept the usage as a given today, post Meryl Streep, but that was not the fact from the 30s to the 60s at the very least. To reduce all that to "warring, bludgeoning, and personal attacks" or disruption, is anti-encyclopedic. The page isn't a memorial, it about the facts.

Please allow me to call a spade a spade without causing offense. The initial knee-jerk of the reactionaries, as they have stated & portrayed prejudicially, is all wrapped up in the outrage of a comparison or even correlation of the victims of The Holocaust, and companion animals.

But that's a point I've never made. My interest is solely in the use of language, & that is perfectly valid.

Now, what is likely going to happen is that this handful of editors are going to keep acting deliberately provocatively & irrational, e.g. [86], & forum & admin shopping in an attempt to exercise their control over the topic. Hoping that I will react in a manner that can be then used against me & damage my standing. Others, as they have already done, will pour over my previous contributions to try & find evidence that can be used against me, & any reasonable questions or suggestions will be ignored or reverted.

All for 45 words, in a topic page of over 16,000. Does that really seem rational to you?

Now, I am prepared to do the foot work & dig out real world references from newspapers and war records to support what has already been discovered on the internet, e.g. Gray's involvement but to do so, it has to be treated fairly by peers who are willing to think it through, & check them.

(And, lastly, as a footnote, can I just underline the obvious, that a slaughter of 500,000 companion animals [26% of London's population] is not just about the animals, but the 500,000 families they were part of & suffered the trauma of. Given London's role in the ending of the real Holocaust, & the price it paid, I think they're due respectful treatment too. What the related academia points out, repeating the findings of Mass-Observation [British War-time Intelligence] that such traumas & relationships had a significant part to play in the nation's moral, heightening the awareness of the term used to describe it. Again, not my POV but in the references). Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies,

Ah, I see you've already given the proponents their 'win' before waiting for my response, thereby rewarding this waste of time & energy, & obstructing any further productive & valuable contribution. --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Comparing the current revision of British pet massacre with the revision before Iyo-farm edited it, something seems very wrong. Of course the term "holocaust" was used denotationally before WWII, but since WWII, the connotation of that word has fundamentally changed. Iyo-farm's edits seem directed at projecting that post-WOII connotation on older denotational uses relating to the destruction of animals, with the specific agenda of promoting animal rights (or perhaps 'pet rights', as the case may be). Of course they will find sources for this, but the mere fact that this theme has been exploited by some of the less discerning among animal rights advocates doesn't make this anything more than a fringe view. Someone with more background knowledge should look at this, but if this analysis is correct, a topic ban on animal rights (broadly construed) should be considered. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Iyo-farm has now apparently decided, after being blocked from the Holocaust article and its talk page, to continue with the same mix of badgering, WP:OR (i.e. asserting things to be true simply because they suit his/her arguments)), and great-wrong-righting over at Talk:Animal rights and the Holocaust. [87] At this point, a topic ban from any subject relating to either animal rights or the Holocaust would probably be the most sensible course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As I suggested above, the topic ban should cover the subject of genocide, broadly construed, not just the Holocaust, since they've already been comparing the animal killings against the Armenian genocide. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from animal rights and the Holocaust, broadly construed. This editor is on an unrelenting and disruptive campaign of axe grinding in order to right great wrongs. It cannot be allowed to continue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• FYI, they have appealed this block at WP:AN#Unblock request by User:Iyo-farm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as described by Cullen328. This user seems to have made constructive contributions in the past outside of these two topic areas – and I hope they will continue to do so. All current evidence suggests that they will end up blocked if they continue editing within the areas of animal rights and the Holocaust. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Iyo-farm: What you're not understanding here is that the content of Wikipedia is decided by consensus. If every editor but you thinks it should be one way and you think it should be another way, you are welcome to try to argue your point and convince the other editors that your idea is a good one. But if the other editors refuse to budge from their position, then you have to give it up. It does not matter how logical you think your ideas are or how irrational you think the other editors are being, if there is no consensus for inclusion then it will not go in the article. You have made your points and the other editors have disagreed with you; the discussion is over, and it is time for you to accept that and drop the stick. Mlb96 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As for your unblock request, it really only needs a single sentence. I'll even tell you what that sentence is: "I promise to respect consensus at The Holocaust, British pet massacre, and Animal rights and the Holocaust from now on." Include this in your unblock request, and I guarantee it will be successful. Mlb96 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't guarantee such a thing, given that the scope of their conduct includes assumptions of bad faith against nearly everybody they've encountered - that needs to be addressed as well. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, in hindsight my comment wasn't entirely accurate. Mlb96 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Cullen328. I was thinking of an indefinite block due to the willingness to battle on despite an obvious consensus, but a topic ban would be fine. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This is unrelated to the above but last week I encountered Iyo-farm on the talk-page of The Vegan Society article. As I noted back then, this user is too aggressive and angry in his edits, he is incapable of a civil discussion and resorted to questioning my motives and was implying I have an anti-animal rights agenda which is not true. He also removed content from the Vegan Society article and said he had a consensus but he didn't as it was only me and him discussing the content on the talk-page. This user doesn't appear to accept other users opinion and in regard to veganism he wants to re-write it's history as an "animal liberationist" as he calls it whilst denying it has anything to do with diet. This type of extremist editing is not neutral or in accord to what the sources say on the topic. If this user is to be topic-banned on animal rights then he certainly should not be editing anything related to veganism either because he is pushing a bad POV on these articles as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef, per El_C's note. The behaviours outlined in the section below is what I've observed, and was quite concerned about. The user is not here to build the encyclopedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite sitewide block

Since the disruption persisted after the partial blocks, I've converted it to a sitewide indef. For the record, my block summary reads: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1047173307#User:Iyo-farm [updated perm link] *** WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TE, WP:OR/WP:RGW now continues at Talk:Animal rights and the Holocaust and elsewhere. WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, WP:IDHT repetition . El_C 12:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a TBAN and the user is amenable, this block may be lifted accordingly. This block was applied to stop the ongoing disruption, not to supersede the proposal above. El_C 13:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

24 hours later, looks like neither the user nor anyone else have shown further interest in pursuing a topic ban. I suppose that may still change, but my sense is that it is unlikely to happen any time soon. El_C 13:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:156.57.215.68 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

(non-admin closure)

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.

---

Persistent disruptive editing, particularly at Canadian TV station articles. First reported at WP:AIV; told to come here. See contribs. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe this to be a sock of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.55.50.49 who was blocked for one year for disruptive editing by User:GorillaWarfare on 31 May 2021.   Aloha27  talk  15:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

IP Blocked by User:Girth_Summit   Aloha27  talk  15:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Tanha777

Tanha777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing, such as addition of (unattributed and unreferenced) tendentious material and section blanking without explanation or with misleading edit summaries, such as "I added info about education". (The education section in that article was not changed.) In this other edit they added controversial statements to a BLP while simply stating "I added info about his work experience". The vast majority of their edits lack edit summaries. They have so far ignored four warnings by separate users (other than myself), and nearly every one of their edits has been reverted. The disruption has been spread across a number of articles, mostly related to Pakistan. With regret, I believe this user to be uninterested in building the encyclopedia.

I apologize if this is the wrong venue to air this issue, as I am unfamiliar with the usual procedures. – Anon423 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox heading constantly removed

At first when my account was created I found a constructive edit I want to make to Wikipedia:Sandbox. Suddenly my edit is reverted by 5.142.194.40. I reverted. And they reverted again. Few minutes, other users kept reverting back and they reverted back to their version. But instead the new anonymous IP address is 178.68.116.248. So this IP address is a sockpuppet. I reverted it once again the last time and left the message on their talk page, but they removed it. I posted again. And they still removes the sandbox heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowLover334148 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@RainbowLover334148: the heading is automatically replaced by a bot and it's not necessary or at all recommended to edit war with IPs to reinstate it. Many IPs use the sandbox and may remove the heading so it's not really a safe assumption that they're maliciously socking. Can I suggest maybe editing your own sandbox if you'd like more control of the content there? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Jerwin07 not listening on copyright

A new editor Jerwin07 (talk · contribs) has been warned about adding copyright material but then made this edit lifting text wholesale from here. (They were creating an article where a remarkably similar stub they created, with the same copyvio, had already been moved to Draft:Maine_Goals). Their talk page also shows a series of problems over image copyright. They do not appear to understand the concept of copyright, and their editing is not improving the encyclopedia. PamD 14:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Lots of automated template notices on their talk page; no discussion namespace edits to date. I've posted a message on their talk page that they'll hopefully reply to. Levivich 15:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I see their contribs are all tagged with "Mobile edit Mobile web edit". Is this one of those cases where we've brilliantly encouraged editors to use an interface that doesn't actually tell them when they have talk page messages? I can't recall under what exact conditions this happens, nor what protocol we've decided on if this is happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether we have an actual protocol for this other than block and hope they'll notice. User:ProcrastinatingReader is our local expert for edit filter based hacks to communicate with WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU editors and might know how often they have been applied successfully. —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually didn't know there was a way to communicate to editors who fall under WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I would like to know how this may be possible. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, @Kusma:, that summarizes everything I couldn't recall. So it appears, as a logged-in mobile web user, that they should be getting talk page notifications, they just aren't the orange bar of doom. Let's wait to see if they reply to Levivich; if not, an attention-getting block to get them to their talk page might work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a related discussion at WT:Mobile communication bugs#Global consensus for standard admin protocol. Levivich 17:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, this editor has re-added the copyvio text. PamD 05:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well we tried. How about a pblock from mainspace with a block message pointing them in the right direction? Levivich 05:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

They’re logged in and on mobile web (not an app) which means they should get alerts. Suggest clearing their talk page of all the junk and having one section about the issue and asking them to reply. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Lord Stephenson

This user has today (and in the last days) repeatedly hindered different registered and not registered users from updating the photo about Olaf Scholz, both on this wiki-biography and on 2021 German federal election. There have been made several attempts by me with editing comments to persuade that vandal to go the ongoing discussion on the talk page of the german election-article, but as you can see by the history of the articles and by the history of the vandals contributions he is ignoring that and has kept on reverting, since the morning. --LennBr (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

LennBr, your opening sentence to your first response to Lord Stephenson's comment (today) reads: Well a lot of wanna-be arguments from you (diff). What's a "wanna-be argument"? I've never heard of that term before. I presume you mean not based in policy or something to that effect...? Also, you've failed to inform Lord Stephenson about this complaint, as is required, so how would they know that it even exists? I will do that for you. El_C 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C Thank you for this action. Regarding that term - I have explained in my response on that talk page, why most of his "arguments" cannot be seen as those. --LennBr (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a routine content dispute about which portraits of two German politicians should be used. LennBr, calling Lord Stephenson a "vandal" in this situation is completely unacceptable. Please withdraw that false accusation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Eep. I missed that. Probably a cascading ESL effect. El_C 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Cullen328: "Vandal" was not meant to offend. In another wikipedia-lanuage-section this term is used as a description and explaining for users who show the kind of ignoring and stubborn (not solution-oriented) and destructive behavior that Lord Stephenson has shown. --LennBr (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

LennBr, here, on the English Wikipedia, calling a user in good standing a "vandal" is usually seen as a personal attack. See what vandalism is not. Anyway, so now you know. El_C 17:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You've added destructive (bold) which caused me to edit conflict — not sure how that addition helps your case in any way (if anything, it is destructive to it, if you'd indulge me). El_C 17:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that if we talk about ignoring and stubborn behaviour, it is more fitting that we talk about the ignoring and stubborn behavior of LennBr rather than any supposed inappropriate behaviour coming from me. The fact of the matter is that LennBr has sadly elected to ignore my repeated requests that a consensus be obtained on the talk page of the 2021 German federal election page, as there is a clear difference of opinion between people on the images of the candidates. Sadly, LennBr has decided to push his decision unilateraly, without consulting anybody and has now filed this complaint against me and has also described my actions as vandalism, which is, I believe, not only baseless, but also contrary to WP:AGF. -- Lord Stephenson (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a content dispute, but I really don't see why updating a photo to a more recent one is controversial enough that requires talk page consensus prior to implementing. To insist a consensus is achieved on a talk page before updating an image seems stifling to open editing and unnecessary. It's not the same as adding or removing an image, or doing anything controversial. I don't think "get consensus" is reason enough to undo these edits in all honesty, it doesn't seem a reasonable expectation to me for this as that seems to be the sole objection, just that it hasn't been discussed. There doesn't appear to be any policy based reasoning from your edit summaries. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No, but neither is replacement of the images due to them being taken more recently alone. This is ultimately a difference in opinion which is not immediately based upon Wikipedia policy in both ways. As I have stated in my contribution to the discussion on the talk page of the 2021 German federal election page, I consider that the aesthetical advantages of the previous images, combined with the observation that the physical appearance of both candidates is not visibly different, outweigh the advantages of the fact that the images LennBr suggested. Anyhow, considering the evidence that there is a disagreement between both of us on which images, I consider it to be more worthwhile to take the discussion to the talk page and make and to hear the opinions of third persons rather than let this disagreement endure. -- Lord Stephenson (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Get consensus first in isolation is never a good enough reason. It has to be accompanied by some (any) reasoning, but is that the case here? El_C 17:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There is some reasoning going on at Talk:2021 German federal election but the bottom line is that the selection of the photos is a matter of personal preference, not policy. A Request for comment may be the best solution to the dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Lord_Stephenson: There cant be a consensus obtained when both remain at their different positions. Your complete disregard towards the opinion of several others, your disregard towards this situation, where your opinion does not represent the majority and your unreasonableness here shows that you lack the very basic for working with others in general. Such a behavior gets - from a good administrative management - sanctioned, at least by a warning/adress. For the administration this incident is an occasion to think about, whether his behavior is a consequence from being seen as member (as User:El_C called it) "in good standing". Lord Stephenson obviously thinks he can obstruct other people from updating wikipedia-articles, without being held accountable. He hasnt even justified, why he repeatedly obstruced others (although well knowing he was with his position in a minority). --LennBr (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

LennBr, when you have actual evidence of misconduct (in the form of WP:DIFFs, with quotes and summaries), maybe your complaint would be taken more seriously. But as it stands, you're the one coming across as needlessly hostile and confrontational. No proof, no consideration — surely, someone who has been on the project since 2015 is familiar with that maxim (which isn't limited to Wikipedia by any stretch). El_C 02:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In the introductory comment I have refered to his latest editings and to the elections-Talk page, where I mentioned editings from different users, and how they were reverted by him. --LennBr (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

LennBr, linking to one's contributions or to a lengthy talk page section isn't really evidence. When you make claims of misconduct, the burden is on you to substantiate. And, again, you do that with WP:DIFFs accompanied by quotes and summaries. Admins are not here to fill in the blanks for your report's incomplete evidence. Beyond that, the fact you you do not seem to have absorbed any of the advise provided by multiple admins above does not really inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. It's a bit concerning, tbh. El_C 08:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Achar Sva: tendentious, disruptive editing, and threats of harassment

Dear Admins: I wish to draw your attention to the recent behavior of User:Achar Sva (last here on December 14, 2020 with an entirely specious complaint about User:Sundayclose.) I generally avoid working on pages that I see AV editing as I find him tendentious, disruptive, and bullying, however, this relates, in my humble opinion, to a matter of ethics.

In the article Massacre of the Innocents, Achar Sva persists in inserting the lines, "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend or folklore." Please note, the statement is not the issue; the attribution most definitely is. The sentence is cited accurately enough to Paul L. Maier but completely disregards the fact that it is prefatory to his completely disagreeing with it. "After surveying currently scholarly opinion on the issue, I shall summarize the arguments advanced in favor of a mythical framework for the Matthean episode, then offer a critique of these arguments, and finally, present evidence supporting the historicity of the Infant Massacre."[88] Yet, Maier is literally "being used" to promote exactly the opposite view. Cherry-picking at this level requires a ladder.

This was first brought up at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents last January, which AV blithely ignores. One cannot have found the first part of Maier's statement without seeing the less convenient rest. Since then a number of editors have attempted to qualify or add context to the statement as attributed to Professor Maier (See edits by Shruti14, Springnuts, Longshortequities, 2600:1700:1bf2:1b10:2d83:1cb3:d7e3:a544, Bixmanj, and Shaun preston) and in each case they have been reversed, most often by Achar Sva, with an edit summary such as "We're only interested in the majority opinion". Using a source to support a position which that source, in fact, opposes, is more than disingenuous, and exactly the type of thing that brings wikipedia into disrepute. I respectfully request that Achar Sva be prohibited from editing this particular page as he clearly has no respect for sources. Vty. Manannan67 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a "specious" report. Meier says that the majority of Herod biographers and "probably a majority of Biblical scholars" don't believe the Massacre of the Innocents to be a historical event. That satisfies WP:RS/AC. The fact that Meier himself disagrees with the conclusion is immaterial. In either case, this is a content dispute, not something to be brought to ANI. Nor has the OP brought any evidence of "harassment".

Achar Sva is an excellent contributor here who works hard to make sure our articles follow modern, scholarly sources and reflect, as much as possible, consensus rather than idiosyncratic scholarly positions. I wholeheartedly support his work on this encyclopedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Manannan67 appears to have some serious civility problems, see these diffs: [89], [90]--Ermenrich (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If a respected scholar writes, in effect, "I know that I am in a minority position on this issue and that most other academics disagree with me, but I truly believe so-and-so, and here's why", then I see that as an excellent source for what the majority position is. Manannan67 clearly disagrees regarding the content issue, but what is unacceptable is for that editor to berate, belittle and attack other editors with a contrary view. Comments such as Unless done in error, it is duplicitous, dishonest, unethical, and hypocritical to twist a source to support a position he/she does not. It says a lot about an editor who doesn't recognize this, It says a great deal more about an editor who recognizes it BUT DOES IT ANYWAY are uncivil and completely contrary to the goal of achieving consensus. I urge this editor to reconsider their behavior on this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact is, the disputed (content) is cited in the body of the article to an even more recent source (2021!) which actually does not argue the opposite, so this seems petty argumentation over technicalities at its finest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-Admin Comment) I have a few thoughts and questions on the content but can do so at the article talk page. I reviewed the claim of incivility by Cullen. I believe they were justified to bring it up but it should go further to an extent. I share in Cullen's urge for @Manannan67 to evaluate their behavior in this discussion. Also, I consider unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry as uncivil so would encourage @Achar Sva to not make such claims without evidence to support it. Cullen is correct that this tone and attitude in discussion goes contrary to the collaborative goal of reaching consensus in a discussion. We should avoid such behavior. I also agree with @RandomCanadian that this is an argument over technicalities but one that should be had, on the article talk page. I would hold off on the term petty as that seems condescending, something I know was not the intention. --ARoseWolf 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC) --ARoseWolf 12:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent naming violation and POV bias by MfactDr

MfactDr has hostile behavior such as this revert which I made only fixing typo and they revert without good reason. I told them to stop this behavior in their talk page. As I mentioned to Austronesier, the user claims the official name of Districts of Ethiopia is Aanaa, but the government of Ethiopia assigned every district as woreda. This is an example of claim [91]. Wikipedia uses notable naming convention, and particularly usage by mainstream website, journals, books, news and more, and is not promoting one's interest, viewpoints, and driving propaganda. Administers, please consider this request seriously because I can't argue for this issue moreover with them because I confirmed they have negative attitude toward me personally, that why I inform in this page. Resolution between me and they should be needed by arbitration (if only we follow guidelines and policies in reasonable way). Thanks The Supermind (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The SupermindHostile behavior? for what reason? FYI: The name Aanaa in oromo while woreda is in Amharic. since the Oromo language is official on the oromia. Aanaa is used to refer to District and ward refers to Araddaa. Recently you are expressing dissatisfaction about the Oromia name. What is your justification for the name change here? Talk:Oromia § Requested move 20 September 2021. you previously campaigning to remove official name "Finfinne" here Talk:Oromia § Finfinne or Addis Ababa. Today You complaining oromo name in oromia. I really don't Understand your intentions. If you have any other issues Admin or community may help youMfactDr (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@MfactDr: You are still supporting WP:SOAP and not WP:NPOV. You strictly don't use "Aanaa" in English Wikipedia because it is Oromo name for "district" and you have to start a page with it in Oromo Wikipedia, this is not proper place for translating English to Oromo language. Also, please stop reverting my typo fix that you want meaningless, hodgepodge words and sentences such as in Jawar Mohammed. Because of your poor English language and capability, TrangaBellam deleted your longed interest to exaggerate Jawar Mohammed as a hero. The Supermind (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• By the way, notability is depend on dictionary, unfortunately "woreda" is found in Wiktionary, and "Aanaa" does not exist.

@MfactDr: Stop adding unrelated short description at Shashemene. It is a region and no need of full name. The Supermind (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed the text to use the English word "district," which matches the other administrative division terms used in the article (zone and region). BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear @BubbaJoe123456:, thank you very much for settling issues that MfactDr irritably defied. If so, by looking lists of districts of Ethiopia, you have an onus to change all district written as "woreda" into "district" for balancing article. The Supermind (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not the first time that MfactDr's poor editing behavior has been brought to the short attention of ANI. This was a previous discussion of his POV-driven editing with strong disregard for the rules of Wikipedia, which unfortunately did not attract any intervention by admins. For me personally this resulted in retreating from editing most Ethiopia-related pages, because the Wikipedia community proved to be not sufficiently interested to enforce its rules in places that are little understood by them. In effect this means that we are giving free reign to editors such as MfactDr or The Supermind to turn Wikipedia pages into unreadable POV-battlefields of various nationalist ideologies. Poor English is in this respect the least of our concerns. These characters are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. LandLing 09:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: I'm not getting intense conflict anymore because I'm neutral than MfactDr, not supporting Amhara nationalism and I didn't not say Amhara names are correct to build encyclopedia. MfactDr disdain to follow MOS:AT, which states that "A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another." But every community ignoring these guideline would encouraging systemic bias by Wikipedia administration overall. I'm saying supporting these guidelines, even if not an official policy, because my aim is to build an encyclopedia that anyone trust it. Secondly, I believe in WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS as I told in earlier discussion with MfactDr, I have to trust their interest for mutual consensus. I also totally agreed on insertion of Finfinne at Oromia because of finally admitting an embassy source. There is no further conflict between us afterward regarding Oromia. As I aforementioned above, MfactDr deliberately removed my typo fix of short description – so this is said to be hostile edit without explained reason in the edit summary. This is a behavioral problem and is appropriate to inform in this page. Administrative names should be written by well-known name of Ethiopian government. However, all regions specifically assigned as "woreda" including Oromia Region, and they don't use the name "Aanaa" as official name, but Aanaa is Oromo translation for "district" and non notable. Since we use most notable names per MOS:AT, translation is not proper place to add English Wikipedia, instead by their language edition. After BubbaJoe123456 offered good resolution, I totally agreed, and suggested all articles should be written the same as district. The Supermind (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Not paid just trying to edit

I’m really bothered by the fact that editors and other individuals are editing a page for don bolduc in NH. I was under the assumption that this is open to the public and free to change pages… I don’t know why someone in TX things it’s their right to revert back text I am writing. I am not a paid contractor or not a paid editor I am nobody connected the campaign I’m just a guy trying to make edits and I was given the OK by the campaign to make whatever changes I wanted. I feel that the editors and other individuals were just reverting text back to what they feel is right is questionable at best. I’m trying to edit pages and add citations I can’t do it all at once so would appreciate it if someone can provide some guidance as to the proper terminology to use as opposed to just arbitrarily reverting contact back without context. Nothing that I’m writing is wrong or not factual and I’m looking to understand why you feel it is. If you’d stop changing it maybe I could put the citations on. If this is supposed to be an open and free editorial area then I don’t understand why it’s monitored by editors. I’m not going against any rules but individuals are just editing and reverting stuff back. I’m also trying to learn Wikipedia at the same time and this isn’t my job.

I’ll try to be more thoughtful about the content that I put on the pages that I am doing but I am not a paid person here. I’m just a person trying to edit a single page and learn more about this software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.237.70 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Bronxslicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Donald C. Bolduc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am not an admin, but please do stay signed in and make all edits using your account. This matter might be better answered at the WP:Teahouse, which is a help desk intended for new editors. To answer as I would at the Teahouse, anybody can edit any article; there is no requirement or culture here of being authorized by subjects of articles to make edits. The subjects of articles do not own them. Instead, we are here to build an encyclopedia, with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The implication of being authorized by Bolduc or the subject of any article is that you are likely to make changes favorable to him, rather than being neutral. It is unsurprising then that others at your talk page have warned you against attempting to promote Bolduc in the article about him.
If you're attempting to make encyclopedic, verifiable additions to the page (which is held to high standards as a biography of a living person), but face reversions before you're done, consider preparing your work in your sandbox before moving it to the article. (See the help pages on userspace drafts and your sandbox in general.) – Anon423 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are affiliated with a candidate or campaign you have a conflict of interest: being "given an OK by the campaign" makes you affiliated with the campaign. Money is not a prerequisite for a COI, it's just one of the contributing factors. You may not dictate who else may edit or demand that only editors in New Hampshire be allowed. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally from this comment "Don Bolduc himself asked us to edit this page. Please stop undoing these edits. We are in the process of providing links and citations." you have a blatant WP:COI and need to conform to the guidelines in that COI document. However it's clear from your edits that you should not be editing that particular page. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I went back to the account (please log in to edit, using an IP is confusing at best and disingenuous at worst), and it's clear that they were asked by the campaign to edit. This is a clear-cut COI, and they need to stop editing that article. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have informed them that they outright cannot edit the page, the closest they can come is to make suggestions on the talk page. Also concerned about the "we" in their comments, suggests a WP:ROLE account as well. Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have pageblocked this person from editing Donald C. Bolduc. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: (or any admin) Since they also edit logged out, it may be beneficial to semi the article? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bison X, the disruption seems to have come from one person with a COI. If that person tries editing as an IP, that IP address can be pageblocked. Semi-protection is for ongoing disruption by multiple people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:195.171.252.91 at Joshpara

Hi all. I'm taking this here because I'm not really sure what to do anymore. User:195.171.252.91 has been edit warring at Joshpara; I've repeatedly reverted but I figure it's better to invite some uninvolved editors to take a look. This IP's edits have included deleting much of the lead and later replacing it with what appears to be copyrighted content copied from a book (see history). Also, on my talk page at User talk:Tol#Joshpara, the IP has ventured into personal attack territory:

• "inbstead of acting like the god father of mafia",
• "if you want to fix your inferiority complex by feeling strong here its not the right way . go to psychologist hun!!! or fix your problems in real life instead of trying to look big and bold here little poor soul",
• "try to be less of a loser in real life so you wont have to try to bully people here lol".

I try to hold myself to 3RR anywhere that's not obvious vandalism, so I won't revert further, but I would like some help here. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: the final quoted comment was reverted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: I blocked the IP for a week for WP:NPA violations and disruptive editing. The comments on your talk page are wholly unacceptable and blanking a lead and replacing it with commentary is just plain disruptive. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thank you. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent MOS:CAPS violations by IP editor

For many months, an IP editor has been ignoring MOS:CAPS across a variety of articles relating to India. They use a variety of IPs, including

• 182.70.217.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51EA:CB73:863A:F99D:E4FB:D3BF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51F6:8C51:90CE:EA6C:8637:5DE5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51F3:E4D:FCF7:1109:11EA:47CA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51ED:87CA:CB3B:1342:E671:A65B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In the last few days they've edited as

• 2401:4900:51d3:2e32:1306:d5d5:3898:a66a (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51D1:9163:DC5B:3069:A8FF:59A7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51D1:9163:7C80:1362:69BE:A59A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51e1:3391:2ecd:9023:4507:b380 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51d0:3dfa:ee04:20ac:fb44:9fe2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51dd:3ce3:df7e:90fa:290b:766 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:51df:337b:2e20:7c6f:7878:2221 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

While in the last couple of days they've adopted a pleading tone, comments like "Do not edit my corrections. Wikipedia Page Incharge" and these charming messages show this editor's true colours. Despite being repeatedly told about MOS:CAPS they completely ignore it at Non-cooperation movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles. FDW777 (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the history of Giani Pritam Singh Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the disruption by this editor is more widespread than simple capitalisation issues. They are blatantly these three IPs as well

182.70.211.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Do not edit my corrections. Wikipedia page incharge" (this IP blocked twice for unreferenced content)

122.175.223.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Do not edit my corrections. Wikipedia page incharge"

122.168.156.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Do not edit my corrections. Wikipedia page incharge"

At that article they repeatedly added an unrefenced date of death to the article resulting in the page being semi-protected to stop their disruption. They simply waited for the semi-protecting to expire, and added it again without anyone noticing it. And after I removed it again earlier today, they added it once more. FDW777 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU strikes again. This editor is, very likely, totally unaware of your attempts to talk to them, and appears to be distressed by the constant reversion of their (admittedly fumble-footed) attempts to help the encyclopaedia. I expect we'll end up blocking them, which is a terrible outcome and it sucks but it's less bad than the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  If this is the likeliest scenario, leaving a note in comment tags at the site of any re-added material would ensure that it can be seen by them if they attempt to edit again; unlike talk notices or edit summaries, a <!--hidden comment--> in the article code would need to be deliberately ignored. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster canvassing

Grandmaster violated WP:CANVASS by requesting Jr8825 to join a discussion on the Shushi massacre article. Grandmaster says he wanted a "third opinion", but Jr8825 is simultaneously agreeing with Grandmaster in another discussion on Shushi. Grandmaster didn't think to alert participants disagreeing with him as well, such as myself. Apparently Grandmaster considers Jr8825 to be on his "side" and believed he would support him in the other discussion too ("We have a dispute with the same group of editors with regard to the lead"). As an editor for 16 years who has previously been warned for canvassing, Grandmaster should've been well aware of what he was doing. --Steverci (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think this was canvassing, and in my view this report reflects poorly on your zero-sum attitude to the topic area, Steverci. While WP:3RD would have been the better, formal mechanism for Grandmaster to follow, the informal route they chose is understandable since I have a cordial working relationship with them, am relatively non-partisan, and their message was within the criteria set out at WP:APPNOTE. It was limited in scope (a message to one editor, me), relatively neutral (although they gave their view of the issue, they made it clear it's a standard AA2 content dispute (and which side they're on – not that I wouldn't know) and asked for a third opinion) and transparent (on my talk page, not in a private email – we have not exchanged any emails in the past, either). Despite the wording of Grandmaster's message, the Shushi massacre is a separate timeframe/issue from the medieval history we were discussing at Shusha, and I currently consider myself uninvolved in any ongoing disputes over that page; it was not previously on my watchlist and at the time of the message I hadn't previously edited it or its talk page. Of the frequent AA2 editors, I'm one of the few who doesn't obviously and consistently support either an Azeri or Armenian POV. I have disagreed with Grandmaster multiple times in the past over content. Obviously I'm not perfect, my knowledge has its limits, and I make mistakes, but I do benefit from having no strong emotional investment in the conflict.

Regarding this report, I think it's worth reiterating that dragging other editors to drama boards should be a last resort, when equipped with strong evidence. It's particularly unhelpful in borderline-at-best cases such as this, where it sustains the combative atmosphere of AA2 and distracts from more productive source-based discussions. For the record, I didn't fully agree with Grandmaster in the recent thread at Shusha, but a key reason I became more supportive of Grandmaster's argument as the discussion continued is that they brought up multiple sources to support their claims, which led me to adjust my stance. I actively tried to involve Armenian editors including yourself (both by pinging stakeholders to invite them to challenge my interpretation of source weight, and in personal talk page messages), but they did not engage to the same extent and offered far fewer (and weaker) sources, which I interpreted as evidence that Grandmaster's analysis was better supported by the sources. If this topic has to be approached as a conflict of knowledge, which sadly is often the case, at least fight it over the content, with sources, rather than over contributors, without a strong basis. Jr8825 • Talk 03:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is yet another frivolous report by Steverci. Since when asking for a third opinion from a neutral editor who previously assisted with resolving disputes in this topic area is canvassing? This is not the first time Steverci files such baseless reports. Here's his previous report on me [92]. One of the closing admins at the time noted that Given that there's currently a discussion on the article talk page related to Turkey's position in the infobox which seems to be leaning against Steverci a the moment, this smacks of trying to use AE to win a content dispute, which seems like the most concerning behavior on display at the moment. The same thing happens now. Steverci is unable to support his claims on Shusha by reliable sources, so he tries to use this board once again to win a content dispute. I think it is time to put an end to abuse of this board by this user. I'm not the only one who is getting persistently reported here by him. The last time admins were considering banning Steverci from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. I think the community should look into this proposal again. [93] Grandmaster 08:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I think that the objection is to the manner in which you asked for the third opinion, per Steverci's comments below. I read it as being a bit campaign-y as well. I don't think that re-opening a CBAN proposal against OP is warranted here. And, if we read the previous discussion, the vast majority of editors opposed such a ban. The complaint here doesn't warrant a boomerang on its own. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not the first time I'm being reported by this user. You can see from the previous report on me that admins questioned Steverci's motivation for filing that report. And there is a pattern of Steverci filing reports on editors he happens to have a disagreement with. Here is another baseless report filed on another editor fairly recently: [94] Grandmaster 09:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Shusha massacre page. If you check the history of the article, ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) and Kevo327 (talk · contribs) persistently revert any edits challenging a claim for unrealistically high casualty number. You can see that the sole source supporting this claim is questioned by a number of editors, including MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs). The reverts by these two users are accompanied by claims of non-existent consensus, while none of these editors contributed a single line to discussions at talk page, which were initiated back in March 2020, and again a few days ago by myself. Is this an acceptable behavior, when a group of editors simply reverts others, while refusing to discuss anything at talk? I tried to follow the rules and get a third party opinion from a person who has already helped to find middle ground. I was advised to ask a third opinion on a dedicated board, which I was going to do. But I do not see a slight attempt to engage in any discussion or dispute resolution with regard to the aforementioned article by a certain group of editors. This report here is another evidence of that. Grandmaster 09:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Shusha massacre page. If you check the history of the article, ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) and Kevo327 (talk · contribs) persistently revert any edits challenging a claim for unrealistically high casualty number.

Not sure why my name is being dragged here, because you have to understand you're being reported for canvassing and not content issues, right? Secondly, do you really think if you mention an Armenian editor like MarshallBagramyan, and if they removed the casualty number, it's going to change anything? I restored the latest stable edit of let's see... July 20. Even if we go 9 months back, the 20,000 number is still there. So no, I don't care who removed it, I will revert them if they have no consensus for such changes: Azerbaijani, Armenian, etc, I don't look at nationalities when reverting.

Thirdly, as I said, there was no consensus for removing the 20,000 number. The discussion is still ongoing in talk and btw, I don't know if you're aware of this, I'm not obliged to jump into every discussion instantly. You try to besmirch the source of 20,000 claim with the classic "actually it's not reliable" line, when even the person you asked for opinion says: "source itself looks to have an academic background and isn't obviously unreliable. Because of this, I think it's best to ask for input at a noticeboard/relevant venue first if you're considering removing it"

And consider this a warning: If I see you besmirching my name again with diffless wall of text and with baseless accusations like The reverts by these two users are accompanied by claims of non-existent consensus, you will be reported as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is strange that Steverci mentions a frivolous warning (for a message I left at talk page of a Wikipedia admin) by a banned user from 9 years ago. I wonder how did Steverci become aware of that baseless warning from so many years ago? Grandmaster 09:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

hmmm interesting. ever heard of... edit histories or archives of talk pages? Nice "wonders" tho. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe I just searched "canvassing" in the search archives? It just shows that you were aware of what canvassing is. --Steverci (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

While the message on Jr8825's talk page is reasonably read as being campaign-y, I don't think that this is an example of attempted votestacking. Looking through the archives of Shush(a/i)'s talk page, it looks like Jr8825 is relatively middle-of-the-road when making arguments in content disputes regarding the town. Grandmaster also has a history of inviting neutral editors (including me) for the purpose of resolving AA2 disputes, so I don't think the mere act of reaching out to Jr8825 was done in bad faith. As a result, I don't think a sanction against Grandmaster is warranted for this unless campaign-y requests for a third opinion is a part of a pattern; I don't see evidence of such a pattern above. And, rather than having this become a thread morphs from being focused on a single talk page comment into one that's focused much more broadly on editors conduct in AA2 across the board (which, while this might be an OK board for, I don't think that it would be productive at this time), I think that the best thing to do would be for the editors here to participate in the discussions on the proximate article's talk page and to try to work towards a consensus. I'd personally be happy to informally mediate content disputes on the page if editors think that it would be helpful in finding a compromise, and many of you have shown a good-faith willingness to do so in the past. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, Mikehawk10. I'll take this opportunity to invite you (and anyone else who is interested) to join the discussion at Shusha massacre. Obviously, the article is in need of third party involvement, and my intention was simply to get a neutral opinion from an experienced editor. Grandmaster 17:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to carve out an exception to WP:CANVASS for inviting a "neutral editor". After all, editors can (and, in the event of any sort of dispute, obviously will) differ over what is neutral. As CANVASS says, the audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions, and expressing a belief about what constitutes a neutral summary of the topic is obviously expressing an opinion on it - if you're at the point of looking over their edit history and saying "well, I think they're neutral", you've already crossed the line, since any experienced editor editing in good faith is going to believe that their view of how the page should look is neutral. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: ensuring the editor you notify is reasonably "neutral" (or, in the case of multiple editors, that the group is reasonably balanced) is just one of the 4 aspects which ensure the message is reasonable (nobody's claiming it's a get-out of jail free card by itself): 1) narrow scope (not mass-posting) AND 2) neutral tone/explanation AND 3) nonpartisan audience AND 4) open/transparent venue. The policy spells this out (although it's unintuitively in the section on inappropriate notification). As I explained, I think Grandmaster's message can be reasonably construed as meeting (and at the very least attempting to meet) each of these conditions, and I certainly don't think it blatantly failed them in a manner which would justify assuming bad faith on their part – the policy says canvassing behaviour is characterised by its intent, so it's ultimately a determination of bad faith.

  I understand how you came to a different, more literal reading of the policy, but I strongly disagree with the idea that it's wrong to ask an editor you think is neutral/experienced/helpful in resolving disagreements for advice/input, if you do so appropriately. The wording you highlight, "the audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" is clearly talking about selecting editors because of their strong opinions or past behavioural evidence which indicates the stance they will take on a particular issue. The aim is clearly to prevent the canvassing of editors you think will support your view (hence the proposed solution: if you notify someone who previously voted on one side of a deletion discussion, you should also notify people who voted on the other). This is more explicit at other parts of the page: ("non-partisan audience", "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions" (my emphases)). Grandmaster wasn't inviting me because I'm an Azeri editor or known to be particularly sympathetic to their views in the topic area, so I don't think they were under any obligation to notify Armenian editors either. In the past, I've gone to the talk page of an editor whose judgement I respect to solicit their advice/input, believing that I'm highlighting a likely policy issue and their advice will help me to ensure I succeed in resolving it. There's nothing to stop the other editor from disagreeing with the asker, or pointing out where they're wrong – in this case, I told Grandmaster that while I agreed a source's statement was unlikely, I don't think it can be (or should be) removed without a full discussion on a noticeboard like RSN). Good faith requests for an individual, trusted editor's advice/third opinion aren't the target of the canvassing policy (intent to manipulate consensus), and I think penalising this behaviour is wrong-headed. Jr8825 • Talk 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  To respond to @Aquillion:: The lead of the Canvassing guideline states that notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Why is canvassing inappropriate? According to the lead, canvassing is inappropriate because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. I don't see how this compromised any attempts to achieve consensus, nor how bringing in a neutral editor is disruptive. My reading, in the context of the guideline as a whole, is that the audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions is meant to capture editors who are selecting their audience of a similar opinion; while the text does not preclude it per se, I could not see us putting sanctions on an editor who explicitly seeks out others who are (for example) likely to be opposed to their proposal. While it's not clear that this is the case here (Jr8825 appears to be middle-of-the-road and non-partisan when it comes to this sub-area of AA2), I don't see this as an attempt to votestack. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not recall Jr8825 ever being granted "non-partisan" mediator privileges. He seems to be an ordinary user like the vast majority of us. And he is a user who has a history of agreeing with Grandmaster such as when he supported removing criticism of Thomas de Waal, or as he is currently doing on the Shushi talk page. I want to clarify that I do not think Jr8825 has any agenda or malicious intent, and I also do not believe he favors either Armenians or Azeris over the other. However, it's obvious that Grandmaster was trying to "recruit" Jr8825 to support him, as his own words indicate. Grandmaster clearly considered Jr8825 to be on his side (We have a dispute with the same group of editors with regard to the lead) and also tried to influence how Jr8825 would potentially participate in the discussion (They object to mention of Armenian revolt in the lead, even though it is described in the article in much detail). Inappropriate notification on WP:CANVASS: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." --Steverci (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I equally have a history of disagreeing with Grandmaster, and can just as easily bring up diffs of where I've reverted/disagreed with them. I suppose it depends which way you look at it. Jr8825 • Talk 04:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: To be clear, I'm arguing against it being votestacking. As I stated in my initial comment, the message is reasonably read as being campaign-y. As I stated in my initial comment, I don't think a sanction against Grandmaster is warranted for this unless campaign-y requests for a third opinion is a part of a pattern; I don't see evidence of such a pattern above. If Grandmaster were to be repeatedly making campaign-y posts in an ongoing manner, then we would might want to consider some sanction, but I don't see diffs that suggest that there is an current problematic behavioral pattern on their end. In general, sanctions on Wikipedia are supposed to be preventative in nature, not punitive. And, if the editor has previously engaged in good-faith efforts to non-partisanly bring in uninvolved editors for third opinions by posting neutrally on their respective talk pages, I think that this could be adequately resolved if Grandmaster were to promise to keep the phrasing of invitations neutral in tone in the future. Considering that this is already part of the canvassing behavioral guideline, I don't see agreement with this request being controversial. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this compromised any attempts to achieve consensus, nor how bringing in a neutral editor is disruptive. An editor involved in a dispute cannot arbitrarily declare what they consider neutral in relation to that dispute (obviously; if their views in that regard were uncontested, there wouldn't be a dispute in the first place.) Any experienced editor in good faith is going to believe that their position is neutral, and that people who agree with them are likewise neutral; inviting such editors based on your personal perception of their "neutrality" therefore subverts the decision-making process, effectively stacking the discussion towards their own views and their own perception of what constitutes a neutral perspective. That is the whole reason for the requirement of must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. When a party in a dispute says "I invited this person to comment because I, in my own subjective opinion, think they are really level-headed and neutral", that amounts to a flat admission of "I invited this person because I broadly agree with their views." Would you have been happy if Steverci had responded by turning around and inviting two people they consider neutral, who had previously agreed with them on other topics and who immediately agreed with them on this dispute? Do you think that that would be a good way for disputes to be handled? --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry?

It's funny how Grandmaster came into this discussion with all the irrelevant to the ANI comments about other editors regarding content issues. And it's also funny that they didn't include the full story and cherry-picked points to fit their narrative, particularly about Shusha massacre and its edit history, which I had to expand upon above. Unlike them, when I talk, most of the time I try to present the diffs. Here's another little finding I did and wanted to report for some time.

Below I'll present cases, where two Azerbaijani editors, Grandmaster (talk · contribs) and Brandmeister (talk · contribs) edited in very short intervals between each other, instantly coming to an "agreement" and sometimes it can be mere minutes in very strange circumstances.

1) I first noticed this in Stepanakert, in a scuffed RfC type of thing. In the discussion which involved multiple sockpuppets and whatnot, Grandmaster appears after 5 days from the last person who voted, and casts his vote for pro-Azerbaijani name in bold, 30mins later Brandmeister agreeing with them, with a "per above" comment. Note - Before that, Brandmesiter's last edit in Stepanakert was almost a year ago.

2) Second, probably most egregious one: Brandmeister created a discussion (Time 21:03) in Shushi about restoring the “stable lead”. 3 minutes later, now Grandmaster jumps into the discussion with "Agree". Very interesting, reversing the roles I guess, should've thought to increase the reply time, probably. 3 minutes? common man, gotta be better than that.

3) Third also in Shushi and just recently actually: Now Grandmaster creates another discussion, and who's the first person to reply and "indeed" agree with him? You guessed it right, bingo!. Funnily enough, Brandmeister then proceeds to scrap an entire part of the article based on their wonderful “discussion” (none joined or agreed with them, not even 3rd party editors), which I rightfully reverted since a “discussion” among like-minded editor doesn't mean consensus. I also told the same in talk to both of them, and saying maybe not all editors can instantly reply to their talk “agreements” as people have IRL activities.

Finally, here comes the best part: Both Grandmaster and Brandmeister were part of the pro-Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination on Russian Wikipedia in 2010. I remember this was even reported in the news in Armenia. And I'm mentioning this because of its relevance to my suspicions, and it seems like that even after so many years, some (or maybe a lot) of Azerbaijani editors do similar meatpuppetry in eng-wiki. Topped with the recent highly viewed reddit canvassing post (I'll post the link if admins allow), which funnily enough also mentioned Shusha and number of pages, and which is publicly available and in the largest subreddit of Azerbaijan, this seems to be a case of meatpuppetry. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing suspicious about long time editors to the same article posting comments in short time intervals. It happens all the time. I edited Shusha for many years, and I respond promptly pretty much to every comment in the discussions that I participate in. What is really suspicious is how ZaniGiovanni appears out of nowhere to revert the articles to which he never contributed, usually right after Kevo327 (talk · contribs). A good example is Shusha massacre. Kevo327 reverts twice [95] [96], and then along comes ZaniGiovanni and makes revert to Kevo327's version, claiming no consensus: [97] Note that ZaniGiovanni never edited this article before, so how did he become aware of the dispute? And note that neither ZaniGiovanni, nor Kevo327 contributed a single line to the discussion at talk to form consensus. But I am being reported here for trying to apply for dispute resolution. Coincidence? But the same thing happens in Azerbaijan article. Kevo327 reverts twice [98] [99], and then ZaniGiovanni turns up and reverts [100]. Again, none of the two contributed to the discussion at talk, where consensus was formed without their participation against the version they were pushing for. A person who rolled back also noted that ZaniGiovanni and Kevo327 avoid engaging in discussions. [101] It is of note that ZaniGiovanni account was created in March 2021. He never created a single article. Most of his contributions are involvement in all kinds of disputes and reverts in contentious articles. And his reverts for Kevo327 with no participation in talks look very strange. Grandmaster 15:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean the Shusha massacre which is literally in the lead of... hmmmm let's see... Shusha, Quote from the lead: However, the number of Armenian inhabitants of the city steadily grew over time to constitute a majority of the city's population until the Shusha massacre in 1920, in which the Armenian half of the city was destroyed by Azerbaijani forces..., and where I and many others were editing recently and where the lead discussion was the main issue. Lol, nice try tho.

Ah yes, and the Azerbaijan article, the country, how could I ever stumble upon it, hmmm... And btw, I wasn't just reverting. I went and expanded, adding more sources for the claim. This was the person edit-warring with the user you mention, and this was my edit.

This is all you came up with in response to arguments? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What I really find amusing, ZaniGiovanni, is that apparently you knew all the time that I was the drafting arbitrator in the decision you cited above, and despite knowing this you kept insisting that I am a pro-Azeri editor and should stay away from AA conflict area. This just means that whatever you say isn't worth of anything. Just nothing. White noise.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you're speaking with no diffs, I can't comment on me "insisting you're pro-Azeri". In regard to the case which you mentioned, I first saw this in AA area when looking up a user's talk page [102]. But it's funny how you say you aren't going to get involved with "former Soviet Union", quote: Following this finding of fact in the arbitration case (unrelated to me) I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union, to rail transport, and to the Olympics. I may occasionally make fully uncontroversial actions, such as blocks for and protections against obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations.[103], and yet you're here in Armenia-Azerbaijan related ANI, when I didn't even mention you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, so by reading the lead of Shusha you knew that there was a dispute in another article, just because that other article was mentioned in the lead? Not convincing. Grandmaster 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ever heard of clicking on an article wikilinked in another article, esepcially where you were just editing and discussing, and what involved the lead directly? You know wikilinks are there for a reason, right? I can't... ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And you happened to click the link at the very right moment soon after Kevo327 to "restore stable version"? How do you even know a stable version in an article that you never edited? Grandmaster 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I happened to watchlist it when I read about it days before your and Kevo327 edit-wars lol, and later notice on my ... you know something that's also available on wikipedia... watchlist. Should I also explain to you how my day went? And why are you blatantly lying, I edited almost a day after Kevo327's last edit in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And I already showed above how I know about stable version [104], I usually look at, you know, the article edit history before reverting or commenting. Something I highly advise for you to do. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You turned up within 2 hours after my edit to rv it. On Azerbaijan, yours and Kevo327's reverts are just 35 minutes apart. Grandmaster 17:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the entire case and most involved editors also edit in Azerbaijan-Armenia articles, and logically Azerbaijan the country article is watchlisted by many hmmm let's see Azerbaijani and Armenian editors. Got anything better, friend? If not, than this is nothing compared to the diffs I showed above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You turned up within 2 hours after my edit to rv it thanks for telling this I guess, still doesn't change anything considering I explained all the context above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is very interesting that ZaniGiovanni's very first edit to Wikipedia was a revert: [105], and he instantly jumped into an edit war in a contentious Armenia related article. And despite being a new editor, he already new about single purpose accounts, which he mentioned in his edit summary. A long established editor suspects that Zani is not new to Wikipedia: [106] Grandmaster 15:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I like that you still didn't answer any of my arguments, and still you're trying to browbeat me with irrelevant to here and completely baseless (like that user) accusations. And which I already addressed multiple times in El C talk page discussion, and which the "established user" didn't reply to, even when I told them about it.

One more time of bringing irrelevant and baseless conversations here in order to browbeat me, and you'll be reported. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean I'm not being reported now? I responded to your claims. And you know very well that Russian wiki is a separate project, and administrators do not advise bringing up here that ages old case from 12 years ago [107] Grandmaster 17:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

So from my accusation of you and the other editor above, only things you answered is me showing the relevant to the accusation link to ru-wiki case? Did you bother to look at everything else I presented with multiple diffs above? Or are you trying to focus on that link, which given the context is appropriately placed since I'm accusing 2 editors who were meatpuppeting. And btw, I don't know if you've noticed, but 99.9% of my text is directly about this wikiproject. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing but baseless accusations. That Stepanakert thing, are you not bothered by the fact that the whole thing was created by a banned sock account, and the first 2 editors who voted in support did so 7 minutes one after another? One of them was Kevo327, btw. Are they puppets? As for Shusha talk page, it has many users involved who post minutes after each other, and even have edit conflicts. For example, on the same talk page Jr8825 posted the same minute with me, and we even had an edit conflict, [108] does it mean that he is my puppet? People posting comments minutes apart is a common thing, and certainly does not mean that the editors are somehow connected. Grandmaster 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I get it, your entire comment summed up is: "Your accusations are baseless because of edit conflicts" (thanks to El C for the ec mention, I learned something new the other day). Now to your comment:

Firstly, in Stepanakert, nobody edited for 5 days (see July 3 to July 8), and you and Brandmeister happened to agree with each other in 30 min. And yes, I do bother about sockpuppet(s), I literally mention it in my opening statment, In the discussion which involved multiple sockpuppets and whatnot...[109].

Secondly, ...and the first 2 editors who voted in support did so 7 minutes one after another? One of them was Kevo327, btw. Are they puppets? – don't care didn't ask, this ANI is about you.

Thirdly, None of the two examples I gave were edit-conflicts in Shushi. If you actually read my comment, I specifically mention that a new discussion was created in Shushi, first time by Brandmeister and second by you. There physically can't be edit-conflicts when a discussion is just created, but that somehow didn't stop you from agreeing with that new discussion after... 3 minutes. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• This back-and-forth accusation throwing isn't helping anyone, is a waste of time, and we've been here before. I suggest Grandmaster agrees to take more care with maintaining a neutral tone when they notify editors of discussions in the future, and everyone stops accusing each other of various stuff. I don't have much experience identifying meatpuppets, but I'm pretty sceptical of the accusation against Brandmeister and Grandmaster – their interaction log looks to me like two prolific editors who happen to both closely watch and edit in a given topic area. Regarding allegations that ZaniGiovanni isn't a new account, I suggest you open a sockpuppet investigation if you have evidence, Grandmaster, or drop it – tit-for-tat allegations aren't helpful. If the mudslinging doesn't stop pretty promptly, I'd be supportive of judicious use of temporary topic bans, because nobody here is indispensable, AA2 editors end up at the drama boards like clockwork, and this is achieving nothing but winding each other up.

So please, everyone, consider that 1) almost nobody within AA2 behaves in an irreproachable manner, so it's inevitable that people will interpret this as cynical misbehaviour, even in cases of good faith, and 2) fighting content disputes by dragging them onto drama boards is disruptive, regardless of whether this was done with purposeful intent to discourage/ban opposing editors, genuine belief the accused editors misbehaved, or a mixture of the two. Be more self-reflective and cautious before accusing fellow editors. Heck, I strongly encourage everyone to try and ignore perceived misbehaviour by opposing editors, unless it's directly impacting their individual ability to edit. Jr8825 • Talk 20:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. My request for a third opinion may not have been perfectly phrased, but it was well-intended. I only wanted to resolve a dispute via a mediation. I will be more careful with choice of words next time when asking for mediation. But I really hope that this is the last time when I'm dragged here over a minor issue. Some editors must realize that they cannot win a content dispute by getting their opponents banned or sanctioned. Constant reports to this board are indeed counterproductive, and do not serve creating a healthy atmosphere. So I will not be commenting here anymore, unless it is something really urgent. I generally try to avoid this place, unless I have to deal with vandalism or serious disruption. Grandmaster 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nalanidil and unsourced contributions

This is a revival of a report about this user, that was archived without resolution over a situation that has persisted since then. User:Nalanidil continues to add unsourced content to articles despite numerous warnings and restoring such content without regard to WP:BRD after it's been removed and the problem has been noted in an edit summary.

Example at Romani people and aftermath:

• addition by Nalanidil of long, unsourced exposition[110]
• removal by Skllagyook with the edit summary "Removed unsourced material"[111]
• restoration by Nalanidil[112]
• removal by me[113]
• message from me on the user's talk page (at level 1 because I hadn't noticed the user's erasure of previous warnings and the notification of the previous ANI report)[114]
• two subsequent warnings by Netherzone regarding edits by Nalanidil at Muslim Romani people[115]
• blanking by Nalanidil of their talk page without response there[116]
• however, response to Netherzone on Netherzone's talk page, repeating earlier approach that boils down to "I know about this and you don't, why are you bothering me about sources?"[117]

The user appears to be making sourced contributions as well, possibly worthwhile, but the lack of consistency in that regard, coupled with restoration of removed material even after the previous ANI discussion, seems worthy of attention. Largoplazo (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Copying User:Netherzone, User:Skllagyook. Largoplazo (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to have to do this, as Nalanidil brings a rare viewpoint to Wikipedia, but I have partial-blocked them indefinitely from Romani people, with assurances that they will be unblocked if they undertake to add only sourced material. I realize they're editing other Romani-related articles as well; if there's continued sourcing-related disruption at those, I suppose we'll have to consider a sitewide block. Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC).
• See for yourself, I have always given sources for other roma articles, especially about the muslim roma. I have the feeling that you discriminate against me.

It is a fact that the individual roma groups differ in their way of life, culture, religion etc.

Do you need to source for this?

I ask you, this is general knowledge.

And as far as sources are concerned, which ones? by self-proclaimed historians who use only one single roma group, namely the vlax roma from romania, as an example?

Nalanidil (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Nalanidil: Have you noticed how you've found it necessary to post something you consider common knowledge in at least three different places (including my talk page, your talk page, and here) for the purpose of informing people who you obviously realize don't already know this "common knowledge"?

Anyway, Wikipedia is not a compendium of common knowledge, or of what contributors claim to know to be true, but one of information that can be found in reliable sources, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you can't find this information in reliable sources, then how do you know it's true, as opposed to being something you just think you know, something you were told and never thought to doubt, perhaps a commonly held set of mistaken beliefs?

If the information is true but from your own research, then it can't be here because Wikipedia is not a work of first publication. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo

If you didn't understand, please read my old posts on this discussion.

But how did I understand that you and others would like to explain my own origins to me? You would like to say that there are no differences in the dialect, the culture, the traditons etc. of the roma people? well then...

Nalanidil (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nalanidil: I understood fine. You don't seem to understand me, since you appear to have come away from what I wrote with the very strange impression that I had explained your own origins to you. I explained how things work here and said nothing about your origins. I'm not going to keep explaining over and over (after this) what Wikipedia requires, and how an individual's claim (especially that of an anonymous stranger) to have knowledge is not reliable from the point of view of the rest of the world. Everything on Wikipedia should be confirmable from reliable sources. Claims of truth are insufficient. It has to be verifiable. This is not the first place where things that are true can be published. Largoplazo (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, you get insulting, do you notice?

I brought sources. That for the first.!

Second: we roma know our history. we roma know the differences about the groups and subgroups, we don't have to explain by Non- Romani to us. You Non-Romani have a ready-made picture about the roma, based by only one single Group as example, but all in one pot.

Nalanidil (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) Nalanidil, no one here is challenging your origins, the facts of your people or what you know to be truth according to your heritage. What @Largoplazo is trying to relay is that Wikipedia isn't so much about getting the information right, we hope it is correct, as much as it is about getting right what the sources say and doing so in a neutral way. If the reliable sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong until reliable sources change it. I would like to add an amended version of the words of someone I admire that once edited here, "A Wikipedia article does not make something true. The absence of one does not make something false." The opposite can be said as well. We cant just add anything we know to be true based on our knowledge, that is called Original Research (OR). It has to be documented and discussed in reliable sources. Nothing and no one can or even wants to take away your heritage from you. But we are all bound by the policies of Wikipedia in what can be included. Trust me when I say this, nothing Wikipedia says can add or take away from the history of the Romani People nor is it Wikipedia's attempt to do so. For it to be said here it must be summarized from the discussion of reliable sources. I hope this helps clarify. Much respect. --ARoseWolf 15:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

They have been partially blocked from editing the Romani people article, however there are multiple articles about Roma where disruptive editing has taken place. If the disruption continues a wider block may be in order. There have been at least eight warnings from multiple editors issued in the past 6 or 7 months that were promptly deleted from their user page, so it is unclear if they are listening. To clarify from the last ANI, the ongoing problems are: adding unsourced material; removing sourced material just because they disagree with it (which is against WP:NPOV; moving/renaming pages without discussing with the community and gaining consensus; removing maintenance tags without fixing the underlying problems. DIFFS: Adding unsourced content: Muslim Romani people [118] Romani genocide [119] History of the Romani people [120], [121] Romani people in Hungary [122] Muslim Romani people [123] Changing the name of an article without prior discussion [124], [125], [126] Changing “Romani people” to “Muslim Roma” and deleting sourced content [127] Removing maintenance tags without resolving the problems: [128]. -- Nalanidil, I do appreciate that you have knowledge of Roma culture to share, but I do not appreciate being called a “liar” [129]. You should not assume all other editors including me are non-Roma or are Vlax Roma who have no knowledge of the Romani people; you have no idea whatsoever about my ethnicity, or who my ancestors are or where they were from. This is not an us-or-them environment. Questions for you: Do you agree to work in a more collaborative manner with other editors? Do you agree to stop adding unsourced content? Do you agree to stop removing things you personably disagree with? - Netherzone (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone, If you were a Rom or Romni, you would know what is going on, because you would know the differences between the groups. What's your problem with clarifying facts? In the article you mentioned, I only put Muslim Romani because they are Muslim Roma, so what's your problem? For your information, I have brought sources almost everywhere. Please look first. Don't claim things about me, that are so wrong. Thanks.

Nalanidil (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nalanidil, people can see for themselves, using the links above, that you have made many unsourced opinionated edits. You just make yourself look silly by claiming that you "have brought sources almost everywhere" when you obviously have not. Please start editing on the basis of facts rather than fantasies. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, Because it's a general knowledge, and no fantasy. That many do not have. If you would follow the links, you would understand that I did not do anything wrong. And please, don't get offensive to me.

Nalanidil (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What links? You didn't provide any. That's the whole point. Why do you say you "have brought sources almost everywhere" when you obviously have not? If you want to argue that sources are not needed then do so, but don't tell such bare-faced lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• To Netherzone and Phil Bridger and others: I partial-blocked Nalanidil from Romani people a couple of days ago. He had indeed made unsourced opinionated edits to other articles as well before my partial block, but I was hoping he'd take my block as a shot across his bow, and realize that unsourced additions to articles will not be tolerated. And it looks like he has. He continues to argue here, yes, but is anybody saying he has been disruptive since I placed the article block, and needs a wider block? Because I don't think so. As far as I can see, he has only made this one article edit since then. It doesn't look disruptive to me. I'm not going to block him sitewide for being argumentative (mainly, in this thread, in response to other people arguing with him). If there's bludgeoning of talkpages, that will be another matter, but I haven't seen that either since the partial block. Perhaps it's time for everybody to stop going on at him about his arguments, and wait and see how he actually edits articles in the future? If you're waiting for him to acknowledge past problems, have a read of the essay Editors have pride, it's quite wise. Also, there's no need for the aggression of "bare-faced lies" and similar phrasing. Bishonen | tålk 17:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen Thank you for linking WP:Editors have pride, I have read it and in response have struck the questions in my note above. I've also struck my sentence If the disruption continues a wider block may be in order. Understand that I was not requesting a wider block, just pointing out that after multiple warnings and a prior ANI things did not change much in the past, and IF things did not change, perhaps a wider block may be in order. In retrospect, I realize it was not necessary to express that projection into the future, and it comes across as insensitive. Netherzone (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree. Most of the worlds conflicts are caused by the kind of misplaced pride that leads people to tell lies, such as that this editor has "brought sources almost everywhere", a claim that he is continuing to defend today, well after being partially blocked. We should do without that if this is to be a neutral encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, I did add sources. So please read the links in the articles correctly.

I'm being attacked by some users here, that's unheard, because if I change articles like Zargari tribe or gurbeti from romani people to muslim romani people, it makes perfect sense, because both groups belong to the muslim roma. So where is the problem with that? since when is it necessary to bring a source when correcting only an article? But now that's enough for me, I don't have to put up with that.

Nalanidil (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(the edit above was updated at 22:52 on 1 October) So you are still saying that a source is not needed if your edit is correct. That means that you have learnt nothing from your partial block, and means that I disagree with Bishonen for that reason too. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, On October 1st I didn't edit a Roma article. Why do you claim that ???? I last added a source on September 29th.

Nalanidil (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nalanidil, that is a misunderstanding. Phil is not claiming that you edited a Roma article on October 1, but that you changed this edit, above, here on this page, on October 1. Which you did, here and here. Altogether, you have been tinkering with your posts here on ANI after they have been replied to. Please don't do that, as it's confusing and makes the conversation impossible to follow. (Phil was merely trying to straighten out the chronology here.) Whenever you want to post again, please make a new post, with a new signature and timestamp. Bishonen | tålk 05:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen, no matter I write or answer no more. I am attacked too much by different users. I'm leaving wikipedia, have fun. By Nalanidil (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk page disruption and uncivil behaviour

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

IP appears unable to interact civilly with other editors, and has declined to discuss the issue after warnings, instead blanking their talkpage. User has been notified.

Past warnings/bans:

1. 27 July NPOV warning by Rdp060707
2. 18 Sep Talkpage disruption block by TNT
3. 18 Sep AGF warning by Peaceray
4. 28 Sep PA warning by BilledMammal
5. 30 Sep AGF warning by BilledMammal

Diffs:

• Uncivil; blanked talk page after warning, claiming personal attack
• Uncivil and possible talkpage disruption; removed "'User' has made few or no other edits outside this topic." template, claiming it was "false information" and a "personal attack"; Warning #5
• Accused an editor of Vandalism on for an edit that didn't meet that definition; Warning #4
• Accused editors of vandalizing talk page; Warning #3
• Uncivil and talkpage disruption; removed "Not a talk page" template, claiming it was vandalism; ban #2
• Uncivil; replaced "English" with "Australian", claiming vandalism

BilledMammal (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Doug Weller on 30 September [130] --ARoseWolf 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Just blocked 2A01:598:918A:4B91:1:1:8713:81E4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same editor. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:7500:BCFD:E67:2830:3056

This has been going since June 2021 where this ip has been disruptive editing on WWE Extreme Rules and WWE Hell in a Cell, frankly this ip has been doing this every day, every month with no plans on stopping at all and this ip also ignores all warnings and does not follow the rules of wikipedia. This Ip is also apart of the 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range Chip3004 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• You mean "a part", right? Or do you mean separate from others on that range? But also, what's wrong with this? Chip3004, you have to understand a few things: if you revert and don't explain why you revert, you are not helping the admins, and you're being just as disruptive. To any outsider, those changes and the reverts look exactly the same. And it's kind of hard to be serious about those articles with their million details when they talk about matches and winners in scripted events. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User:124.170.110.80

Could an admin look at the edits by this user at User talk:HiLo48. They are disruptive, including reinserting sections that User:HiLo48 has deleted. If I was still an admin, I would ban that user. --Bduke (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Gladly. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• HiLo48, will you please archive your talk page...? Drmies (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should. But I do like the reaction I get from other editors when they see that subset of my life history there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • My laptop almost crashed. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It's long with over 300 discussions but I've seen user talk pages of well-established editors with over 500 discussions who rebut the suggestion of archiving their talk page. Too bad we can only suggest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • How old is your laptop? The page isn't even that big. Mlb96 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Drmies, it's almost entirely the number and size of images on a page that causes browser issues (and more pertinently, creates real-world costs for the majority of Wikipedia's users who are on metered connections), not the volume of text (text is cheap in processing terms; even the cruddiest old laptop should have no difficulty downloading and displaying a whole book). HiLo's talk page generates 0.67MB for your laptop to download and process which is only roughly double that generated by your own. As a comparator, our own Wikipedia article comes in at almost exactly the same size as User talk:HiLo48. Some really old versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer have problems processing pages once they get above about 70kb of text—which is why on some of our more ancient project pages you see reference to "recommended maximum size"—but anyone who's still running early-2000s versions of IE has more to worry about than the size of Wikipedia pages given that MS no longer updates the security so there's a likelihood approaching certainty that they've unintentionally volunteered to join a botnet. ‑ Iridescent 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Iridescent, my laptop littterally crashed five times, no cap. Like, totally. Thanks for the data, BTW--that's very interesting. I use Firefox, and my browser did two hiccups while loading HiLo's talk page. You understand I'm steering clear of User talk:EEng. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I was so proud when I reached the +300 club, I just had to boast about it to EEng. But he was rather unimpressed. Which made me sad. He's been unimpressed with my stupid antics, in general, lately (take a number, EEng!). Super sad. El_C 16:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yay, what does a man must do... — word salad achievement unlocked! El_C 16:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Improper RfC at AUKUS

I've had to semi-protect AUKUS because of disruptive editing from IPs, possibly mainly the same person. Now one of these IPs has started an RfC with the question "What could be done so that the AUKUS article has a more neutral POV? 2A02:908:182:AF40:481B:4E0F:1E1:22D0 (talk) 5:18 pm, Today (UTC+1)" The article already has an RfC asking "is the background to French Response relevant" and one asking "What's the best way to organise the countries in the International Responses section that has a NPOV and is not biased towards any country?". I can't see any possible way asking a general question about NPOV can meet the requirements of an RfC but I have no idea what to do about it. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add there is a ton of comments like "pro-French or "anti-French" (mainly the latter) by SPA IP's and a few others (who may well be socking). The lack of AGF is simply stunning. We even had a demand to write the page in French.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Read over the ....discussion? It's quite rather confusing. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If I may I will make it less confusing, by adding a header.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like El C took care of it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I live to give! *blows kisses* El_C 18:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just spent far too long reading the talk page and the thing that stands out most is that few editors are arguing about what the balance of reliable sources says, but are basing their arguments on what they think the "correct" position should be. As long as they ignore the sources then I don't see how we can come to a consensus. And of course the RFC is nothing like a valid one, which should have a neutral explanation of the issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User:170.78.195.130 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

On WHYY-TV: Use of foul language in edit summary. [131] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I revision deleted the edit summary. I also warned the IP editor. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Hardenian -- urgent need for block

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 a new user engaged in repeated vandalism of Hurricane Felix. Continues to revert to preserve his vandalism. Cbl62 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:TheresNoTime for handling promptly. Cbl62 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62: No worries... I wasn't aware you were an admin. Is there a reason you didn't action this yourself..? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if I'd be considered WP:INVOLVED given that: (i) I'd been reverting their edits, (ii) I was also interacting with them over my suspicion that they are a sock of banned user User:CalebHughes, and (iii) he left an edit summary (directed at me) to the effect of "fuck off loser" (or something to that effect). I appreciate your stepping in. Cbl62 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Just for future reference, edits like this would be exempt from WP:INVOLVED (though having looked at this, you definitely wouldn't have been considered involved). Hope you don't mind me asking, but when was the last time you used your admin permissions? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on, TheresNoTime, this is an editor and administrator with 185,000 edits going back 14 years. Yes, they use their administrative tools infrequently but unless you have evidence that they are misusing their tools, why comment on it? Administrators using their tools occasionally is a good thing in my view, unless there is evidence of misuse of the tools. And being cautious about their use of the tools and asking for advice is also a good thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I think TNT's point was there is no INVOLVED for outright vandalism, not least if it involves something like pornographic depictions of a living person. I think that bears repeating and need not be a cause for friction, nor intimate a denouncement. But, TNT, it is kinda weird that you ask Cbl62 when was the last time [they] used [their] admin permissions, when in 2 minutes, you can plainly see for yourself: last protection, November 2010 (a total of 13, which I probably tripled in the last 24 hours, but this is about me); zero blocks; but, last deletion, a few weeks ago, of which there's a fair number.

Which is perfectly fine. Thanks for helping with deletions, Cbl62. To sum up: Cbl62 isn't really obliged to do anything else, though I hope they heed TNT (and mine)'s advise to not shy from blocking users who engage in egregious abuse. Granted, reporting it here may often be indistinguishable from that, but There's A Time when expediting by acting decisively isn't unimportant, either. Anyway, I can understand why TNT was a bit dismayed (again, these were egregious violations), but hopefully, something good will come from all of this, and kittens will be petted into the sunset. El_C 12:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this wasn't even remotely a case of INVOLVED, block vandals of this kind on sight and without bothering with warnings, and protect and update the BADIMAGES list if warranted. Dealing with clear-cut vandals is completely exempt from 3RR and involved policies, and always has been, even if IAR didn't exist. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62, Cullen328, and El C: I do apologise if my comment came across as anything other than idle musing! It certainly wasn't meant to be offensive or suggest that there's a major issue here.. It was more a gentle prod that, in this case, this could have been dealt with without drawing attention to the situation. I'm not a fan of anyone holding rights they don't use, and adminship suffers from being considered a "status symbol" by many (if only they knew!) - I don't believe this is the case here by any means. Thank you for your contributions Cbl62, I appreciate them ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Ireland & Northern Ireland user issue

Please look at Fiachratwohig16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who so far has been removing mention of Northern Ireland from various articles/templates. I know there are restrictions on reverts relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland, and want to dump this in the laps of Admins. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, this lap is for kittens! Anyway, less seriously, they haven't engaged in that kind of disruption since your 3rd warning to them. Which is to say: ethno-national —or religio-national? I dunno— disruption. But their 2 most recent edits (out of a grand total of 9) still look like vandalism/disruption nonetheless.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to give them a final warning (which I'll do momentarily) and to indef as a vandalism-only account if they still persist after that. Feel free to notify me personally if that happens. That said, any admin who feels this is too lenient/WP:PACT'y of me, should feel free to just immediately block. El_C 16:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks. I tried to send you a kitten but it wouldn't fit through the cable. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, DuncanHill. And thank you for the kitten try — I blame that one electron-positron pair, they're always up to no good. El_C 18:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ack it’s just the usual sectarian Northern Ireland doesn’t exist vandalism. I see it constantly. I tend to just revert and block and move on as this isn’t something that is a mistake or an editor will see the light over. You’re welcome to always ping me over any Northern Ireland/Ireland items, I seem to be the admin who sticks his nose in the most there. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm a hopeless (dumb) optimist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I rarely see Northern Ireland disruption on RfPP, for example, whereas AP2/EE/ARBPIA/ARBIPA/AA2/KURDS are pretty much a daily occurrence. Which is a good sign for those across the channel and/or the Irish Sea. El_C 20:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because I have most of the target articles on my watchlist, as do several others, and it's generally caught pretty quickly as a result. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'm sure lots of folks have, say, Wyoming on their watchlists, and yet... Anyway, I'm moving to Yellowstone National Park, see you all there. El_C 21:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

El C, in the spirit of being pedantic, Yellowstone extends into Idaho and Montana a little bit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, that's okay, I'm forming my own state in the park proper. I'm sure the fine folks of those states will be fans of my brand of politics & governance. Oh, and the Feds, they'd love it. National Park Service will roll out the Red carpet. Moose invited, of course (but just the one). El_C 00:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

El C, I actually took Super 8 footage of a moose chasing my brother in Yellowstone in 1968. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. A most unenviable position. And obviously you did the responsible thing: filmed (for safety). I didn't see any Meese when I was there. But I did see chipmunks (I know, shocking). Of all the national parks I've been to, though, I think it might be my favourite (and I've seen the sunrise at Grand Canyon National Park). Mind you, Olympic National Park's Bigleaf Maple is also kinda the best. So many great parks to annex! El_C 05:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The poor lad. Doesn't know the name of his whereabouts :( GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

List of catgirls

I had thought perhaps this belongs in the edit warring noticeboard, but that noticeboard seems more geared toward addressing a single or very small number of users engaging in problematic behavior, whereas the situation described below involves multiple users where either position is arguable.

There has been a lot of edit warring in List of catgirls over one particular entry, the one for Hermione Grainger. The entry in question was added on June 29, 2021[132]. Since then there have been multiple attempts to remove the entry, all of which have been reverted. There have been multiple users on both sides, and while some may have pushed it to the 3RR none have significantly exceeded it. This has happened repeatedly every few weeks.

It's unclear whether the entry belongs or not. I think a good enough case can be made either way, enough so that the removal may be considered good-faith edits, yet some of those who have reverted the edits have characterized the removal as vandalism.

The preferred solution in the Wikipedia world is to discuss in the talk page. I attempted to start such a discussion on 14 August 2021[133], but a month and a half later there have been no responses. Then in the last couple of days there was another spate of edit warring over this entry that resulted in protection. I have not been party to any of these edits other than one trivially minor edit in an attempt to draw attention to the discussion thread.

Is there anything that can be done to get the interested parties on both sides to actually discuss this? mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What, I already said Meow! El_C 18:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered starting an RfC? That might attract additional perspectives, and allow a firm consensus informed by experienced editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC to settle this matter. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The recent edit history of Granger looks pretty bad and involves at least one of the same participants. Narky Blert (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over whether Hermione Granger is a catgirl? Now that's what I call WP:LAME. Mlb96 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

We have had edit wars on whether Donald Trump was a racist, and on whether George Floyd was murdered. Which I would consider more absurd than debating the transformations of a fictional character. Dimadick (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to twin towns sections

• 178.143.50.74 (talk · contribs)
• 178.143.50.89 (talk · contribs)
• 193.87.63.204 (talk · contribs)
• 95.102.249.250 (talk · contribs)

User:FromCzech just left a message on my talk page about these four IPs who have been making many unsourced changes to twin towns/international relations sections of city articles without any attempt at discussion.

I think this is a pretty obvious case of disruptive editing and sockpuppetry (the indefblocked User:HunCzeLit224 basically had the same editing patterns and the top IP has already been blocked twice), however I am marginally involved as I challenged one of the IPs about some IPA edits, and FromCzech's AIV report was removed without any meaningful comment, so I'm bringing this here for further consideration. Thanks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked + 46.29.3.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please restore RfC remarks

User:NorthBySouthBaranof has now three times deleted my remarks in an RfC [134][135][136]. Despite clarification to the contrary, he apparently believes I am equating his remarks with defending pedophilia. To the contrary, I am not and I attempted to clarify that on his talk page and the RfC. He refused; apparently that is insufficient. He has also told me to "get fucked" and twice to "get the fuck out of here" (see edit summaries)

I ask for a warning or (if an admin deems necessary) a block for an appropriate length of time and myeditsrestored in the RfC in regards to WP:CIVIL, WP:TE, and whatever else applies. I don't care about the contents of his talk page per se (he can delete those as he sees fit per WP:USERTALK).

I ask that someone please notify him as he has also asked for me to "stay the fuck off my talk page", which sort of leaves me in sort of a conundrum. Does the requirement above pertain to required notices? I don't want to do this wrong and be accused of something else. Buffs (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Struck as he appears to be following my edits and is aware. Buffs (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit update adding personal attacks to the list: "you can't properly edit articles about living people." (see below) 09:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit 2: Let's say you don't agree with my interpretation. Can he accuse people of homophobia? Can he just delete all of my remarks? Only one is about this subject and he's deleted 4 comments aaaaaaand now he's taunting me. Where does it end? Buffs (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You described Lawn Boy, a widely-acclaimed mainstream novel written by Jonathan Evison, a living person, as containing advocacy of pedophilia, without citing a reliable source. You linked to WP:PEDOPHILE with extensive quoting and bolding of sections referring to editors who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki when you have ZERO evidence that any person, much less any editor, is doing so. The insinuation is clear - you're suggesting that Evison and, by extension, those who defend his works on Wikipedia, are pedophiles or pedophile advocates. This is outrageous, false, and a defamatory personal attack.

Your comments about the book are wildly inappropriate, borderline-libelous, and certainly a violation of BLP as applied to Jonathan Evison - you are using Wikipedia space to falsely accuse him of writing material which advocates pedophilia. Frankly, the fact that you are continuing to make this false and unsourced accusation against Mr. Evison suggests you should be topic-banned from biographies of living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I very clearly indicated otherwise. My citation is a direct quote from his own book. But if you want more sources, sure: [137][138][139][140]. I am not saying specifically that he is a pedophile. I'm saying THEY are saying it and it is objectively reasonable (and widely cited, see previous). I'm also pointing out that the same standards DW has are the same ones WP has. I'm also saying that your assertion that this is all about homophobia is absurd. You seem to be hell bent on reading what you want into this while cursing up a storm and repeatedly deleting my remarks (even those that clarify). I will not respond further to you; at this point you're being unreasonable. Buffs (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. You don't even recall what you yourself wrote, which is a strong indication that you need to step back from this issue. You wrote, and I quote, I find it hard to see how the final description "It wasn’t terrible" isn't advocacy of pedophilia. That is your personal statement of your personal opinion - something which has no place in Wikipedia to begin with, much less when your opinion is that a living person is an advocate of pedophilia.

Cite and quote the reliable source which factually describes Evison, his book, or any part of it as "advocacy of pedophilia." I bet you can't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't engage, but ok: see the 4 sources above; all 4 allege exactly that. Here's another [141] Now, I've already said I'm not going to engage with you. Please leave me alone. Buffs (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. Literally none of those sources can be used to state on Wikipedia, as a fact, that the book or its author advocates pedophilia. That you do not understand this distinction is an indication that you can't properly edit articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that it's "critically acclaimed" comes from an unreliable source/self-published source. Hardly the strongest case. Buffs (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs:... You just linked a Washington Times opinion piece... You're not really in a position to be calling out other editors for using unreliable/self-published sources. The problem you get to is when you stray away from what the reliable sources are saying and add your own personal opinion that "it is objectively reasonable” which just FYI, no it actually isn’t. That isn’t any more reasonable than saying that a young adult book about 9/11 advocates terrorism because it accurately covers the events that took place on that day or that Oliver Twist advocates organized crime and street violence. And this is all assuming that your claim about what is in the book is accurate which appears to be in question, even when I give you every benefit of the doubt it simply isn’t an objectively reasonable conclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What NBSB said. Neither author describing something illegal in a work of fiction, nor an author describing a character rationalizing or describing their enjoyment of an illegal act in a work of fiction, means the work in question is advocating that illegal act; by your logic Martin Scorsese has spent the past few decades advocating killing anyone who gets in the way of making money. NBSB might have been more diplomatic in the edit summaries, but I'd say was completely correct to remove your comments. (If a third party has described the author in question as advocating crime, it's legitimate to give their view with correct attribution—that comes up regularly in discussion of books like Lolita and The Satanic Verses—but the important thing is that you're saying "Foo thinks Bar supports crime", not a bald "Bar supports crime". ‑ Iridescent 08:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Texas obscenity laws say otherwise, but more to the point, that's exactly what we're describing here: what the DW (et al) is describing in their reporting. Describing this as "rank homophobia" is incorrect as the objection has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the graphic nature of the pedophile-relationship in the material presented. In addition to the moving goalposts (rank homophobia, accusing support of pedophilia, personal attack, now BLP...whatever is next...), it is a complete misreading of what I'm saying. What you are advocating is what I am advocating: this is what DW is saying that the parent said; my point is that WP has the same standards, not that any specific editor OR author is a pedo/supports pedophilia. 4 additional news sources are listed above corroborate that. The outrage isn't due to homosexuality, but the graphic nature of the material. I can get more sources to back that up, but I think my point is clear. Buffs (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

And the point is that 'The Daily Wire's "reporting" on that issue is sensationalistic and misleading to the point of, yes, rank homophobia (describing a gay school board member as spending smuch of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education is another example of that homophobia). And that's a great example of why The Daily Wire is an unreliable source on Wikipedia, and why it will remain an unreliable source - and your outrage is because you know you can't actually get a consensus to change that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I was talking to someone else, not you. 2. Questioning how someone is using their efforts for political advocacy over teaching is not "homophobia" by any definition. 3. Again, leave me alone. 4. "your outrage is because you know you can't actually get a consensus to change that" How much longer do I have to tolerate profanity and taunting? Buffs (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• That level of profanity directed at another editor is excessive, NBSB. You should consider apologizing and retracting the swearing.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Given that they are in the edit summaries and/or he's deleted the remarks, he can't Buffs (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  He could say: "I still think you're wrong, Buffs, but I shouldn't have sworn at you, and I'm sorry for the swearing. I won't do that again."—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  It was sheer outrage at the invocation of WP:PEDOPHILE - any experienced editor should know that's not a policy to be lightly invoked in an everyday content dispute, and that it is likely to inflame emotions among any right-thinking person. It's a policy about editors who are pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia, not a policy about widely-acclaimed mainstream novels.

  I apologize for the profane outburst, and I would request that Buffs make clear that they do not believe I, nor Jonathan Evison, nor his book, have anything to do with pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy, and that they acknowledge they should not have made such a flawed comparison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's not unreasonable. Buffs: Are you willing to say right here right now that neither NBSB nor Jonathan Evison are paedophiles or pro-paedophilia advocates?—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I already said I was not claiming NBSB was a paedophiles or pro-paedophilia. He deleted those remarks along with 3 others. As for Jonathan Evison I'm not claiming he is or isn't either (I think a definitive affirmative statement about anyone i.e. "John is not a criminal" is too much, but I will state for the record generally in the negative on both counts for both people. I said the specific phrase in the book seems like pedophilia/advocating it. Now if that's just a fictional character expressing that, fine, I can live with that, but that's still the point of these women's analysis. Lastly, restoring my comments (all 4 of them, not just the ones in question, but also those deleted because "this section isn't for threaded discussion" despite ample examples on the page to the contrary) along with a note "For clarity, Buffs is not advocating either NBSB or Jonathan Evison are paedophiles or pro-paedophilia advocates" written by NBSB will suffice and I will concur...in fact, just put my signature on it with the appropriate timestamp with my blessing + I consider this matter closed. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, I find Pedophilia very disgusting and while I do respect the “free speech” angle, I have always felt speech advocating pedophilia crosses the line, even in the days before advocating pedophilia was an instant permaban on the Wikipedia. So, this can be a very touchy subject. The question, after all of the arguments, seems to be whether this book advocates Pedophilia, or whether opposing this book is “homophobia”. As per WP:BLP, making any kind of accusation of pedophilia needs to be done with the utmost of care to make sure we can strongly support it with sources. So, that in mind, let’s look at the Fox news source. WP:RSP says Fox news is generally reliable, unless we’re discussing politics or science. I do not think this matter is one which is political, so I think we can say a reliable source says that “"Lawn Boy" by Jonathan Evison and "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe” allegedly contain pedophilia. In terms of deleting comments from a discussion like WP:RSN, comments should not be deleted unless their is a really really good reason to do so. It is completely inappropriate to accuse an editor of advocating pedophilia without very strong evidence; if any such evidence is present, please notify the Wikimedia foundation as per WP:CHILDPROTECT so we can permaban the editor and scrub their editing history as needed. Samboy (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Samboy, you don't have a "reliable source" stating this: you have a source of doubtful reliability stating that one person, without any qualifications in sexuality, law, or literature, alleged that the books contained pedophilia. Fram (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, the Daily Wire source is clearly homophobic. Just read the actual title: "WATCH: School Board Squirms As Mom Reads Them The Gay Porn In Books Available To Students". "Gay Porn", not "Child Porn", as if that was the cause of concern (or as if gay porn and pedophilia are one and the same, which seems to be their main message). And further down, it again becomes very clear when they start describing some school board members, or a selection of books. The article doesn't care about pedophilia, it uses it as a way to attack gay literature, transgender rights, and anti-racism. It's a dreadful, utterly biased source. Fram (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Okaaaaaay. Transgenderism and racism aren't even part of the subject in question here. To try and conflate the two is absurd. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  As for the rest, yes, it's a verbal description of an act of pedophilia (adult and child), gay (it's between the same gender), and child porn (it's sexual acts of a minor)...yeah, all 3 apply as a description. You seem to be conflating a LOT of things as if they are all the same and at the same time pretending some things are unrelated in this context.

  When you discount every source that disagrees with your opinion, you're going to find that everyone agrees with you. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I know that transgenderism and racism aren't part of the subject, but the DailyWire article (where you can't even acknowledge the explicit homophobia), felt the need to introduce these subjects as well, when describing school board members: "Laura Jane Cohen (whose child is transgender and who frequently redirects educational issues to gay issues)," and "Karl Frisch, a school board member who does not have any children, but is a gay man who spends much of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education". When discussing the book selection by the American Library Association, they not only remarked that "An unusually large portion of the books recommended by YALSA are about homosexuality. " (again indicating that this is somehow a problem and of any relevance in an article about a mother alleging pedophilia in one or two books), but also "Much of the youth librarians group’s selections focus on instilling a sense of racial oppression rather than a mastery of reading.", with a discussion of two books about racism, which they follow with "For a list of other questionable titles pushed into schools by the American Library Association[...]". It is your DailyWire source which conflates the topics as if they are all symptoms of the same problem and are all illegal, child-corrupting elements which should be banned. It is your source which makes "gay porn" the main issue, not "child porn" (and your reply here comes dangerously close to doing the same: for some reason it needs to be enumerated as a description of pedophilia, gay porn, and child porn, but not as e.g. a description of porn). Oh, and as far as I can tell, it is the DW and you why try to make it look as if the quoted scene describes actions between an adult and a child, when in reality, the scene is between two childs of the same age (see some of the other sources you provided, e.g. "sex acts between 4th graders" and the confirmation of this by the author: "sexual experimentation between kids". Fram (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Good descriptions for the arguments of those unreliable sources would be: conspiracy theory, moral panic, misrepresentation to instill fear of public education and promote homeschooling and religious segregation from mainstream society, divisive arguments (us/them)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If the book only describes child-child sexual contacts and does not describe adult-child sexual contacts, that’s a very different ball of wax. WP:CHILDPROTECT is explicitly about inappropriate adult-child potentially sexual contacts only. Since there is confusion about this, I think it’s very important to edit Jonathan Evison to clarify exactly what is described in the book “Lawn Boy”, which is OK (as per Virgin Killer we can have some content along this vein, as long as it’s clear it’s neutral commentary). Samboy (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The book does NOT cite only child-child acts, but rather explicitly cites exactly what the mother feels is explicitly pedophelia: acts of mutual oral sex between a child and an adult. I am not going to cite the contents here as I truly believe it crosses a line which would get me banned (and, to be blunt, I think that's what at least some want me to do). Both the video and the quote in the DW article rather explicitly show it. To say "when in reality, the scene is between two childs of the same age" is taking common sense and twisting it beyond recognition. While the SCENE is between two younger people, it DESCRIBES mutual oral sex between a child and an adult and ends with "'And you know what?' I said. 'It wasn’t terrible.'" I'll be blunt, I don't know where that falls in WP policy, but I know it's damned close to the line.

"It is your source which makes 'gay porn' the main issue, not 'child porn'..." The first line of the article indicates otherwise "A Virginia mom found that books graphically depicting pedophilia were in her child’s school as part of its commitment to diversity and inclusion — so she read from them, verbatim, to the school board." If you don't think it fits that criteria, then why hasn't someone posted a quote of the contents here? (I implore you NOT to post it; the point is that no one has because it's very risky. DO NOT POST THESE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK!!!) Buffs (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, the DW article is equating gay sex and child porn, by giving a title (and much of the content) about gay porn and homosexuality, while using the (fake?) outrage over a supposedly pedophilic scene as a coatrack to hang their homophobic, transphobic and racist agenda on. The source is clealy homophobic and shouldn't be used (and we have much more acceptable sources about the same incident anyway). As for the scene quoted by the DW (that's the one we're discussing, right?), it describes an adult telling what happened to him as a child with another child (who is now also an adult), "Doug Goble, a childhood friend who has launched himself out of the res and into a flashy real estate career."[142]. The scene is not between an adult and a child. He is decribed as another kid in the book, p. 43[143] Fram (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fram's explanation of the scene seems likely correct. If Buffs is going to continue to claim otherwise, they need to provide far better sources than the Daily Wire. I note even the Daily Wire's snippet makes it sound like this is at a minimum a conversation between older teens if not adults e.g. "Nick waved me off and turned his attention back to his beer." While by itself this doesn't prove the age of the other participant at the time, even without reading the book it seems entirely plausible that said participant was also a child and they're just called a "real-estate guy" because that's what they are now. And if this is a conversation between adults of something that happened when those involved were children, this seems to further prove what a terrible source the Daily Wire is. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree (I know, not a shock). It at least arguably falls under US Obscenity laws and fails satisfies the Miller test. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. If you have to cite the Miller test in an argument, you should probably re-evaluate your argument. Especially when you're just utterly incorrect, as the book doesn't meet a single prong of the Miller test (I assume you meant to say that it satisfies the Miller test, not that it fails it). Mlb96 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Argh...yes... I also think that reasonable people can disagree. If we disagree, we disagree and I'll abide by consensus. Buffs (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course reasonable people can disagree. But your disagreement makes no sense in the current discussion. The claim was that the DW, or certainly that piece, is homophobic (and transphobic and racist) and tries to influence their audience even further by lying. Whether the book is or isn't obscene and would or wouldn't satisfy the Miller test is not what the discussion was about. If you can't even admit that the DW (and by extension you) was misrepresenting the disputed scene, then there is nothing left to discuss. One can only have a meaningful discussion if the participants at least are willing to admit factual errors. Fram (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: disagree about what? You started off claiming that the book depicted sex between an adult and a child and this is what the Daily Wire implies it's about. You went so far as to claim it is implausible ("common sense and twisting it beyond recognition") that the depiction was something that occurred between two children, saying it's clearly between an adult and a child.

Fram has provided a sourced explanation that your understanding of the depiction, which is a recollection of something from childhood, is wrong. This includes something in the book itself suggesting this isn't simply an explanation the author offered when there was controversy but instead something anyone who read and understood the book would know. If you can't provide any sources to counter this explanation which seems difficult anyway, you need to stop making allegations to the contrary or you should be blocked until you do. This isn't something we can agree to disagree. You are free to believe what you want but you cannot let your inaccurate views of stuff influence your editing here let alone promote them.

The issue of whether it's obscene is largely separate. If you now want to only focus on the obscenity thing well I see no need to discuss whether it's obscene here since it's so irrelevant. It being obscene didn't justify the Daily Wire misleading viewers about what it depicts. If they want to argue it's obscene or is otherwise inappropriate or dangerous for kids, they are free to do so without misleading about what it depicts especially not in such an extreme fashion. As an RS it is their responsibility to do the research and make sure they don't mislead. Even if we're generous and assume they simply failed to research, this still suggests they are not an RS considering the allegation was extreme and yet easily answered by reading the book. But worse, even if we assuming an initial claim failure of fact-checking, it seems very likely someone has pointed this out by now yet we see no correction.

As for you, I was initially thinking it was simply a case of sorry "I trusted the Daily Wire when I shouldn't have, sorry". But as Fram pointed out you seem unwilling to just accept that you were wrong and so mislead us like the Daily Wire. Ultimately you don't have to accept fault, but you do need to stop misleading about what the book depicts. As for the obscenity angle feel free to discuss that somewhere appropriate although you would need to do so based on what the book actually depicts not your alternative facts view of it. Note this would not be in RSN nor here at ANI since the recollection being obscene doesn't justify the Daily Wire misleading about what it depicts. I'd note that your earlier comments suggest you agree obscene or not, there's a big difference between a recollection of sex as a child with another child, and recollection of sex as a child with an adult. So I assume there's no dispute that it matters a great deal.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• ♫ Lawn Boy ♫ spam. El_C 12:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  1934 mechanical non-spam....2007 humour spam. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

NBSB's large removal is not acceptable and the editor should not revert an edit like that again. Look at this systematically. Using this edit as an example [144]. First, the edit summary is not acceptable and violates CIVIL. Some editors feel that it's OK to be uncivil so long as you are in the right. That is simply not true. While an editor might be in the right, incivility invariably makes it harder to find compromise as it makes both sides more entrenched. There is also the risk that the editor is in the wrong on the facts of the case in which case they have made their error that much worse by adding incivility to the mix. This sort of incivility should always be discouraged even if the editor is correct on the facts.

Should the edit have been reverted? First, as a clearly involved editor it would have been far better if NBSB asked a third party to intervene. Absent that, NBSB's edit removed more than just the offending content. It removed material that was germane to the discussion while not being the specific offending material. That is not acceptable. If an editor makes a reasoned, on topic point and includes a personal insult, the insult should be removed, not the entire edit. So NBSB's removal of the whole edit was not acceptable. On the final point, was the claim specifically homophobic etc, I haven't looked into the sources enough to decide. If there is some level of doubt then the content should have remained or should remain until more editors can weigh in. Regardless, NBSB's objectives can be good faith even though their methods were needlessly antagonistic and blunt. They should be strongly encouraged to be more careful in the future and certainly not edit war to remove the talk page comments of another editor. Springee (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Springee At a bare minimum, would someone restore my non-controversial queries? I'm not going to edit war over it. Buffs (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think, since we’ve gone back and forth so much about the supposed scene in Lawn Boy, it will do a service to our readers to have the entire scene here, especially since the book is paywalled (I have had mixed luck opening up the relevant pages in Google Books, sometimes it tells me I’m not allowed to preview the book). This is clearly fair use: It is commentary about the scene, and it’s essential to include the entire scene so fellow Wikipedia readers can look at the source evidence and come up with their own conclusions. Please note: In the interests of WP:BOWDLERIZE I will leave two uses of a homophobic slur intact; I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to have the original text here as-is.

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said.

“Pfff.” Nick waved me off and turned his attention back to his beer.

“What if I told you I sucked it?”

“Will you please shut up already?”

“I’m dead serious, Nick.”

“Well, I’d say you’re a fag.” [Again, I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to leave the source material as is. Again, WP:BOWDLERIZE ]

“I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Dick Goble’s dick in my mouth.”

“The real estate guy?”

“Yeah.”

Nick looked around frantically. “What the fuck are you talking about, Michael?”

“I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.”

Cringing, Nick held his hands out in front of him in a yield gesture “Stop.”

“He sucked mine, too.”

“Stop! Why are you telling me this?”

“And you know what?” I said “It wasn’t terrible.”

[Some other conversation]

“So, you’re saying you’re a fag?” [Again, and I repeat myself I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to leave the source material as is. Once again, WP:BOWDLERIZE ]

“I doubt that. It’s been twelve years since I touched a dick. But that’s not the point.”

This is the entire scene. Some things: There is absolutely no WP:CHILDPROTECT issue here; the scene described second-hand is one which happened between two children (Elsewhere in the book: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), so it does not run fowl of our very strong anti-pedophilia guidelines. It’s not a pornographic scene; the interaction is only described secondhand, and very curtly describes something which happened a long time before. The point of the scene is to challenge Nick’s prejudices and let Nick have less bigoted views of gay people. It looks like the DailyWire grossly misrepresented the scene, and I think a reasonable person can infer that the DailyWire wrote their article with a homophobic agenda. Samboy (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, if it doesn't meet WP:CHILDPROTECT criteria, it at least arguably falls under US Obscenity laws and fails satisfies the Miller test. You don't have to agree, but at least some people think so, if not the "average person". To say this a "homophobic agenda" is a step too far; I don't think this was intentionally misleading. Without additional context, which the speaker did not provide, it very much sounds like adult-child sexual interaction. With more context, the fact that it's two adults talking about underage homosexual acts that one person doesn't want to hear about...I'm not so sure it's that much better, though it's ironic that the speaker's mic was shut off before she could finish "because there are children in the room" [there weren't]. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"if it doesn't meet childprotect criteria"? What more do you need to actually admit that no, it doesn't? And what more do you need to recognise a homophobic article as blatant as that one? "Oh, we have one pedo book" (quod non), let's equate this in our title with "gay porn" (the oldest homophobic trick in the book, equating homosexuality and pedophilia), and let's add some other books with homosexual themes (and now that we are busy, transgender and antiracist ones as well) as if these are obviously problematic; and to top it all off, let's highlight some school board members with the same "agenda" and create a false juxtaposition that you are either interested in reading or in these themes (for the American Library Association), and that you are either interested in education or in these themes (for the school board members). That you have an issue with books which include a short discussion about "underage homosexual acts" (as if the homosexual nature somehow makes it worse or unacceptable) is not surprising I suppose, after all the above. But that is in the end not important: what counts is our BLP policy, and what are or aren't reliable sources. Fram (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the entire introduction of claims of pedophilia in a book, a hypothetical speculation of an author's intent and an article about a school boards judgment over a book is an attempt to derail a discussion on whether a website should be deprecated as a source on Wikipedia. Look at the energy invested in this discussion which has turned into arguments over civility. I would have removed the comments as being a salacious tangent to the purpose of the discussion which has nothing to do with Jonathan Evison and his book and is supposed to focus on The Daily Wire being used as a source. If that was your goal, Buffs, it looks like you succeeded at least for a day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard to see how Buffs’ behavior here could go unsanctioned — it’s grossly inappropriate on several levels. —JBL (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Liz makes a good point above, so I encourage participants here to not allow this diversion to distract from the RfC at RS/N, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Daily Wire. It was preceded by this discussion that is worth reading: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire Feel free to participate. The more eyes the better. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Both editors here are at fault. It is just one over-reaction following another. Aircorn (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that what Buffs has done, is to seriously misinterpret a source, be very wrong, and be persistent, in a content dispute; whereas what NBSB has done is to swear at Buffs and delete Buffs' talk page contributions. I think NBSB is right about the content dispute but it's only NBSB's behaviour that's clearly sanctionable. I think it would be harsh to issue an actual sanction for the swearing because (1) NBSB has apologized and (2) in context, it's reasonable to understand the swearing as a stress symptom caused by feeling unjustly accused. I do think Buffs' behaviour could be sanctionable if we feel that he's intentionally misrepresenting the source. Do we?—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have found and quoted the original. To Buffs’ credit, the original passage in “Lawn Boy” without context looks really bad. To correctly understand the scene, one needs to understand that the fiction character Goble, while described as an adult in the scene, was actually around the age of the main character when the fictional oral sex happened. It looks like DailyWire messed this up: They either did not read the original book in its entirety, or they read the book but felt they could get more clicks by quoting one part which, without context, can look like an extremely inappropriate adult - child relationship. This is just one reason why the DailyWire is “generally unreliable”. (Don’t get me started about how a single TheVerge article about Marvin Minsky which misrepresented some court testimony has resulted in us having a low level persistent vandalism problem on that article). Samboy (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall, Buffs has had ample opportunity to retract their repeated mischaracterizations; as far as I see, they have not done so. I can't definitively say whether this speaks to intentionality (as opposed to, say, stubborn incompetence), but I think it is not acceptable behavior either way. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I've restored my comments (sans the ones that people find objectionable as listed above...) myself because no one seems to actually have any problem with them. The fact that no admin stood up and said "no, his comments shouldn't have been deleted; that's uncivil" and restored them is one more point of evidence that clearly the admin corps isn't up to the task. Unless there are further objections, I think this ANI has run its course. But if people want to pile on with additional criticism, go for it. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not really their job to restore them, if they did they would be involved and acting in general editor capacity. —PaleoNeonate – 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the admin who did consider this discussion was concerned with whether to hit you with sanctions for sending a discussion about the quality of a online news source into a tangential death spiral on pedophilia, not whether or not they should restore your deleted comments. But I think most admins saw this discussion as either a minefield or they knew that the heat would cool down in a day or two. But that's just a guess on my part.

Buffs, if you think the admin corps aren't "up to the task", maybe consider an RfA, we could use more admins. But a warning, an RfA will make the ANI board look warm & cozy in comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I wouldn't want anyone I know to become an admin on Wikipedia, in fact, I would discourage it. I think the admins we have are phenomenal whether we agree on content or not. We may even disagree on principles and I still believe you all do a great job considering. I dare say its even necessary and I know it but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I classify it as "at your own risk". I respect the hell out of every admin I have run across or dealt with, for real. --ARoseWolf 16:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I was blocked for deleting insulting comments on my own talk page and someone else does not even get a reprimand for deleting 4 different remarks of mine and making multiple disparaging remarks about me? Double Standards here. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You consider this "deleting insulting comments", yet have on the one hand no problems claiming pedophilia and so on left and right but fail to see actual issues like the homophobic, transphobic, racist contents of the DW article you defend? Contrary to Liz, I wouldn't suggest that you consider an RfA, as it would go down in flames. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are we talking about an RfA (sneeringly or not) for a user who should have been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for their behavior above, about which they seem completely unrepentant? --JBL (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are some of my fellow editors sneering in the first place? The incivility is appalling and down right shameful. But carry on chipping away at the foundation of this collaborative effort, nay humanity itself. That makes total sense. I'm not supporting Buffs' position but I'm not supporting the sarcastic and relentless incivility I see here either. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion gradually starts to veer off on a sidetrack one or two posts above or below this. This is my best uninvolved approximation of the place to make the boundary. Please resume discussion about the issue at hand below this hatnote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strange how you always pipe up when a problematic editor gets criticized for their problem edits, but fail to appear when those editors are incivil themselves (here, and much more egregiously at the LouisAlain discussion). I guess that the collapse of humanity only counts when it comes from some people, and not from others? Shaemful indeed. Fram (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, seriously -- there is an important question here and so maybe if you want to whine about tone you should whine about the tone used by Buffs while repeatedly falsely accusing people of promoting pedophilia etc. FFS. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) That's like saying he did it first so that somehow justifies us disregarding a foundational principle of this encyclopedia because well, he did it first. Incivility is never justified by anyone whether its the initial instance or in response to. Not by Buffs, by me, you, or anyone else. I have no issue with problematic editors being brought to ANI for their problematic edits. But there comes a point when you have said all that needs to be said and it simply becomes piling on. Bring out the issue, discuss the issue, make a ruling and move on. Continuing to attack and go after another human being is shameful and I wont apologize for calling it that. The issue has been discussed. If you have a proposal then make it. --ARoseWolf 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Which doesn't change the coincidence that you are swift to patronize one side and ignore the other one (let's face it, in the LouisAlain discussion there was just one person truly horribly incivil, which some dreadful personal attacks: yet you chose to ignore all of that). Fram (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Please show me where I defended any specific personal attack on anyone. Make sure to include diffs of me saying I support personal attacks. Otherwise you are making inferences into what I have said and I suggest not doing that without asking me what I meant because you really have missed the point if that is your conclusion. There was incivility and personal attacks that went both ways. My comments made were for everyone involved. If you chose to only see me as patronizing one side then that is your choice. What I didn't see the need for and I continue to advocate against is the piling on of an editor, especially one that walked away from the encyclopedia even before he was blocked. Louis is gone so continuing to discuss that case is pointless. I will say that one persons attacks does not justify a response in kind. I don't see anything here that says civility is optional. EVRYONE must act in a civil manner at all times. Even knowing that we are human and mistakes will happen it still doesn't justify it. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I didn't say you "defended" them, I said you "ignored" them. If you meant to address everyone, then it is very unlucky that you only appeared after some hardly incivil comments from one side, and didn't pipe up earlier when you hade plenty of chances to address actual, direct personal attacks. With "especially one that walked away from the encyclopedia even before he was blocked.", you mean LouisAlain, yes? Not only did he announce his departure multiple times over the years, he was editing throughout the discussion and at the time of the block, and announced that he would sock as an IP after the block, just like he apparently did at the French Wikipedia after his block there. "I will say that one persons attacks does not justify a response in kind." No, that's why no one compared LouisAlain to a Nazi, a pervert, a dictator, ... even after he called other editors such names. Most of us know that we shouldn't respond in kind, and most of us don't. But apparently we shouldn't have responded at all, lest humanity collapses. Oh well, at least some of us have the civility not to discuss the perceived negative intentions of others behind their backs. Leading the battle for civility by example eh? Fram (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Incivility is not just calling people names, its tone, its approach. Name calling is an obvious. Louis and anyone should be ashamed for calling anyone those things. It doesn't excuse the responses. What is causing humanity to collapse is the lack of understanding, kindness and civility. Did I say a single thing that wasn't true in that statement? That entire thread became more about the perceived character of a person rather than just a discussion about their problematic edits which is where it began. It moved into personally and relentlessly attacking an individual. There is nothing perceived in what was said in the discussion of Louis. The intent was made plain and clear. Even so I still have respect for most of you and the ones I omitted from that are the ones in that discussion I don't know or haven't involved myself with but I assume are respectable people as well. Nothing on Wikipedia is behind anyone's back. You are free to look at anything I have said anywhere at any time. If you view this as a battle then that's your choice. I don't view it as a battle. I view it as an opportunity for our community to grow and fall back on the principles it was founded on and to check our own interactions with others to ensure we are upholding the principles of civility in our own discussions. I do believe the pillar of civility is quite literally one of the most important but not because it is more important than the others but because the others are easily definable and even easier to correct. Civility is the most disregarded of all of the pillars. Civility is hard to maintain when we feel challenged and when we face incivility directed at ourselves. It is still no excuse to return the like. By that I don't mean returning the exact same words incivility because I don't differentiate the action. There are no types of civility or degrees of incivility. You wont find one list in our policy on civility that shows the degrees by which civility exists or the degree to which we may respond to incivility. Civility is civility. Incivility is incivility. We can keep discussing this and going around in circles if you wish but nothing is going to sway my principles to the point that I will agree that the incivility, tone or otherwise, on this thread or any other thread or by anyone on any of these threads is permissible. Obviously you disagree with my viewpoint and that's okay. We can disagree. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I see. When you ascribe nefarious motives to people (again, only one side of course) and do so in a place where these people are unlikely to notice it, it is not uncivil or behind their back, as they could have seen it if they really searched for it, and it is all completely factual, no interpretation or opinion injected (and of course no uncivil thing in sight) in "The approach by so many that I hold in high esteem in that thread was vicious incivility. It was targeted for one single purpose, discrediting another human being, not just their work but them, their person, every aspect of them. It was to tear this human being to shreds in the hope they would do exactly what they have done which is quit." I think I will take my civility lessons from someone else. Fram (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Oh, and you know what else is also a sign of civility? Acknowledging the mistakes you make, like claiming that LouisAlain had quit or that I had said that you had "defended" personal attacks: while it is definitely not civil to simply ignore your mistakes and continue as if nothing happened. It gives the strong impression that you are only interested in making your point, and not in listening to what others might have to say. If you want people to listen to you, first show that you are capable of listening to them, learning things from them, and seeing where you might have been wrong. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Louis' last edit was to his own talk page and that was to blank it. That was on the 25th, the same day he was blocked. His last "official" edit was on the 24th and that was to change a date in an article. He left a message on the AN thread under the word DONE. A day before he was blocked. He blanked his user page the next day. He quit before he was blocked. I did err on one point and that is that you did, in fact, say I had ignored Louis' personal attacks which is also not true. You can cherry pick my statements to try and prove your points but anyone can, if they so choose, look at the sum total of what was said and in what I continue to say. I neither ignore nor defend any incivility, whether that is found in a personal attack, disruptive editing or in the lack of understanding and kindness shown to another human being and regardless of whether it was said in an initial attack or in the 100th response to said attack. No incivility is justified, period, under any circumstances. Was Louis wrong for being uncivil? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But that doesn't give anyone the excuse to also be uncivil in their tone, remarks or attitude directed back at him. I listen. I read and listen better than most give me credit. And I do evolve and so does my position. I have no issue admitting when I am wrong. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC) He was blocked the 25th at 08:19, and then blanked his talk page the same day at 08:49. In the ANI discussion, he was asked to provide the Babel template on his user page: he did this[145], and replied at ANI, starting his reply with Template:Done, "often used on talk pages to show clearly that a section of discussion has been resolved", not an indication that one is "done" with Wikipedia and ceases editing altogether. So no, "He left a message on the AN thread under the word DONE. A day before he was blocked." is not really correct, unless you consider "29 minutes before" the same as "the next day". "He blanked his user page the next day": he didn't blank his user page, he blanked his user talk page, "30 minutes later". And then he went to dewiki and clearly indicated that he will continue to edit here, but as a sockpuppet. So no indication that he quit before the block, and every indication that he had and has no intention of quitting. Fram (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not have many regrets, but reading this ANI thread is one of them. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Second that. ––FormalDude talk 12:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous user 103.210.146.65 and 103.210.146.77 with significant proportion of edits reverted

Hello, new here so hope I'm doing this report right. Here to flag User:103.210.146.65 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which if you look at his contributions, as of today he has 195 of 304 (64%) edits reverted. User has been warned on their Talk Page several times... but given it is an IP user I presume they are not seeing the warnings. I personally encountered this user in the history of Big Four accounting firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where he keeps trying to add US headquarter locations for the accounting firms. It looks like he also has a related IP address User:103.210.146.77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which has also made the same change to add US headquarter locations to the US. Similar to the first IP, this second IP has 181 of 298 (61%) of edits reverted and warnings on their Talk Page. I suspect that:

1. As an anonymous IP user, they are not seeing the talk page warnings
2. They are using multiple IP to evade any bans
3. All edits are on mobile and of consistently sub-par quality, often subject to reversion.

Not sure what to do about this, if the user IP(s) can be blocked or some other sanction? The pattern of behaviour is similar across both IP, and despite the talk page warnings, there has been no observable change in actions by the user. CDB-Man (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Just blocking on sight at this point, with any IP/range they happen to use. Already blocked for one month on July 25 for more of the same (even then). Enough people have tried reaching out at this point on the talk pages of the IPs involved, but have hit a brick wall. El_C 05:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C -- I see you blocked only User:103.210.146.65, can you also block the seemingly connected IP User:103.210.146.77 as well? -- CDB-Man (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

CDB-Man, np. But that account hasn't edited in a few weeks, so it might be Stale at this point. El_C 06:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I will report back on IP #2 if he picks up activity to ban evade or something like that. CDB-Man (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: For the record, the IP editor edited earlier as 5.178.202.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), displayed the same pattern of disruption and amassed three blocks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's right, there's been several iterations of this user/s, so becoming a bit of an LTA at this point. And it wouldn't surprise me if it goes further back still. I think Mark83 (courtesy ping) might have a better sense of the scope and scale and timeline involved. El_C 13:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• 331dot, who blocked several of these IPs several times at times, might also have some insights into all this. El_C 13:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Rombo86 issues

Rombo86 has some anger issues, I should say, as can be seen by his frequent use of profanity when being warned. See his talk page, specifically here, here, and here. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's a long-term issue. Blocked for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Notfrompedro Uw-disruptive1

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

---

On 18:17, 2 October 2021‎ I edited the Democratic Socialism page and clearly explained that "'Public ownership of the means of production' cannot be achieved without authoritarianism. The government would need to confiscate businesses from the owners of the the means of production."

On 18:35, 2 October 2021‎ Notfrompedro reverted my edit without any explanation.

On 14:02, 3 October 2021‎ I reverted to my edit and again clearly gave the explanation that "These statements are false. Democratic socialism cannot achieve it's sated goal of 'Public ownership of the means of production' without authoritarianism."

On 14:08, 3 October 2021‎ Notfrompedro again reverted my edit without any explanation.

The point of my edit is very simple. The wiki page for Authoritarianism says "Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power." For Democratic Socialists to achieve their stated goal of "public ownership of the means of production," they would need authoritarianism to seize the means of production from the owners of private industry. Firthermore, Democratic socialists would need authoritarianism to enforce their system on anyone who refuses to go along with it. Therefore, Democratic socialist are against "political plurality" and the "use of a strong central power."

To claim that Democratic socialism is anti-authoritarian is therefore patently false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeRyan22 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not "truth". We - and our readers - don't care about your opinion on democratic socialism or its methods – only care what others have to say about it. If you can find reliable sources that agree with you, you can add them to the article in question. Until then, your opinions are, I'm afraid, not wanted. Sorry. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The other thing to note is that this is a content dispute, and should be resolved by means of discussion at Talk:Democratic socialism. ANI is only for cases where there are unresolvable behavioral problems above and beyond a disagreement over article content, for example, repeated failure to discuss contested changes on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this is more of a situation where an editor with 15 edits wants to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Anything that we can do to nip this in the bud before we waste a dozen editor hours on it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source: "Unlike capitalism, free enterprise, which can only occur truly through voluntary transcations, socialism can only occur at gunpoint." https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/4aGmFvw9ZekEgIcE86SUkE/d2e526ea4decaab47f22051e84704530/crowder-democratic_socialism_is_still_socialism-transcript_0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeRyan22 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Wikipedia being based on verifiability, no authoritarianism beyond the power to raise taxes, which is claimed by every government in the world that has ever existed, is needed for socialism, which is democratic if voted for by the people, to occur. If you want to make an argument on the basis of authoritarianism then you will need to make an extreme anarchist argument against all government. Of course there are other arguments you could make against socialism, but they would all be your own personal arguments which we don't use here. We only use what is verifiable from reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior from User:Satrar

User:Satrar has a history of POV pushing a pro-Pakistan/anti-India agenda and other disruptive editing:

• They had previously engaged in an edit war with Echo1Charlie;
• During said edit war, they changed sourced figures, claiming the source to be "unreliable";
• And they added a POV template to Para (Special Forces) without providing an explanation.

I tried to have a friendly talk with Satrar on their talk page, but they escalated it into personal attacks, ethnic profiling, and an attempt to discredit me because of my nationality. Satrar does seem to have made some constructive edits outside of the Indo-Pakistani conflict topic, but because of their behavior on the topic I propose that Satrar be topic banned from the Indo-Pakistani conflict. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bigfella77

• Bigfella77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has continued genre warring after a final warning. For example: Special:Diff/1047652282, Special:Diff/1047752773, Special:Diff/1047647857/1047659410, Special:Diff/1047753587. Please block 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I know genre-warriors are a dime a dozen, but I could swear I've seen this exact style of "thriller" and "neo-noir" additions for crime movies before. But can't for the life of me figure out who it was. Anybody remember? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the first article this person changed was Heat (film) I took a brief look into the article history and found another recent user who was labelling things as "neo noir" (diff) Not an exact match, it only looks vaguely similar and there could easily be a few editors with love of the "neo noir" label (just as there are plenty more editors with their own particular favorite buzzwords) but perhaps an admin might be able to quickly check the IP address/ISP range and rule out the possibility that Bigfella77 is a sock-puppet of User:TheUnbeholden. -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The new-noir taggers nearly always hit Blade Runner, so that’s usually a good place to check for foot based clothing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@109.78: I noticed the overlap with TheUnbeholden as well, but I'm hesitant to make any sort of accusation there. The case I seem to recall wasn't anyone established like them. (And it's not like "<arguably neo-noir movie> is neo-noir" is a unique take. It's the manner of expressing that take that's distinctive.) @Canterbury Tail: Looks like that's all been IPs there. So maybe it's multiple people with the same favorite genre to add. Maybe an IP-hopper who finally created an account. The more I look, the more I feel I've sent myself on a wild goose chase, so... 🤷 I imagine it'll be an indef if they do it even one more time, so I guess it doesn't really matter whether this is a first account or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an accusation, I think we can politely point out coincidences and make gentle suggestions without causing offense. It remains up to admins with access to the check user tools if they want to look into it further, although they are probably already too busy with the next disruptive editor. -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

He seems to be back at it again already as an ipv6 anon Special:Contributions/2600:8807:E4F:3A00:98E4:A2F8:34DD:B0B3 -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked Special:Contributions/2600:8807:E4F:3A00:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Selfstudier

Selfstudier has engaged in disruptive behavior repeatedly on IP related pages recently instead of trying to build consensus.

He's refused to abide by agreements, sought to recruit others to help support his case instead of allowing changes to go forth, reverted text he didn't like while being unwilling to explain his objections to the content (certainly not using the MOS), then makes an ad hominem argument against another editor instead of making any sort of constructive input.

Quotes:

• "It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right? " (link)

• "As I said, what I am interested in is the view of other editors, via RFC if needs be." (link)

• "And "not an improvement" (= "it was fine the way it was before") is a very common reason for a revert. Your edit essentially added nothing of any consequence. " (link)

• "I edit and here you are again, never having been on the page in recent times. Admit it, you have a thing for me, that's it, isn't it?" (link).

Can he please be given some sort of push to behave more collaboratively and constructively?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but this does not seem to be behaviour which would warrant opening a case at ANI. Might I suggest a quick withdrawal and a commitment on both sides to resolve any issues through the correct content dispute resolution channels? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. See here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I've seen zero willingness from Selfstudier to change any of his behavior. So what do you feel the appropriate dispute resolution venue would be? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm looking for the following from Selfstudier.

1. Agree to abide by group decisions.

2. Agree to participate collaboratively.

3. Agree to base his changes, and particularly his reverts, based on the manual of style.

If he's unwilling to do these things, that's a problem, right? Especially from a very active editor.-- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any of these problems here, I see a series of difficult disagreements over content in a very sensitive area. The correct response to this would be to exhaustively discuss the situations, then if necessary, go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or if that fails (or if several users are involved) to resolve things through RfC. The only example of content which might require a visit to ANI (if it were part of a trend of unjustified allegations) was a comment that selfstudier made where he suggested that Inf-in MD was stalking him, a misconception which arose because you canvassed Inf-in MD to join the talk page in which you were arguing with selfstudier. It is difficult to resolve these questions, but ANI is not the place, and your trigger happy attitude is probably heading towards boomerang territory. I'd take a deep breath and go back to substantive discussions on article content. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: Okay, I just find his behavior more than a bit exasperating. If he was willing to engage in exhaustive debate to come to consensus, I'd be fully supportive of him. But that doesn't seem to the case. Instead he just seems to make a few comments, then storm out with an attitude of "I do what I want" if things don't go his way. I just looked at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard again, but it's only for problems on a single page, and SelfStudiers actions are across multiple pages. What would a RFC look like in this case?

On one page today, he says that he didn't revert a change I made because he had any substantive objections to the new content. He just did so to make a point, and thus made a LOT more work for everyone:

Selfstudier: "I don't really give a hoot about the edit itself, what I object to..." (link)

On another page, some of us are trying to come up with the appropriate due weight of criticism in the lead. No response to the meat of the conversation about the appropriate weight, just a seeming threat to revert.

Selfstudier: "I rebalanced the lead with different criticism, there is plenty more that could be added ..."

Bob drobbs: "There was absolutely no consensus to pack the lead full of criticism. Criticism taking up 0% of the lead is clearly inappropriate (note the entire lead sucked a week ago). But criticism taking up 40% of the lead is equally inappropriate. If you're going to continue to keep "rebalancing" the lead toward tons of criticism you need to explain your rationale for that."

Selfstudier: "Reverting again, keep it up" (link)

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier was taken to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement over their IPA editing just a day before your report here, Bob drobbs, and the AE admins unanimously declined to sanction them. Were you not aware of this? Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I took a look and that was a report for a violation of the 1RR. It doesn't surprise me that was closed as it doesn't seem it was true. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Selfstudier, RE: Reverting again, keep it up — why are you responding to a substantive comment in such an unsubstantive, terse and confrontational way? I don't understand. (Though, granted, I have little background into all this atm.) El_C 21:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I had thought to simply ignore the initial complaint here as it is entirely without merit. Now it appears as a clothesline on which to hang further accusations against me. If we are going to discuss this, would you first please ask Bob drobbs to provide diffs in support of his evidence-free allegations above, specifically "He's refused to abide by agreements" (diffs and specify which agreement I have not abided by), "sought to recruit others to help support his case instead of allowing changes to go forth" (diffs and evidence of said recruitment) and "reverted text he didn't like while being unwilling to explain his objections to the content" (diffs of said reverts please). The "ad hominem" assertion, which is not in fact ad hominem, can be seen at the BDS article talk page here and arose there as a result of canvassing by Bob drobbs of editor Inf-in MD here. That BDS section is also where the partial quote "I don't really give a hoot about the edit itself, what I object to..." is from and Bob drobbs has truncated the quote and avoided the context, namely his reversion (again) of material in the face of opposition from 3 editors, insisting that he is correct and the three are wrong.

Of course you are familiar with one element, the recent filing against me at AE. Then perhaps a good place to begin is with the SWU page at the point where it was said that I reverted (on the 29th) this edit of 24 September by Bob drobbs here, please notice the lead as was and the tags at the top of the article following this edit, which removed the sole criticism from the article lead, instead placing it in the body.(en passant, an edit sourced to rollingstone, an unreliable source per RSN, was also added at the same time). And here is the root of the problem, since then all the back and forth editing and talk page brouhaha has been about those tags, how and whether they should be removed and the anodyne nature of the lead, which two editors in particular are attempting to maintain criticism free and SWU rosy with myself and more recently others trying to include pertinent criticism. As you are aware, I revert only infrequently, usually preferring instead to add material and that is the case here as well. Frankly the latest reverts (yet again reverting well founded criticism from the lead) just got on my nerves, thus the terse comment.

Let me finally say that I am more than happy for any complaint to be properly filed at the AE board and I will accept whatever judgement is rendered there but it is not reasonable or practical to have an unstructured discussion here about a series of complex events. I don't know whether this answers your initial question but it is the best I can do in the circumstances. Regards. Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, that's a lot. But more narrowly, what I quoted (your response), just rung very oddly to me. Because either you're having a conversation or you're not having one. That Reverting again, keep it up, it almost seems like a non sequitur. I suppose I'm just having a hard time conceiving in what context such a retort would make sense as a reply to that ["Criticism", etc.].

RE: WP:AE. Indeed, personally, I think that if you insist on having this complaint filed at AE, that ought to be your right. Your right to not get sunk by a structureless, diff-less, free-flowing, word-limitless, multi-threaded discussion. I'm with you there. Sorry, I otherwise had a challenging time following your explanation in full. El_C 23:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: On the narrow question, which as indicated I don't really think can be divorced from the broader questions, you may have noticed that I have refrained from engaging in any further discussion on the talk page since making that comment so in that sense you could say that I am not currently having a conversation since at present I do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose and anything that I did say would likely then be partially quoted here out of context.Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't noticed. But even absent context, comments such as Admit it, you have a thing for me, that's it, isn't it? are inappropriate. And not just tonally, but also, it isn't something to allege on an article talk page. Either you report it in the correct venue (with diffs), as WP:HOUNDING, or it's an out-of-place WP:ASPERSION (i.e. evidence-less). El_C 23:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The editor appeared out of the blue, never having edited the page before and I explained above how that came about, canvassing and involving the same two editors from the SWU page. I did then say that it would be better to discuss on respective talk pages and the issue would have rested there were it not for it being raised here by the canvasser himself. Point taken however, I accept the criticism.Selfstudier (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@SelfStudier: Per your request, here's context of where you seem to be refusing to abide by agreement:

Bob Drobbs: Is there really a need to rehash this entire conversation on RSN, or can we just move toward closing it?

M. Bitton: Closing it won't change the fact that even if consensus is achieved here (it doesn't look that way), it will be invalidated by the inappropriate venue.

Bob Drobbs to Selfstudier: Are you willing to agree to remove the content from this source, and replace it with content from other sources? Or are you going to insist that this conversation continue and be relocated to WP:RSN?

SelfStudier: It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right?

That sure seems like you're saying that you're going to keep editing as you see fit, irrespective of any agreement. There's no hint of what venue you might find acceptable, and that you feel entitled to keep editing as you see fit because you believe I've also engaged in some misbehavior?

As for your attempted rejection of this complaint based on it being a "series of complex events", I'd argue that's the very nature of a disruptive editor. And in this case particular the sub-section on consensus building. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is the agreement you claim that I am not abiding by? I agreed to nothing nor was I required to.Selfstudier (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You are required to agree to the principles of consensus building, and abiding by group decisions.

When you say you'll just do your own thing irrespective of any decisions that might be made, and won't clarify which venue (if any) you'll accept, IMO you're being disruptive, and making things really hard for other editors. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Now you have changed your claim. Kindly explain which "group decision" I have not abided by. Please stop implying disruption without providing any evidence of it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What about "sought to recruit others to help support his case instead of allowing changes to go forth". Would you like to explain that allegation?Selfstudier (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's step back to.."and won't clarify which venue (if any) you'll accept"...and ..."There's no hint of what venue you might find acceptable"... per above. What you have neglected to mention is that it was I that suggested you take the source to rsn and yourself who decided not to do that instead taking it to the NPOV noticeboard. Having realized your mistake, you sought then to get me to "agree" to take it to the rsn noticeboard where I had suggested it be taken to begin with.(What I said "It is up to you to decide whether to take the matter to RSN which was what I had suggested in the first place, I don't really know why you brought it here.") I mean, really.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment The editor is continuing to edit the SWU article without responding here. It should be clear by now that this whole business is about that article and the "SelfStudiers actions are across multiple pages. What would a RFC look like in this case?" is nothing more than a red herring, there are two other pages, the NPOV noticeboard, just dealt with and the BDS talk page, also dealt with. There is no complaint of disruption filed at my talk page, in fact no comment at all from Bob drobbs at my talk page up until the notice of this filing.Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Now we come to the third allegation "reverted text he didn't like while being unwilling to explain his objections to the content (certainly not using the MOS)". If we count as two, the reverts dealt with in the previously referenced AE filing, that appears to be the sum total of reverts that I have made in the period referenced in my reply to El_C above. So to what reverts does this allegation refer? Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Response: Our back and forth reached a point of not being productive so I stepped aside to give time for other editors to weigh in. The problems span multiple pages. My points above stand. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

3 unsubstantiated allegations and 3 pages is what I see?Selfstudier (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as nobody else has adressed the "elephant in the room": There has been som very active off-wikipedia canvassing about the StandWithUs-article. I noticed it first, when newbie after newbie arrived on the talk-page, demanding that we removed the description "righ-wing" in the lead, see here. And sure enough; a certain off-wiki blogger has kept a campaign about it. (I will not spill the WP:BEANS, but anyone can email me about links). Iow: expect massive WP:MEAT on the StandWithUs-article, and that User:Selfstudier has the energy to fight this WP:MEAT-army: kudos to you! cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Huldra: Irrespective of your thoughts on other editors, or what you guess their motivations might be, every editor including Selfstudier has an obligation to try to come to Consensus and base our edits on the Manual Of Style. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors are also obliged not to make unsubstantiated claims about other editors. Personally I try to base my edits on V and NPOV, the MOS being merely a guideline.Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Well, it's an important guideline the editors are supposed to attempt to follow!

And are you willing to work with me to achieve consensus on difficult and nuanced topics? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been working collaboratively on such topics with many editors for a few years now. Are you willing to cease making allegations that you cannot substantiate?Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Julioxo in general sanctions topic

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

User is a SPA in WP:GS/PAGEANTS space. User is uncommunicative; has never posted to a talkpage or user talkpage that I can see. Has racked up a talkpage full of more than a dozen warnings including two level 3 uw-unsourced, three blocks, and an SPI. Disruptive, unreferenced changes are continuing today e.g. [146][147]. Can an admin look into this and take appropriate action? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Eventually, something has to give. El_C 01:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

History merge request on Mohammad Jorjandi due to copy-paste page move from draft

I nominated this for speedy deletion based upon it being a copy-past page move from Draft:Mohammad Jorjandi, but an IP removed the speedy deletion nomination.

Shortly thereafter, M3754d moved the draft page, which contained the original edits on the draft, to User:Mohammad Jorjandi. M3754d then moved the page back from the userspace to the draftspace, leaving a redirect.

Shortly after moving the draft back-and-forth from the userspace, the draft was apparently blanked, leading to the draft's deletion by GB fan.

This still appears to be a copy-paste page move, and I believe that this page should be deleted. However, we have now we have lost the attribution of the edits that were in the draft, and being a non-admin I can't restore anything.

I'd request that a history merge be undertaken, if possible, so as to restore the public history of the edits on the page in line with WP:CUT. I'm not able to do this due to my lacking the toolset, but I figured that if I were to ask here that it would be the right place to find someone who has the knowledge and permissions to do so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am on it, will take care of the history merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: For future reference, Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is the place specifically for such requests. SpinningSpark 23:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: Thank you for pointing me to that board; I'll be sure to use it in the future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Foxglovesi - Image spam

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

This editor seems to be using images as a backdoor route to get spam related to their computer repair business into Wikipedia. They have uploaded 7 images to commons, all bar one of which have an enormous watermark containing the web address of their business. Here [148] they add duplicate images to the article, both the things in their aerial shots (the theatre and Shakespeare's house) are already illustrated in the article, there is no need for an extra watermarked image. Here [149] they move the existing infobox image to the bottom of the article, then add 4 aerial shots, all watermarked with the web address of their computer repair business. Here [150] they replace a completely adequate infobox image with an aerial shot, without even bothering to update the caption, again with an enormous watermark giving the link to their computer repair business. Thanks, 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the image additions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Their "defense" is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, with a side order of "otherwise how will people contact me?". These aerial shots are also tagged "own work" which I am a smidgen skeptical about. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The images having a watermark is inconsequential to me. I am happy to remove it if it means I haven't wasted my time in attempting to contribute to Wikipedia. Please let me know if its worth me re-uploading the images as if I am going to have issues with users complaining they are spam I wont bother. I personally think its rather ridiculous that my have been regarded as such. All the images I uploaded showed something new. For example the RSC tower that was built onto the theater building. Any header image I "replaced" (I added it back to the relevant part of the page) was because it showed something specific like the church in Brailes while my image showed a large portion of the village. All these images are my own work, I have no idea how you're able to just assume bad faith over and over again. What proof would you like? I'm pretty bored of this now. Foxglovesi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Orangemike subsequently blocked Foxglovesi for 31 hours for promotion. Their images are up for deletion on Commons, and I had tried to explain policy to them on their talk page. However, Nil Einne has now schooled me at the Commons deletion discussion: I had misunderstood that uploaders are allowed to retain copyright. Foxglovesi was right about that, and showed good faith by removing the watermark from one of their images, File:StratfordTheatreAndObsevationTower stratford-computers.co.uk.jpg; in addition, not all of their uploads have the business URL in the file name. They are making valid points about the usefulness of individual images, although they have not done so at a talk page and they initially edit warred. They're learning, and I was wrong about the legalities. (We also shouldn't assume something is impossible just because it's relatively new; they've said on their talk page that they take aerial photos like this using drones as part of their business.) I find their choice of "otherstuff" image examples odd, but we may have been overly harsh here. (It's taken me a while to type at Commons and now here; last I looked, they had a second unblock request open.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If they would just take the adverts out of the file names, I would not have a problem. You do NOT put an advertising for your business into a Wikicommons file name. You can license with an attribution requirement; that's perfectly fine, as Yngvadottir was reminded; but you can't persist in putting those spamlinks for a commercial enterprise into the file names themeselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: They didn't remove the watermark from that image, that was the one upload that didn't contain one (hence the "bar one" comment in my original comment here). There were two reasons I proposed the images for deletion - The claims that they were under a creative commons licence didn't match up with the website they were claimed to come from, which is under a standard "all rights reserved" copyright, and the obvious spam watermarks and file names. I believe that they have adequately addressed the copyright concerns, but I am still of the opinion that the watermarks are blatant spam and were intended to promote their computer repair business. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Also their explanation that they have a side business in drone photography makes no sense - why on earth would a computer repair shop have a side business in aerial photography? If, as they claim, they are doing this commercially and are including the URL watermark to direct people to their photography why does their website contain no images, no mention of the images (or their licencing), and no mention of drone photography? As far as I can see what they're doing is putting these images into the infoboxes of articles so that when you make a web search for "Stratford-upon-Avon" the first thing that pops up in google is an image with their website in the corner. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the watermarks are egregious, whatever their process of thought may have been. As I say, I'm scratching my head at their coming up with a Geograph image as their example of others already doing this kind of thing in images. If it has a watermark, I'm blinder than I thought. But since they transferred all their files to Commons—even this screen shot, which from our point of view pretty well proves the point about the watermarks being deleterious to the encyclopaedia—the file names are surely a matter for Commons, and it's trivial to move the files if one has that right over there? They also edit warred with you and others and were slow to discuss. I'm very much leaving it up to the admins to respond now that they're blocked. But it's none of my business if they also do drone photography, although this shouldn't be the first or even the umpteenth place they advertise the resulting pics. I do think we might be able to use some of the pics. It's the advertising that's wrong (and the high-handed edit-warring; but I've seen edit-warring in the firm belief one's photos are the best photos so many times, it may be a more widespread thing than the belief one's prose is always superior). Yngvadottir (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: There are literally images on the same page with the website url in the file name Image with URL in filename Please explain your problem with my image but not with this one.

@192.76.8.74: I'm getting pretty fed up of your bad faith arguments at this point. Why can't I? would you like a copy of an invoice of a person I have done drone photography for? I am in the process of updating my website. I have no idea how in your world its is beyond all reason to do both photography and computing.

@Yngvadottir: I image warred SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE their reasoning was: "You appear not to understand that by uploading an image at Commons, you surrender your right to claim copyright on it" WHICH IS PATENTLY FALSE INFORMATION. I have to think your trying to confuse multiple things on purpose at this point. I have never defended anything about watermarks other than that they aren't 'enormous' which was the original complaint. I am quite clearly referencing that image for the website URL being in the file name. I am perfectly happy for images with watermarks to be removed, I'll be re-uploading them without watermarks. How you've managed to confuse these two things is just amazing to me. Foxglovesi (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Foxglovesi: I'm sorry I was wrong about image copyright. And thank you for being willing to reupload the photos without the watermarks. It demonstrates that you have been listening to our concerns. However, having Geograph.org in a file name is not comparable to your uploading files with the URL of your business in the file name so that people can contact your business (which is pretty much the definition of advertising). Geograph Britain and Ireland is a charity, its images are a free, geographically indexed repository, see Geograph Britain and Ireland#Long term archival for their use on Commons, and I believe the file names are from the bot batch uploading them. From my point of view, your file names with URLs are relatively trivial anyway, since readers will only see them if they click through, and since somebody was kind enough to give me the file mover right on Commons, so if the set were not under discussion, I'd have already moved those that you uploaded with that kind of file name. This community is not monolithic; we do a lot of discussing, and that's why articles have talk pages, which is where one is supposed to go when a disagreement arises, rather than edit warring. (I've piped up at Talk:Stratford-upon-Avon for use of your watermark-free image with the tower, but others disagree.) But advertising of any kind is not allowed here; the watermarks would be unacceptable even if they were smaller. Even on your user page, all that's allowed is a brief, non-promotional statement about your business, together with other information about yourself or your Wikipedia editing (see here, near the end of the section). Yngvadottir (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:1.145.92.224

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

User:1.145.92.224 has been added unsourced content to several articles. I have told them that they need to cite the content they add, on both their talk page and on edit summaries, but they are not listening. For example, they keep adding an unsourced recording year to "Never Let You Go (Third Eye Blind song). When I took it out, telling them that it was uncited, they said the parent album, Blue, was recorded in 1999. I checked it out, but the album's article does not mention a recording year, so I removed it. They reverted me minutes later without explanation. It is clear that the IP will not listen to reason, and I am at my 3RR limit on "Never Let You Go". Can someone please help me out? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: This user has decided to leave a colorful message on my talk page. Vile. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP's request for a two week Wikibreak has been granted. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced 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.

---

Egapikiw111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As can be seen here in one of their latest additions, this user ignores all requests and warnings on their talk page to source their edits and continues with their disruptive uncited behaviour. Please could an admin remind them about some Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:OWNTALK. Thanks. Robvanvee 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Eventually, something has to give (original stuff, me). El_C 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User FangLeone1916

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.

---

• FangLeone1916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding redundant fields to infoboxes (nationality & citizenship), overlinking, adding WP:EASTEREGG links, etc. despite multiple warnings on their TP. No response, all of their edits have been to articles. In some cases, they have re-made these changes twice in the same article. MB 04:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Revoke Talk page Permision of Troigjuodjgosdrpmjfsaolkjmepokpewr:

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

---

This user is actively using their talk page to do a small amount of trollin', which is against the guidelines, so revoke permission to edit talk page MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Next time, please provide a link to the user. It makes things easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Deletion of sourced material at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

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

---

Hello, I am a new editor and I read that this was the best place to bring stuff like this up: I added sourced material to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials over the series of a few edits and it was deleted by User:Washuotaku. I reverted him, User:Bkatcher reverted me & User:The Anome left a demeaning comment on my talk page. I used sources, I made calm and professional statements. I regret that I said 'fight me' in the edit summary but that's come and gone now. My problem is how people who would object to something like this can stay on Wikipedia for 10 years and not get wisened up, either by admins or their reading here. Something ought to be done. I don't want to get in an edit war but I think Washu Otoaku has got a few of his friends otherwise he would have made 3 reverts by now. Can somebody do something about this or get it figured out? I really don't know how to go on with this, we would just revert each other back and forth. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: This is a content dispute, not a vandalism issue. Please sort this out with other editors by discussing it on the article's talk page, Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, to achieve consensus on the article content. -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: AS I Stated in my edit summary which I assume you did not read,

Everyone on this site likes to whine about 'neutral point of view'. PEOPLE ARE DYING. Don't you understand? LIVES ARE AT RISK. Wikipedia cannot remain neutral. We have to take a stand for basic human decency. I have provided references from news sites, scientific studies etc. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: I read it. However, no matter how well-founded your concerns, you are still stuck with having to abide by Wikipedia editorial policies. -- The Anome (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure where to start telling you what is wrong with this, the implication you will edit war if you do not get your way, the implication of meat puppetry, the POV pushing nature of this. As to people are dying, what? This reads like wp:nothere, and wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC

I'm not going to edit war. I want to maintain peace and friendly discussion which is why I brought the dispute here instead of continuing to revert. And I would also like to add that Bkatcher and his friend Washuotaku have together violated WP:3RR now. Not sure what you mean by 'meatpuppetry'. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The accusation that users are combining to edit war in unison. And no they have not as 3RR applies to one user reverting. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for text at Wikipedia, and having a source is not a magic force field that protects text from being removed. Text also needs to meet other policies, such as using neutral point of view, being written in an appropriate tone, being relevant to the overall narrative, and several others. I have not extensively reviewed the dispute as yet, but vanishingly close to 100% of the time when someone complains that their recent sourced edits are removed, there are usually other factors justifying the removal that they are refusing to acknowledge or address. Please make sure that your additions are valid beyond merely the existence of sources. --Jayron32 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think they're valid. I'm not going on a tirade here nor was I in the article, I wrote full sentences with sources such as the Washington Post, and a study from a university on the effects of Confederate monuments on students' mental health at a school, specifically students of color. Now some other editors feel my edits are not in compliance with WP:NPOV which I feel is not really relevant in an issue of this magnitude. That's the dispute. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

−

Great wrongs have already been righted. Now Wikipedia and specifically this page (And I was only really making these kinds of edit on this one page and got into this great big hangup) needs to come into the 21st century and state the obvious instead of pandering to white supremacists and neo-nazis. No issue with you as I am sure you don't believe such things, it's a disagreement in how we should go about it. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see how to resolve this. This page is not the right venue. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The OP has now been blocked as a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Impersonation of a living person by new sockpuppet of User:Raxythecat

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 persistent sockpuppet master, Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is now impersonating the subject of an article they regularly vandalize, Lionel Snell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The impersonating user is Lionelsnell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). You can find the current SPI case and history here. Skyerise (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Sin Boy

There is an dispute going on about nationality at the Sin Boy article. An ip-user [151][152][153][154] [155] persists in removing reliably sourced content and refuses to stop despite a clarity on the article's talkpage. Sin Boy is an Albanian music artist in Greece, who was born to Albanian immigrants in Athens. The subject confirmed in an interview that he is not seeking Greek citizenship in part due to the mandatory military service.[156][157]--Lorik17 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iaof2017: I've semi-protected the article for a month. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots thank you. Good day!--Lorik17 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

SNL NOR from Pontiac

• 2601:408:C301:3EA0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 98.250.246.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Saturday Night Live (season 47)
• History of Saturday Night Live (2020–present)

Somebody from Pontiac, Michigan, US, has been violating WP:No original research for a few years at various Saturday Night Live topics. They refuse to change or communicate. Typical activity includes comparisons between various episodes, listing actors that did not appear although they were credited, naming various superlatives and "firsts" by comparing broadcasts, etc.

The IP4 has never been blocked but the IP6 was rangeblocked twice. Any suggestions about fixing this persistent problem? Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Noticing the two prior blocks of the IPv6 from last February (most recently by User:Ohnoitsjamie) and the common geolocation of the IPs to Pontiac, I've blocked the IPv4 and IPv6 for a month each. Since the user has been engaged in this pattern for more than a year, further blocks may some day be needed. Semiprotection could be an option but there are too many SNL-related articles for that to be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend a longer block for the /64 range given the long term disruption; 3 months at least. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, I've extended the /64 rangeblock to three months per your suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506's talk page

2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP user has created a list of 'enemies' and 'friends' on their talk page labelled Possible sock puppets and bad actors and Good people just trying to help [158]. And posted on an article talk page in reply to another user: Thank you for clearly stating your bias on this issue. You may join the others that need to recuse themselves from editing here [159]. And on RFPP: Someone take away [User]'s editing rights, he's lost it [160]

This appears related to ongoing disputes on Talk:DRASTIC re: how we should describe the group ("internet activists" vs "scientists and amateur researchers") and how favorably we should describe their findings/actions re: NPOV. Another anonymous user was recently warned by @Graham Beards: then blocked by @Bishonen: and @Samwalton9: for WP:NPA on my and another user's talk pages: [161] [162] This new IP appears to be very similar to the old range. They both attempt to invalidate or silence editors who disagree with them as "biased" and "having COI" and "needing to recuse themselves from editing articles related to covid origins."

DRASTIC is a loose group of twitter/internet sleuths who have been implicated in past harassment of scientists online. It is not at all surprising to me that this has become a flashpoint where multiple different anonymous editors are harassing/attempting to POV push on covid-related articles. It feels quite a bit like a meat puppet circus. I believe admin action is warranted. Thanks for reading... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, the IP user seems to be here with a personal grudge, and in addition to the talk page harassment there's silliness like this... An enforced, prolonged vacation would do good. And the TP should obviously be G10ed, as tagged. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I see Liz has fixed that issue. Any comment on the IP's behaviour at RFPP/decrease? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Liz just blocked the indicated anon for 31 hours for block evasion. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we get a TPA block too? They've devolved into 'spank me daddy' and 'did I stutter?' responses. They're also making clear that they'll continue the harassment from the second the block expires.Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I was hesitant to propose this, given it's partly my fault for wasting my time trying to explain a few things; but yes, there's no indication they've understood the issue here, and no indication that they'll attempt editing constructively once the current blocks expires. The declined unblock request itself says, and I quote, " I'll kindly wait till my IP changes again or the 31 hours expires. Then I will continue to fight the bias being WP:PUSHed by RandomCanadian and Shibbolethink." Clear evidence that they do not intend to abide by the block; and also of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. TPA could also be revoked on the sole grounds of misuse of talk page during block, but hey that's like the least of concerns at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • "I'll kindly wait till my IP changes again"...? Well, exactly. Dear admins, please do block the /64 range when you want to block an IPv6; don't just block the single IP. Please. I know it may happen that the person has access to an even wider range, but blocking the /64 is in any case a first step. Leaving out a few useless subtleties, a /64 is always a single individual. I've done it now, as well as lengthened the block a little, in consideration of the individual's conduct while blocked: 2600:8804:6600:C4:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC).
        • It'd be nice if that instruction (to block the /64) could be added to the block interface. Basically you should always block the /64, unless you have a good reason not to. There are a very few networks which don't follow the standard IPv6 allocation, and unless you know what to look for, just block the /64. If you're not sure how: remove the last four segments of the IP, and suffix the remaining address with "::/64", i.e. 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 becomes 2600:8804:6600:C4::/64. Or of course you can ask someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks for assistance. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
          • • You don't need to remove the the last four segments, you can just append the /64 to the full address (like I just did for the IP below).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Please don't block my 80 year old neighbor! 2600:8804:6600:C4:54D7:A17D:6585:8FCC (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

New user first edit is personal attack on my talk page

User:Blindatlove88 is a "new" user, who's very first and as of now, only edit is to leave a personal attack on my talk page, see [163]. As that is a very unusual first edit for a user, even a vandal, I suspect that it's a sockpuppet of a different user. However, while I do have some guesses on who it might be, there's no evidence to link them to any specific user, and I don't want to throw any unfounded accusations against someone. And while I feel that it's unlikely, it's certainly is possible for them to not actually be a sockpuppet. So I don't know how to proceed from here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: would a check user be appropriate here? I find it very unlikely that they're not a sockpuppet because how else would they even come across my talk page otherwise? However, if against usual procedure to do a CU in a situation like this, I understand. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want you can file something at WP:SPI, there are instructions on how to start an investigation without a known master. It's a bit of rigmarole, but might turn up sleeper accounts or similar. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Can you point me to the instructions on how to file an investigation with an unknown master? I definitely want to do that, but I didn't see any instructions on WP:SPI on how to do it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any instructions either, but looking at the history it seems that the correct way to do it is list the sockpuppet in the "master" slot, then not use the "sock" slots and mention the reason in the body (unknown master). BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat on my user talk page

User:Hillary1900 is a near single purpose account making promotional edits about Oopali Operajita which I noticed this morning in this diff. I put a uw-paid1 template on their user talk page, and in response I got this legal threat on my own user talk page. Note that Hillary1900 has previously indicated that they are an attorney. I think I could use some assistance here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

legendary President, Hillary1900? While being an attorney is not against policy, making veiled legal threats is. A quick block should be applied here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On legendary president, I tried. At Talk:Oopali Operajita#Richard Cyert. Jay ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion. Around half of Hillary1900's 200+ edits are on Oopali Operajita. 84 of the 94 edits since August are on the article, and I would believe it is partly because I chanced upon the article and started implementing general cleanup, NPOV and Verifiability since August. While I admit Hillary1900 has been a difficult user, I have been reasoning at the article talk and user talk pages, and it did appear that the user has picked up on the verifiability aspect in the last few days. I haven't looked at the last 2 days though. Considering the increasing number of daily edits, I was considering looking at WP:SPA in a few days.

I understand the user has a legal viewpoint of looking at Wikipedia and the above referenced attorney link was an accusation about me, I didn't respond, as I wasn't asked about my opinion. The user has been civil to me and hasn't attacked me directly (It helped that the user absolutely stopped responding to my posts or any posts on the subject after a while!) But the user has tried to reach out to trustees, and not to senior editors or admins (even though I tried to help the user reach them). If the user had spread out to more articles and started communicating with more users, over a period of time, I believe the user would have had a broader outlook about Wikipedia, how others work, and how to work with others. Jay ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User Wlbw68

User User:Wlbw68 consistently continues to impose on me a discussion of the situation with his conflicts with other participants in Russian Wikipedia, because of which he got a block there. I have nothing to do with their conflict and do not want to discuss it, and I consider it a flood and persecution. Please stop user Wlbw68 who returns a discussion in Russian on my talk page. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eleazar: You failed to notify the user, which is required. In addition, other than your link showing that the user was blocked at ru.wiki, you have provided no evidence to support your allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

[164], [165], [166], [167] - Here are the diffs where he continues this, although I told him every time to stop. Of course in Russian. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But you still didn't notify them of this thread. I've done this for you this time: [168]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(more) yes, they do seem to be pestering you about things going on at ru.wiki, even when you asked them to stop. I'll leave them a note to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought the mention was enough. I do not know very well with the rules of the English WP, in Russian there is enough mention, sorry. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and thanks again very much, I appreciate it! --- Eleazar (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning left: [169]. Let me know if it continues after the warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! --- Eleazar (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

ThiagoWinters

User ThiagoWinters (talk · contribs), removing content that is backed by reliable sources (right here). In his talk page, he was informed about what was wrong with his edits and he also instructed to use the article talk page. Not only he ignored the warnings, he deleted them and proceed to engage in the same behaviour. Coltsfan (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: I really don't know why experienced users are failing to notify other users of reports here. That said, this appears to be a content dispute, not a conduct issue and should be resolved elsewhere, preferably on the article Talk page, which I don't see anyone using.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, here is the thing, contact was made. Like i said, he was instructed (see here) to use the talk page to discuss the content with other users. He deleted it (here), then blanked out his entire talk page (here). So, i assumed he removed the warning, but at least acknowledged it. But no, he refused to engage in any contact with me or the others who reverted him and also ignores the instructions to use the talk page. But here is the thing, he is the one removing content (backed by RS, btw), so he is the one who has to justify it. He didn't and refused to do so even when asked too. But if that is normal behaviour/acceptable, then my mistake, let him be. Coltsfan (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of IPs removing sourced content from Olavo de Carvalho, repeatedly adding complaints about the article in Portuguese,[170] etc. I have semiprotected it. I'm also concerned about ThiagoWinters's editing of the article. They have removed "polemicist" from the lead on the argument that Carvalho has never in his own books referred to himself as a polemicist (yes, really, that is the reason given in the edit summary), and also removed "far-right conspiracy theorist" along with its sources The Atlantic and Polygraph.info, dismissing them in the edit summary with "Olavo himself criticized the far-right, and opinionated journalism cannot be taken as a fact to define an individual". I have warned ThiagoWinters on their page, with policy links showing that reliable secondary sources trump a subject's own statements of their positions, and have also given him an alert about the discretionary sanctions for biographical articles. Bishonen | tålk 06:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC).

Directing users to Sci-Hub?

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.

---

In a recent posting to NPOVN, MarshallKe mentioned that a particular paywalled journal article might be found on Sci-Hub.[171] I made an edit[172] to remove this quietly, and reqested on their Talk page not to do this, but MarshallKe has doubled-down, creating another NPOVN posting saying the article can be obtained there.[173] and that I "don't understand copyright law".[174] Not using a URL gets around sci-hub's global blacklisting and by directing users there seems problematic per WP:lINKVIO. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Block him. I don't think it's a matter of "I don't understand" and the gaming is something that should be addressed with a swift block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we detecting (EditFilter?) whether people are adding disabled sci-hub urls anywhere? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Block as a preventative measure until they agree not to do it again. Its one thing to not understand the rules, its another to say you dont agree with them and are going to flout it. Directing people to a site we have specifically implemented technical measures to stop people doing just that? No excuses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah since Alexbrn would definately count as involved given the discussion at the article, another admin would have to take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Another? While I agree that Alex would certainly be a great mophandler ... -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I assumed they already were mopping :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The user did not edit after this thread has been opened, and I would like to hear from them, but if they continue editing Wikipedia without replying here I am prepared to block indef with the unblock condition that they show understanding of copyright policies (which others as they claim do not have).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I hadn't been aware of this particular policy, and will obey it. MarshallKe (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

NewsPenal18/sandbox

Could someone please userfy this editor's latest. Dawnseeker2000 08:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Done by Fram. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at Indian Telecommunication Service

Please see diff, by IP 106.197.0.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given the proclivity of the Indian authorities to attempt to intervene in websites like Wikipedia it's not an entirely empty threat. ninety:one 09:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ninetyone, I went to find a source, and surprisingly the Indian government actually uploaded their archived paper Gazette online. The IP editor was right, despite the callous edit message. – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Emyraldx

User:Emyraldx is a recently created WP:SPA who has only ever edited the Yahaya Bello article, both deleting a well-sourced Controversies section and adding a poorly-sourced, plagiarized Achievement section without reason all while refusing to engage on the talk page. Due to the reasonless edits, unresponsiveness, and potential conflict of interest or undisclosed financial stake, I ask that you determine if Emyraldx could be suspended from editing the Yahaya Bello page and/or the page be protected. Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fully protecting the page for a week, at whatever m:WRONG version I happen to find. That should be enough of a prompt to discuss things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Unrememberedperson & criticism of religion

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

On their user page they indicate that they are here to deal with WP articles relating to criticism of religions as they are full of lies and frauds paid by propagandists to edit. Unsurprisingly, this has not gone well: they have been warned by six different editors ([175]; [176] [177] [178]; [179]; [180]; [181]; [182]). They have generally brushed off these warnings without much thought [183] [184] [185]. At least two editors have gone to some length to try and explain our policies [186] [187] [188]. However, after the last 'final warning' three days ago, they just continue the same behavior (e.g., [189] [190]). They seem not here to build an encyclopedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for disruptive editing. I could have gone with NOT HERE just as easily. Their attitude and perceptions are not conducive to a collaborative, NPOV encyclopedia. Star Mississippi 18:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• This is a  Confirmed sock of Historyou. Feel free to strike or remove their article and talk page edits per WP:BANREVERT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Self promotional editor

Jaimersalazar (talk · contribs) has had an account here since 2005 and more than half of his small number of edits have been to promote himself and his books here. Legion of the Lost was started in 2005 by an IP, and he began editing it a couple months later. An example of his edits to that article [191], [192], and here he self identifies as the author [193]. He is also spamming other (highly disparate) articles by adding his own books to them as "sources" (sometimes including embedded external links) [194], [195], [196], [197]. He has created the article Mutiny of rage, which is about his own book and written using promotional language and then begun spamming that too [198]. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Does Legion of the Lost meet any of the WP:NBOOK criteria? M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I just went through that article, the only reference is this NYT article, and it is just plot summary of the book, not a review. I dont know why, but that NYT article feels fishy. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I typically find that every commercially published book meets WP:NBOOKS, as finding two reviews is usually extremely easy - the publishers typically ensure that there are at least that many as part of their efforts to market the book; in this case, one and two - while I would consider both to be "trivial" books have survived at AfD for less, which probably tells us that WP:NBOOKS needs revising, but that's a a topic for another time.

Incidentally, this one (not significant coverage, but a relevant passing mention) includes a line that would be worth adding: "Jaime Salazar, an American who joined the force, thought he knew the answer when he enlisted in 1999 out of boredom with his engineering job in Texas. He lasted less than a year before deserting, ultimately writing a memoir, "Legion of the Lost," last year." BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm paywall-blocked from the NYT review, but I also found Miller, Roger K. (December 15, 2005). "One Man's Adventures in the French Foreign Legion". The Philadelphia Enquirer. Not a puff piece; might Legion of the Lost scrape through WP:NBOOK? even though the username Jaimersalazar (currently blocked) screams WP:COI. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The only way to know for sure is give AfD a shot. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The NYT review is a legit review, not just a brief mention. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That's NBOOK#1 satisfied, then. Narky Blert (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Legion of the Lost seems to be notable. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Carmaker1 and verifiability

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.

---

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly deleting a reliable source from Ford Bronco, claiming that as a Ford insider he knows the information to be wrong. ([199], [200], [201]) He apparently either does not understand or does not respect WP:Verifiability and believes that his claims of insider knowledge outweigh Wikipedia policy, as he has done on Wikipedia for years and has been brought to AN/I for in the past. (CNBC is clearly a reliable source and the article quotes a Ford marketing manager directly.) In response to my having reverted his disruptive edit, a lengthy diatribe was posted on the article talk page, making a number of insults and other nasty remarks, including casting aspersions towards me by accusing me of harassment and stalking - accusations he's made in the past and has still never offered one shred of evidence for. The second-to-last paragraph's aspersions are simply surreal - I can't even make head or tail of what he's talking about. I admit, my tone was brusque and I allowed myself to be provoked into that, but my patience with this editor has worn thin.

Carmaker1 may or may not be correct on the information itself - I doubt all the links to door jamb stickers he posted can be considered reliable sources either way - but in any case, the content isn't the issue here. It is after all quite a small error, if it is indeed erroneous.

The issue is Carmaker1's clear incompatibility with Wikipedia. Years of editing, at least ten AN/I threads now, and even an ARBCOM request, by multiple editors, show a distinct pattern. Having been blocked for incivility in the past, he's learned to toe that line to avoid sanctions. It's a tactic I've seen used successfully by others over the years - be just unpleasant enough to deal with that other editors give up rather than be on the receiving end of his attitude. He uses claims of being an industry insider as a cudgel to "pull rank" against other editors, and disregards WP:V and WP:NOR. He has a long history of needlessly throwing shade at other editors for things done many years ago - most recently here - and still can't stop with the aggressive edit summaries. I'd hoped that Carmaker1 would finally get it and start editing collaboratively but at this point the likelihood of that appears infinitesimal. --Sable232 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The date I provide back in June isn't correct and doesn't need to be there, if found to be contentious information. The simple thing is, you look for almost any possible to interfere with or revert ANY items I contribute, in the field of automotive topics. You have long been upset, the new content focus I have taken, with reformatting the date sections of many North American automotive articles and feel threatened by it, since no one seems to disagree with that specific focus of mine. Using my explosive responses towards your continued harassment, is simply a convoluted wedge issue to magnetize support for your means to an end. I can use plenty of examples in many instances, where you do this as a means to stoke conflict. Get a few of you and any user will have issues--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• He’s been blocked and warned about this before, and at one point was subject to an arbcom case request which the arbitration committee declined to hear (surprise, surprise) so perhaps it’s time we try something more extreme. 2600:1011:B16E:8A05:A84C:C212:FECC:3926 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And who are you again? You are not even registered and signed in as a user, meaning almost anyone can chime in and be committing sockpuppetry. Including an already blocked user...--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I can't believe editor time is still being wasted on arguments over the exact date that the first 2021 Bronco Turbo Special Edition came off the assembly line, and similar fanboy nonsense. Photos of door jamb stickers and links to dealer advertisements [202] -- you must be joking. And what are we supposed to do with a diff like this [203]? Read the edit summary, then try clicking on refs [10] and [11] and ask yourself whether we should put up with an editor who thinks stuff like that can be used as a source for his "inside information". EEng 03:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And like clockwork, you chime in like a crass individual, not staying on subject and stooping to cheap attempts at comedy, no one else equally asked you for. I expect no different from you, reading many of your BS snarky commentary, no one frankly asked you for. If you are gonna be doing that, how about you try and make a difference too, in terms of being a regular contributor in these areas as editor? Instead of insulting the rest of us who work there as wasting time, as if you somehow above working in these articles, but it's supposedly silly to you. Editor time is being wasted on this given subject, because Sable### wanted to look for a conflict on my removal of MY OWN content. I did consider what I ADDED to be inaccurate and corrected it. I would not be surprised if anyone else had done the same thing, would it be an issue? There is a pattern and I am very observant, so don't even dare come here and deride the subject matter, just to attack my personal interests and not so much any issues with my conduct. I can easily find your chosen areas of editing and laugh at you on difference of opinion on what's relevant, but I don't stoop to that as you have. I let people choose what they come here for and don't make it my business to judge. Stop lying and purposely taking me out of context, as that's not the only proof I provided nor am I using door jam stickers as citations. What revisionist nonsense. It's an example on a damn talk page. You are just being disingenuous as usual and smearing someone "you don't like", than being fully honest about what's in front of you.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is the issue that he's being incivil, or is the issue that he's wrong? The latter seems to be a content dispute. jp×g 07:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a content dispute, that the user has turned into a wedge issue, in hoping to drive me out out by provoking me on purpose and making sure I do not get in their way by "changing" certain prose of automotive Wikipedia, such as start of production assembly dates, market launch dates, and most importantly US Model Years, which I believe are used in such a vague and confusing manner for non-Americans. Sable### is threatened by my strong focus on fixing that everywhere, as they simply don't like it opinion wise and have been unsuccessful at preventing it. It is easier for them to turn a simple content issue into something bigger to get a desperate end result, which stops me from changing everything on that front and not so much about improving any environment. I came to fix a previous edit of mine, not remove the work of another user. When it became an issue, I brought it up on the talk page and removed the questioned date. At worst, I added May 2021, out of annoyance with the fact,, thus same user supported articles which are WP:OR with no sources, likely because I asked for their deletion. They reverted it and bypassed my talk page discussion, to instead threaten and insult. I called it a nasty response and made my points, while removing the month, not adding a new month with no citation. The claims of incivility, are another story entirely of course, but a content dispute nonetheless.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that he seems incapable of abiding by basic stuff like WP:OR, and goes nuclear when he's called on it. EEng 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Another interesting phenomenon here is, how you hypocritically complain about incivility and how awful I just happen to be, when A LOT of snarky ass commentary you put forward, is no better. No one asked for your irrelevant quips, as it's just trolling to be honest.

In the lengthy diff provided by OP, CM1 in effect calls OP a liar. Narky Blert (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I will call you a liar in this case, being that I never stated that about the user on the talk page. Prove it, instead of making something up or fleetingly taking someone out of context. You people get to cast aspersions on me as seen by MANY toxic statements from EENG, which are allowed with no warning or reprimand. Yet let me call something for what I see it to be, all hell breaks loose. Calling sources liars who shouldn't be quoted, has nothing to do with any given user, stop misusing my context. Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"I don't like dealing with liars". Your move. Narky Blert (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Carmaker1 cannot make any move on Wikipedia at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Tsk. Narky Blert (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Its that Carmaker is both uncivil and refuses to abide by our basic policies regarding sourcing requirements. And this has been going on for years. Just topic ban them from anything car-related, they are clearly not going to change their ways. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That's somewhat dishonest, if not framed questionably and one-sided. I am sick of the fact, any concerns of mine fall on deaf ears and in return, I get to deal with a handful of users out of many others that make it their mission to stalk my edits and undo more than half of them for some amusement or self-satisfaction. More often than not, my content holds up in the end as credible and the person in question, was being none other than petty for the sake of it to create an issue where little exists. In some cases, the concerns are valid in terms of the content. That is rare, as it's me being a threat to another user's ego.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Bradv, Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Casliber, DGG, Joe Roe, and Xeno: You're the arbcom members who declined to hear this last time and look what happened: right back on the ANI board, as predicted. You maybe wanna do something FOR the community this time and address this - again - so we can edit in peace? God knows it would be appreciated, all the more so since we told you last time it would end with you're input or not at all. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh please, the foundation on ArbCom last time was heavily slanted, in being taken out of context and this time it is no better. Outside of well warranted annoyance in being constantly harrassed by Sable### and previously Dennis Bratland, I rarely have any problems here. From much of the crap I do encounter, it is SLANTED how nearly ALL of my submissions are more heavily scrutinized or challenged, than so many other users. Whether it is about citation quality, sourced or not sourced, redoing formatting, correcting templates. A number of the same hostile characters will want to micromanage a given article and save for a rare few others like me that are willing to put in the effort, to stand by their work, it is just undo/change by the same people and THAT drives the vast majority of others away. I can and will name them if need be, because anyone will naturally be defensive, if they have to continually defend their submissions. There is running a double standard and I am calling it out and I will not apologize for it. For me to nor be able to remove my own text submissions within an article, is utterly pathetic and targeted.

None of the submissions I have made ruin the credibility of this site, which has already tainted itself by allowing for information to be corrupted from bad sources, that just happen to be verifiable. Wikipedia is often relied upon by lazy readers (like 3rd tier journalists), who don't vet the citations or if an article even meets good standard. They just skim and run with it, even if a page is in the midst of being cleaned up. I know this, when I recognize certain text I have added, used in news articles and reported within videos on YouTube. You have this issue with me, because your likely perceived idea I am some big bad expert, who needs to be put in his place and taken down a notch. The toxicity often seen in editing discourse on the site, is rarely handled in a balanced manner. It is easy to make me target isn't it? Very few professionals have the time and energy to deal with some of the shenanigans put up by some clowns here and leave quietly.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why an Arbcom case is needed for such a routine matter. Surely any admin can block an editor who has expressed the intention of not editing in accordance with our policies? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Only someone who has not reviewed all the content in question and made a sensible observation, would come up with that statement. None of my recent edits, violate any policy. I ultimately decided that a month and day isn't needed there, being that there are Bronco production units out there which predate June 2021. I removed the day and month of production, as it's contradictory and a mistake I made previously. Another user chose to pick a fight over it and dismiss ALL OF my commentary on the subject, over what I can describe as a vendetta and running unwillingness to cooperate. You cannot claim that violates policy. At worst I told them off about their own conduct strongly, as the behavior is obviously targeted and not at all collaborative. If I wanted to, I could behave as they do and look for edits of their own to undo or change up 24/7. Typically most users do not behave in such a manner. The few who do behave like this, I have issues with indeed. Using my grievances with time wasted on research, says more than enough about you who "are tired" of etc, without even fully understanding what it is you are even "tired" about. I am rightfully tired myself, of a handful of users using hollow arguments to cry wolf, in a transparent attempt to eliminate the competition and drive out as many people as possible as "threats" to their viewpoints. It's not about bettering this site, it's simply about getting rid of people they don't like and nothing more.

Yes I would have thought so - also if no source can be found for the sentence in question it should be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly my rationale, since I added it myself originally and in my later observation, I saw problems with those claims, then heard why June 14, 2021 was used in the first place. It was marketing nonsense, but we all know otherwise. Now if that is about it being WP:OR, I am not trying to introduce that into articles. I am simply removing the production date for the time being. What that individual who brought this complaint is doing, is finding and stoking conflict where ever they can do so with me and then hiding their hands behind their back, upon coming to cry about it.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(pinged) The last request was declined because the ANI discussion was closed before the community has had time to actually discuss it and some of us felt it necessary to allow for the community to try and solve it themselves since arbitration is the final step of dispute resolution. If the community discussed this and was unable to solve it, you are welcome to create a new request. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, buy I find it ridiculous that any of the requests of unusually biased individuals here are entertained like TomStar81 and Sable###, when the evidence they put forward can be deliberately misrepresented on so many levels and taken out of context to one's fixation. I never lie about anything I have stated, but often I do see many others make light of my own concerns and often framing my own words in the worst possible light, if the right adminstrative body doesn't bother to read through it thoroughly and be 100% objective on the accuracy of the claim. I don't deny using strong tones at times, but this idea that I attack users unprovoked or lord my credentials over users for no reason is nonsensical. Those questioning my editing on subjects, condescendingly act as if I am some random clown who never bothered to do the research at all or plainly ignorant of the subject matter compared to them somehow, which forces me into quoting my credentials as a heads up. Very easy to accuse people of making stuff up, because it is negatively assumed they have no way of knowing. A lot of users can be that condescending in response to my editing and then feign outrage, once they know they're not dealing with an idiot and instead a well informed expert. Verifiability supports one's claims foremost, but I am not going to shy away from mentioning my expertise, if it means someone can mistake me for a dunce blowing smoke to vandalism. Not in response to you, but an explanation. I will never feel bad about mentioning my expertise, as when I wasn't an expert yet, I can tell you plenty of rude users didn't mind abusing me for not being one and admonishing my effort as a novice editor.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a WP:PBLOCK. Carmaker1 cannot edit the Ford Bronco article. This should be seen as an interim step without prejudice to further action being taken, such as an ARBCOM case of the imposition of a full block should another admin feel that is warrented. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do not feel bad about the talk page links/URLs in question nor have remorse over removing the dates I had provided myself last June, using CNBC as a citation. You doing that is to simply mediate, but not look into the issue fully with insight on whether or not the information is credible. It's a waste of my precious time to come here and add information I know to obviously be incorrect. Maybe think about that.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thanks Tom! Since I left ArbCom a year ago, I've really missed being used as a collectivised punching bag at random intervals. Having said that, you might bear in mind that I—and three of the other people you pinged—voted to accept the case. In any case, I don't know what you expect us to do about it now. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As if he had any case then anyway, this is more about trying to knock down a proud expert in a professional field and not so much creating a better environment, that can truly be collaborative. Nothing will change, as my presence isn't even that widespread and hardly even frequent. Just a handful of whiners, out of many who I get along with just fine. I take plenty of issue with many obstinate people, but suffer silently because I never bring them here to AN/I or get "it's just a content dispute" or "work it out". Easy to attack someone who is confident in their efforts and calls out others for not applying high standards or looking for unnecessary fights over difference in opinion. This user is only interested in everything under the sun, because they deem me as smug and relentless by being in their way, not meek and submissive as likely desired. I am not smug, but I am not going to be bashful when a few stubborn users are not willing to work with me either and seemingly take refuge in opposing everything I do, hoping it will create conflict by frustration. But of course, you people see right through it, because it's all about egos. I can count on my fingers the users I have last issues with, by choice of their own to find conflict.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You're welcome :) As for now, how about joining us in discussing the t-ban or site ban proposals. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your interest is in "bettering" Wikipedia in this case Tom. You simply have a bone to pick with me for some reason and like Sable###, are desperate to find anyone to give the satisfying end result that you are looking for. Whether the grounds merit it or not 100%. I told you last time about that and I will say it again.Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• For the sake of completeness, I think it bears mentioning that the material facts of the dispute in question seem rather strongly slanted towards Carmaker1 being correct in his assertions. The unreliable sources he's using in the initial diffs are being posted to a talk page to illustrate an argument. Moreover, the Bronco cannot have "started production in June" if there are company documents showing that production started in May, and photographs of Broncos manufactured in May. While these don't quite meet most construals of WP:RS, I don't think a reasonable person can raise any objection to the facts of what they demonstrate. And while I don't think they merit citation in the article, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that sources which make factually incorrect statements should be removed (and I don't think saying that ought to be a rationale for an indef). If there's other stuff, well, there's other stuff, but this thing in its own right doesn't seem to be that horrible. jp×g 22:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, how does a photo show when a vehicle was manufactured? What does "production started" even mean? The first fully complete vehicle came off the line? Or is it when the first screwdriver is applied to the first subassembly? Door jamb stickers, company documents -- you must be kidding. And the saddest part is that this is trivial stuff that doesn't belong in articles anyway. No one five years from now will care whether production started on May 21 or May 27, or that the #3 line was shut down for a day because of a power failure, or any other such junk. The reason all this OR and insider sourcing is needed is exactly because it's trivia no one cares about. EEng 01:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, as that is the point I am making! If I couldn't provide a citation, but knew this to be true, it could at least be removed and left neutrally as "2021 - present" or blank. The vehicles in question, had a JOB 1 date of May 3, 2021 and the factory did start producing them then as production vehicles. Production stopped from May 17th and never resumed in May 2021. For marketing purposes which is beyond me, another date was quoted falsely by the media and thus the article shouldn't even have it at all. The user in question, almost always looks for conflict with me, anywhere they can find it lately and everyone else looks the other way. It's simple as that. If I bring it to AN/I, I get "oh, it's just a content issue". If I chime in on a summoned issue, the user inserts themselves on the opposite side, even when it constitutes the matter of lack of verifiability like articles about automotive platforms for Ford and Mazda. I am baffled how I requested for some unsourced articles to be deleted and in response, this same user mysteriously took interest to support retaining them, out of nowhere. I thought the evidence spoke for itself, that with absolutley no sources, all of us would be on board. But nope. Just made up text, with no proof. In the end, them and 2-3 others that consider me as a foe, fought to keep whatever it is, for absolutely no motivated reason. The summoning party was forced to relent. I can only infer, it is because I expressed great disappointment at how for 15 years, something so egregiously false would be missed by the community and end up misleading not just a generation of readers, but media, sub-Wikis, parts stores, and etc. Those few users came together, to block the deletion of a BAD article, most likely because I requested or supported for it to be deleted. I say this because, I had already made successful article deletion requests and had some of the same individuals chime in unsuccessfully to protect them from deletion, WITHOUT them being able to provide sources. Yet in this case, they never really looked into the matter for absolutel verification of source matter and essentially kept the text, merging it with no sources supporting it at all. So why is it I am required to prove everything I support or submit/edit with sources, yet they are not subject to the rules of VERIFIABILITY? Their snarky, rude commentary or bad faith often conduct excused, yet my conduct is only scrutinized? It is one-sided. Seems more like Wikipedia has a great distaste for people who are experts contributing to topics in their field and are not ashamed to admit it, thus framed as "not humble enough" to be here and magically framed as "can't work collaboratively". An utter lie and deceitful joke. Only reason is that, I am seen as intimidating to egotistical users, as if it is not intimidating to already to lose so many of your contributions to others' own questionable motivations and odd quests to delete my content within articles, which took time to find. This accusation of incivility is horribly unbalanced, being I have seen many users trade nasty insults between each other and yet so much administrative inaction to resolve it equally, despite obvious edit-warring, harassment, bullying, bad-faith editing, and etc. Almost anyone else can learn a lot of the same things I know and edit very well, if they focus on it. I never claimed to know everything. Not everything requires inside knowledge. I did this as an undergrad many years ago and mastered a lot of industry knowledge, even before working in the field. The idea that experts on given subjects, cannot expect better from other people editing who at least have access to condensed versions of the same information, is BS. Why does Wikipedia excuse users like Sable### who favor antagonizing other frustrated contributors, then act aghast when that frustrated contributor reacts in defense? Any given subject I work on here, I do not micromanage it. It is too much work to do anything all by yourself. I thank countless people for their contributions and get the same in return, from the majority of kind, well-adjusted editors. Does this Sable### do the same or just simply look for other people to report all the time, that they deem a threat to their perspective?

When I study the edit history of certain pages, I see the same set of users, often driving out virtually everyone, except me and a handful of quiet folks, who stay and take the silent abuse. It becomes a game of edit warring and trumped up warning templates, when someone is looking for any reason to stop you from adding something. And then when you come to discuss it on talk pages, they disappear to ensure no discussion is even had and they can keep you at bay from editing that. It becomes unwelcome stress from an already busy job, to be editing here.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the ARBCOM members from the time period, I've left a message for a handful of people who have posted here concerning Carmaker1's behaviour and a handful of admins who have taken action against him since he's been here in hopes of building a better picture of the current state of affairs and to (hopefully) allow for more discussion of the matter at hand and of the two proposals listed below. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I see right through your transparent agenda, as it's easy to refer to 5 or 10 obstinate editors out of thousands of wholesome users I have no issues with, as me being a supposed issue, while not looking closely at the antagonizing antics of that handful. Somehow you are threatened by me and your words often tell the story entirely.

Successful engineer who still occassionally edits in his spare time, falsely framed as haughty and evilly towering over other innocent editors and thinking the rules don't apply to me? If that was the case and the shoe fit, I would never stop editing for 1 second and would add everything and anything that came to mind on here 24/7, while sharply insulting everyone and mowing down anyone in my "path" with 0.00% restraint. But that isn't the reality, you are trying to portray here is it Tom? Nor was it the case last time was it? Claiming I cast aspersions on others, yet you all do the same to me with hardly any concrete evidence and just simply quote your own beliefs as fact, then call for extreme measures, EACH TIME because I maintain a bold and confident stance.

On what grounds do you have this time Tom? It's simply me, seeing a mistake I made months ago from trusting media, then correcting or undoing it, while someone who deems me a foe of some sort, seeing it as an easy opportunity to irritate me and not understand the issue, before even making a final mutual decision. You cannot keep information in an article, if something shows it to not be quite accurate, by predating. Whether or not the new information is added within an article. If it becomes a content dispute, neutrally remove the offending matter (June 14) and then discuss it.

However, when it comes to article talk pages, what certain people do is, disingenuously ask for a content dispute to be resolved on talk page, then in response they ignore talk page discussion or dance around directly acknowledging the topic brought forward. Why? They are more focused on opposing the other editor by all means, until it falls into lockstep with their own wish. This isn't always, but when it does happen and I don't fall into lockstep, it of course ends up here. Simply because big bad Carmaker1 saw right through the BS and gave an earful with no expletives. Sable### or whichever aggressor will find issue with me, but eventually they will also find someone else and another someone else, until they get tired of editing here when all that antagonizing stops working like clockwork. They need to change their combative attitude or it will catchup with them. I have observed users who I once took issue with and then avoided in years past to avoid conflict and many have disappeared or faded away, because they didn't work with anyone well at at all, especially me. The individual above is in that group, based on patterns of how they deal with me and some others, who won't defend their position and run away. To claim I don't work with anyone here, is a weak little lie some here tell themselves or make up embellished scenarios of intimidated novice editors not coming here because of me, versus vandals who only have bad faith intentions to make a mess. Easier to work together, than do it all by yourself. Yet I am sick of subject matter I contribute to, not getting the same shared positive attention, that I do it alone. I have come across various terrible people here, who go without reprimand because you people choose to ignore it and let it go unhandled, until I respond and defend MYSELF. Ditto for many other well meaning people, who then leave of their own accord out of warranted frustration.

Has there ever been a moment where anything that this Sable brought forward against me, has proven to be a case where I ultimately provided bad information? Nope, always been a thing of semantics each time, seeking a conflict, being obstinate and then running to AN/I, as a means to an end. I am not the only one who goes through this with them and digging through their history just might highlight that.

Let me see where I deliberately provided bad information in these articles and this user was ever right, on how I needed to be stopped in my tracks to protect the quality of Wikipedia. You cannot prove it, because it's a hollow claim and a number of you are searching for a noose to hang me on, based on the name and the little pride I take.

Not to mention maybe even racism, as the Eurocentric nature of this site often proves to be slanted and disturbing. You cannot claim that any of the stuff I add here is blatantly wrong and horribly inaccurate, so it's easier to attack my character instead out of bitter reasons and pretend as if anyone bringing this forward, isn't somewhat combative on their own and searching to provoke. That I am too arrogant and proud, instead of meek and ashamed. Try to be less obvious, as any outside brought in here to observe discussion, would see the real story and see the civility problems with me, but realize what causes them and the toxicity of this editing environment in general. It's not the content, just subjectivity and feigning outrage, no real objectivity.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• An IP has popped up after Carmaker1 was partially blocked, editing Ford Bronco and other automotive articles. Looks WP:DUCK to me. Filed an SPI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that after the replies of the user in this thread, which contained massive personal attacks against other user but did not contain reflection on their own behavior, I blocked them indef because at this point they are unlikely to edit Wikipedia in a productive manner. If consensus in the discussion below would be against the indefinite block, I request the closing admin to unblock the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

(I added the header to what previously was two comments in this discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC))

• A topic ban from anything automotive-related is what's needed. This has been going on for years and years and years and years. EEng 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think you have any room to be eagerly making any suggestions, with that foul mouth of yours, in past discussions and if you need the diffs for proof, look it up, as I have a great memory and never forget anything.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with EEng, I think everyone is sick of the time this continually takes up on this board and elsewhere. It's beyond disruptive at this point and it's clear, and been made clear, that they're not capable and willing to work in a co-operative fashion and within the policies and guidelines of this project. A topic ban from automobiles, very broadly construed and see if they're able to edit in other areas (I find it doubtful personally.) Though at this point and outright indefinite block and potential community ban I would also support. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sick of what? Don't make me laugh. You cannot speak for everyone, as everyone isn't a few aggrieved editors. This only comes up, because the same few characters bring anything about me to AN/I, for a means to an end and you people take the bait each time to give them an audience. That's a lousy excuse, as anyone reading any past AN/I, can see right through EEng's nasty, insult-driven temperament on anything related to me. Not an objective person at all, as they'd rather personally attack the person's subjects of interest for a cheap laugh. Who's to say I find anything they even edit on here worth a damn and not weirdo BS of its own, that's a waste of time? Everyone has their given stuff they edit on here. I love how you all let EENG's character attacks against me slide past and present, whether valid, embellished or even fictionalized, yet every word I state is scrutinized to a tee? Too many of you are not as honest and impartial as you portray yourselves to be. Very easy to castigate someone, if everyone else is already doing it for their own less than objective intentions.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not just automobiles, but rather anything automotive-related i.e. cars, trucks, buses, motorized construction equipment, Segways, scooters powered by any means conceivable, self-propelled unicycles, wind-up toy choo-choos, horseless carriages of whatever nature, kind, or description, roller skates, and so on and so forth. EEng 15:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Considering your crass behavior in many instances, I don't think anyone should be taking anything you state seriously.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Can we just make this "transport" in any form? Don't want the disruption to move to rail, aviation and shipping related articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Enough of the outrage politics and catastrophizing. I have not bothered wasting my time editing for one day regarding aviation, rail, and shipping. I don't look for random topics, check ny edit history. I trust others to get those right, unless I put in the effort and research. I cannot edit what I have no knowledge on or not have done sufficient research for. To say such a thing, comes across you are not paying much attention to the subject at hand (my history) and making snap decisions with knowing little to no evidence on all of it. You banned me from a page, as mediating measure. I didn't contest it. If people want to edit here on any given subject, they must do it in good faith and not as a means to fight other people and micromanage a page. Edit summaries questioning endless vandalism or a loop of disruptive editing that is tiring, is hardly on the same level as targeting specific people to prevent them from editing, via reverting and often deleting their contributions on a whim. Nor do I micromanage any given pages, the some regulars constantly do so. I don't look for people to harass, the way I am targeted or that of my edits, all simply because someone just sees my text as not worthy of inclusion on a personal level of interest. Who wouldn't be upset? The individual who chose to bring this up here, has lasting issues with me because I sought to revamp all automotive pages to follow a universal automotive date template to their chagrin and past AN/Is to get rid of me, didn't provide a desired result for them. So looking for ways to fight me on my edits, became of more interest. I notice a pattern and you pretending not to see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone making up things that I actually didn't do, cast your aspersions of my intentions, dismissing my own claims, speaks to the record at how one-sided all of this is. No objectivity in the least, just taking someone else's word for it.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  I grudgingly admit that your formulation is more workable than mine. EEng 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Again, I find it ridiculous you are even allowed to chime on this, considering your own insidious behavior over the years towards me and many others, that hinges on explicitly insulting us on various AN/Is, like you have nothing else to do with your time.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say that we should ban anything automative-related from Wikipedia, for all the trouble the articles bring, but I suppose someone may come along who is actually prepared to base the articles on reliable sources. I suppose we'll have to settle here for banning this editor from such articles. The simplest way to do this would be to block the editor completely from Wikipedia, because I can't see anything else being edited constructively. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  You have no real basis for that, as I didn't introduce bad information with no source did I? I omitted extra text. When I couldn't provide a source for May, I made a talk page post and removed the Day+Month to keep it neutral until it could be resolved. Stop making things up, as that is just lazy character assassination based on nonexistent proof. That's a witchhunt right there. If you want to put evidence forward, then cite actual examples in full context of me doing what you claim. Stop scratching just the surface and calling it a job well done, to achieve a result. Easy for many of you to frame this as just about behavior and then using a shoddy unproven example of me posting unsourced info, when that didn't even happen. Don't insult my intelligence nor that of anyone ACTUALLY reviewing everything thoroughly, because it's not objective at that point.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  [204] EEng 15:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Have a RFC on the disputed item, in the article. That way, the content dispute gets resolved & nobody gets blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  But the disputed item is not the issue - it is the behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite Block Proposal

I am sorry to say this, but I do not think the topic ban proposal will protect the project. Carmaker1's disruption and combative attitude on automotive topics have been well-documented by others above and in the linked prior discussions but it is trivial to find the very same issues on other topics they've edited. This has mostly been on articles about individual songs. For example, this edit, where they change a date based on unverifiable personal knowledge and then reinstate based on a poor source. The personal attack in the second edit summary is also a part of the previously documented pattern. In order to prevent further disruption on the project and more wasting of other editors' time, a full block is necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as I mentioned above, I doubt they're able to not continue their pattern in other areas. This user has taken up too much time and effort from the community, not just on these boards but in the disruption they cause on the articles they choose to edit. They are clear about not following our policies and guidelines. Enough is enough. Canterbury Tail talk 16:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt you have read through much of anything here and are just jumping on a bandwagon, with little background info. It is dishonest and character assassination to claim I do not follow any guidelines, when people introduce new information without any sources and get a round of applause for doing it like User: Sfoskett. If dared to do such a thing, well I wouldn't be here at all. Me calling out someone seemingly stalking my edit history and following me to many automotive articles, to often challenge what I contribute/correct, versus helpfully supplement or aid it, says more than enough about their intentions. You are unfortunate in the sense, by claiming 2+2=5 and stating that deleting text I added myself and responding in frustration to a threat against that, flouts guidelines here. Such ridiculousness, borne from silly pearl clutching and finding the next thing to be outraged about.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I think we're all done here after this set of bludgeoning, seemingly random diatribes. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with this outcome, per my edit above. An indefinite block should come with a community ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

On shoddy grounds of course, simply because I am an unrelenting expert in this field, who is deemed uppity and arrogant because I am confident in my intentions and see right through people who do not have good faith intentions to work with me and others who want to broaden a project. None of you have provided any real substance, that I look for people to attack, for my amusement/ego-stroking and deliberately introduce bad information into articles, with no sources every time I edit. Instead, I edit and a few people look for new issues to have with me, whether it is with formatting differences or they personally dislike new information being added by me, that they deem as excessive fluff. It either degenerates into me calling out their WP:OWN behavior and questioning their often sour reasoning. And them creating a mountain out of molehill as a defense mechanism, because I never back down like others who are afraid of challenging a few micromanaging editors. I don't micromanage articles, the way some people like the above do and thus garner derision. I can give many examples of difficult users butting heads with many well meaning users, by driving them out for their singular agendas. You better prove your claims with cited examples, that your character assassination of me is even valid. It isn't.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Someone who has been here and editing pretty regularly since 2007(!) should be pretty familiar with how things work here. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

BS, as other than calling antagonizing behavior and removing my own text, I did nothing wrong. I am more than familiar, so for you to claim that, shows you only read a few lines of text and then stormed off to type this. I can easily read a few lines of text from you and make a slanted assumption just the same, but doesn't mean it's fully accurate.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As this behavior spills over into other topic areas such as songs as Eggishorn notes above, a topic ban would only exacerbate the problem in that and potentially other areas. Years of this behavior will not change with a topic ban. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You are not even the most objective person to be listening to about anything. You will have issues with me and just about anyone studying your edit and talk page history, will notice this. Always looking for a means to be antagonizing, hoping to eradicate the presence of anyone you consider an opposing force. I go about my business editing what needs to be edited and addressing antagonizing people like you, because you seem to get enjoyment from such antics.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an admin and I'm on this page reporting a couple of other things, but something about this case reminded me of a case from almost ten years ago. There was an editor Barnstarbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) who for years until 2011 "owned" the article Chevrolet Vega. It was ownership to the point of clinical obsession. Eventually he was blocked, then came back for a bit of sockpuppeting (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barnstarbob) and eventually disappeared. Is this the same editor returned to obsess about a different car model? --10mmsocket (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This may or may not be the same person, but it doesn't really matter because Carmaker1 should be blocked and banned anyway. Sockpuppetry would just be an extra reason not to entertain a future attempt at overturning. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Shows how much you don't even know about me and yet you are chiming in on what should or shouldn't happen? Do some research then, before making any suggestions. That's an issue, to make a shallow observation and then presume you know what should be the answer to an issue. It's an assault and nonsensical speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember the Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob issues as well. Highly unlikely Carmaker1 is the same editor - the editing style is completely different. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I just went back through the B.S.Bob edits and I think you are right. Bob made far fewer edit summaries and although they were quite pointy when he did, the language isn't the same. Strike my suggestion! 10mmsocket (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, yet you made the suggestion? How can one even trust, you have objectively fully reviewed inside-out what the deal is here? Very easy to not know someone's history from Adam and then make a random judgment call, based on absolutely little to no evidence. Funny how they just let anyone chime in, without fully understanding the subject matter and just reading a few diffs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is LONG overdue if you ask me. Get with the program, or get out. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And that should apply equally to everyone, not just some favorites.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Clearly hasn't changed his behavior after numerous AN/Is and an ArbCom. Accuses his accusers of the thing they're accusing him of (projection/gaslighting) and calls the accusations a "witch hunt" (hold on, this all sounds familiar). Years and years of hostile edit comments. Most importantly, seems forever convinced that his "expertise" and "insider info" (even if he is indeed a Ford employee, which is kind of a WP:COI) negate WP:V and WP:NOR. --Vossanova ^o< 23:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Taking the bait of course. The evidence actually speaks for itself, as I am right in this case regarding the content and the double standards I observe. You haven't provided any balanced context against me to support your claim. Seems some use Wikipedia as a way to find meaning in your lives and then do the same things you accuse others of doing, then hide your hands behind your backs. I simply do not back down from others threatening me or being unpleasant in their editing conduct, that's the only difference. I fight fire with fire and roses with roses. Be pleasant to me, I'll do the same. Turn yourself into a wedge and stalk my editing history looking for stuff to pettily revert or undo, don't be surprised I notice and have a issue with it. You're looking for someone to hang for the moment and frankly, it says more about you than it does about me. Almost everyone worldwide knows about the rather toxic editing environment here which needs serious improvement and to blame it all on me, is the most laughable nonsense, being I rarely even edit as often as many problematic editors, who continue to practice WP:OWN, live to delete, and ruin the experience for 100s of users, trying to make a difference. I barely register as a blip on the radar, that all this grandstanding to make me disappear says more about others looking for easy outrage and not universally addressing existing issues within the system. I call it as I see it, a witchhunt and crying wolf, with shallow proof.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Not only does this editor have a conflict of interest but they brag about it and claim special powers because of their claimed "expertise", and engage in disruptive editing because they claim to be an "insider". A topic ban will not solve the problem because they have engaged in similar behavior at music related articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

An absolute fable, being that users like User: Binksternet browbeat and intimidate every single user in music sections from not contributing and I have heard it from countless many both on and off of Wikipedia, but it is of course much easier to attack me, because I don't play politics and stick to editing.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support A long history of the kind of behaviour that drives other volunteers away. It's high time to end the elitist attitude and personal attacks. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  So "Carmaker1" is "driving" other volunteers away? EEng 13:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Gosh, I can't believe I got a chance to use that one again [205].

Well spotted! It wasn't intended, but once I noticed it, I thought I might as well leave it in :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that why so many users complain about you acting like you own automotive Wikipedia articles and thanking me for stepping in on a few occasions, to remind you otherwise? Of all people you are the last person who should be become commenting on this, as you're gonna end up here soon for WP:OWN.--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly knows the rules; flouts them anyway. Longterm disrupter who knows better. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

None of you have explicitly quoted verbatim examples of which rules I have flouted. You are merely upset, because I do not cower in a corner, when another difficult editor tries to look for a way to get into with me and not trying to find a resolution. It is easy to attack someone on the grounds of, "thinking they are better than everyone else" , versus them standing up to a few who ironically think like that and regularly think it is fun to drive out eons of less experienced editors, by back-to-back talk page threats, reverts, and reportings. I wouldn't be casually hearing from a few people time to time, personally thanking me for setting straight users like Binksternet or MrsSnoozyTurtle, if I wasn't seeing a nasty pattern of WP:OWN and standing strong in the face of such combative behavior. Outside of contentious edit summaries expressing complaint against vandalism or repetitive disruptive editing, I rarely get into it with the majority of users I encounter. The few who do find issue with me, perhaps you should look closer at the catalyst, as it takes two to tango. Feigning outrage over me touting my credentials and whining about elitism, as is a silly copout. Am I the only professional who logins here? Or is the idea that, no one from such capacities is welcome and all of us should just be unaccomplished people, with nothing to our names, to not make anyone else feel inadequate?--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support This makes it clear this is an editor who understands WP:VER and WP:OR, but is firmly convinced they just don't apply to him, because he has "better" knowledge. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support indef block per everything that Carmaker just said and did in this thread. Never before has an editor given such a spectacular demonstration of an attitude that justifies their being blocked.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Combative attitude, net negative. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• If anyone wasn't already convinced of the need for a block and ban then I'm sure they are now, after Carmaker1's post here. It's not a question of whether that editor is right or wrong in his claims, but of the style of the edits. I can't remember anyone displaying more arrogance or being less willing to collaborate with others here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that was definitely, something. Canterbury Tail talk 16:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This sort of "you're just mad because I'm better than you" chest-thumping is definitely not what the encyclopedia needs. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Well that certainly cheered me up. The delusion level is really dialled up there. Canterbury Tail talk 18:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Delusional was the word I had in mind as well. We ANI habitués have all seen plenty of flights of grandiosity, but that one really takes the cake. It belongs in a museum:

  Good for you, as I said the redacted truth and save for some typos and formatting gaffes, it's much more filtered than much I could have nastily said otherwise, in an unfiltered, explicit and scathing fashion with extremely foul language.
  
  A few anti-social outcasts with fragile egos. That are laughably intimidated by someone who may or may not know more than they do, a formerly dedicated undergrad site contributor to now successful professional at a Fortune 500 company with an MBA and hard-earned PhD, who has no patience for the unregulated BS here creating gross misinformation. I have engineering and design patents in my name, which very few here even do. Twelve of them so far, from JLR and Ford, plus more coming as new filings are made at USPTO and globally.
  
  Feigning victimhood and pearl clutching in over the top theatrical outrage, says more than enough about that irrelevant set of few users, out of many people worldwide who have always appreciated my efforts and my gifted work I globally contribute in my freetime. People can twist any semantics how they want to, especially because they live on here 24/7 and honestly have no real lives I can imagine. Check how often I don't login. I have my great fiance with the same dedication to our profession, millions of dollars at my disposal from my N. & Ojukwu family trusts and maybe even more from willing investors on upcoming plans. With dedicated effort, I can replicate this all on my own and cast a large shadow over it all in a few years. I will do that indeed, as I have those God-given privileged means, without involving any management here. Get some genuine meaning in your lives, as living on here 24/7 isn't it. You only live once and staring at a computer screen all day to copy text and play politics, means little to nothing in the real world, when you have no actual power like the rest of us on a global scale. Any wonder why I am so confident in my abilities?
  
  Signing off, Dr. J.N. aka Carmaker1. Carmaker1 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  As ridiculous as he's acting right now, on rereading that I have a pang of sympathy for Carmaker, so for his sake let's call an end to this thread because the outcome is clear. Is there a way to convert this to a community ban without unduly prolonging the matter? EEng 19:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef. Agree that a topic ban is not sufficient. I was surprised to see this editor's apparent immunity when I first ran into him. Since an editor indefinitely blocked by community consensus is considered banned by the community, is there any point in restarting this as a ban disussion? Meters (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  No there is not, and I think this can be closed now. Carmaker1 can continue living outside Wikipedia in a fantasy world where she or he knows more than anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no regards for my detractors, because I'm an unstoppable force. on Carmaker1's user page may be construed as wp:ICANTHEARYOU . BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment "...the Eurocentric nature of this site often proves to be slanted and disturbing." Wow, did I miss something? "I'm much better than you... you haven't got a watchlist!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Motion to close

In light of the indef block now in place and the apparent departure of Carmaker1, combined with the near unanimous consensus that an indef block is warranted for repeated, long term violations of WP:CIVIL, AGF, BRD, etc, can an uninvolved admin close this discussion? At this point, as much as I'd like to watch the ongoing collapse of a veteran editor, it is as other have observed, gratuitous, and we have what we need for the indef block / ban. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The lad needs to study WP:INDENT. But, I guess that's a moot point, now. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Rohan7908

Rohan7908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some peculiar reason this new user is focused on the (nonexisting) relation between Tajlu Khanum and Sam Mirza Safavi, occasionally altering information to make it seem as they were mother and son, which wasn't the case.

Tajlu Khanum:

14 August 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son

7 October 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son

7 October 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son

7 October 2021 - Added Sam Mirza Safavi as her son, as well as more unsourced stuff

Sam Mirza Safavi:

14 August 2021 - Altered sourced info, changing Sam Mirza Safavi's mom

15 August 2021 - Altered sourced info, changing Sam Mirza Safavi's mom

7 October 2021 - Altered sourced info, changing Sam Mirza Safavi's mom

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Intentional copyright violations by TenthEagle

TenthEagle has knowingly introduced copyright violations at least since they were informed of the issue by Diannaa in June. I raised the issues again today after finding they copied plot synopses on Adult Material, a common form of copyright violation (revdelled in record time by Hut 8.5 after I flagged it—thanks). TenthEagle has a personal policy of blanking all constructive criticism on their talk pages with rude messages, so there is little chance of them choosing to act differently in future. I do not have much free time at the moment, so I have not determined the scale of the problem. Perhaps someone can see if a CCI is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is quite an experienced editor, but I don't have a problem blocking them until they engage with the issue. So that's what I've done. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Moneytrees: @Sennecaster: this may be of interest to you. jp×g 00:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed status gaming by AkweQ520

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

---

On 31 August AkweQ520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a number of controversial caste-related edits to article Other Backward Class. Another user Piyushkumar911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made very similar edits before this the day before. I'm not immediately making a sockpuppet accusation but it might be worth a look by an admin who knows more about SPI cases. However, following their efforts, on 1 September the page was semi-protected for one month expiring 1 October. Fast forward to 5 October and suddenly AkweQ520 made a huge number of rapid-fire minor edit in a very short time, each of which he/she immediately self-reverted on two articles Chudasama and Fire engine. These edits were enough to get AkweQ520 auto-confirmed status. Today AkweQ520 made the same controversial edits to the original Other Backward Class article. OK it's not semi-protected any more, but should it be then AkweQ520 would immediately be excluded from editing due to the new autoconfirmed status. Having looked through his/her edits, including those not related to the caste articles, I don't honestly think this is an editor working in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. I think it's someone gaming the system to push their caste agenda. Oh, and this edit is pure diversionary BS. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked AkweQ520 indefinitely. I have very little tolerance for abuse of status edits, especially when they're immediately followed by controversial edits on controversial topics. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Do you think the other editor is just a red herring? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Probably. Though an SPI would be the only way to be sure. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Problems at Michael Oliver (actor)

Apologies if this is not the right forum, but I wasn't sure where to take this. Slothman533 blanked (see here) the Michael Oliver (actor) page with no explanation and then copy pasted the exact same text into a new article at Michael Oliverius. At a bare minimum this is a copyright violation as there is no attribution to the original article and the editors who wrote that text. Also, none of the sources in the article use this spelling of the last name. Given that an admin will be needed to sort out the issues of copyright violation and probably an article deletion, I thought I would bring it here. Please do let me know if I should have brought this to some other forum, I've just never come across a case like this before. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Update. I filed a copyright violation report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 October 8. I'm assuming that's where I should have gone in the first place? Sorry for putting this in two places. I hope this was the right procedure.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. Better that it get reported twice than not at all. I've gone ahead and redirected Michael Oliverius to Michael Oliver (actor) per WP:COMMONNAME. The article should stay at Michael Oliver (actor) unless a consensus is formed to move it. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

User talk:96.4.231.83 has continued to capitalize words contrary to the MOS despite repeated warnings. They seem to be a sock for User:Carmena Seoul, who was permanently banned for this behavior, along with other socks, after I made a report a few weeks back. This IP makes very similar edits. Wallnot (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can't see any exact match, but the similarity of type of edit and of ES style and tone and the commonality of interest is striking. Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

96.4.231.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a Nashville school that has been blocked for vandalism for as much as a year in the past; see their talk page. I've applied a new one-year block but don't know if Carmena Seoul has any connection to this school. Still, the other IPs previously reported at ANI as possible socks of Carmena Soul were also from Tennessee. Neither of them has continued to revert since 1 September so will leave those two alone for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Earthquake damage photo in the Main Page Commons media protection is probably a copyvio

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 photo 2021 Balochistan earthquake destruction.jpg currently in this page is a copyvio from [206], where the source mentioned is PHOTO: EXPRESS. The photo in tribune.com.pk is of higher resolution, uncropped and published in the same day as the photo was uploaded in Commons. Can you please remove it from Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection? --C messier (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Masem (t) 20:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Fatima Jinnah

Hi, I'm here to report an incidence of a long-time hoax, that was on the page Fatima Jinnah since at least 2020, which often gets eliminated but persistently added again by IP editors. As of today, I have eliminated the same hoaxes 4 times in 5 edits in a span of 40 days (see here), the most recent one of them (is here), which shows the edited out hoax. The same was done by several other editors before me, but the hoax somehow always manages to reappear. Looking through page history, I realised that even anti-vandalism editors have failed to recognise this particular hoax, so ingrained it has become. Hopefully administrators can do something about it. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 19:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, I protected the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Emergency Block

For user Ebbedlila. Running some automated tool to spam tags to thousands of articles. Most are incorrect. I have rollbacked some of them until I can take a look at each. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, they feel some nineteenth-century Zamindar to be an Indian politician.

A college is an Indian politician.

A social organization is an Indian politician.

A branch of Buddhism is an Indian politician.

A prominent actress who barely dabbled for a year with a minor party is an Indian politician.

There are countless cases like these.

A very polarizing figure of Kashmir is an Indian politician.

A child rights activist is an Indian politician as is some social worker.

A bureaucrat is an Indian politician.

An Indian Independence activist is an Indian politician.

A career-diplomat is an Indian politician. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

They have already stopped over an hour before this post. I will revoke AWB access until this issue is resolved. Please notify them of this thread as required by the big yellow box that you see when you edit this page. ST47 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for my errors. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the mess editing like that. I had went through a series of categories, specifically Category:Indian politicians by century and just picked through some before I just went through them all. I missed a bunch because I just held down the enter key. Ebbedlila (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ebbedlila, what are you going to do to fix the incorrect edits that you have made among the correct ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will go through each of them to review. I would also request that someone mass revert me for every edit in October 20221. Ebbedlila (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I feel like I'd get bored after holding down an enter key for over two hours. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Ebbedlila: The other suggestions/warnings in your talkpage history are kinda irrelevant here, but this suggestion about using previews was given just 9 days ago. Kindly be careful with mass edits, especially with AWB whenever you get back the access to it. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Usernamekiran:, honestly, I want it back soon. I do wish to re-do similar edit, but using previews this time. Something, I am regretful that I didn't do. Ebbedlila (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ST47: and Phil Bridger, I had earlier requested a mass rollback for myself and completed by Elli. I am truly sorry for all the mistakes I have done. I should have been better at this.

I hope that I can regain the AWB access for future use. To remedy such errors, I will stick to typos, and avoid adding short descriptions such carelessly in the future, even if it means formal restrictions/warning. In the meantime, I had went through some of my edits and “manually” re-added some short descriptions as they were accurate.

Ebbedlila (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Ebbedlila: further reading: WP:AATP. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks on top of problematic edits

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

Aside from their problematic unsourced/poorly sourced edits (eg: 1, 2, 3), this op routinely resorts to expletive filled personal attacks (eg: 1, 2, 3, 4). They have been warned for both on their talk page but appear to have no intention of obliging. Some assistance would be appreciated. Robvanvee 10:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 10:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: There's probably some edit summary revdel necessary too? Such as [207] or [208]... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

K. El_C 13:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Llywelyn2000

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

---

Could some administrators who are unrelated to WMUK (or Wales for that matter) please read and comment at the above sockpuppet investigation. It is currently on the recieving end of what can only be described as blatant whitewashing and/or canvassing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature of the explanation offered I wouldn't expect any other response. GeneralNotability & Tamzin seem to be doing just fine picking through an awkward case. Cabayi (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by user Williamkon and IPs

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

I'm not very experienced in the diff department, so if I screw up, it might be helpful to check the history of Lucius Artorius Castus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is where most of this user's disruption has taken place. They keep adding completely unsourced, poorly written (though amusing) biographies of apparently fictional characters to that page. I've reverted them several times, as have other editors. Diffs of their additions: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.

They've also submitted this bit of silliness to AFC, this I-don't-know-what-the-heck-it-is to Commons, and on top of all that, the user appears to be engaged in logged-out editing or sock/meatpuppetry at the Castus article, given these IP edits: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.

I've left warnings on their talk page, to no avail. I've also left them the required notice of this report (and on the IP pages too, which I assume is also required). The user seems to be clearly WP:NOTHERE.

Hopefully I've done this right, I'm mostly just a lurker in the more drama-laden parts of Wikipedia. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 14:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've sprotected. Not sure if they're (singular or plural) even looking at the registered account or IPs' talk pages to see these warnings. Hopefully. El_C 14:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I indeffed Williamkon. Also, a modern discord philosopher seems redundant, because Discord is modern, by definition. Which made me so angry for some reason. And then hangry. El_C 14:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Clearly you are the historical basis for King Arthur, Ambrosius El_Cianus, not this Castus guy. Mystery solved! Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 14:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A Phisosopher King? Perhaps. El_C 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Arima - years and years of unsourced content, all tagged "minor"

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.

---

Arima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been contributing volumes of unsourced content, in spurts, for over 15 years - and nothing else, as far as I can tell. This first came to my attention a few months ago, during my own spurt of activity. I tried to pass it off to IRC on my way out of the house. Somebody took care of the user's most recent "contributions," but they don't seem to have reported the behavior.

I haven't bothered engaging because they clearly know what they're doing. Effectively all of their edits are reverted as soon as they're noticed, and they've all been tagged minor for the past decade. Seriously, since 2010, all but a handful of their edits are tagged minor, in a transparent attempt to avoid scrutiny. One gets the impression their non-minor edits are the ones where they forgot to check the "minor edit" box. Whole, multi-paragraph sections of entirely unsourced content are tagged minor.

I don't have the fortitude for this. Somebody needs to burn this user's entire contribution history. Just kill it with fire. --Moralis (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Finding: I didn't notice the first time, but at least some of their work is actually wholesale copyvio. Here's a diff where they just copied and pasted from another wiki without noting the fact in any way.

Might be appropriate to just block the account... --Moralis (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:EEng

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.

---

Rarely if ever have I seen such intentional incivility as here. I admit and have acknowledge that my original question for that talk page section led to misunderstandings, and I probably should apologize for finding some of the reactions "disturbing". However, either we are to try to stick to article content on article talk pages or we are free to scorn, scold and ridicule each other at will there. Which is it? I will do my best to comply. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, can you fucking drop the whining? It's true, as TNT has pointed out (below), that it's series of misunderstandings, but to be blunt most or all of the misunderstanding's on your side, combined with the fact that much of what you write is confused, unresponsive to what everyone else is saying, and/or just plain unintelligible.

You seem to have got the bee in your bonnet when I said (reinforcing what numerous other editors had been saying to you)

the request is for Perry's text and sources, not just her identity. It's like the 8th time you're been asked. If it didn't occur to you to take images of the relevant pages for something like this, it's your own damn fault. Anyway, I'll pick it up next time I'm at the library. [209].

Instead of saying, "Thanks, I guess that would help", you embarked on this odyssey of self-pity about how mistreated you are and how demanding everyone is of poor you. When you spread the whining to my talk page, Tryptofish said

I frequently check on the background behind these sorts of complaints, and far be it from me to object to requests for EEng to be nicer to people, but – good grief! This is over a fringey claim, where the talk page discussion has, by my count, six editors telling SW to back down, and zero agreeing with him. Looks to me like it's his own damn fault. [210]

That was your cue to reconsider your feelings of victimization, but I guess the message didn't get across. You've been going on like this for days now. Meanwhile, a helpful editor at the article talk page has commented (to you) that

At this point you are exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and if you persist it may be perceived as disruptive editing [211]

So really, can you do us all a favor and cut it out? EEng 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it Jesus who is whining, or SergeWoodzing? Or is this a prayer that Serge will stop whining, compelled by Jesus? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Jesus in this context is what's called in grammar an ejaculation (though not to be confused with an ejaculatory prayer – and be sure to see the hatnote to that article, BTW). EEng 00:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Now I know what to pray for! Mr Ernie (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: No, editors are not free to "scorn, scold and ridicule each other at will".

@EEng: part of this wasn't called for, but you know that.

The entire thread at John F. Kennedy seems to be a series of misunderstandings - perhaps you can both agree that a small problem was somewhat blown out of proportion? My suggestion, go edit one of the other 6,390,432 articles we have and leave each other be ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime: As you say, part of this wasn't called for, but you know that – well sure I knew, but I like to go the extra distance. I mean, when someone makes it clear that they really, really choose to be offended, who am I to disappoint? EEng 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, on an ANI about civility, EEng says Wow, can you f* drop the whining? Yikes. It's time to {{plip}} EEng. 142.157.111.141 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@142.157.111.141, considering this is only your second edit to this collaborative project, (& it is coincidentally to this thread) in order to disparage EEng, I’m not sure you are landing any credence to your entry/point. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The whining about being asked repeatedly to provide a proper reliable source and not doing so is much more uncivil than the use of a commonplace expletive. And, in support of what EEng said above, I remember in 1988 sharing a room with someone of the same sex at a company meeting in Mallorca, as did everyone else attending. There was nothing "gay" about it, but it was just a way of saving money (and I was even married to someone of the opposite sex). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to (out of nowhere) IP. I hope this doesn't turn into a Bert & Ernie saga. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just say that EEng quotes me accurately above, and that I stand by what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Clarify: Who caught JFK & Billings intimately together? PS, we're trying to figure out if the 35th US president was heterosexual or bisexual. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• I just read the thread. SergeWoodzing was engaging in WP:IDHT behavior there, and was pushing for text making implications and that promoted a WP:FRINGE view. This is not actionable, not against EEng anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Wow, Talk:John F. Kennedy#Sexuality developments is the biggest pile of nonsense I've seen on Wikipedia for at least 24 hours. @SergeWoodzing:: Please do not start silly discussions about WP:REDFLAG hyper-gossip without precisely specifying a source with an outline of what it says. You were repeatedly asked to do that and seemed unable to communicate effectively. That means you should not participate in similar issues in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  So, wait... You're telling me we shouldn't include essentially unsourced inferences about an assassinated president sleeping in the same room as another man 60 years ago? I don't even know what Wikipedia is anymore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Please re-read my comment in 24 hours and see if it is more understandable. Or ask someone to explain it to you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Oops, complete brain collapse on my part. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think the sarcasm went over your head there, mate. Unless you're also being sarcastic, in which case it went over my head. Mlb96 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I edit conflicted with you. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Get a grip on yourself, man! [212] EEng 06:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pardon me, Mlb96, for raising this delicate point, but when you addressed Johnuniq as mate back there, I have to ask ... um ... Do you guys ever share a bedroom or anything? I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that. [213] EEng 06:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh wait, um, also, when I said back there get a grip on yourself, I don't want there to be any confusion that I meant, I mean, it's just that people's thinking has been running in certain lines recently, and, um, it wasn't my intent to imply or suggest that you should, well ... [214]. EEng 06:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SergeWoodzing: Really??? @EEng: Sigh ... I know you were exasperated, and with good reason, but still. Paul August ☎ 01:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Exasperated? Moi? Not at all. When it comes to helping my fellow editors better understand our policies and guidelines and their appropriate application, my patience is infinite. EEng 06:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: Yeah whatever, you're not blameless here. Paul August ☎ 10:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  You don't see my casting the first stone, do you? [215] EEng 14:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  No not the first, but so what? Paul August ☎ 14:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  By stone I mean a call for community sanctions. I didn't open an ANI thread or waste editor time because I felt "scolded". EEng 13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, you've cast so many first stones, you've practically made a career out it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• After reading the talk page exchange, I wonder if SW was trying to bait EEng into going too far so that SW could file a complaint here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  What an evil and suspicious mind you have! In all seriousness, I have no doubt at all that SW was acting in complete good faith, though misguided. EEng 06:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Flattery will get you nowhere. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The content dispute at the JFK article has ended. I move to close this report. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• From an outside perspective, the person who started offering provocations and personal comments was surely SergeWoodzing, with this. I can't see that he has any standing to complain about getting some of it back, or any standing to put a "warning" on EEng's page, either. Bishonen | tålk 06:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
• I think that we should continue to discuss this for a lot longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Concur strongly. We haven't even touched on the conspiracy theories about his death, which we can now expand into keeping him quiet about who else he shared a bedroom with. I'm pretty sure I've read about that somewhere. Is the Gribble Report a reliable source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Guys, JFK can't be dead. If he were, JFK Jr. couldn't be alive. Q.E.D. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely; we haven't come anywhere near our quota of threats to de-sysop or take to ARBCOM or withhold donations. WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Glad to see this piece is well in hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it seems so, but why not leave this thread open for a few more weeks? I'm sure that plenty of people can get themselves blocked here if it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  I demand Phil Bridger immediately be desysopped for these completely out of line threats of blocking against us users just trying to get THE TRUTH about the Kennedy's bedroom assignments on Wikipedia. If this is not done post haste I will go directly to arbcom. I am withholding any and all donations to ANY charity until this is done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

• would someone kindly tell me who closed this thread? —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 00:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Usernamekiran: Cullen328 closed the discussion at 17:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC). I'll be archiving this thread shortly. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Silent

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.

---

Wiki Silent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To prevent recognition, I decided not to open an SPI. It seems like this account was a sleeper and now an active sockpuppet of Nic.cartagena12. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Can you please provide links to the user in question and the contribs that bring you to that conclusion? Stifle (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stifle: The user (Wiki Silent) has already been blocked for being a sockpuppet of Nic.cartagena12. Thank you for responding. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Warsh Kumar

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.

---

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

Warsh Kumar has been editing for several months and has been blocked twice [216], the most recent for adding unsourced material. Since then, he's been warned several times, including for adding unsourced material [217] and after he posted a borderline hostile comment on Bonadea's talk page[218], Bonadea and I both left a pretty solid summary of the problems on their talk page - [219]. They again made an unsourced edit, so Bonadea left a very blunt warning [220]. Today, they've added date of birth without a source herehere actually. They have left one message about the all of the warnings and guidance, and never responded to the discussion on their talk page. At this point, given they haven't changed their problematic behavior and don't communicate after two blocks, I think an indefinite block is in order. Pinging Bonadea. Ravensfire (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see Ponyo has indeffed Warsh Kumar. Good call IMO. In the long run it becomes unacceptable to eat up this much of the time and patience of good editors, since that time and patience is Wikipedia's greatest resource. Bishonen | tålk 19:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I've blocked Warsh Kumar indefinitely (which, as I explained to them, is not infinitely). Once they address the concerns regarding their BLP edits and lack of communication an appeal can be considered.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Note - I borked the unsourced DOB diff - corrected. Ravensfire (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block (I was the admin who blocked the editor both times previously). WP:CIR and such. DMacks (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation, Ravensfire–I had an early night yesterday so I didn't see this until now. Good block. I don't see what more anybody could have done in this situation. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Radizero

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.

---

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

Disruption-only account. Arguably they have been insufficiently warned, but I don't have much hope for improvement. JBchrch talk 01:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Any news? The disruption continues [221]. JBchrch talk 14:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked him/her for a month. Any repeat of this conduct will result in a much longer block. Deb (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And now also blocked from his own talk page. Deb (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Firefangledfeathers - Possible disruptive editing

An RfC on Wehda Street airstrikes, regarding whether an alt-name should be included, and if it should whether it needed attribution was recently closed as "no consensus".

In line with WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:ONUS, I reverted back to the "most recent stable version", though it is worth mentioning that this version is liked by no one, but it was quickly reimplemented by Firefangledfeathers, in line with their preferred format (they preferred "included with no attribution"; the version as it stood during the RfC was "known in Arabic as ...", and the reimplemented version says "sometimes referred to as ...").

Two requests have been made for them to self-revert, but these were rejected, while attempts to find an intermediate "no consensus" compromise have failed, and so reluctantly I bring this here.

BilledMammal (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute brought here, a place where content disputes should not be brought. Why haven't you or another editor just put in the "most stable version" ? If what you say is correct, then you should have enough editors to make this stable without violating any edit warring policies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It does feel that way, which is part of the reason I was very hesitant to bring this here and wished to resolve it with discussion. As for "enough editors to make this stable without violating any edit warring policies" unfortunately that is not the case; most of the editors who agreed "attribution" have even less involvement in the area than I do, while that is not true of most of the editors who agreed with "no attribution". As such, I brought this here as while a single edit is typically below what we would consider disruptive, I believe it is made so by the failure to abide by WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS, and I didn't know where else to bring it (I also considered WP:AN3, but it seemed to fit there even worse) BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of this discussion and will be happy to accept the consensus of other editors/admins if my conduct here has been subpar. I do request that the section heading be made more neutral, though I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to make the change.

I don't believe my one edit can be viewed as disruptive editing. BilledMammal has stated that they oppose my edit, but they have not provided any reasoning against it at talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. And I believe my comments on the talk page, in both the RfC and the most recent discussion, speak to why I oppose it - this is not the place to restate them. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverting based on no consensus is at best filibustering and at worst tendentious editing. There is overwhelming consensus against removal of the content entirely, as shown in the RFC having exactly one person arguing against inclusion in the lead, and blanket removing the content because you dislike the attribution pushes it more to the latter imo. Claiming what has been in the article for over two months is not the most recent stable version also seems to be a curious definition of the words most, recent, and stable. nableezy - 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Most recent stable version" means, to the best of my understanding "not disputed", rather than "not edited warred over" - and I don't think we would want a definition different from that, lest we encourage edit warring rather than talk page discussions and RfC's. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In the RFCbefore section it can be readily seen that there was some sort of consensus around an altname even if not in the precise details around it so going back to a "no altname" position was I think, a rather unreasonable thing to do and while Firefangledfeathers might have took it too far back the other way, I don't think that was disruptive and now we have nearly resolved it, I believe, somewhere in the middle as might be expected.Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoax info

Abarsanti7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest registered account of the vandal described here. Their current modus operandi is to hide hoax info amongst seemingly benign edits, in this latest attempt adding additional information about whether the cover art is North American or European, trying to hide hoax info additions like this among them. Eik Corell (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing at a rapid clip, but I don't see the connection between this user and the IPs you point to. The current user is obviously repeating the same edits as Special:contributions/2600:8805:C400:649:0:0:0:0/64, which geolocate to Connecticut, not Ireland.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to come out and say it. I've looked through a bunch of their edits and I don't see a problem with them. Even that edit above seems to be pure good faith and not deliberate disruption. I've probably looked at 50 of them, and not a single one had an issue, all appear to be reasonable and good faith. They're mainly adding captions to the images in the infoboxes, something which is perfectly allowed and supported by that particular infobox template and guidelines. The captions also appear to be correct. I don't see disruption in those edits. And I don't see any issues with the edits of that IP range either.

@Bbb23: I'm actually very concerned here about User:Eik Corell's seeming abuse of the Rollback functionality here for rolling back edits that are clearly NOT vandalism, and lack of WP:AGF. They clearly didn't check those edits before clicking the Rollback button. Can someone convince me why this blocked happened and why there isn't actually a boomerang happening here? Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Before the named account was created, they used IPs. That in and of itself is fine. However, both the IPs and the named account proceeded at the rate of a quasi-bot. And when I look back at the IP edits, I see other users besides Eik Corell reverting their edits, especially when they inserted unsourced information of the kind described by Eik Corell. It's hard to believe this individual is anything but WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I must say I'm not entirely convinced. Some of their edits could be removed as unsourced, or tagged, but the vast majority are perfectly good beneficial edits. Even back for the IPs, adding the correct captions is not a wrong thing to do, and it's something that's easy to do quickly and doesn't take much effort to define as it's clear from the image what the caption should be (European or North American, if it's cover art etc.) Quasi bot or quick editor? Dunno. And there has never been a single attempt to communicate with this editor, not even an edit summary that I can tell. There are cases where I can easily make several edits a minute in certain areas. They all appear to be good faith. I will however again iterate that I'm concerned that Eik Corell is just jumping on the Rollback button for clearly non-vandalism edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any real comment on this, but I will note that at least one of their "cancelled version" edits might have weight; Curious George appears to have a cancelled version - though I don't know how reliable Gamespy is. However, I don't think they did the necessary research; I believe they pulled the cancelled version information off fansites, such as this one for Chicken Little, where it is unsourced.

I also don't know how easy it is to reliably identify the region for the cover-art of a release, but I assume it would be done through the game rating? BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Cover art can be used to ID between North America and Europe very easy. ESRB is for US and Canada and PEGI is for Europe (including UK). Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps a talk page discussion would have been warranted, particularly now they are registered; I don't know if any of their IP's had the topic raised, but the fact that they are on a dynamic IP could have easily resulted in them missing it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First things first, the cover art is not an issue. The issue is that it's used as a cover for the vandalism; You see an IP pop up and hit dozens of articles, but when you check a few of the edits, all you see are some wiki-gnome-ish infobox edits about cover art, and you assume it's all good. Combined with the constant IP switching, it's actually an excellent method to force vandalism through as most people do not scrutinize further edits after that. About the edits and platforms being cancelled, initially I remember spending quite some time trying to figure out whether these additions were legitimate or not -- whether the user was getting this information from somewhere, googling any specific companies mentioned, and I never could find anything supporting it from any reliable source. Whereas their earlier edits consisted primarily of this kind of stuff, their newest additions, like this one mentioned above go into specifics, and I suspect this, too, is a strategy to mislead editors; namedropping a studio that does exist, could potentially have been involved because a google search shows they've done similar stuff, again you assume it's all good. But none of it lines up when you actually research it, and that's why this vandalism and the tactics they're employing are so devious; The info they're adding is so minor and looks procedural so you assume it to be legit. And again, though somewhat circumstantial, once you spend enough time scrutinizing it, you find other patterns that give them away as well: Apart from their claims being totally unsourced and dubious when researched, their claims evolve as well, starting for example with this one, evolving into this. I'm sorry if I come off as not assuming good faith, but I have spent entirely too much time trying to verify so many cases of this user's hoax info, as well as dealing with their vandalism. This user has been through so many IPs, I don't believe they've missed all the warnings and blocks they've received on their IP's and accounts. Eik Corell (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected; that Nacho Libre example in particular is very convincing. Thank you for putting in the time to look into this. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Except the Nacho Libre one is quite convincingly not the same editor. It's an editor in Ireland that Eik Corell is chasing around (that seems reasonable to chase.) The editor that is the subject of this thread is clearly someone from Connecticut, so not the same editor, and their pattern is different. There's surely more than 1 editor in the world who's ever put information about potentially cancelled versions of games. I just fear here there is a good faith editor being mentally merged with a disruptive editor and no one has ever even attempted the slightest bit of communication so they repeat their edits wondering why they aren't staying. Canterbury Tail talk 13:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We have established that this user from Connecticut is most likely not the same user from Ireland. Unless they are a frequent flyer I doubt they are moving around that much. Is it possible? Yeah, but not likely. We have to think like the average person would that has little to no knowledge of Wikipedia. That is assuming good faith. Why are they adding and repeating their edits? If I had little knowledge of Wikipedia except I was told it was free to edit and I saw something that stood out to me and made the change but I went back and it didn't show I would probably think my edit didn't save and I would try to add it again. That's why we should attempt to communicate. --ARoseWolf 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But have we really? For especially pernicious vandals, this seems to be quite normal, meaning that they have some amazing ability to completely switch not just IPs, but IP ranges, switch between IPv4 and IPv6, and accounts with ease, all of which will mostly be clean; Not proxies, not VPNs, or otherwise "marked" in databases for abuse, just bog-standard residential IPs like the ones appearing here. In the userspace report I linked, this is the case as well -- several IPs are already listed there as not geolocating to Ireland, and their behavior still matches. It feels like any attempt to isolate, differentiate, or otherwise separate and address the sources of hyper-specific vandalism like is a red-herring; Whether it's an organized campaign, a person utilizing a botnet, or another vandal adopting the vandalism of another, is ultimately futile -- Whether it's the same duck or not, the quacking is exactly the same. Eik Corell (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And that's why I feel we should treat the edits on the merits of the edits and not presume they all belong to the same people. Did we gain anything by reverting valid cover art captions? Would it have hurt anything to have left them? Even if they are the same person, those edits are not problematic and we shouldn't just be blindly reverting every edit by an editor, only the problematic ones. Canterbury Tail talk 00:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The answer to "Did we gain anything" is yes—applying WP:DENY to long-term abusers is extremely important. The remarks above by Eik Corell regarding how LTAs are able to find dozens of new squeaky-clean IPs is correct. Thanks to Eik Corell for resisting the corruption of the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorting through the edits of a long-term abuser to try and separate 'good' edits from 'bad' edits as a matter of course is a very bad idea. Doing so sucks time and energy from a good faith contributor, time and energy that could no doubt be better directed elsewhere. It multiplies the disruption that is already being caused. WP:RBI allows everyone to quickly and easily move on with their lives, which is a great gain for Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't have definitive proof these two are the same though, right? We are working off a hunch and an assumption. We are saying, on the surface, the specific edits of this one editor are not necessarily vandalism by themselves though unsourced which means the revert is not bad either but, if we tie them to the edits of this these IP's and other editors, of which we think this editor is tied to, then the vandalism is on full display. But what vandalism has this specific editor done under this named account that is clear and defined vandalism without added conjecture? That is all we should be looking at unless we can link them to a previous editor or IP that made the same exact edits or unless we have some kind of CU or off-wiki connection. I'm not seeing that in the links provided. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

They were blocked for disruptive editing which is consistent. These edits are disruptive in that they are being added without any sources as per required by policy. How can anyone evaluate the edits without sources to verify them by? My point of contention is calling this editor a vandal and linking them to these other IP's with only very vague circumstantial evidence and a hunch to back it up. Disruptive? Okay, I can see that. Part of a consistent ring of vandalism by a sock master with a bunch of puppets? Not without proof. The fact that LTA's can find clean IP's and can create new accounts doesn't mean we should, at the very beginning and without proof, assume every new editor that pops up and makes error filled edits is a sock puppet. --ARoseWolf 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot "prove" IP connections, as (putting aside VPNs etc.) doing so is against the WMF Privacy Policy. That is why we rely on behaviour, and examples of this have been provided. CMD (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The behavior provided by these examples doesn't show anything this specific editor did that would be classified as vandalism though. The nature of the edits as disruptive is not in doubt. With very few exceptions any unsourced additions could be considered disruptive. That doesn't make the editor a vandal. WP:Vandalism clearly requests that we refrain from labeling edits as vandalism or calling other editors vandals without clear evidence that the intention of said editors is to harm Wikipedia and doing so without this proof is, in itself, potentially harmful. Without the proof, not based on the behavior of other IP's we assume they are linked to, that this specific editor is, in fact, intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia the use of the words "vandalism" and "vandal" goes against that policy. All I am trying to do is bring awareness to how we can so quickly label someone with a term, such as vandal, and just offer a different perspective but one in agreement with policy. It's really not deserving of that much attention but to give us pause to think about it. I agree with the block on those grounds of disruptive editing just not the labeling as a vandal, that's all. --ARoseWolf 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly making up facts is textbook vandalism. It is "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose...without any regard to our core content policies". It's a very basic level of WP:HOAX. CMD (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Kinda late to this, as I just happen to be skimming through ANI today and never got a ping though my sock evidence page was being used. I do not believe this to be conclusively the Cancelled platforms LTA that I track, and I lean towards unrelated, though I did note them as a possibility. The Ireland LTA has actually been active recently, still editing from Ireland. Additionally, this particular user is far more active than the LTA ever is, and editing captions is not one of their normal behaviors. For the Connecticut IP, I felt the caption edits were problematic but not worth taking action on. I know that there is some section of editors that feel "obvious captions" aren't necessary and should be removed, but I personally don't care about it so mostly let it lie. The block I did apply was for the mixed in unsourced edits about cancelled platforms and other factoids, with a note of possibly being an LTA. The registered account was created during that 2 week block, so that was block evasion. In conclusion: Definitely problematic editor, valid blocks (they can appeal Indef if they choose to engage), caption rollback is just noise unless truly wrong, not the Ireland Cancelled platform LTA. -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations and probable WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU 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.

---

• NicoAlberti1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NicoAlberti1 is persistently adding machine translations of copyright Spanish-language sources to articles (see recently revdel'd edits to Carlos Pellegrini and Bernardino Rivadavia) and occasionally copying from English-language sources as well, like at Organization of American States. Two days ago, I left a talk page message about their copyright issues, but they are editing via the iOS app so I don't think they're able to see messages due to the mobile communication bug. Since then, they have continued to add machine translations into articles, like this edit to O Globo that is directly translated from the cited source using Google Translate. I am in the process of trying to clean up the copyright issues, including some from what appears to be a previous account (User:NicolasAlberti5) and some intervening IP edits, but in the meantime I believe a block of NicoAlberti1 is necessary to alert them to the existence of their talk page and the copyright issues with their edits. DanCherek (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the NicoAlberti1 account and included the url of their talk page in the block rationale. Hopefully this will get them on the right track. Thanks for the report and for undertaking cleanup.— Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR regarding JAWAD1P

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'm not sure if this is the right place to report users with chronic WP:CIR issues, but here is one of them.

• JAWAD1P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has repeatedly created useless gibberish requiring CSD action. What's the next step to take? HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed for the following reason: general lack of editing compentence (WP:CIR), edits are WP:NOT material, complete disregard for any of our editing practices, lack of communication. Sandstein 18:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

John2o2o2o

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.

---

John2o2o2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not seem to be interested in contributing to Wikipedia and does not seem to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources, neutrality, and talk pages. This user has already been reported on this noticeboard in August 2018 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990 § User who seems a case study in WP:NOTHERE) for soapboxing and personal attacks, and as a result Abecedare told them that This needs to stop else you are looking at an indefinite block from wikipedia the next time conduct of the above sort is repeated. They did not change their behavior:

• 10 November 2018: The only disinformation being spread is being done by the likes of you. This is bog-standard anti-Russian propaganda, which like Russiagate has no genuine substance. The atlantic council is a NATO funded organisation. Not providing unbiased and objective opinion. (Warned by Ymblanter.)
• 4 December 2020: If [Paul Joseph] Watson has not been convicted of an Islamophobic crime then I would suggest changing the wording to 'alleged Islamophobia' on the main page. Failure to do so surely lays wikipedia open to claims of defamation.
• 31 March 2021: 'Climate change denier' is a slur. It is not an occupation. And Ms [Naomi Seibt] does not identify in this way. Why are you so keen to damage her reputation with this? I will (again) alter the main page to remove this. ... Just because political activists in the media slur someone does not make it acceptable to repeat those slurs here. I am disgusted by the way that some people are treated in this site. / This is not the place for climate activism, whichever side of that debate you are on! (Warned about edit-warring by Slatersteven.)
• 26 May 2021: The way in which so many wikipedia pages (like this one) are hijacked by vested interests pushing their agendas is incredibly disappointing.
• 9 October 2021: Frankly the sentence is an outrage. I would remove it instantly if I didn't know already that an arrogant oaf will immediately reinstate it. Presumably Mr Musk is giving wikipedia the contempt it deserves by ignoring the smear rather than mounting legal action. He doesn't exactly need the money!
• 10 October 2021: However, many people who edit on here engage in the smearing of people that they disagree with, citing news media articles – many of which make no pretence of neutrality – in order to promote their personal views.

Kleinpecan (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Seem to push pseudoscience and conspiracy theories it seems to me. They do not seem to be a not here account, but they do seme to have POV issues.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the continued disruptive behavior of the user despite many previous warnings + violations of WP:FRINGE + borderline legal threats by implying that editors are liable to be sued w/o threatening to sue themselves [222], [223], [224], I believe the user has exhausted the rope they were given. Hence I will be blocking them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE and long-term (albeit slow) tendentious editing.

PS: Since I am only intermittently active on wikipedia at the moment, and noticed this ANI report only because I was mentioned in the original post, any admin should feel free to unblock the user without necessarily seeking my concurrence. A courtesy ping would be appreciated though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Likeinthemovies

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.

---

Likeinthemovies (talk)'s account seems to be suspicious. Possible sockpuppet of Lemon.public. Account was made days after Lemon.public's creation. Editing interests are the same with the master. 45.91.133.83 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the account was created the same day as the master. You should really have notified the user, but I've blocked them, so I suppose it doesn't matter all that much.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Concerns raised by user DavidWood11

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.

---

TrangaBellam has severe competency issue as follows.

1. threatening and harassing fellow editors and employing disrespectful comments
2. misusing rollback granted to them by removing content from wikipedia without justifying or giving edit summaries and sound arrogant and non polite
3. not providing edit summaries thus-by creating confusion among other editors
4. they have used there synthesis for editing wikipedia
5. Misuse of WP:BRD by not providing any edit summary
6. disrespecting discretionary sanctions willingly/unwillingly(subject to investigation)
7. BLP violation
8. not defending there reverts and they are suspected in an off-wiki co-ordinated attack through other editors
9. engaged in consistent edit war & disruptive editing here, here, here, here here here here.

DavidWood11 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest that you withdraw this before the boomerang strikes. @DaxServer, Tayi Arajakate, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, and Toddy1: - Pinging all editors who took part in this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Let the boomerang strike; about time, given the number of warnings they've received. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was in the process of writing my own ANI report on them so I'm glad that they did it themselves and reduced my work. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - DavidWood11 exhibits some of the behaviours mentioned in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
  • Wrongly accusing others of vandalism, e.g. [225] WP:BRD Rev vandalism to an earlier stable and sourced version to ScottishFinnishRadish
  • Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, e.g. when asked "So what is special about this FIR that merits including it?", he answered with irrelevant answers here, and when asked again here.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As for competency, look at the link in his complaint that he labeled "BLP violation". It is to an edit-warring warning on a user talk page!-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and now he has posted a warning on my talk page about my commenting on his behaviour in this ANI thread [226] -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Shake hands TrangaBellam (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I should probably mention two previous ANI reports which DavidWood11 evaded by seeking time and then waiting for them to be archived, see User:DavidWood11 – Severe competency issues and Complain against user SpacemanSpiff, note they were given a final warning for POV pushing by SpacemanSpiff which was affirmed by other admins in the report they opened. Also pinging HighInBC, who repeatedly sought a response from them but without success. They have once again returned after a couple months hiatus and are now engaging in edit warring (they are at their fifth revert at this moment) on The Wire (India) along with more or less incoherent arguments on the talk page and similar nonsensical accusations. I'd say it's just a plain lack of competency coupled with POV pushing on their part, which has by now wasted too much time for multiple other editors here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Without any comments on the dispute discussion on The Wire talk page, Tayi Arajakate's bold edit [227] contextualizing all things involved is an excellent summarization I've ever seen on that page. I see that as an end to the content dispute. David probably is the reason why we had this version, should be noted as it was, without whom we would still have the previous version. David accusing her of vandalism on this edit, as I see, is the final stretch of AGF I would ever give to David. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• DavidWood11 indeffed. Twice now, here and here the issue of this user's competency has come up. Both times they disappeared until the discussion was archived. Last time I warned them that just leaving the discussion until it is archived does not excuse them and that they are considered to be informed of these problems. This needs to be addressed before they are allowed to edit again. Any admin who thinks this user is ready to solve these issues is welcome to unblock them without further discussion from me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:CeallaighM

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

---

Hello. User:CeallaighM has started making personal attacks and "I hope you die" type comments on the talk pages of me and @Theroadislong, another AfC reviewer (we have both declined CeallaighM's draft). See diffs (same content) on my talk and on Theroadislong's talk. Quotes include <redacted>. Please consider blocking for civility violations and/or personal attacks. Thank you. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and on CeallaighM's user page, too. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Solipsism-blocked by Dragonfly6-7. The abuse was precipitated by a discussion in -en-help about the same thing he was posting to talk pages about, and he got nasty very quickly when it was clear the answer he was looking for and the answer helpers, Tol, and Theroadislong (talk · contribs) were willing to give did not match. That still leaves the question of the draft; I personally believe it falls under WP:BLP1E but that is not a discussion for this board. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Thanks; I tend to agree on the draft. It'll get deleted in six months anyway. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This version of the draft appears to be a list of phonographic shoots that she has been in; that smells like justification for a deletion, at the least, to me. Also, note that the block settings may need updating—I would assume Autoblock is called for in this case? Perryprog (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do "phonographic shoots" have anything to do with aural sex? Just wondering. EEng 23:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Ongoing incivility in Talk:Sex and gender distinction

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

---

On Talk:Sex_and_gender_distinction#Biological_sex there is significant incivility in discussion, flagrant use of yelling-type text styling, various instances of aspersions and personal attacks, and various parts which borders on a WP:NOTFORUM issue. It would be nice to have an uninvolved admin look into this behavior. (Note, this page is within the D/s GENSEX topic arena, additionally.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: one of the instructions at the top of this page says: Include diffs demonstrating the problem (bold in the original). Just linking to 100K+ talk page falls short as far as reports here go. El_C 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, can you please clarify which specific editors whose behavior you think is actionable by admins? And then notify them properly as instructed at the top of this page?

I do agree that the massive discussion is a trainwreck from beginning to end and for the past 24 hours-plus is in complete violation of WP:NOTFORUM. If any administrator, like El C, is willing to close the discussion, I welcome their doing so. Please put it and us out of its misery. You wouldn't even have to read the whole thing IMO; just say in the close to start a new discussion if there is a proposal for a specific edit and say to keep it civil, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: And if you're going to provide diffs about a specific editor(s) you must notify them of the discussion here on their talk page(s), quoting the instructional header at the top of this page: You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Spent the last two hours reading this page, making a few comments in-between elsewhere. I still haven't found the first shred of incivility but I will grant the editor that my understanding may differ from theirs. I don't see the yelling in text unless they are equating a bold text as yelling. It's a very opinionated area of medical/biological science so it can be expected that people will be passionate and some tempers may flare. It appears everyone has handled it well considering. Unless anyone has diffs to point to something specific I don't see anything actionable. Others may have a different opinion. --ARoseWolf 14:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As one of the involved editors, I'd like to clarify that my bold text comments weren't intended as yelling, I felt there was a miscommunication happening between myself and another editor, and my use of bold text was an attempt at clarifying the thrust of my argument points. I'd also like to note that CycoMa has already apologised for what I perceived was a personal attack on my talk page, and I gladly accepted and hold no ill will against them. As others have said, it is an opinionated area and that people will have differing opinions and differing passions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t really perceive much of the stuff said there are yelling. Nor do I see what I said or others said as being uncivil, if there is incivility I assume it wasn’t intentional.CycoMa (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also as one of the involved editors - I was mainly bolding because I noticed one of the other editors, was having trouble reading large amounts of text. I actually added an edit summary after I went through and bolded specific salient points 'for the hard of reading' or something. Although there were some heated moments, I found the discussion productive, resulting in some useful new content being added to the article. Tewdar (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - quick, call the police, there's a spider in the bath! 😱 Tewdar (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And KFC has run out of chicken! Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

In the UK last week, lots of people were dialling 999 because the shops ran out of petrol! Tewdar (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Uncommunicative, disruptive beauty pageant editor

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

---

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

I left this user a string of notices in June 2021 to which they never replied. They have received several warnings including a few for vandalism and more than one level 4 uw-unsourced. They don't seem to be communicating about their editing, nor improving the disruptive practices. Their latest unreferenced change is this from today. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours; hopefully it'll get their attention. All the best, Miniapolis 22:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked indefinitely after immediately returning to the earlier pattern. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruption restarted after block

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.

---

• FangLeone1916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Orig block is here by Ohnoitsjamie. An example of continued disruption is this. The block apparently has had no affect. MB 16:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC) MB 16:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for one week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:NadVolum disruptive behavior

Over at Talk:Julian Assange there is a fair bit of incivility, snipping and general snark. But this user has tired to use OR conspiracy theories about some kind of press blackout to argue for their edits. There was a discussion about this on my talk page, where they repeated the claim [[228]], and [[229]], the response to my saying this [[230]] is to post this pointy comment on the article talk page [[231]] literally daring me to report them. Its sole purpose seems to be confrontational.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes a conspiracy theory is of course subjective. It's not clear how you think this editor has disrupted WP; all your diffs are to talk pages, where OR is not prohibited. The first diff is presumably an error [?]. Cambial foliage❧ 10:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Errr I am reporting the fact they made a deliberately wp:pointy comment, not that they pedalled OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This was meant to be the first diff [[232]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pointy editing is disrupting WP to make a point. So you need to demonstrate that they disrupted Wikipedia, not that they said something you disagreed with on talk. Cambial foliage❧ 10:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the 'conspiracy theory' from the media critique source Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:- MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR.. NadVolum (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And here's the full discussion on the talk page User_talk:Slatersteven#Nudge_nudge?. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My comment re Stundin and Yahoo relate to Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_inclusion_of_Sigurdur_Thordarson_claims and Talk:Julian_Assange#Request_for_comment_on_Yahoo_report where there were discussions about the topics and the discussions were prematurely terminated by them starting RfC's with a paricular wording. You can see more about my complaint at the second RfC. NadVolum (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Some might view an article by a former member of the academic staff at Glasgow University Media Group (wiki) and published academic author as a relevant article to the talk page; others might view it as a conspiracy theory. All of which is not relevant here. Where is the disruptive editing? Otherwise this section is a waste of time, and could represent WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Cambial foliage❧ 11:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The disruption is daring me to report them then deliberately making a comment and pointing out how it (in their mind) was cause for a report. As I said they were just tying to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept that I am peddling conspiracy theories. If I did not clearly reject what you said it would looked like I accepted what you said. That you're annoyed by that is your problem. You needn't have accused me of it or 'promised' to send me to ANI for it in the first place or done 'nudge nudge' humor about me. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything worthy of action here. If mild snark on talk pages and a few elbow pokes rougher-than-ideal are sanctionable, the filer has indulged in that as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There could be some admin actions necessary, but not regarding NadVolum. The stonewalling of the Yahoo content and some bad faith canvassing at other noticeboards has become very disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about what to do about the forum notices. I have warned them they are treading on thin ice. But was unsure if it did cross over into canvasing, as they were careful how to word it. But it was clear the notices were not neutrally worded. I would also remind people to issue notices if they raise concerns here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

But I agree there are general issue of lack of civility and assumptions (or outright accusations) of bad faith from both sides, and it is making it very hard to try an steer a neutral course.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd just become aware of the canvassing issue, after looking into the background to the thread started by SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the reliable sources noticeboard. SPECIFICO has started three different threads, all with identical wording to the first sentence ("Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media."), at WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:RSN. [233]][234][235]] These are not even remotely neutrally-worded notices drawing attention to a discussion. They are blatant canvassing, and personal attacks on other contributors, as SPECIFICO should be well aware. In my opinion (as someone uninvolved in the dispute at the Assange article) sanctions would seem appropriate. As for whether any other contributor has crossed the line in that dispute, more evidence may be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing there relates to any opinion on either side of the issues under discussion on the article talk page. Canvassing is an attempt to solicit editors on one side or the other. I stated no position as to the RfC, only pointed any interested editors to the discussions at the article page. Soliciting uninvolved editors on the widely-watched site-wide noticeboards is an effective way of broadening the discussion and reaching a decisive resolution one way or the other. There are no personal attacks. Various editors have themselves stated their biases on the article talk page, and I named nobody. The statement was to indicate the importance of participation by new uninvolved editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So, if your clearly partisan description of contributors to the discussion regarding the Assange article wasn't an attempt to 'solicit editors on one side or the other', what exactly was its purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The content dispute is not a partisan dispute. The purpose, as I said above, was to emphasize the need for uninvolved editors to join the discussion, given the biases declared by various previous participants. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether the dispute is partisan. I'm asking why you posted such clearly partisan characterisations of contributors to the discussion on multiple noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't go so far as saying sanctions are warranted. @Slatersteven @SPECIFICO, the first sentence in your request on those noticeboards does seem like its steering a certain crowd you may want to see at this article. Just look at it objectively, I know you can see what is being pointed out and its not any more malicious than you making the comment in the first place, which I dont believe was malicious to begin with. I don't know if it would be agreeable or not but maybe if you struck that portion of the sentence it would be better. I think bringing awareness in asking for fresh eyes to look at the article is great. It could bring in new perspectives and that's always welcomed, regardless of their personal views. Looking at the page I see way too much incivility and personal attacks going back and forth so I didn't go far into it. I don't have an opinion about the subject but I do implore everyone to act with civility towards each other, for what that's worth. --ARoseWolf 17:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC) --17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) --18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not my requests.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry @Slatersteven. I had you on my mind when I was typing out my comment because I was reading what you had written on one of the noticeboards. I meant @SPECIFICO and never came back and changed it. My apologies to you. I struck your name and added the intended. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Re your appeal for civility, if you ever do have a proper look at Talk:Julian Assange may I suggest you try seeing if you can tick off every point at WP:STONEWALLING. Might stop you getting involved and annoyed! NadVolum (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ps yes I think your idea of striking would be a good way of indicating the message has been received. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with other's who say that SPECIFICO's notifications violate WP:CANVASSING. I don't know if there was really a need to raise the issue in 3 different noticeboards but I wouldn't generally consider that a problem beyond wasting time of participants of the board. However per our guidelines notifications or RfCs need to be neutrally worded and the first sentence at BLPN was far from that. I don't think we need sanction at this stage if it's a one time thing, but SPECIFICO needs to avoid canvassing in the future or be subjected to a topic ban on such notifications. The way to ask for uninvolved editors is to say something like "looking for more uninvolved editors" or simply say nothing since I think most people who see a noticeboard notification recognise the desire is particularly for more uninvolved editors. It's most definitely not claiming there's a problem because the talk page is full of editors who lean in one direction. Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing is an attempt to solicit editors on one side or the other. Indeed. This is exactly what Specifico chose to do in this edit at WP:RSN. Pinging two out of eight editors that had commented in the earlier discussion is not a neutral broadening of the conversation. Doing so with the bland comment who commented here previously suggests an attempt to disguise it. Cambial foliage❧ 21:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Those pinged were the two editors who commented on the substance of the issue you raised there, and not editors who just said that the thread was not appropriate. After those two groups, the remaining editors were already active on the article talk page and did not need a ping to participate there. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the selective pinging. That actually raises significant concerns, since any selection criteria beyond something like active in the past few weeks and not topic or site banned or blocked risks at a minimum unconscious bias. I'd note that User:Mikehawk10 was pinged. Their contribution to the closed RfC on RSN was

Are you asking us to evaluate whether specific content is due in the article? There are several other considerations beyond reliability here. This board is not the correct place for this RfC. I imagine that this would be best handled on the article talk page if you would like an RfC, or on the NPOV noticeboard if you’d like more unstructured discussion. RSN is a place for evaluating a particular source's reliability, not the inclusion of specific content.

While they did say "There are several other considerations beyond reliability here", but this seems a few weak comment on the "substance of the issue". Still visible on the article talk page is MikeHawk10 NAC of a discussion as no consensus which is effectively in SPECIFICO's favour since it resulted in the exclusion of content SPECIFICO opposed.

Meanwhile User:PaleoNeonate was not pinged. Their contribution was "Some of the sources like The Guardian are reliable. If the material is DUE is another matter and this should indeed normally be discussed at the article's talk page." which seems much more of a commentary on the substance of the issues and also suggests a chance of opposition to SPECIFICO's view. PaleoNeonate has no active comments on Talk:Julian Assange. I'm no way suggesting MikeHawk10 did anything other than accurately gauge the consensus or that SPECIFICO was intentionally choosing to ping editors they expected to favour them. Since PaleoNeonate's comment was an indented reply, it could have easily been missed.

But this situation is precisely why editors should not use ad-hoc selection criteria especially not without discussing with participants first. It's easy to create a perception that there was bias which is harmful to us all no matter if there was non even unconscious. The risk of unconscious bias is another reason why editors should avoid such adhoc selection criteria. Without adhoc selection criteria, there is no such risk and any mistakes like not notifying PaleoNeonate would also be easy to pick up. That said a good thing about selective pings is unlike non-neutral notifications they're easy to fix so I will do so. </>

Also even if those pinged participated on an RfC on RSN, it's unclear to me why you would ping them to a discussing which just tells them to go to the talk page. It seems better to ping them to the talk page. This is a minor issue, but as editors weren't informed of the RSN notification on the article talk page it gives the perception of a lack of transparency and as I said perceptions matter.

In other words, an all round very poor showing on the part of SPECIFICO.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth it to note that SPECIFICO was topic banned from Julian Assange for 2 weeks less than a year ago for also removing consensus text. In this case they've removed the text at least 3 times now [236], [237], [238], citing, among other things, that it is "disputed on talk." Yes, mostly by SPECIFICO. Now there's an open RFC that could probably be snow closed, as well as the already overwhelming consensus in a previous section to include this material. This type of disruption is a major time waster. Now add on the campaigning canvassing where editors are called "self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media," and I think we are well into reinstatement of the topic ban territory. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify I said ad-hoc above but it maybe wasn't the best word. What I meant was it's a criteria that whether reasonable, SPECIFICO just seems to have made up and didn't explain until now. Meaning there was no way for anyone to check their work indeed it's possible people might have even just assumed they pinged everyone. The fact it's subjective adds to these concerns given the reasons mentioned above namely perceptions of bias and possible unconscious bias. While I think it's somewhat clear here, it's easy to imagine comments where editor A feels there was no commentary on the issues and editor B feels there was. Mentioning you did this would at least allow people to check your work and decide if you criteria was reasonable and if your selections fitted your criteria. Better would be to discuss notifications first. Note this doesn't have to be a long discussion if it's uncontentious likely it'll be a case of 'hey I plan to ping editor A, B, C because they participated in discussion X but not editor D or E since they only said it was the wrong place and of course F and G are already here'. And hopefully one or more other editors will reply 'sure that seems a good idea' and with no disputes in a few days you can go ahead. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Nil Einne's assessment of the issue here. The perception is this was an attempt to bring specific editors to the the talk page and article that, in the very least, might have a favorable perception of SPECIFICO's views, more so than others. Whether that was the intent or not only SPECIFICO knows. Had they just requested more eyes on the article without injecting their view of the participants of the discussion and had they not selectively pinged specific editors, whatever the reason may be for that, then we probably wouldn't have been here discussing this or we could easily have dismissed it as not Canvassing. The word choice and selective pinging are in poor taste even if only from the perception standpoint.

@NadVolum, an aside to all of this, I believe one of the single greatest observations in statement ever found on Wikipedia is in that supplement. It reads, "The capacity of the human mind to engage in denial and rationalization can be impressive". A discussion I was involved in recently exemplifies this. An editor was against adding something new, even though it was reliably sourced, to an article because consensus was formed ten years ago on the article, in which this information was discussed but didn't have the evidential sources it does now, and they felt the added information went against that consensus. Rather than discussing it they stonewalled it and refused to allow it in the article. No matter how much I tried to point them to the fact that consensus can change and when we are presented with new evidence and additional sources, even if it has been discussed before, it can change consensus, they were incapable of seeing it going so far as to say I was driving away long-term editors because of my position. I'm not saying consensus needs to change every minute, we do need stability, but it can change and there is a process by which it is allowed to. But when we are so tied to a specific version of an article, especially one we have heavily edited, it can become difficult, even painful, to see it altered. I sympathize with them even if I disagree with them and I do believe they believe they are acting in good faith and I deal with them from that standpoint. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too! :-) I believe in working with probabilities but really the best I can do is to just try and cope with my biases and hope it's good enough. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I note that even after this discussion here, SPECIFICO is attempting to defend the post made at WP:BLPN, asserting that the talk page discussion is "not pro- or con- Assange".[239] If SPECIFICO really believed that to be the case, it would, in my opinion, have made made the description of the discussion at Talk:Julian Assange as "frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media" entirely pointless, if not downright irrational. If it isn't a pro-anti Assange thing, why does it matter who is a fan of what? This was clearly canvassing, in a particularly objectionable form, intended to attract contributors with specific opinions on the topic, and SPECIFICO's refusal to acknowledge the error suggests to me that maybe another, longer, topic ban might be appropriate. Along with a reminder that neither being a 'fan' or 'opponent' of something is in of itself of relevance during discussions between contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, should I make a formal proposal and see where that goes? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and vandalism by User:Daimler92

This user has been engaged in POV-pushing behaviour across a number of articles, particularly on the Kalergi Plan, where they have engaged in persistent edit-warring and abusive behaviour to other editors despite warnings over the allegation that a passage of Coudenhove-Kalergi's work was misconstrued (i.e., first instance, not edit war, but they keep on going ...). In addition to this, the editor has also been vandalising the page, undoing said vandalism but still trying to push their edits at the same time. (They claim this was an accident done while on mobile, yet the disruptive edit literally has "Vandalizing" as the edit summary... Makes someone's job easier, I guess?).

I also believe they have engaged in IP editing to try and force their wording into the article; this edit from 88.109.112.42 also has the same issue with the term "misconstrued" as the IP, and has only made edits on the Kalergi Plan article one day after Daimler's edits were reverted. Daimler also reverted a revert of the IP editor soon afterwards.

For what it's worth, this claim was uncited and I think should have been removed or clarified; the main text notes white nationalists quoting Coudenhove-Kalergi's writings out of context but does not specifically tie it to the quote contested by this editor. But this is stuff to be brought up on the talk page – this editor has behaved in an abusive and manipulative manner and is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, as their edits on all articles seem to follow a pattern of far-right, anti-Semitic POV-pushing.

Pinging @ජපස:, @Hob Gadling:, @XOR'easter:, @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Binksternet:, who have been involved in disputes with the editor. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: You failed to notify the user as required.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Apologies, I have never filed an ANI report before. I hope I've notified them adequately now. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have jousted with Daimler92 but they are not vandalizing Wikipedia. (The "vandalizing" edit summary could be short for "reversion of vandalizing", or it could be a slip of the finger on a dropdown menu showing boilerplate choices of pre-loaded edit summaries.) Daimler92's addition to SPLC was a good one, and the dispute at Kalergi Plan is minor—no secondary source is supporting the analysis. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the editor was edit-warring on the article, even after repeated warnings. This should have been taken to talk. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And the language about misconstrual that they removed from the lede was supported by the sources in the main text. XOR'easter (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You and the OP are focusing on the removal of "misconstrued" but the edit can also be interpreted as about removing the (indeed false) claim that the idea of a Kalergi Plan is derived from that one section in the book, rather than the book as a whole. It's possible to simply say it is based on the book and formulate separately the reason(s) it is wrong. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are things that should be handled on the article Talk page, not here. The problem that should be handled here is that the user did not handle those things by discussing them on the article Talk page but by edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The OP offered a diagnosis of "far right antisemitic POV pushing" in part based on their interpretation of this edit, so it's also relevant here. Another point in Daimler92's favor is that the sources only assert that Kalergi's book is being misconstrued without offering an explanation of the supposed error (and they avoid talking about the "Jewish master race" comments, though I think those are ultimately innocuous). Basically there are no good sources that adequately explain or refute the theory and that is fuel for edit wars. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Daimler92 was edit-warring, regardless of how valid the contributions are (I will not venture to make an opinion on that). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Daimler92's first edit (I did not check if the later ones are the same) is correct, but reliably sourcing it is likely impossible. The Kalergi Plan theory does not stem from only the one quoted passage in the book. There are, for example, other passages in which he calls Jews a "master race" and speculates on their leadership role in the future. However, the only sources for this are either non RS sites that push the theory, or WP:OR and SYNTH from PRIMARY sources (Kalergi's book). Likewise, there are RS calling the "Kalergi Plan" a conspiracy theory but none that explain details of why it's wrong. So the more basic problem is that there is not enough material for a separate article rather than a section of Kalergi's bio article. In the current arrangement where it is a separate article, it is possible Daimler92 is pushing for edits he is convinced are correct as a matter of fact (they are). Which conflicts with various Wikipedia rules, whether or not he is aware of that. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a version of the book archived here by the internet archive. I would suggest finding page numbers for the quote(s) here. Sadly I am not able to speak German. Thankfully ca:Projecte Kalergi has the page numbers, so someone could go find and verify the quote. I think the Catalan article has a better coverage of his philosophy as a whole, as just a cursory look through archive.org shows he published many books that are available on the internet, rather than a passage from just one book. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've located the original of the quotation, and have added it and a more precise citation to Kalergi Plan. (The Catalan article cites three pages; it's from one of those, off by one.) The English translation of that passage is good. I have no intention of reading the whole book to see if it's representative. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

...bar one poorly-translated word. It had been nagging at me, and I've footnoted it. Narky Blert (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

They are edit warring and POV pushing, but I am not sure it is vandalism per see.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

However this [[240]] is an indication they can't cooperate. Their battleground mentality is causing friction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User making non constructive edits and making reverts

Editor BubbaJoe123456 has enforced the users opinion on how the lead section of the Eritrea country article should be written. The issue is related to user making these edits here: [241],[242],[243] referring to a status quo which does not exist. Prior to that location was set to Eastern Africa per template guidline. After lengthy discussion on how the lead should be written, several users involved, consensus was reached to set the location of the country to both Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa. I provided the Wikipedia country article guidelines WP:WPC, WP: WPCTEMPLATE as a good example of how the lead (location included) could be written, besides also providing examples of how similar locations (regions & subregions) are presented here on Wikipedia in the talk page [244]. In the discussion, I proceeded with asking if anyone objected to any of those examples. No one openly objected and the edit is not controversial in itself since it follows Wikipedia guidelines and several other similar good examples. This got reverted by BubbaJoe123456 [245] and later by user Rastakwere with no rational explanation [246]. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be resolved at Talk:Eritrea. Looking at the article's revision history, it appears that you've been trying to make the wording a certain way for awhile, and have been reverted by multiple editors (not just BubbaJoe123456 and Rastakwere) so this looks like a slow-moving edit war. Maybe open an RFC on the wording since the lengthy discussion doesn't seem to be reaching a clear consensus on its own. Not an ANI matter, IMO. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Leechjoel9 has a history of very focused editing (I'm choosing my words carefully) in topics related to Eritrea, as discussions at Talk:Eritrea and Talk:Demographics of Eritrea will clearly demonstrate; two RfCs have been required to deal with what shouldn't have been particularly controversial topics. In this case, he changed the lede of the Eritrea article last year (after it had been stable for 10 years) to place Eritrea in Eastern Africa, rather than the Horn of Africa. Given this editor's history, I can only assume there's some underlying political context in which Eritrea doesn't want to be classified as part of the Horn of Africa. Recently, several editors attempted to move the geographic location back to Horn of Africa, but were reverted by Leechjoel9. I started a talk page discussion on the topic (Talk:Eritrea#Horn of Africa), where there clearly wasn't support for Leechjoel9's original attempt to eliminate a reference to Horn of Africa. Alessandro57 proposed a compromise solution, including both Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, and that seemed to be acceptable to the other participants in the discussion, including (Chipmunkdavis and Rastakwere, so I implemented it. Leechjoel9 continued to push for his own version, and eventually attempted to implement it. I reverted, as I don't believe his edit reflects the consensus he believes it does. Leechjoel9 reverted me, and was himself reverted. He then started this thread. A boomerang TBAN is in order, I believe. Pinging Boud and Johnuniq as well, given history. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• I should also point out that Leechjoel9 was previously warned (before they blanked their talk page) that their behavior in relation to the Eritrea lede constituted edit warring. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article itself was tagged saying it needed an update since it had ten year old content on it, over a year ago. Updating the location was a part of that, and it was updated following the guidelines per above. Nothing more, nothing less. The proposed example was to add both Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa. Regarding the other issues related to the topic of Eritrea or Horn of Africa, it has been you and Boud that tried to half the size of the population of the Eritrea with 3 Million inhabitants with one single source as a reference, this is controversial to say the least. Especially when there exist at least several sources by CIA, African Development Bank, COMSEA and Eritrean government saying otherwise, sources that are independent of each other. This is against WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW undue weight giving support to a minority view. Other users also objected to your proposals saying it was politically motivated on your behalf, at the same time you along Boud was heavily involved editing another article under DS Tigray War in relation Eritrea, especially the latter of you two. This lead to lengthy discussion in the talk page of Eritrea and the Demographics of Eritrea (possibly archived now), where Boud and you tried to get a topic ban against users who simply disagreed with you by warning other users about the discretionary sanction or randomly starting ANI and other type of incidents because of this. Luckily these issues was resorted to discussions in the end although lengthy ones, many times not benefiting involved parties or admins. Please stick to the topic, nobody is blanking anything, archiving is a common procedure and exist for a reason and they are searchable. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Without rehashing the entire Eritrea population RfC, I'll just point out that your description of the available sources doesn't match the situation. As for your talk page, archiving is certainly common. Archiving the entire page, for the first time, right after you filed this report, and including in the archiving content (such as your edit warring warning regarding the Eritrea lede) that's less than a week old, is...somewhat less common. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You assert that "Other users also objected to your proposals saying it was politically motivated on your behalf". The only other users to attack the proposals to incorporate a range of estimates for Eritrea's population in the Demographics of Eritrea article were Clownshking, who has since been topic banned from the Horn of Africa and then blocked, and Facttell, who was blocked as a Clownshking sock. Finally, I will note that your assertion that I was "heavily involved" in editing the Tigray War article is flatly untrue. I have never edited that article.[247]BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• BubbaJoe123456's phrase two RfCs have been required to deal with what shouldn't have been particularly controversial topics is an accurate (though understated) summary. A huge amount of time was needed to converge on editing issues that should have taken only a few days once it was clear what demographical research (sources, methods, open-access results, organisational authorship) was known to us. Leechjoel9 has repeatedly made inaccurate, misleading and/or sometimes outright false Eritrea-editing-related statements, including many of those above, which makes rational discussion difficult and convergence on editorial decisions extremely time-consuming and frustrating. WP:IDONTHEAR and WP:NOTHERE seem relevant. My impression is that there are enough active editors at Eritrea and Talk:Eritrea such that a block on Leechjoel9 is not needed, although the article editing history does suggest that the other editors are losing patience. Boud (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• A new RfC has been opened now. RfCs are a tool for searching for wider input when it is hard to find consensus. They should not be a way for an editor who is against consensus to string things out. CMD (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Clemper behaviour on Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

The page at Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is an obviously controversial article. It was originally split off from Immunity passport, but met with some issues. Cleanup has ensued. I believe Clemper is engaged in POV pushing on the article, to focus on criticism of Vaccine Passports in general, and within the lede, where there should be a succinct summary of said criticism, and more information in the body of the article. They have mentioned I am owning the article, which I have no intention or desire to do, which is why I tagged recent editors of the article in talk to generate discussion, but was careful not to WP:CANVASS. My attempts to communicate with Clemper were deleted from their talk page here: [248], [249], [250] and here [251]. I would like to take a step back and let other editors have a voice in the article because right now it just seems one sided. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This does not look good.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of sources being added currently are flimsy at best and I worry about the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The ownership claim was based on a week-long pattern of reverting other editors' material while inserting his own in several dozen edits. There's no POV here; it's simply providing a balanced treatment. The topic is very controversial and the controversy should be explained (it was explained in two sentences, which Caffein was trying to remove). Caffein wants multiple paragraphs explaining the rationale for vaccine passports, yet wants to reduce the notable rationale against them (including by the Biden administration and 20 US states) to a short sentence simply stating that 'critics have raised scientific and legal issues,' which is way too vague/broad. The entire conflict at hand is about a single paragraph (two sentences really) in the lede, the last paragraph. The talk discussion is less than one day old, yet Caffein is resorting to admin intervention already. If you think one or more of the 6-7 sources are flimsy, address them individually in talk. The reason I removed the talk page vandalism was because Caffein began to pepper my page with them every 2-3 minutes, calling my first edits (which simply restored content that he/she removed) 'disruptive' because he/she didn't like them.Clemper (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, whether you like its findings or not, the study is widely cited by critics of vaccine passports; a widely circulated conversation on the study by Sanjay Gupta and Fauci, which has been covered by many large outlets, helped the issue break through. I'll assume that you're right that the study is not peer-reviewed it can't be mentioned.Clemper (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Not really, If you add material to an article and it gets reverted, you should not start edit-warring but start discussion at the talk page (what you did) and wait until it gets concluded. We have an essay about this, WP:BRD. It is up to you to prove that your sources are appropriate, if this is being questioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If you have not read WP:MEDRS, you should do it before you continue editing in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize the situation; the sentence on the Israeli study was added by me today. You removed it, I let your edit stand. That's not warring. And no, the content in question was already in the article and sourced in the body, and summarized in the lede without repeating the citations. Caffein was trying to remove it without consensus, hence the talk discussion started yesterday.Clemper (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you understand what my role is. I am an independent administrator who is looking at the situation. I removed material as inappropriate, if you reverted me I would likely applied a block. So far I decided not to block you, but given you have less than 100 edits here and already created a lot of trouble in a troublesome area, it is likely that you will be blocked soon if you do not change your attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When I interact with an editor I don't assume them to be an admin and don't check unless they make themselves known. That you call edits 'trouble' (esp when it concerned restoring existing content that was amply sourced later in the body) is strange to me; what about Caffein's non-consensus removals? The program is controversial and the article should reflect that truth, that's all this is about. Have over 100 edits.Clemper (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When you add material and get reverted, in most cases this is not a "non-consensus removal", see WP:BRD. I understand that you have a strong opinion about the program, but I am sorry to say nobody cares about our opinions, we follow reliable sources and a lot of other policies, and so far you have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of these policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you removed one edit that was problematic, and I didn't contest it or undo it. I think it's likely the study will become peer reviewed and no one has yet disputed its methodologies in spite of the large amount of press exposure it has received; but apparently it isn't peer-reviewed yet. That was the only misunderstanding of policies. You miss the fact that the material Caffein was reverting was already there before he began his recent editing streak. He removed it, I didn't add the material after the fact as you suggest. And I agree that my opinion doesn't matter; there are massive protests against it, and the Biden administration and 20 US states, among other polities/politicians, have publicly taken a stand against it including by banning it. That's notable and should be included. Caffein's argument about sources was invalid from the beginning, since the sources were already in the body of the article and the existing content in the lede was summarizing that content. I'll avoid less-reliable medical sources in the future and will use talk page to mediate conflicts, but need Caffein et al to abide by the same. Clemper (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Just for a bit of terminological things, we tend to use notability to refer to topics broadly, and due and undue weight to describe whether or not particular material ought to be included in the article. In general, we establish what's due and undue based upon how much weight they are given in reliable sources. This information might be due if you can provide reliable sources (such as mainstream regional, national, or international newspapers) that cover these sorts of events, though the popular press is considered to be generally unreliable for biomedical information. For sources that have been commonly discussed, the perennial sources list might be a good thing to consult. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to update this situation - this user has now engaged in nearly 100 edits on this page in the last 24 hours and is disrupting any editorial flow from myself and other editors. [252] CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I came across this dispute last night, but only got time now to review the page's history. It does admittedly appear like Clemper has an ownership issue regarding this article, despite how they characterized the situation here and on the article's talk page. I'm seeing clashing with almost every edit made by others - and quite the hostile approach with this initial edit. BOTTO _(T•C) 04:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've just fixed their errors, as well - they wrote that England and Wales have cancelled vaccine plans (sourced to a reference that only mentioned England) desite the fact that edit was inserted after Wales voted for a vaccine passport plan. There's a lot of dubious POV going on there - I'd suggest a partial block from the article only, so that they can still participate on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The sheer number of edits is large, though the editor is also rather new and I'd like to ask them two questions. @Clemper:

1. Do you intend to follow the principles of the bold, revert, and discuss cycle in good faith when making future edits, in order to reach consensus with other editors?
2. Do you promise to read WP:MEDRS and insert biomedical content only that is sourced to medically reliable sources?

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10: Yes, I promise on both counts. What you're missing here though is that Caffein changed the existing version (minimized it to an extreme extent IMO) without any talk consensus, and my edits were putting the original version back. My recent streak is just preserving the prior version that he and he alone continues reverting in favor of his own version which he put in over several dozen edits (the other edits made since haven't been contested). Caffein is the violator of BRD, not me. I am responding to his violations of BRD. He made mischaracterizations in this ANI and made it look like the opposite (while warning me repeatedly not to 'disruptively' undo his non-consensus edits). As for the number of edits, it's 90% a result of my editing style (a habit I should break), 10% from significant edits. Sometimes I'll edit multiple times in a minute rather than pre-write the entire edit. I should use the sandbox feature more.

Black Kite: The BBC sources suggested that only Scotland and not England and Wales had gone ahead with implementation of the program. If you have a source that says Wales is continuing on with it, that's fine.

Botto: the degree of hostility came from the fact that Caffein took it upon himself to remove all the details around criticism as 'misinformation,' as if he is the arbiter of truth and there can't be two opinions on the same issue. Whether or not one thinks it's misinformation, there are educated and reputable critics of vaccine passports, and major world powers have taken a stand against them by canceling or preemptively banning the program. That's notable here. The size of the paragraph and placement in the lede are appropriate. Caffein's new version which I have been reverting prior to him gaining consensus essentially read that 'Critics of vaccine passports have raised scientific and legal issues(.)' with no details given, which is ridiculously vague/broad.

To whomever the moderator/admin is: the number of edits on the page are largely due to minor adjustments to the same edits. Virtually all the edits in question in terms of the conflict with Caffein deal with two sentences in one paragraph (the last paragraph of the lede). Caffein continues removing relevant details from the paragraph including the reasons why certain jurisdictions have canceled their programs. There are three issues here: 1) the gain in conciseness is negligible or negative, and the writing is often awkward IMO (e.g. 'however extremely rare') 2) he is removing established content without consensus 3) he is de-contextualizing the events in a paragraph that is supposed to be about criticism and controversy, not just about the raw action of canceling (which in Ireland, for example, was from high vaccination rates). Clemper (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked the user from editing Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic. Persistent addition of the same material to the lede, without achieving consensus at the talk page, and calling this attempts to find a compromise, shows that the user is not capable of constructively editing this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are seeing. A compromise is exactly what it was. The existing version had somewhat stronger language. Caffein went way too far by trying to shave it down to a single sentence, this was only a couple days ago. After the back and forth, we are left with the current version. No consensus was achieved by Caffein. You haven't yet responded on this point - are you aware of this fact, that Caffein's edits were all new? According to your decision, I can just take over any article as Caffein attempted to do, and then say anyone who tries to put it back doesn't have consensus and file ANIs against them. Clemper (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point of time, your edits have been removed by half a dozen users in good standing as inappropriate. May be a sitewide block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Clemper, I wouldn't have implemented this block, but I have a lot of respect for Ymblanter and I think they are well within their rights here. It certainly did feel like you had sort of declared your preferred version as "consensus" and were fairly hostile to changes. I have tried to engage with you in good faith and will continue to do so, but I just think throwing elbows right now is not a helpful strategy. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think given their promise to abide by WP:BRD and to follow the guidance of WP:MEDRS that we should probably not block them at this point (while WP:ROPE is about unblocking, I think a similar logic would apply here since the editor does admit faults in their editing habits that the editor says they desire to break). I am not an admin, so my opinion holds a bit less weight in this regard, but I think that a site-wide block would not be a narrowly tailored preventative measure at this point. I certainly wouldn’t !vote to CBAN the user yet. The editor isn’t a VOA and they aren’t engaging in flagrant personal attacks all over the place. If, however, the editor goes into full personal attack mode or starts ignoring BRD or starts engaging in POV pushing on other pages, then I would see a clear preventative justification for a site-wide block. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree, it the user stops disruption and reflects on their behavior, we are probably done and would not need any further measures.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Clemper, I only barely looked at the details but just some simple words of advice. While BRD is a thing, there comes a point where you need to stop being bold or reverting and concentrate on the discussion. This generally includes when your edits make some changes to what you attempted before but your changes which keep getting rejected. It also often includes the situation where someone else made an edit which could be considered a bold edit which you disagree with and so have reverted but where multiple others keep reverting you. While edit warring is discouraged even if it involves multiple editors, it gets complicated when there are multiple editors, in particular if it's a one against many situation, no matter if the edits are new, the editor who keeps trying to remove or change the new edit despite being rejected is likely to be seen as the problem. This doesn't mean the text is unchangeable, as I said focus on the discussion aspect. If you believe you can make changes which will get consensus then propose them on the talk page and see if you're right. I'd emphasise here that your partial block still allows you to do this. Although I'd also say that sometimes consensus may be against any compromise feeling the original text is the best. Just because you disagree doesn't mean others will feel the same. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:Nuraini1011958

User Nuraini1011958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not provide any edit summary for any edit published including [253], [254], [255] and [256]. The user is uncommunicative; I have tried to engage in the Talk page Talk:Sepak takraw#August 2021 but the editor did not reply to the discussion. Instead, the editor decided to write on my page “Blocked” [257]. Please help me resolve this issue MrCattttt (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been taken care of it, removed the False block and I let the User:Nuraini1011958 know that that was inappropriate to use a block template since Nuraini1011958 is not a admin, It also seems that that was a false block as well because an admin would note it in a block log anyway. Chip3004 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not only because of the false block. The user is uncommunicative and reverting referenced content without any edit summary even though I have ping the user for a discussion. The editor did not make any contribution on the page but only interested on this one specific line in the page [258], [259], [260] and [261]. MrCattttt (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• All his edits are using the mobile interface, so this is an exact fit for WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. This editor likely hasn't received most of your attempts to communicate with him, although the block attempt does suggest he's vaguely aware of you. That block thing looks very odd to a Wikipedian, but it might make sense for someone more familiar with social media? Maybe this editor expects to be able to put other editors on ignore when they annoy him? Anyway, considering he's not receiving talk page messages it's no wonder he's uncommunicative.—S Marshall T/C 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Although IP users using the mobile web interface don't receive notifications, registered users using the mobile web interface do receive notifications, according to the chart at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (and from my experience occasionally using the mobile web interface). (In contrast, registered users using the iOS app apparently don't receive any notifications at all.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Kolya77

I have an editor here who refuses to engage with other users on article talk pages. They haven't made an edit to an article talk page since 2016 and seem to have a habit of making null edits to articles in order to conduct conversations that really should be happening on the talk page. There is also an element of WP:OWN when it comes to various articles related to the Moldova national football team. – PeeJay 14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Bi-on-ic - bad faith & SPA accusations against others

Bi-on-ic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The main issue/content dispute is on Dancing with the Stars (American season 30), but as will be clear below this, it seems that the main 'issue' is beyond that specific article. I believe it started here with an addition of a controversy section. There's a lot of things that occured, and I believe the history of the article should do the telling regarding that, but multiple times several IPs and users have removed the section, eventually beginning a discussion regarding the section, but every single removal of the section, even after the talk page discussion was started, was reverted/section readded by Bi-on-ic.

After being declined on page protection, the user has repeatedly accused all other users/IPs who removed the section of being sockpuppets/single-purpose. I attempted to tell them to discuss the issue/section on the talk page ([262] [263] [264]), but I myself was accused of bad faith and harassment, while the user continued to repeat the same claims of SPA/sockpuppetry without discussing the content/section itself.

After I was accused, I decided to check further... and the user's talk page explains a lot more, seemingly showing a deeper issue.

Not sure if I've found every instance of it, but there are at least four previous discussions on the user's talk page where they accused others of SPA and being bad faith:

• December 2018
  • "you have no right to call all my WP contribution into question and warn me. Who are you? One of WP's bureaucrat? An administrator? No. You are just a simple user who has been on only since September 2017 and essentially a WP:SPA whose edits are virtually all Ariana Grande-related."
  • "This does not strike me as someone here to help this altruistic free encyclopedia but only to add WP:PUFFERY to her fan objects."
• December 2018
  • "As I told you before you are not an administrator or bureaucrat. You have no right to go around and threaten other users with blocking. You are an WP:SPA who thinks this is your personal blog not an encyclopedia. You are not the determiner & decision maker here If you don't stop with your unconstructive edits and never-ending irrational H:RV and WP:EW with others every time you don't get your own way I will report you to administrators for your disruptive attitude since you're trying to WP:AOBF me now."
• April 2019
  • "Clearly, you're a confused user."
  • "As I told you before you are not an administrator or bureaucrat. You have no right to go around and threaten other users with blocking. You are an WP:SPA who thinks this is your personal blog, not an encyclopedia. You are not the determiner & decision maker here. Apparently, You have some sort of obsession and complex that you keep trying to go after me and put irrelevant warnings on my page. If you don't stop with your unconstructive edits and never-ending irrational H:RV and WP:EW with others every time you don't get your own way I will report you to administrators for your disruptive attitude since you're trying to WP:AOBF me now."
• September 2019
  • "You're threating me but you better know if there's someone here that should be reported to an admin that'd be you for your WP:AOBF, Bye."

And now from the current DWTS issue:

• [265]
  • "There has been already a consensus over the content." (user did not even discuss on the respective talk page until later on)
  • "It's the IPs who continuously and intentionally remove the information. First it was Unknown artist a vandal user, then their WP:SOCKs and now different IPs who may or may not be related to the blocked user, are purposely disrupting the article." (blindly accusing others of being sockpuppets, etc.)
• [266]
  • "here are no 'users who are making improvements' here. Only a WP:SPA whose edits are virtually all DWTS-related. This does not strike me as someone here to help this altruistic free encyclopedia but only to add biased perspective and original research to their fan objects."
• [267]
  • Repeating same previous claims of disruptiveness/sockpuppets
• [268]
  • Accusations against me, as previously said above
  • "This is WP:Harassment. You're trying to win the argument by resorting to WP:BLUD. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You sound like a newbie throwing whatever against the wall to see if it sticks."
  • "Your false accusation toward me claiming that the purpose of my edit is basically just to 'have my own way' is a WP:AOBF and ad hominem."

Given all of the above, it seems to be clear that the user usually resorts to claims of SPA, disruptiveness, and/or bad-faith of others' when and issue/talk page warning is raised to them. I don't know what can/should be done regarding this, but this cycle of accusations from the user to others is not constructive whatsoever and needs to stop. Magitroopa (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Also just seeing this now after posting this... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Violation of WP:CIV, WP:CYBER and WP:PA by Flyer22 Frozen in order to WP:WIN. (from August 2020) should also be given a look at. Magitroopa (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why are you relitigating the history of my contributions? What's the point of this investigation?! You wrote a whole essay here. You cherry-picked my comments on my own talk page and took them out of context for what? What's the intent here? This is bizarre! You've searched, tracked, and looked up all of my contributions just to find something to use against me. What exactly compelled you to target me?

Clearly, this is a personal attack. You're contradicting yourself because WP:AOBF is what you are doing right now by bringing up irrelevant comments and listing them here just to paint me out to be a bad Wikipedian. This is an obvious example of ad hominem and fallacy. Bionic (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that this discussion/thread is just a personal attack against you, I think that itself explains this whole thing. Magitroopa (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

So do you mean it's totally normal that you are investigating and relitigating the entire history of my contributions? Does that happen every day? Do you do this to any other users as well? Take the time to track their every single move to find a flaw? Bionic (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If anything at all, I'm trying to help you improve as an editor through this thread, not trying to 'attack' you in any possible way. I bring up those past threads/edits from your talk page not to attack you, but to show that the current situation is not a one-and-done occurrence, as similar instances of this same behavior has previously occurred.

I apologize if this somehow views to you as a personal attack, but listing some of your previous contributions is not 'attacking' you in anyway. As seen in your above response, you are even viewing this whole thread as 'bad faith', which in itself, illustrates the exact issue that is going on here. Magitroopa (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of late the following Wikipedian Redvince1 performed some intriguing contributions to the article, Modalistic Monarchianism. Reviewing their contributions which appeared to have been in good faith, it seemed to have been written like a novel. Embedded within the contents of their contributions as well have been found wording which can be equated as violating the neutral point of view; this was made evident with them employing the term, "complain." Having examined the article again, the information they have written was restored, yet they seem to have suggested that we are the same contributor. Their edit summary states the following: "Altered the word complain in Catholic reference to "suggest" to preserve NPOV. Maintained most of the other logic and scriptural content added earlier as it seems relevant to topic with key Bible verses. Perhaps we can discuss on article talk page if there are further issues. What are suggestions for eliminating "novel" style but preserving Modalist sources?" If any administrator would be willing, it should be evident IP and even behavior-wise, that we are not the same contributor; I altered the word to "suggest", not them. As for the "logic", isn't that denoting WP:advocacy? May someone more experienced assist me with understanding that translation. I feel as if I am currently being trolled. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I am fully willing to discuss and reach an unbiased healthy solution to making this article have a more broad perspective that includes both Arianism, Trinitarian, and Modalist perspectives on Christology. - Redvince1 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Then why the deliberate grammatical tone and confusion of me as you? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

How specifically have I confused your perspective as mine? I believe we both have some disagreement on the content of this particular article. I am hoping that we can come to a good article that every involved editor in the theology work group feels happy with. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Redvince1, part of your edit summary, "Altered the word complain in Catholic reference to "suggest" to preserve NPOV", made it seem like you were the one to make that change in the article. Could you please tell us directly if you intended to claim credit for that specific wording change? If not, can you commit to being careful in future edit summaries not to suggest that you were responsible for edits made by other users? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I am going to take your apology as it is on the talk page for that article, as you did not seem to be comprehending still. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and while you desire for neutrality, that i a history section, the article not a place to write your perspective on doctrine... - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to commit to give credit for improvements to any article where credit is due. I am grateful for TheLionHasSeen offering constructive criticism to improve the neutrality of this article. That user did recommend that we change the wording. I believe that I was the first add the word "suggest" in the actual article, but I may be mistaken. The discrepancy on who actually did it can be shown by reviewing the edit history for Modalism. Thanks -Redvince1 (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You were not the first to add "suggest", and a review of the edit history makes that clear. When TheLionHasSeen said, in their edit summary, "please do not write this information in a novel manner, nor use terminology such as "complain", as it comes off as anti-NPOV" they actually made that change, though it seems you thought it was just a suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You did so by stating that you altered the word "complain" in reference to the Catholic person to "suggest," when you did no such thing. I did that contribution. Not only that, but I wrote contribution, not my perspective. There is without a doubt disagreement, as you wrote the article with the intent of solely advocating for the ideology and using statements such as "logically incomplete" without any verifiable citations alongside other tones which showed aggression against the mainstream Christians. Nevertheless, theology work group? What is this, a concerted Wikipedia effort? There is no such thing as a theology work group on Wikipedia. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is all coming off pretty WP:BITEy to me. Redvince1's edit summary seems like imperfect communication, but they are just partially reverting and explaining which parts of your reversion they are keeping. "Theology workgroup" is a clear reference to Wikiproject:Theology. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is coming off as such, yet not without good faith. They seem to continue DEFLECTING the greater issue at hand. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I could have been wrongly deemed the leader of a WP:imposter account with that summary they have given. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:V4g1n4

This username is inappropriate for Wikimedia because it is an impersonation of an inappropriate word. Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to raise this either at WP:UAA, if this falls under WP:DISRUPTNAME, and if it doesn't at WP:RFCN, as I don't believe it falls "urgent issues" criteria that would make this the correct place. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but please forget about it because the account was created in December 2008 and has never edited. It's not worth doing anything about it now. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It's never edited any Wikimedia project. I'd actually be interested to hear how the OP came across it. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: You oughta take a look at the OP's edits, including deleted ones, since they started here on August 25. Their second edit, to their userpage, said "I was nervous to join Wikipedia. My parents didn't let me join Wikipedia, but now they did." Their third edit here was to Double penetration dildo. I think the parents have a real problem, which is now our problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Their deleted user contributions are also interesting. I'm starting to form some ideas about how they discovered that username. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I suppose prurience is natural in the young.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

And also in some of the old... :-) Levivich 17:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it was very brave of you to ask for help on this point which, to be honest, most guys would be embarrassed to admit they need help on. Here are some tips you may find useful: [269]. EEng 07:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In retrospect, I can see that I might have phrased that better... Girth Summit _(blether) 07:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I amor vincit omnia'd. El_C 10:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt, the editor-in-question is a minor. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Regards a user misbehaving

I am trying to edit Dance Plus but user delete the edits and send abusive messages and threats to on my talk page. I warned him his account will be ban if don't stop but he said he has multiples accounts and he will create new one if wikipedia blocked me. He is breaking all the rules, terms and conditions of wikipedia.

For the full conversation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vikassharmasafidon?markasread=229815454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Dance_Plus_season_6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikassharmasafidon (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

a) someone want to move this to ANI? b) A basic pox on both of your houses for how this conversation started - each side trying to one-up the other by claiming greater knowledge. But while Vikassharmasafidon now seems to be trying to reach a compromise, BadBeast.OFF appears to have flipped into full Disney villain mode, complete with "I am eenveencible!" speeches. To me that looks like at least a partial block from the article for incapacity to collaborate.

ADD: also see WP:POINTy bullshit by BadBeast.OFF below. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, BadBeast.OFF has made comments like "Hey asshole" and "you little piece of shit" (civility violations) and has said "My IP has blocked many times. This is my 7th Wiki ID." — potential block evasion? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User talk:Vikassharmasafidon § Dance Plus season 6 Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried every single possibility to edit the page in good manner but he always delete my edits without any reason and abuse to my talk page. I haven't said any single abusive word to him and also he give threats to me and aslo wikipedia. This kind of abusive and threatened person should be ban but he also say he has multiple accounts and if wikipedia block him he will create new account with the help of hacker.

If any admin want to read full talk of him and me just read it on my talk page. Link is below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vikassharmasafidon?markasread=229815454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Dance_Plus_season_6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikassharmasafidon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Regards a user Edit war and misbehaving

I am trying to edit Dance Plus and Dance Deewane but user delete the edits and send abusive messages and threats to on my talk page. I warned him his account will be ban if don't stop but he said he has multiples accounts and he will create new one if wikipedia blocked me. He is breaking all the rules, terms and conditions of wikipedia.

For the full conversation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vikassharmasafidon?markasread=229815454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Dance_Plus_season_6— Preceding unsigned comment added by BadBeast.OFF

• As stated by my colleague Elmidae, this is an incident so please can someone, perhaps op move this to the more appropriate venue that handles incidents ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• And all done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked BadBeast.OFF for multiple reasons explained on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing content from pages

Hi, I would like to report the activities of 213.249.184.124 (contribs) (talk) who keeps removing content from pages, including sourced information, with no justification. User also has several warnings in their talk page to stop such behaviour, but still continues to do it. Arabela13 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Arabela13, firstly, you have to notify the editor in question about this ANI thread per the notice at the top of this page. I have done that for you. I declined your WP:AIV report due to the fact one edit in October does not warrant an immediate block. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Monarer & Somali clans

Monarer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account focused on Somali clan lineages. Almost all of their edits have consisted of removing, adding, or changing information without providing any source (e.g., [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275]). I have tried to warn them on their talk page [276], but even after two 'final warnings' they continued with the same behavior [277] [278]. This may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, though some of their later edit summaries do seem to respond to the warnings about sourcing by mentioning (inadequate) sources ([279] [280] [281]; these may also be in response to my own revert edit summaries, which also warn about the need to provide sources). Still, there is a clear WP:IDHT element in making sweeping changes to a genealogical table of which they have been specifically warned that it cannot be modified without providing a new source [282]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Monarer does know how to use a talk page [283]. Moreover, I explicitly invited them to reply to my message at their talk page [284], but they have not done so. At this point, it seems that they're just unwilling to communicate. Could an admin please issue a block to get their attention? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Continual disruption by a user who refuses to heed warnings or obey policies

1. Pramod Bhagat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Sukant9993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sukant9993's whole presence on the Pramod Bhagat page[285] lately has been to repeatedly revert to his preferred version even in the face of the multiple warnings, and that without any regard to the consensus that had been forged through the discussion on the talk page ([286]). It has now come to light that he has been brazenly flouting the precepts and directives of WP:COI all along. ([287]) But much worse has been his double-talk on this: he has acknowledged his real life association with the subject,[288] yet has refused to own up to his flagrant violations,[289], which now appear to be just the tip of the iceberg (in light of this, and his creation of this). Sukant9993 has openly refused to cease his editing on the aforesaid page or heed the warnings, while continuing to engage in edit-warring and COI editing on the page. Sukant9993 has shown that he is WP:NOTHERE, that he is editing with a my way or the highway attitude. Kerberous (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Kerberous. The reported user has done reversions more than 6-7 times of two different users. Not at all intrested in following Talk page discussion and continuing the disruption. zoglophie 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Pofka

The user does not engage in a substantive discussion but accuses me of the lowest motives. He calls me a chauvinist and a person who does not respect other nations, although none of my actions justifies such treatment. The user also constantly threatens to report me and block my account. Moreover, he does not respond to my requests to stop hurling insults at me. Please at least admonish this user.Marcelus (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC) As per request of TheresNoTime I am talking about: Talk:Romualdas Giedraitis

(edit conflict × 1) Courtesy link to where this is all happening - having a read through now, so far not so good... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 21:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Defending statement by Pofka

This dispute is related with recently created quality article Romualdas Giedraitis. The thing is that Romualdas Giedraitis name is written in the Lithuanian language because he is Lithuanian. However, user Marcelus attacked this article and for no reason attempted to rename Romualdas Giedraitis name into Polish language variant (Marcelus' edit). The article clearly states that Romualdas Giedraitis was Lithuanian, so why his name should be written in Polish? That's a clear chauvinism and violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, Marcelus aggressively attempted to defend his nationalistic POV in this discussion as well: Talk:Romualdas Giedraitis. The Lithuanians are not Poles, thus we request for respect. Knowing such topics as the Polish–Lithuanian War and Żeligowski's Mutiny (when the Poles annexed Lithuanian capital Vilnius), I believe that according to WP:NPOV the Lithuanians names should be written in Lithuanian language and Poles - in Polish language because the Lithuanians did not appeared out of nowhere in the 20th century and we had created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Romualdas Giedraitis was a Grand Duchy of Lithuania general). I suggest to observe carefully if Marcelus will continue nationalistic editing in Lithuanian topics and if he does - apply sanctions for violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE. -- Pofka (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A big bloody sigh all around. I swear the majority of our disputes could be summed up as "slightly bias editor meets slightly rude editor".

@Pofka: You are able to call someone out on being bias without being rude. You can do better, please don't do it again.

@Marcelus: Take a step back. I agree that Pofka was rude, but I hope they will reflect on their behaviour. You do need to provide reliable sources which support your claim.

@Cukrakalnis: I echo GizzyCatBella's advice.

Right, that aside, either go take a moment to cool off or discuss what the sources say. You don't need us to wade into a content dispute. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably some of my words were too harsh, but it is really disruptive when somebody begins narrating that Lithuanian is not Lithuanian, and aggressively demands for Polish superiority over Lithuanians. -- Pofka (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I already quoted multiple sources, it's not a role of Wikipedia to change a historical figures name. The problem is that other users keep ignoring them under varius excuses. As I said I don't request and assist in a content dispute, I am reporting user who is harassing me, although I did nothing that would justify such behaviour Marcelus (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Marcelus' statement of it's not a role of Wikipedia to change a historical figures name directly contradicts Marcelus' actions, considering most of the sources in the article used the name Giedraitis instead of another one, and Marcelus was the one to rename the article in this diff to a name not mentioned in most of the source's articles.

As for Marcelus' claim that User:Pofka does not engage in a substantive discussion, that is verifiably false, because Pofka does raise good points here, here and here. It is very unfortunate that Marcelus caused unnecessary conflict in what was supposed to be a neutral military-themed article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Informal proposal

• Gosh. This went to ArbCom (at a point where it did not rise to such a level), but it is already part of the Eastern Europe DS area; and obviously the issues aren't going to fix themselves without community intervention. Topic bans (of fixed or indefinite length, to see if the disruption stops, for some or all of the involved) could be a starting point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe best to just handle it via WP:ARE/DS IMO. Marcelus was possibly not aware of the ds regime in this area until now User talk:Marcelus#Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions (DS) alert. Both Pofka and Cukrakalnis are already aware per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive292#Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič. So if problems continue, someone can take it to ARE. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

85.160.42.155, edit warring and personal attack

Up to my third revert at Walter M602, my edit summaries are clear enough. Personal attack in the edit summary of this revision. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP is edit warring and adding unsourced content, but after you had reverted them a couple of times for this, they attempted to add a source (not neatly, be it said, but they were obviously doing their best). They are in fact entitled to use a source in another language, though sources in English are, naturally, preferred on the English Wikipedia. The IP's English prose is not good, but it's not hard to understand, AFAICS. Perhaps you would like to copyedit it, Nimbus227? As for the putative personal attack, calling somebody "Mr. Smartguy" is not friendly but it's pretty harmless. Nobody is going to sanction anybody for it. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

AfD interference and allegations.

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs)
• Multi7001 (talk · contribs)
• Spinningspark (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Multi7001 did significance interference with the discussion etiquette at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges which Spinningspark handled excellently avoiding an otherwise probable DRV by myself (to avoid precedent setting of the process) by null and voiding it with no objection to an immediate renominate. The 2nd nomination had procedural errors, corrected 2.5 hours after nomination but with content above by !vote changed and allegations raissed. The reversion reasons on the edit summaries on Multi7001's talk page are eyebrow raising. The edit summaary allegation (that closer Spinningspark) waspossible accomplice of spam user (Djm-leighpark) [290]. While there is a risk I have SEALIONed Multi7001 there is considerable lack of COMPETENCY in following procedures for someone who has put themselves forward for NPP and took advice to launch in AfD.Old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer & Old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer I expect to see voiding of Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) but have no objection to a properly raised 3rd nomination. Multi7001 seems to have difficulty in accepting advice and may need warning to future conduct. If people feel I am a sock of Spinningspark feel fee to raise at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djm-leighpark; which the allegations made in the above AfD's may have have encouraged someone to raise. At the end of raising this I observe Ponyo has just warned Multi7001 on their talk page which hopefully is sufficient. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• The nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) includes a number of personal attacks that at least one admin has suggested Multi7001 strike (which he has not done). The AFD itself was not transcluded properly and I fixed it during a wander through the logs (admin Metropolitan90 fixed it further). To be honest, I didn't really read the statement, as I was just cleaning the formatting. But there is no way a statement like that will result in a collegial discussion about the notability of the subject or the nature of the article itself. As loathe as I might be to suggest the procedural closure of a second AFD in mere days, I think that's what needs to happen. And Multi7001 should probably be discouraged (or prevented) from nominating it (or anything else) until they can do so properly and without the personal attacks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• After a couple of days without resolution, I'm going to tag those admins and editors who - at DRV - agreed (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) that problematic AFDs were best brought here to ANI for resolution, rather to DRV. Spinningspark, Jclemens, and Alalch Emis. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with everything. The ongoing AfD will not lead to anything worthy, and it has caused and will keep causing people to waste their time. So it's disruptive. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall recommending bringing this AFD to ANI. In a totally different DRV case I did suggest that problematic AFDs should not be taken to DRV while they were still ongoing and that ANI could be used to seek help if the AFD needed closing urgently. But that is not the action of first resort I suggeted. The first thing to do is to call for speedy close or procedural close from within the AFD. SpinningSpark 12:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not for this AFD, but your suggestion that problematic AFDs be dealt with by ANI rather than DRV seemed to have support. There have been suggestions it be closed, or that part of the nomination be struck, but neither has happened. This seemed like a good example of the sort of AFD you were talking about (that shouldn't go to DRV). It would be good to see that process in action for this one, that's all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd of hoped someone would have picked up Spinningspark's suggestion so I've done that myself but I really not an ideal person to do that .... but there is an issue of causing people to waste their time which is significant reason to get his done. I observe Multi7001 has chosen to make !votes/comments to AfD disucssions rather that striking personal attacks against me or striking the call for others " I recommend looking into the past activity of the user to potentially issue a block or removal of pending changes reviewer rights." (the user here being Djm-leighpark) see current revision of User page talk:Multi7001 I called for pending reviewer rights to if I make a request for pending changes protection on a page I've got the ability to allow an anon IP's genuine edit contribution accepted: I got a very rough ride over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#Akhtar Raza Khan and image and if someone wishes to analyze my use of pending reviewer rights there, which was not perfect, the're very welcome to bring it here rather that indirect comments on their talk page calling the hounds on. (Curiosity got me to look at the AfD's and I've improved the subject of one of them as UK energy related and a sort of hot UK topic currently; the other was a charitable organisation to which I added a !vote - that's a risk of a HOUND but I didn't wan't the risk of a pile on of delete !votes on what seemed at least at glance a genuine good faith article). But to state the obvious I'm not impressed with Multi7001's response. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I was sure I called for a close on the AfD about 12h+ aago (in fact nearer 20hr ago), but on checking it looks like I forgot to hit the publish key. I've only now just done it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination). Self WP:TROUTing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I observe Pax85, who has made useful good faith contributions to the debate and has perhaps made good faith attempts to bring the peace, though perhaps not ventured into the cloud of unknowing where this is or might be going, had called for the 2nd AfD to stand. (But has aslo requested I do not comment further on the AfD ... which is not great, though I have recused, re-entered ... etc. So I absolutely confirm I will not contribute any more to the 2nd nom. AfD from this point. Admin Metropolitan90, who has also clerked the AfD; has also called for it to stay; albeit not realising the continuity of this for myself, Pax85 & Multi since about 13/14th September at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc (I had missigned comment; had a raised eyebrow at the speedy & began fettling the article at that point to get a feel). But in the end I predict a quicker, cleaner and more peaceful end to the discussion train will come if the tainted 2nd nomination is closed and a fresh start made in the spirit of reconciliation. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved and experienced person, I've redacted the grossly offending material and suggested somebody with the tools finish the clean-up. And the user has been given a very final warning. If this happens again, reporting to AIV with a perma-link to this thread should be the fastest solution to the problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I just voted (for lack of a better word) in the AFD-in-question. So please, don't shut it down. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark requesting self-block: @RandomCanadian: Given that's the way you wish to play that AfD farce which I have been requested I not to comment on I am not becoming inclined to take WP psychotic actions and therefore requesting you or some other admim block me (& Djm-mobile ^ bigdelboy) on english Wikipedia for 2 weeks to avoid me making uncharitable personal attacks which I now feel is inevitably welling up within me an would likely result in a likely indef block. I understand it is reasonable to make this request. While I use WikiBreak enforcer I will not use it for this purpose. Given my previous block history is is reasonable for me to make this request. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't suggested any action against you. I've warned the person who made the personal attack against you. Hope this is clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  To make it clearer: No actions suggested against DJM; Multi given final warning; AfD should go on ahead in the hope of a positive result. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That block request is for my own fucking mental health, and on that basis is reasonable as I will likely take increasingly disurptive actions until a block occurs. I am entitled to ask for a block under those circumstances. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be easier just to retire, be it officially (adding template) or unofficially (walking away). -- GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not it my fucking nature. I don't do easy. I do do fucking hard sourcing. And if I fucking walk away I' fucking likely turn fucking round and and make a personal attack. Goodday. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Just simply do it. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Fucking not simply doing it. Oink. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have voices fucking my choice one way, and voices fucking my choice another, and my fucking brain is trying to fucking work out if people are HOUNDing after me to the Metaswitch AfD to make vaguewave !delete votes? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I've spent the day requesting a to be blocked: and per discussion#Unpleasantness_at_an_AfD Old revision of User talk:El C#Unpleasantness at an AfD RandomCanadian has interfered unwisely with the turd of an AfD: so an uncivil personal attack outburst is required to get the block I've been asking for if people can't respect immutable discussions: RandomCanadian you are a fucking I don't know what and despite what you may be fucking appearing to be acting if good faith are no doubt smiling you ought to be oinking and smiling like a sealion about what's happened. GoodDay} likely the same. As for the oinking of my lack of charity Pax85 ... thats to be meditated about. IP editors, Sock Masters, and vandals rule OK it seems! Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Djm for two weeks. I don't know the history, and I haven't read through all the links here, but anyone threatening to cause disruption needs not to be able to do that. I hope they are satisfied with this outcome. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GAROSENTAIJINOHGERRV7's good faith edits

I first encountered this user at Miss Earth 2021 with this edit[291] that he provides without sources to cite his edits. I tried to adress this in his talk page, however it seemed to be usless as he kept on doing the same unsourced content as seen here [292] and even did the same at Miss Universe 2021 with this recent edit here [293].

This person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and rather spread misinformation, and with that I think this editor should be blocked from editing. Milesq (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, however just hours after the block the user has once again added unsourced content to [Miss Earth 2021] and now at [Miss Supranational 2022]. The block seemed to be useless in making them contribute useful edits. Milesq (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding biographical content with dubious sources

72.49.184.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(Referred to from WP:AIV) I haven't rigorously checked all of the IP's edits but it seems that the user has been adding content using sources that are unreliable, including Find a Grave and Law Enforcement Today, the latter being listed as a fake news website. Their edits to Kristen Clarke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in particular don't seem neutral and I don't know what the best way is to handle this. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts by User:Fdom5997

Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has long history of making edits without edit summary and has been warned about that by me and many others all the way up to level four (for disruptive editing). Many of their edits are innocent cosmetic edits or content build-up with reliable sources, so this may not be a really big issue here. But more often than not (and indeed very often), they revert good-faith contributions by other editors without any explanation, e.g. here[294][295] as a few recent examples. None of these edits were vandalism, and in the case of the edit in Lydian language in fact a tiny but nice improvement. From their non-reactions about earlier reminders/warnings (notable exception here[296]) I can only gather that @Fdom5997 doesn't really care. –Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

MisterKaybear

New account used mainly for tag bombing. Possible sock. Carl Francis (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I put "citation needed" tags on articles that needs references. Information should be supported by reliable sources and references and if it doesn't have one, then it needs a tag to inform users that sources/references are badly needed for the information presented mostly when it is under a section (not lead). This is according to Wikipedia rules and we should follow it. MisterKaybear (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Carl Francis: It's not very helpful to accuse another editor of being a sock without saying who the master is and presenting at least some evidence to support the accusation. Many would consider it a personal attack. Nonetheless, I've done my own investigation of the newish account, and blocked them as a sock of Lemon.public.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Congregation Tifereth Israel (Glen Cove, New York)

For the last 6 months or so there has been a persist ongoing attempt to hijack this article to turn it into a massive corporate sponsored page for this synagogue and its people (the current, adamantly pro-advertisement version and likely a copyvio version as well having been left up intentionally so you can see what I'm talking about here), one which has one more than one occasion needed revision deleting and one that I'm growing increasingly aggravated with since the version shown violates literally every tenant of what Wikipedia is not. After dealing with this on my own, which has included one block, one SPI report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CTIGlenCove), and soon to be the 4th revision deletion I'm asking for the community's help with this, either a long term semi-protection or pending change protection, or perhaps some kind of rangeblock for the offending isp address group. At this point, I think its the only way we're going to be able to halt this. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why leave that visible? You are an admin so you could have revision deleted so only other admins could see it. I've done that, semiprotected and someone has sent it to AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, @TomStar81 and CambridgeBayWeather:, I frankly see no reason for the article to exist. The information this house of worship is trying to include here is already available on their own website and WP:NOT applies. It's simply a local congregation that happens to be relatively old in a wealthy location. Everything I find is strictly local coverage of normal events. Even the overly-detailed history is full of normal events, e.g., they moved buildings, they built a school, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Its simple, really: If I do it I have an axe to grind, if someone else does it then its a neutral action by an uninvolved party, which puts it above reproach. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing copyvio (or a BLP) isn't a problem. Especially if you bring it up with someone else. Removing it and putting it back isn't a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Likely COI edits at Turning Point UK

The article Turning Point UK (a right-wing lobby group), which has a history of COI edits by single-purpose accounts, has become the subject of several IP's attempts to include an opinion piece from an essentially unknown individual as a basis for content. Given the sudden appearance of several IPs in the space of one day it's likely this is being coordinated off-wiki. I'd like to request a minimum level of protection for the page. Cambial foliage❧ 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Another editor has suggested that one IP may be a sock of the other. Glancing at geo suggests it's more likely coordinated meatpuppetry, but perhaps a cu can give a better idea. Cambial foliage❧ 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You should, really have asked if there is a COI, before making this report. Not does it seem they are both SPA's, as they have plenty of edits outside the topic area (a bit oddly sporadic). But there are still issues around possible socking (which might explain the sporadic editing) as well as edit warring. One IP is, however and SPA (assuming it's not a sock).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note they have just blown through 4RR [[297]], clear IDNHT.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Also whilst this ANI was being launched I launched an edit war report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:192.94.31.2_reported_by_User:Slatersteven_(Result:_) One needs to be clsoed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

And now past 5RR [[298]], this needs to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I have requested semi-protection for the page. Admins may wish to take action against some or more of the IPs. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

At this stage both IP's do now seem to be wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

For ease of reference of patrolling admin (six reverts from one IP):

1. [299]
2. [300]
3. [301]
4. [302]
5. [303]
6. [304]

(three reverts from another IP):

1. [305]
2. [306]
3. [307]

Cambial foliage❧ 15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I note that El_C has semi-protected the page; if the disruption continues, I would be willing to EC-protect as necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, it's also on ANI, because of course it is. El_C 16:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what happened is two users having different ideas as to the issue. FOr me it was the blatant edit warring. So I took it there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Likely undisclosed paid editor

Norsknotables (talk · contribs) created Access Power Limited in June, and it was draftified [308]. Then in September they recreated the live article outside of the draft submission process. They appear to be creating other articles related to this company, including Reda El Chaar, and generally a lot of power industry related articles about dams and solar farms. The username makes me suspect undisclosed paid editing. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmn, it seems APL might be a notable subject on its own. Reda El Chaar on the other hand seems less likely to survive as an independent article due to the poor quality of the sources. I do agree that the username gives rise for concern that this is UPE. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Question: If an article is draftified, then later the original editor newly recreates it in livespace (bypassing the draft process) is that considered ok? I had thought it wasn't. For one thing, the histories are now unconnected. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not. Not entirely sure why the other editor removed the speedy tbh - you could poke them on their talk page and ask them to clarify, and to put the speedy tag back?BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinged Norsknotables for possible UPE on Reda El Chaar. Miniapolis 22:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, asking for some action here. Norsknotables originally created Access_Power_Limited in June, and it was draftified. Rather than following the draft process and improving it enough to be moved into mainspace, they incorrectly bypassed the process by recreating it in livespace. This doesn't sound ok to me. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

CIR editor; lack of communication

• 919499sp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

None of their edits are tagged as being from mobile devices, so likely not a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, so likely that they are ignoring or are not able to comprehend the issues about their editing, which beyond the lack of formatting notably include a stunning lack of basic writing skills (spelling/grammar/even just coherence). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly ELL/using automated "blind idiot" translations? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a liability and a time sink. Persistently adding misplaced external links instead of references, despite numerous warnings. No response to messages on user talk page, so a CIR block seems the only option. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this report was raised, 919499sp has made just one edit - this, which if anything is worse than usual: the last portion isn't even a valid URL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The URL works for me if I copy and paste it into my browser. The date is wrong, though. The death occurred on March 5, not 6. That doesn't mean the user shouldn't be blocked, just saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, doesn't look like they're responding to or even acknowledging concerns. "CIR" can stand for "communication is required", too, and obviously that is also missing here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Still (today) adding misplaced external links instead of references, despite all the warnings. Still no sign of attempting to learn or to communicate, so CIR block still seems the only option. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

... and still doing it today. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I left them a message by replacing the stuff already on their talk because I think some people find it hard to see new messages. I will partially block them from that article if it continues. If necessary, remind me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not just one article. He has made similarly incompetent edits to many of the lists in Category:Lists of railway accidents and incidents. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Yep, you'll have figured, they haven't stopped, and they don't seem either able or willing to comprehend the issues with their edits; and there is no indication they're editing on mobile, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Update Well, they at least seem able to edit their own talk page, so I'll call that progress, at least for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

They have good skill in finding train crashes which might come in handy here. The command of English is not as impressive but the last edit used a ref which seems good. I will keep looking for a while and am open to pings but given the latest edits I would say that if there are any further problems, they need to be politely explained without templates on user talk. That's good for them and makes an indefinite block more justifiable if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Agree, although I think that list might have a scope issue (and hints of WP:BIAS) - do we really need to include every minor incident: at which point does WP:INDISCRIMINATE come into play? Though I think that might require a discussion at the relevant Wikiproject. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ain't nothing more frustrating, then an editor who will not communicate. Save yourselves the inevitable & block the IP editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: They have communicated (not much, one edit on their talk page, but at least it shows signs they might be able to understand, eventually). It doesn't change the fact that their English is poor, and that they might also be having difficulties understanding concerns about their editing properly because of this, but because the edits are limited to only a few pages, then it isn't as dramatic as somebody who has not enough of a clue about English going all over the place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're correct. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What IP? 919499sp is a registered editor. –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Woovee and Bauhaus band

• Woovee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bauhaus (band)

Woovee recently experienced a conclusive RfC against their vision for the Bauhaus band article. The vote at Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins was unanimous against Woovee, showing strong consensus to include a quote by Kevin Haskins. Woovee continues to undermine the results of the RfC.

Lynchenberg started the RfC on 7 September, placing the RfC in the media category.[309] Since then, Woovee has repeatedly attempted to undermine the RfC, first by removing the explanatory note giving the quote in question, making it more difficult for interested parties to contribute, then by repeatedly edit-warring to remove the note.[310][311][312] After the RfC had gained three votes against Woovee's one, Woovee extended the time period to delay the inevitable result. When this was undone, Woovee edit-warred to restore the time extension.[313][314][315] I requested a neutral, uninvolved closure of the RfC at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins, but Woovee followed me there and argued against me. By this time, the vote had strengthened to four "yes" against Woovee's single "no". Another "yes" vote came in on 7 October,[316] after which Woovee restored the older time stamp to close down the RfC, writing in the edit summary, "this is not useful anymore, the quote is now included". However, Woovee was still undermining the quote, removing the context of the source quote,[317] then going further and removing the explicit context of Kevin Haskins saying that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves.[318] Woovee is proving to be intractable in this dispute—the sole editor against the quote. The rest of us are trying to convey an idea that Woovee is dead-set against.

I was requested by Woovee to stay off of their talk page,[319] so if someone else can convey the ANI notice I would appreciate it. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Notification posted to their talk page [320]. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: the RfC is closed. The conflict can be over if we let it be. I think we can just warn Woovee for WP:BLUDGEON, maybe WP:BATTLEGROUND, and let's all move on. starship.paint (exalt) 01:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't get what all of this means. When I edited the article yesterday [321],

I refered to Lynchenberg (the Rfc originator)'s last diff of 21:05, 9 September [322] on Bauhaus (band) article who agreed to pull out the name of "the Cure" for Peter Murphy quote (see the column of the left) while changing the rest of the text to this, "Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock"" (see the column of the right) also pulling out the name of Siouxsie and the Banshees. Woovee (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Request Topic block for IP Range

I previously had reported IP Ranges 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 for disruptive editing where they will change the size of non free logos or delete/change history dates of clubs. The ban appears to be over and you can see edits under range [323] and [324] have all been reverted again since. Can they be banned from football related articles please. That's all they appear to be editing — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 05:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Aggressive tone, repeated sarcasm and incivility by User:ItsKesha

It started with this opening salvo and has just got worse and worse. Some more: [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333]. The sarcastic tone and personal attacks make any progress on the content disputes impossible. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Max. You have made zero attempt at dealing with any purported incivility, and you have made no attempt at discussing this with me on my talk page. The only interaction we have had is for you to suggest the phone book as an example of a Wikipedia article?! If you'd like to discuss this on my talk page, I'd be more than happy mate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Having waded through the whole shebang, it seems to me you are trying to catch flies with vinegar. Try honey. It usually works better. Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive paid editor, possible sockpuppetry on Public Investment Fund by User:Riyadhcafe87

This is my first ANI request so I will apologize in advance if I make any mistakes in formatting. I did not know exactly what noticeboard category this would fall under nor what possible action to request so I have created this section here.

I was first made aware of the article on the Public Investment Fund (to be referred to as PIF) by Riyadhcafe87 yesterday after being notified for an RfC (full discussion here). Riyadhcafe87 is a paid editor who works for the PIF, as disclosed on their user page. The RfC concerned removal of claims in the lead of the PIF's obscurity and lack of knowledge about the fund's investments (see diff for state of lead at start of discussion). Riyadhcafe87 had made 2 requests on the talk page before hand: an edit request that was declined by Quetstar and a WP:3O (here) to remove a recent addition to the lead to include the same claims as those in the RfC that notified me. The edit request was declined due to not being written from a NPOV as a COI editor, while Pyrrho the Skeptic remarked that an RfC should be started to fully discuss the matter of the 3O. Thus, the aforementioned RfC.

RFC itself

The RfC claimed that criticism of the PIF as obscure was "not a prominent enough line of commentary for PIF". However, myself and other editors (Snooganssnoogans, Quetstar, Huldra) believed it was prominent enough, while other editors (Pyrrho) had more issues with the old date of the source than the claim itself. The proposal was to remove it from the lead, but note that similar criticism had been removed from the body by an IP address here.

I believe Riyadhcafe87 discussed in multiple ways that were disruptive:

• Moving the goalposts

He kept asking for more and more sources on the PIF being non-transparent, even after they were provided. I provided many sources diff, which he then rebutted as either not relevant, asking for a source when none is needed (non-membership of an organization where the members are listed on its website), or not truly addressing the criticism I had brought up "this is another point" "this looks like the same article" (diff). Note: One of my sources was a deadlink, which I have fixed today.

Instances of him continuing to ask for sources after I had listed them, even after the RfC was closed: diff, diff, diff.

Him never responding to a very long reply I made outlining my perspective on the topic: diff of my edit

• WP:Wikilawyering

I hope I am not using this term incorrectly, if I am please educate me on what term to use best as I do not want to fall into name-calling. He kept using WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE as an argument for removing criticism of the PIF due to "undue weight", and while some were correct uses (just calling for more sources), after some time they became incorrect. These were either explicit or implicit:

• diff
• diff

Used WP:CIVIL while ignoring calls to let it go:

• Use of civil diff
• Ignoring calls to let it go and accusing Quetstar of trying to cause a firediff

• Failed to properly disclose WP:PAID until after months of editing and start of RfC

here

• Fallacious argumentation

See my previously linked edit calling them out diff as well as another one I made diff.

Similar conduct in other sections of the talk page

• Moving the goalposts/Wikilawyering diff

• WP:Bludgeoning

I preferred to call this out when referring to the whole talk page rather than within the RfC as it is then when it is most clear. Some of these actions could be understood as impatience but overall almost feel like harassment as they frequently do not let 24 hours pass before re-pinging an editor (forcing a response):

• Quetstar

18 August diff

• Snooganssnoogans

I will preface this by saying that Snooganssnoogans' conduct also was not great, but he edited in good faith and has a history going over many years of editing in controversial articles against paid editors/vandals, examples: Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies, sockpuppetry, list in their user page, and just a cursory look at their contributions reveals a massive ammount of undid revisions to PR edits. I'm sure they can add notable examples if they feel so inclined, but I think that is unnecessary.

WP:Bludgeoning: diff, diff (the reason I think this is bludgeoning is that a {{no ping}} mention would have been enough).

Possible sockpuppeting

I'm not entirely sure of this one, but thought I'd mention it so more experienced editors can judge for themselves. There have been 2 IP edits on the page which might be connected to Riyadhcafe87:

• IP1: diff, made from an IP which on a quick search appeared as in the same street as multiple Saudi holding companies, which could possibly have connections to either the PIF, the Saudi Government, or Riyadhcafe87.
• IP2: diff, made from a mobile IP 20 minutes from the Saudi London Embassy, and multiple Saudi government offices in London. Most likely to be Riyadhcafe87, due to their proficient level of English and disclosed connection to the PIF.

Conclusion

I don't really know what exactly would be the correct action for dealing with Riyadhcafe87, but I strongly believe that the page should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism/PR edits from IP users in the future. Same goes for connected articles Future Investment Initiative Institute, Mohammed bin Salman, and Yasir Al-Rumayyan, which are frequent targets of IP edits, paid editors connected to Saudi ministries or the PIF, and controversial articles. Please do respond on what your thoughts on the matter are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

@A. C. Santacruz: If you suspect sockpuppetry, gather your evidence and create a case page at WP:SPI; the people there have the tools needed to look under the hood and can link accounts to isp address and such. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Just thought I'd include the ip edits here as well if a semi-protection is considered. Much appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update, SPI report filed in appropriate channel. However, rest of my incident report here is still needing discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I did a preliminary sweep and found two suspect accounts. AS for the others mentioned, Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) has been blocked once and is apparently rough around the edges, but I see nothing in the contribution history to suggest anything other than a hard contributing wikipedian. Huldra (talk · contribs) has been blocked a few times for editos on or relating to the middle eat, but not this region, and the diversity of edits and timeline cast major doubt that this is a sock account or an SPA account. As with Snooganssnoogans, I see only a hard working wikipedia contributor. It may simply be a case of too few participants and perhaps a a few ugly words, so maybe whats need most is a reminder that everyone should Assume Good Faith, Keep Calm & Carry On. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was no sockpuppetry suspected of these users. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at everybody mentioned here just to be safe. I've been the point man for an LTA case and its been a doozy, so it's gotten to be second nature for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair, thanks for your due diligence :D. Hope I didn't sound too passive-aggressive. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This user has really tested my patience. If I was an admin, I would have blocked him forever. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note additional WP:BLUDGEONING since nominating. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, My primary interest is in Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, my secondary interest is in the Gulf States (ie GCC-states). Now there is a big difference between my primary and secondary interests, and that is the huge amount of paid professional punters involved with the GCC-countries. Make no mistake: the GCC rulers pay millions $$$ each year to (mostly Western) "Reputation managers"/"advertising companies"/"PR firms" etc, in order to "manage their reputation" online. I see them all over (see eg Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Paid_editing?); they often work "in concert"; some very clever/experienced working togeter with one or more "foot soldiers". I'm not a very good "sock-hunter", but be aware; articles like Public Investment Fund would be prime area for these paid punters, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for productive things to do on this encyclopedia, I would suggest helping to clean up pages related to rich corrupt authoritarian countries and looking closely at prolific editors in those areas who never ever add any negative content to those pages (despite the prevalence of negative RS coverage) while adding trivia and poorly sourced puffery. Pages related to the Gulf dictatorships are rife with these weird editing patterns. These editors get upset whenever content is added about the human rights situation in these countries, the wealth of the rulers, or the nature of the authoritarian regimes. I've raised it multiple times at the COI noticeboard, as well as highlighted problems on the RS noticeboard with the kinds of sources that these suspicious editors use[334][335]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

These are examples from earlier today of the kind of behavior that I'm talking about.[336][337] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not particpating in the above discussion, I have just noticed my edits being cited here. When multiple users raise concerns about additions of controversial statements and open discussions such as this or this or this or this or this etc ... on BLP articles, I think its important to reflect back on such concerns raised instead of blindly accusing others of malice to everyone who doesn't conform to the same views. Gorebath (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans please keep the discussion relevant to the conduct of Riyadhcafe87. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

More problems at Future Investment Initiative Institute. These accounts appear to be COI: SophiaVanderMerwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 95.218.213.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 95.218.203.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Surfer7315 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 159.196.171.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy recreated deleted BLP Stuart Scheller

BLP was nominated for deletion as BLP1E; AFD concluded with consensus to merge. User:FloridaArmy has repeatedly recreated the page. Can someone handle the user or protect the page or whatever you think best? Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have redirected to target as concluded at AfD, then fully protected the page for one week. It appears that the merged material doesn't appear in either expected merge location (other target is Fall of Kabul (2021)). Happy to adjust the protection if needed. I'd like to see FloridaArmy engage on this subject and like to know if the AFD's merge outcome will occur. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

For info, they do have a restriction listed at WP:EDRC with regards to article creation, per this ANI post in 2018. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• First of all I don't believe the complaining editor contact me prior to posting here and I haven't seen any discussion they initiated and I don't see that they've participated in any regarding this post AfD dispute. Other editors are also involved and one noted that new content and sources hvae made the previous AfD passé. I agree with them. I restored what was there in order to add new material and sources that did no exist during the AfD. The page should be unprotected so people can work on it. He and the case continue to be very much in the news. A dozen or so U.S. members of congress have involved themselves and media coverage is extensive and ongoing, as I noted much of it for issues and events since the AfD. This is a mahor figure with many followers and a lot of imprortant issues involved. Let's not censor it or ignore what's going on. As noted above there was never any merge. Not would amerge be appropriate at this point. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • They did in fact notify you [338]. --Masem (t) 22:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Masem: Your comment is not responsive to what FloridaArmy wrote, maybe reread? (It's about actions not taken before coming to ANI.) --JBL (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The two week-old AfD close found no support for keeping, concluding BLP1E and merge target but nobody showed any interest in merging it. Any editor is welcome to perform the merge if they like. The detail is still available in page history. If a new page is needed I don't see any reason why User:FloridaArmy couldn't approach this via AFC draft as they usually do. I chose NOT to block them even though the recreation, IMHO, violated their editing restriction. Recreating this at the redirect for the third time should trigger some action against FloridaArmy. WP:Requests for page protection/Decrease is thataway. I see no reason to relax protection based on the claims FloridaArmy has made here. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • TL;DR version: FloridaArmy's complaint above is the typical "opposing editor didn't discuss" ignoring the fact FloridaArmy didn't discuss either. And since Feoffer had an AFD outcome which is only 16 days old at this point, significantly less whan FloridaArmy's actions are considered, Feoffer clearly has the weight of our policies and guidelines behind them whatever they could have done better in discussion. FloridaArmy needs to either challenge the AFD in some acceptable way, which does not include just ignoring it, or stop recreating; and they should have done this from the get-go.

Collapsed full explanation to avoid overwhelming the thread Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked into this after BusterD's first post and was surprised that Feoffer didn't contact FloridaArmy before posting here but mostly in the form of possible confusion from FloridaArmy why the article disappeared. It seems clear FloridaArmy is an experienced editor who should know how to read an edit history. While the first edit summary by Feoffer wasn't clear on the reason for the redirect [339], it came just after the AFD close [340]. But in any case, even if we accept it was reasonable for FloridaArmy to miss the edit right before the conversion to a redirect in their recreation/reversion a few hours later [341], Feoffer next edit summary was clear enough [342] yet FloridaArmy still reverted it/recreate the article [343]. So FloridaArmy should have started a discussion themselves before the second reversion or at worst case after it. So while perhaps it would have been ideal for Feoffer to try to discuss this with FloridaArmy before bringing it here, FloridaArmy complaining about it doesn't wash since they failed to initiate any discussion themselves despite being sufficiently informed of the history here. Also FloridaArmy's response demonstrates that they did become aware of the history at some stage. And I don't see any other "editors" involved just one User:wbm1058 Talk:Stuart Scheller#No merge?. Any editors who edited article FloridaArmy recreated can't be considered supporting it when they may have had no idea of the history. And the other editors in that discuss do not support the preservation of the article, they just complained that the redirect was confusing since there was no discussion in the target. Feoffer turned it into a redirect without introducing any content in the target article and apparently there was none existing content discussing the subject, which yes this created a confusing situation. But the way to resolve this was for someone e.g. FloridaArmy to introduce such content i.e. perform the merge. It was not to overturn the redirect given the AfD outcome. As for the consensus can change point made by wbm1058, it cannot be considered justification for FloridaArmy's actions either. Generally but especially with such a recent discussion, you need to demonstrate consensus has changed via a new discussion and we have procedures in place to deal with recreating an article after an AFD says we shouldn't have it. While this was a merge an not a delete so it's a bit more complicated, there still should be discussion somewhere before undoing it. And even if at a stretch we accept FloridaArmy's action as an acceptable bold change, they needed to discuss once it was clear there was dispute. It's fairly hard to argue consensus has changed less than 3 days after the AFD closed anyway (see earlier diffs). If FloridaArmy cannot participate in the normal ways to re-create an article after an AFD that's tough cookies for them. They don't get the privilege of riding roughshod over them because of it, the opposite in fact. I guess the best way to handle this would probably be for FloridaArmy to use the AFC process as suggested by BusterD, and then if it's accepted ensure a history merge is performed or the attribution history is preserved in some other way. (I'm assuming FloridaArmy is going to re-use content by others from the older article.) I admit I don't really know though, that's for FloridaArmy to work out or just leave it be for someone else if they can't. P.S. Feoffer did initiate that AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Scheller and was fully entitled to think the outcome would be respected (Personally I'm not a fan of using AFD for merges, but whatever it happened.) But in any case, editors don't have to participate in an AFD to respect and enforce its outcome so even if Feoffer had no involvement in the AFD it would be moot. Actually as my earlier comments indicated, even editors who disagree with an AFD outcome need to either respect it or challenge it in some appropriate way and this does not include just ignoring it.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a little surprised that moving the page has not been considered. For example (albeit a totally unrelated thing) we have a Gabby Petito article. Why not move this to the title of the one event this man is known for? wbm1058 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I just merged the lead paragraph to Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) § Reactions. This wasn't that hard to do. I wonder why nobody who voted "merge" in the discussion bothered to follow through on this. At some point if Scheller actually goes to trial there will surely be further news coverage, and we can revisit this at that time. I see no need for sanctions at this time. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There was a fair argument raised in the AFD about BLP1E issues - prior to this burst of news, he was non-notable, and only notable due to this aspect, and so whether we even should mention him is a potential BLP issue. It is not like, as mentioned above in the Death of Gabby Petito where it is impossible to talk about the death without mentioning her or the named suspect even though both also fall into BLP1E. But that's a separate matter from this ANI. --Masem (t) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose the first sentence could be rewritten:

      Stuart Scheller, a United States Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, was relieved of command...

    • becomes

      A United States Marine Corps lieutenant colonel was relieved of command...

    • and then we aren't mentioning him by name (only our cited sources then mention his name). But the cynic in me thinks this is more of a 1E issue for the brass he criticizes rather than for Scheller himself, who I think has been open about recognizing the potential consequences of freely speaking his mind in this way. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, the question is, was this whole thing around Scheller (the event itself) just a burst of news that will have very little enduring coverage that makes it worth including in 5, 10 years time? We don't know yet, but the fact we have editors that rush to create articles on these bursts of news is symptomatic of how little think about the encyclopedic purpose and more about trying to write on current events (which is what Wikinews is for). Its why BLP1E cautions against inclusion for people who are non-notable before the event. But again, this is getting beyond the ANI issue here. --Masem (t) 15:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
        • User:Wbm1058 has kindly merged data from the bio to Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021). This honors the agreement in the AfD and I thank that editor. FloridaArmy has requested I draftify the biography currently a redirect. They make a reasonable case that the moving news environment has changed sourcing available. I'm not certain I would have the willingness to draftify without some demonstrated consensus, perhaps at DRV, perhaps here. I'm not looking for red tape. FloridaArmy acted badly, in possible violation of editing restrictions, out of process, twice, in regards to a page creation issue, again. FloridaArmy discussed this nowhere until it was pointed out to the community on this thread. I protected the bio redirect (as opposed to blocking them for violating editing restrictions) specifically because I would like to see FloridaArmy continue to make valuable contributions. I'd like to hear what others have to say. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
          • FloridaArmy has chosen to personalize this issue on both my talk and their talk after I announced my preference to continue discussion in a centralized place (like this thread). They called my comments "aggressive" and "threatening", my actions "abusive" and "inappropriate." If I'm reading correctly, no place can be found or linked (as of this datestamp) in which FloridaArmy admits any error in this situation. I chose not to block FloridaArmy even though I believe they violated their editing restrictions. Yet they ask for an additional extension of trust. It is not my trust to extend. It is the community's trust. I await the community's input. BusterD (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
            • BusterD If you were to draftiy the bio, I think we would need some input from the WP:MILITARY people on notability. In the last paragraph of the "Response" section, it says, "... after being relieved of his command, Scheller submitted a letter of resignation from the Marine Corps ... scheduled to take effect on September 11, 2021." Has the Marine Corps changed all that drastically, that if you change your mind about serving you can just resign? That and the fact, that a lieutenant colonel is a field-grade officer rank, not too high up the ladder. I don't know about the draftify issue, but I'm not convinced this needs an article yet. — Maile (talk)

* Would it be appropriate to ping participants in the very recent AfD? There were MilHist coordinators and admins in that discussion. Consensus there seemed to conclude this was a BLP1E situation as of that 15:34, 25 September 2021 closing. BusterD (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Ping those participants, good idea. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging closer User:Ritchie333 and participants User:Peacemaker67, User:Mztourist, User:Nick-D, User:Intothatdarkness, User:GPL93, User:4meter4, User:Balon Greyjoy, User:2601:c6:ce80:1630:60a3:64c7:c607:e518. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider him notable, and don't think it should be draftified. WP:SOLDIER is now deprecated (he wouldn't have met any of its criteria anyway, too low a rank), and I don't think he meets ANYBIO. My view at the AfD and here is that this is a classic case of BLP1E. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

He's not notable as confirmed by the AFD, the page should not be recreated pure WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Peacemaker and Mztourist. Clear case of BLP1E. I'm reminded of Capt Charles Johnson. Intothatdarkness 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think draftifying is appropriate given that I've merged content and prefer that the page history for the merged content remains in article-space. However, if someone wants to copy this version to draft-space to either work on improving the bio or convert it to an article about the "event(s)" I'd have no objection. I could merge the new content back into the redirect-history in the future, to maintain a seamless page history, should there be a future need for that. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

AFD Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions not updating

Hi all. I left messages on a few talk pages but I have received no responses, so I thought I would bring this here. The section at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions has not been updating properly, and is missing days in October with open discussions (October 1 and 2; possibly late September days as well but I didn't check). The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs is likewise not updating properly. For some reason days are now disappearing once they hit the seven day mark and are not transferring over into the old open AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is maintained by Mathbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which seems to be down at the moment, it hasn't edited since the 7th. The best thing to do here would be to contact the bot's operator. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: If the AfD listing is messed up, you can use the Oracle for Deletion, which I generate from the logpages on a daily basis (and is sortable by !vote ratio, title, date, delsort category, etc). jp×g 03:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the timing of this going down, this is probably related to mw:MediaWiki 1.37/Deprecation of legacy API token parameters 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonnyspeed20 / 86.14.189.55 - Continued accusations against other editors, uncivil behaviour and edit warring across articles

Please see previous reports involving this user: [344] [345]. IP user 86.14.189.55, who I have no doubt is Jonnyspeed20 (their behaviour is indistinguishable), has continued to behave in the uncivil manner they have previously been reported for and warned by admins and other editors about. They have continued to use edit summaries to attack other editors by making accusations of impropriety (i.e. repeated accusations of "vandalism"). They have been making disruptive edits to Greater London by introducing false information; a number of editors have reverted the user's bold edits, but the user has reverted the reverts in spite of WP:BRD, attacking editors in edit summaries when making the reverts ([346]). They have previously been warned and even blocked for similar behaviour. In this ([347]) diff, the user continues a long-running WP:PERSONALATTACK on me and other editors they had previously repeatedly conducted as Jonnyspeed20, by referring to edits as being part of a "campaign" - the user has previously accused me and other editors of being part of a "cohort" associated with an organisation, at one point saying we had been "proven" to be members of this organisation, using Wikipedia to "campaign" for them. Please see the previous ANI report on Jonnyspeed20 for details on this ([348]). Jonnyspeed20 was warned about this behaviour by Hammersoft following the previous ANI report, but seems to have since switched from the Jonnyspeed20 account back to IP edits exclusively. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have placed {{uw-3rr}} warnings on the talk pages of both 86.14.189.55 (talk · contribs) and Jonnyspeed20 (talk · contribs). This needs to end. If either the IP or the logged in editor continues to edit war, they need to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:PlatinumClipper96 is on a co-ordinated campaign to remove London Boroughs from the opening of place article to replace them with Historic Counties. The edit is always the same; delete the London Borough and replace it with the text ceremonial county of Greater London and the ancient county of Essex There was a failed RfC in 2018 to support this edit. There has also been a long discussion on UK Geography to change the guidelines, which has little support and no consensus. While HC is allowed in the lead, these repetitive copy-paste edits go against all discussion on the topic (not the primary reference, used in the past tense). HC is not allowed in the infobox, so this editor (and others) have taken to editing the opening of articles across London; A few examples of these are Walthamstow and Chingford, though over the last 6-8 months they have attempted to insert this text in virtually all places in East / North-East London. Added to this, they are also attempting to assert that Greater London is a ceremonial county, deleting 'administrative area' from the opening of the lead. This is suspected to be part of the same group who support the agenda of The Association of British Counties<ref>"Association of British Counties".<ref> All edits are to prevent this partisan vandalism. My previous warning was about tone, which I accept. This editor is now using this board to weaponise Admin to winning their agenda 86.14.189.55 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Asking you to stop your rampant edit warring is not "weaponizing" me. It isn't just PlatinumClipper96 who has been reverting you. The pathway forward isn't for you to continue to edit war, no matter how right you think you are. The pathway forward isn't getting to the however-many-reverts-have-happened-already +1 as the magic revert that's finally gong to convince everyone you are right and they are all wrong. Edit warring is not an answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft Over to you to continue not to deal with the continued vandalism of these pages. Honestly, if you're happy with The Association of British Counties and various associated gammons deleting boroughs and copy-pasting Historic Counties into the opening of every place in London, I give up 86.14.189.55 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in what either side of this dispute says is supposed to be in the article. It's a content issue. The problem is the behavior in regards to this. Phil Bridger is right. It doesn't matter how right someone is. Reverting N times without success to your preferred version doesn't produce a case where N+1 is going to be the one magical golden revert that solves all problems. When you're in dispute with someone, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nowhere in that does it say "revert again, because that will solve it." --Hammersoft (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The WP:EW page, would've been the proper place for this report. Anyhow, if the edit-warring is continuing? then a block should be applied. Also, a SPI should be opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:86.14.189.55/User:Jonnyspeed20, you are probably correct on the underlying content issue, but you have gone about this so badly that you have made it much more difficult for that issue to be resolved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to respond to the comments made here by the user. The RfC in 2018 the user is referring to was about whether the historic/ancient county should be used as an infobox parameter in articles about UK settlements. It was not about whether historic counties should be mentioned in the lead. Current guidelines about UK settlements (WP:UKTOWNS) state that the historic county should be mentioned. My edits, which have been repeatedly referred to as "vandalism" or part of a "campaign" of a "cohort" of editors by Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55, are in compliance with these guidelines. I have never used historic counties as the primary descriptor for a place's location where the ceremonial county is different. The primary descriptor has always been the area of London for places within Greater London. My edits then describe the place as being in the ceremonial county of Greater London (although this was different in some of my earlier edits, as at the time I felt describing the place as being in London would imply that it is in Greater London), and then in its respective historic county as the tertiary descriptor. I do not delete the local government district (borough) from the lead of articles about settlements, as the user keeps claiming [349]. As he has stated above, he seems to have an issue with the fact Greater London is described as a ceremonial county, as well as reverts to his edits by multiple editors at Greater London [350]. He has described Greater London as an administrative county and, more recently as an administrative area (with a link to the article about administrative/non-metropolitan counties) [351]. Greater London does not have this status due to the structure of local government there, but it is an official ceremonial county. Why would I want the fact Greater London is a ceremonial county to be mentioned first if I were affiliated with an organisation like the ABC, as the user keeps accusing me and other editors of being? These organisations do not want areas such as Greater London to be referred to as "counties". I am fed up with edits from editors with the opposite view on the historic counties discussion being labelled as "vandalism" in edit summaries and talk pages by this user, the persistent edit warring, these editors being personally attacked by this user, and with the constant accusations against editors by this user of having a conflict of interest. I'd also like to point out the user's response to Hammersoft in which he refers to editors as "gammons" - this insult is widely considered to be a racist slur, as per the article about it - I believe this amounts to yet another WP:PERSONALATTACK from this user. I find the user's assumption of my race/ethnic background and the race/ethnic background of other editors on the basis of their Wikipedia edits to UK geography articles extremely offensive. The pejorative also implies that I and other editors hold certain political views, which amounts to another personal attack ("Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing"). I sincerely hope action is taken against this user. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this ANI report the user filed against me this morning. The user made no effort to notify me of this report, neither by pinging me or giving me an ANI notice on my talk page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)