Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120

Breitbart Spam Blacklist

Moved back from Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist

 – – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

History: On 25 September 2018 the closer of a Breitbart RfC Fish and karate said Breitbart News was deprecated and added "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary."

On 26 September 2018 the initiator of the RfC, JzG, added Breitbart News to XLinkBot.

On 3 October 2018 a thread "Offensive edit summary" began (original heading was different), in which editors showed that new users were posting changes referring to Breitbart along with what were presumably bad words. Almost all the changes were effectively reverts of removals of Breitbart cites since 25 September 2018. zzuuzz explained "This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective."

On 4 October 2018 JzG added Breitbart News to the spam blacklist with edit summary = "Adding \bbreitbart\.com\b per MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#breitbart.com. Using BlackList/ReverList Handler." -- actually I don't see that this measure was discussed on Spam-blacklist, but JzG perhaps was thinking of the WP:ANI thread, because JzG announced there "I have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts." Others disagreed, or suggested an edit filter, or wondered how long it would last.

On 5 October 2018 in response to an objection JzG wrote "This is on the blacklist to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks."

On 27 December 2022, The Blade of the Northern Lights wrote in a JarlaxleArtemis edit summary "He's not coming back soon ..." and confirmed on 5 February 2023 "Yes, in 2018 he was still active but as of now we have good reason to think he won't be anytime in the near future." but added "Still a good idea to have that on the blacklist though." I disagreed. I'm also involved in a dispute about use of a Breitbart cite on Breitbart News talk page thread Quotes and cites.

Requests: (1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists. (2) Do not interpret this as about conduct of any of the users whom I have mentioned and pinged. I believe everyone except JarlaxleArtemis acted by the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin but… I cannot think of a single reason an encyclopaedia would want, let alone need, to link to a poisonous den of liars like Breitbart. If any of the Nazis and Nazi enablers on that blog say anything that would be worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia, we should be quoting and linking to other sites that are quoting them. — Trey Maturin™ 20:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Followed here from the talk page. Generally speaking, if we directly quote someone/something, it seems like good practice to cite it directly, in addition to the sources which copy the quote. Breitbart should not be used as a source for anything but its own words, and its words carry no WP:WEIGHT on their own, but if there's consensus that a quote should be included via coverage in other sources, then yes. The same is true of, say, things written on someone's personal blog or social media. I just wonder how often it's actually necessary to use quotes from Breitbart at all, rather than paraphrase them. The case that led to this thread being opened is this line from the Breitbart News article:

Breitbart News has published several articles accusing the English Wikipedia of having a left-wing and liberal bias, including headlines such as "Five of the best examples of left-wing bias on Wikipedia in 2017".

In that case, the sample headline doesn't actually add anything to the article. "It has said wikipedia has a bias and has said 'wikipedia has a bias'", effectively. It should just be removed, and then no citation to Breitbart is necessary. If there are other quotes that actually add to the article, I don't think it's a problem to include a secondary cite to the original text, though. For those rare purposes, just use the whitelist. Not need to remove from the blacklist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

When Breitbart says Wikipedia has a bias, it is not worthy of note. All of the conservative media bubble says we have a bias, we are a leading source of reality-based information on climate change, evolutionary biology, COVID-19, and a host of other things that billionaire libertarians have paid for the GOP to reject, as articles of faith. It would be notable if a right-wing website said we don't have a bias. And for any claim by Breitbart to be considered objectively significant, we'd need a reliable independent third party source that evaluates its accuracy, because Breitbart does not care if what it publishes is true or not.

I'd also note that the article you highlight above is by a banned troll, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used the platform to continue his harassment of, and personal attacks on, Wikipedians - he proudly admits it at the foot. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be removed from the blacklist because you can't be bothered to request whitelisting the use of it? Which strongly implies there's not a good case for inclusion. Oppose strongly as the blacklist keeps well-meaning editors out of trouble and there is no good of the encyclopedia benefit to allowing bretbart to be linked in articles or talk discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is no good reason to allow links to Breitbart, and I am not aware of any good-faith attempt to use it as a source other than in a tiny handful of WP:ABOUTSELF instances. Any link added to an article as a source would obviously have to be removed, allowing people to use it on talk pages just encourages rabbit-holes of conspiracist nonsense, at least one banned troll editorialises there against individual Wikipedians, including use of real world identities that are not, as far as I know, all publicly declared. Nothing about that cesspit would add value to Wikipedia, all it would add (and all it ever added) is drama and additional work for people who care about sourcing standards. If it's removed from the blacklist it would need to go into an edit filter - and the blacklist is more efficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you dispute any of the history description? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• If you should find a situation where it's reasonable to cite Breitbart, consider just omitting the URL from your cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, because that's not the correct way to handle individual uses of blacklisted sites. Instead, use the spam whitelist. That works. --Jayron32 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't get the response you wanted. That does not mean it "doesn't work," just that you didn't get what you wanted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make that request. And there was no response. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• The request to allow breitbart.com links is apparently for the reason given in the OP at Talk:Breitbart News#Quotes and cites. The stated reason relies on generic procedures that would generally be appropriate but which do not apply in every case, and in particular, do not apply in this case. The reference is for an independent source (haaretz.com) and that is perfect in an article about an abusively unreliable subject. I do not see a reason to remove the quote which was picked by the independent source but it could be removed if there were an editorial reason to do so. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

JzG removed the quote, but that thread isn't what this is about. The thread that matters is the WP:ANI one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is no good reason to use Breitbart's own reporting on their (entirely justified) blacklisting by the Wikipedia. Other reliable sources independent of the subject are preferable. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• No justification to take it off the blacklist. Just given Breitbart News - Notable events, there are plenty of reasons to keep it on the blacklist. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, who are we blocking and for what reason? The entire discussion above seems to be about the spam blacklist, and whether or not something should be on it. This is not the purview of this noticeboard; it should more properly be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Unless someone can tell me what they want an admin to do for them concisely, and not include a bunch of irrelevant information about managing the Spam blacklist, that'd be great. --Jayron32 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The history shows that it was here on WP:ANI that the matter was brought up, here on WP:ANI that the observation about JarlaxleArtemis was discussed, here on WP:ANI that a single administrator announced the blacklisting. And the concise request is: "(1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists." Since it's shown that an administrator can do it, it's appropriate here and now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you want to discuss it here, my opinion is that Breitbart News doesn't need to be removed from the black list. While the problems with JA were the proximate cause for it being added to the blacklist, several people above have cited good reasons why it should stay on the black list, and I am inclined to agree with them. If it does need to be linked to from within Wikipedia, several workarounds have been proposed, but otherwise, I can come up with no reasonable reason why to take it off the blacklist. It seems to not be causing any problems being there, and it is likely solving many by remaining there. --Jayron32 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. Read the top of the page:

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

This section is off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• If you're trying to cite something (that isn't about Breitbart itself), and you find that the only source you can find to support that edit is Breitbart, you might want to go back and consider carefully whether what you're adding is a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You asked in the "Offensive edit summary" WP:ANI thread "Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list?" which wasn't answered directly but I think there were technical obstacles. Nobody said there were technical obstacles for an edit filter, maybe I should have proposed that as an alternative to my remove-from-blacklist request, but too late now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep on blacklist - Breitbart is not now, never has been, and never will be a reliable source, and there is no justifiable reason to link to it. If a link is needed, a third part source should be more than sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I second everything you said. I fail to see any reason to remove a website from the blacklist that is inherently only going to be used to cause chaos and start fights. If the information can be sourced on a reliable source, then it should be done that way. If it can't, then any information to be found on Breitbart is guaranteed to be false. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Question If I understand the issue correctly, Brietbart has been put on a spam list. Is Brietbart a source of spam? If no why is it on the list? Brietbart is deprecated and that isn't likely to change. Are we saying that deprecation isn't sufficient to deal with Brietbart references? We shouldn't, as a matter of consistency if nothing else, apply remedies meant for one issue (spam) to a source that is problematic for totally different issues (very low quality reporting). Springee (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Reading what the spam blacklist's purpose is would answer that question. The blacklist isn't just for bot promo spam but as a way to auto-block any attempted edit to add info originating from that site. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't that already the case when someone uses a deprecated source? Do we have issues with people adding Breitbart (or any other deprecated source)? Springee (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Some deprecated sources are blacklisted, some are auto-revert by Xlinkbot, and some just trip and edit filter. See the handy table at WP:DEPSOURCES. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't really explain why it was blacklisted. Again, is there an actual problem this is solving? Springee (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was responding to "Isn't that already the case when someone uses a deprecated source?" No, since not all deprecated sources are on the blacklist. Technically it also answers your second question "Do we have issues with people adding Breitbart (or any other deprecated source)?" No, since the source is blacklisted, and no one can add it unless they request an exception. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: Breitbart links were constantly spammed on articles by someone named JarlaxleArtemis. See: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2018#breitbart.com (removal request). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: You have two, mostly unrelated, questions there. The answer to your first, why it was blacklisted, is that it was put there to stop disruptive spamming by a long-time troll known as JaraxleArtemis. The second question, which is the actual problem it is solving, is that being on the blacklists stops people from using Breitbart as a source or a link in Wikipedia articles.--Jayron32 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep on blacklist Even though JaraxleArtemis/Grawp is no longer active, Breitbart is still used by other POV-pushers and trolls. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hate-supporting userboxes

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.

---

RowanJ LP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user recently and noticed this addition to their userpage, which they referred to as "some mildly offensive userboxes". To be clear, one of these userboxes clearly declares "This user is against Trans rights". The other userbox says "This user is a supporter of the JDL and Kach party". Let me remind those reading this that both the JDL and the Kach Party are designated terrorist groups in the United States, and not without good reason. Is it acceptable for a user who fosters such views to be allowed to function normally in this community? Is this not disruptive? I started a thread at their talk page yesterday but they still haven't responded. I am here for others to examine this case, because I don't think this should remain at the level of a simple conversation with RowanJ LP. -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 15:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm RowanJ LP but this is my alt account, I didn't realize that these userboxes violated Wikipedia's guidelines on hate speech, I took time to read over this conversation and multiple guidelines and I won't violate any hate speech guidelines again, sorry for the issue and guideline violations. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If you don't understand how "This user is against trans rights" is bad, then you lack the competence to be here. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

These are the userboxes:

This user is against Trans rights This user is a supporter of the JDL and Kach party

• (non-admin) This kind of thing is usually handled at WP:MFD. These are potentially divisive/hateful but I don't think a user would normally be blocked just for this. Suggest submitting for deletion at MFD. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't only about deleting the userboxes from their userpage. At the very least, RowanJ LP needs be able to recognize that these are wrong. This is the most appropriate venue I could think of. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 15:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We have users, or one at least, here that openly support Hezbollah via userbox, so, I really would not expect much traction to be found for the above. ValarianB (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Scenario: say, for example, Kach, the JDL, and Hezbollah really aren't an issue here. The anti-trans userbox is still quite a major problem. Athaenara got blocked for saying something anti-trans (I've slightly forgotten what is was) even before doubling down on it. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you have the same objection to a userbox that identified the user as "gender-critical"? Someone saying they are "against gun rights"? What action do you want taken? Personally I don't think anyone should be listing political or divisive things on their user pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Most common statement I've seen is "support gun control" instead of "against gun rights". You also need to remember that gun rights and trans rights do not exist on the same level of comparison. Guns are just guns. But anti-trans userboxes show a person's negative views of other people, not their views of inanimate objects. Those other people are the ones they're supposed to be "improving the encyclopedia" with, and such a negative atmosphere isn't encouraged on Wikipedia. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 16:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Advocates of "gun rights" often believe they are civil, human or God-given rights. Maybe a better example would be "User is opposed to free speech" or something. Is there a great difference between "User is opposed to abortion" and "User is opposed to abortion rights"? Someone might be hurt or angered by any divisive statement regarding rights. I'm all for removing divisive material from user pages, if it is done impartially, fairly and consistently. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a great difference between those two things, in fact many people who support abortion rights are opposed to abortion. Just because you support the right to do something doesn't mean you support doing that thing. You have a right to tell outrageous lies (you invented the Moon for example), my support of your right to do so doesn't make me supportive of lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel like it's too much to demand the hateful put effort into their hate; discovering the euphemism 'gender critical' is more effort than most of them put in. This is just lazy. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor: For reference, there was such a gender critical userbox. I had to nominate it for deletion a second time to properly explain why it should be deleted, because users were willing to look the other way the first time. There's a serious problem of editors defending the right to post bigotry and extremism in userspace. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Openly supporting Hezbollah was banned in 2008. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox. The replacement is now so vague as to be nearly meaningless. So the whataboutism isn't really applicable unless we were discussing a confusingly worded userbox that avoids any mention of Kach or the JDL whatsoever beyond a subliminal yellow-black colour scheme. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a brief look at their edit history does raise some red flags as far as the topics. Maybe you'd care to scrutinize the history for evidence of inappropriate activity, if you are looking for some kind of action to be taken. Again, going by my experience with these, they are handled at MFD barring some other kind of misbehavior.

—DIYeditor (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed both. There's no real need for an MFD, they were hard-coded on the page. The anti-trans box is 100% low hanging fruit, and I've removed it as divisive and attacking other editors per WP:UBCR; there is a very long history at MFD of nuking these. I would vigorously oppose re-adding that. The pro-extremist userbox is slightly less obvious, but I believe still qualifies for removal as "inflammatory or substantially divisive". I'll defer to others if I've overstepped on this one; I don't think I have. I'm pretty agnostic on any "RowanJ LP needs to recognize these are wrong"; that would be good, sure, but as long as similar issues don't reappear I'm more inclined to not push it further. That, too, is something I might be wrong about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• I still don't get why editors feel the need to proclaim their opinions in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where that can be done. And I get even less why they use userboxes to do so. But I recognise that I'm in the minority and, in its infinite wisdom, the English Wikipedia considers such "self expression" important. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Phil, I think of my userboxen as full disclosure, proclaiming "I hold some strong opinions; as a Wikipedian, I understand that any edits by me touching on these opinions may be viewed especially carefully for signs of bias (conscious or otherwise)." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit says "'Acts of violence' includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence." So the second one should be allowed. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Little confused why our friend here hasn't been blocked? If I had said "I think you are a subhuman" to a fellow editor, I would be rightly blocked. Instead of just removing the boxes for them, also demand they retract the statements, same as we handle a legal threat. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Golbez:, legal threats are a bit different. An editor is entitled to hold a dispute either on Wikipedia or in a court, but not both at the same time. Therefore, primarily, the block is intended to prevent simultaneous dispute in two places. Secondarily, it's to prevent the chilling effect of other editors feeling under threat of legal redress. But calling someone subhuman doesn't chill, it's just a blatant insult. To my mind it's still unacceptable, but not in the same way as a legal threat is unacceptable. As for whether political user-boxes are useful; I think they are. They can help to explain why an editor edits in a particular way. Also, we are bounded by censorship on one side and immorality on the other; it's nice to keep the free-region between the two as broad as possible. But Thebiguglyalien is right, content intended to make people feel bad discourages new, useful editors, and is just not okay. Elemimele (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I know they're different; I didn't equate them, just saying the response should be similar. They can't be here as long as they hold those views, so they need to be removed until they retract them. Golbez (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The current rules are that political userboxes are allowed, unless it goes against someone. But if we get into it, there are ways to say you are against someone without openly saying so. And in some places politics are so polarizing that me mere action of saying "I support X" gets the anger from supporters of Y. Wouldn't it be simpler if political userboxes were completely banned? They give more problems that what they are worth. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a comment reiterating what I've said several times in various discussions: WP:Userpages and WP:UBX both explicitly forbid inflammatory and divisive content in userspace, and soapboxing and advocacy are not allowed on Wikipedia. I believe that this is the correct approach and that it should actually be enforced. Divisive content not only fails to benefit the encyclopedia, but it risks actively discouraging new editors from participating. There's a problem at MfD where several users always !vote to keep inflammatory content because they believe users have the right to express their opinions or that the WP:RAGPICKING essay should be interpreted to mean that even inappropriate content should be kept. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Remove immediately. Wikipedia is not the place for this. No one cares about your beliefs. Mike Allen 17:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I do have to nitpick that if actually noone cared, this thread wouldn't exist. It's fine for the thread to exist, though. People do care. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Remove the userboxes immediately is what I meant. Mike Allen 19:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Personally I would suggest that someone who adds their support of two terrorist organisations and a hate speech userbox with the edit-summary "add some mildly offensive userboxes" should probably been shown the door straight away. Is that just me? My finger is hovering over the block button, frankly... Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• I've blocked them for a week. That type of content is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. the only reason it wasnt indefinite, is because their edits appear to be constructive. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Understandable, again, I'm sorry for the hateful userboxes I put on my user page, it will not happen again. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  You have been blocked, you may not post here under your alt account. Blocks apply to a person, not an account. As a result I've blocked the alt account as well. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, not buying it. Your only explanation so far is that you didn't think it broke the rules, which means you still think it's a valid statement. It's not. --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Golbez, I might have missed it, but valid statement are you referring to? Being against Trans rights or something else Rowan J said? --Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That one, yes. Where is this question going? --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Its going to, I don't think we should block people who are against trans rights, thats where. --Malerooster (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Being "against trans rights"? No, of course not. This isn't thoughcrime. Saying it, however, thankfully removes it from the realm of "thoughtcrime" and puts it handily into the concrete "you said many of your fellow editors are subhuman". And that, we should absolutely block for. On what grounds do you disagree? --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

How was it "said"? With the user box or the "you said many of your fellow editors are subhuman" which I didn't see but would agree is blockable. If there was some discussion and an editor said that they were against Trans rights, I wouldn't think that is blockable, but just mho. --Malerooster (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

They are, quote, "against trans rights". I see that as seeing them as subhuman. If I say "[x] shouldn't have human rights," that implies that [x] are, well, not fully human. And I am fine with taking the context here to mean "human rights." You are under no obligation to see things my way, I have made my point. --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• RowanJ LP seems young and perhaps it isn't too late for him to change, but I don't think we want him editing here while he still holds hateful ideas. Take a look at his Commons uploads. If it was up to me, I would just preemptively block him based on WP:NONAZIS, because that's where this will end up anyway. Round and rounder (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That is an essay and not policy, fyi. --Malerooster (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocking someone based on their activity on a different Wikimedia project is a line I don't think we should cross. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... Regarding 1-week or indef blocking: that's not how we've treated the dozens of other editors who have had similar transphobic or homophobic userboxes removed. The user has said they won't re-add the boxes. I'm not going to go out on a limb and expend time and effort and social capital for someone who feels the way they feel, so I won't lobby for an unblock right now even though I might disagree, but I'd oppose an indef block. This is fundamentally different than the comments that I blocked Athaenara for. This isn't a NONAZIS situation, this seems like 95% dumb and 5% despicable, not the other way around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  The only reason they have given so far for not readding the boxes is because they didn't know saying trans people were subhuman was against the rules, which is a drastic failure of competence. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  +1. We are not the freaking thought police here. It should be enough that the editor apologized and has stipulated he will not reoffend ... and I'm sure a few people are going to keep an eye on his future contributions to make sure he doesn't. More than that, no. (We are not, after all, out to preemptively block editors with African IPs, however much the great majority of African nations not only firmly condemn LGBTQ practices, but criminalize them.) The easiest way to avoid the standard right-wing slur that Wikipedia is firmly in the grasp of Radical! Woke! Witch hunts! is not to have them. Ravenswing 20:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  If this is in reply to my comment, I know that they will not be indef blocked today. I am just making a prediction about their fate here. I didn't like the anti-trans userbox (and I believe it violates the Universal Code of Conduct) but it barely factored into my prediction. Is blocking African IPs something which comes up a lot or just a figment of your imagination, because I haven't seem anyone suggest that? Round and rounder (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  "We're not going to pre-emptively block African IPs" Yes, because the laws of a nation are not the statements of an individual within it. If you don't see the difference between "living somewhere where the government thinks trans people are subhuman" and "saying trans people are subhuman" then... I don't even know. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Did I miss something? Did the user actually say "trans people are subhuman", or is that your interpretation of them not supporting trans rights?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  An accurate interpretation of when someone says a human does not deserve inherent rights. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh. I think that's a huge stretch, and just so it's clear, without more, I don't support increasing the block to indefinite. Indeed, I didn't think the one-week block was deserved, but the user seemed to accept it, so...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well what rights do you think our new friend was talking about? You're saying my interpretation is wrong, so please, share yours. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think the user's statement stands on its own: they are against trans rights. Beyond that, I have no idea what the user thinks, and I think it's presumptious of you to put words in their mouth. I don't know what you mean by "inherent rights" as that too is interpreted by people in very different ways. Personally, IRL, the people I know support civil rights of minorities, but the few I've met who do not, do not think the members of that minority are "subhuman".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just for the sake of argument, how does that compare with "This user is against abortion rights"? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Abortions tend not to be people, whereas trans people are. Abortions can't have human rights. Abortions are medical procedures. Perhaps you meant "this user is against women's rights", since that would be more analogous? And no, this isn't a pointless difference. It's the difference between saying "I don't think [x] should be done" and saying "I don't think [x] should have rights." If you can't see the difference then honestly why am I even still here. --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also, they did not say they don't support trans rights. They said, they are against trans rights. There's a difference. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're reading it as "against trans people having any rights" when it was probably intended as "against 'trans rights'" or "against 'special trans rights'" but I can see why you'd see it your way. Not sure I see why it's so important to expel this editor if they were not making any bad edits. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Golbez: The laws of a nation with some semblance of democracy generally reflect the views of the people living inside of it. WP:BLOCKs aren't based on what a user thinks but what they have done. In terms of "preventing future impact on Wikipedia", a user who will not engage in certain behaviour again isn't very blockable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Bullshit. Just because I live in Iowa doesn't mean I believe everything Iowa does. This is a really bad argument (essentially justifying civilian atrocities in wartime, among many other things) and you should pull up now. And I agree, this wouldn't be based on what he thinks, it would be based on what he's done, which, in this case, is saying that they think many of their fellow editors don't deserve rights. That seems pretty straightforward to me, not sure what y'all's malfunction is. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• The user has apologized. I think that's enough at this point. Let the 1 week block expire and see if they are productive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  again, I must point out, they apologized for, quote, "I didn't realize that these userboxes violated Wikipedia's guidelines on hate speech". So either they don't think hate speech should be avoided on its own merits, or they think this didn't constitute hate speech. Either way, we have a competence issue above anything else. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know or care what they think. It seems like they are ok with removing the infobox's though, which is the concern here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Put another way, if I wrote "This user is against blacks having rights" and tried to argue that I didn't know that would violate hate speech guidelines, I'd be laughed out of town. That y'all are saying this is any different is really fucking depressing. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks Pizzaman10383

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.

---

• Pizzaman10383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per this and this. Heiro 03:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe “You can ban these nuts bitch” gave me a laugh, but is pretty clearly not acceptable. Otherwise they’re an auto confirmed disruptive agenda editor; blocked indefinitely. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Yeah, I took that one as "you think ya funny, but not here to be constructive" clue myself, lol. Guess he can sit at home and play wit dem now. Thanks a bunch, ~

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.

Possible BLP violation, Socking, creating account specifically aimed at disparaging another 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.

---

RealPerson420 has been adding unsourced information to the Toby Perkins article, this could be considered a BLP Violation. I removed the unsourced information. The editor then stated that my editing was Tendentious and soon after that another editor Viewmontvikingisbad re-added the same unsourced information into the Toby Perkins article. VViking_TalkEdits 14:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)".

Both accounts blocked, the 2nd one obviously with that name. RealPerson420 blocked indef for repeated BLP violations. I'll scan the article and see if anything needs to be redacted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also blocked Person.1244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is using the same IPs as RealPerson420 and inserted the same content on Toby Perkins. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2023 (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.

Achaudhary0205 continues to make ungrammatical edits and modify quotes, does not reply to talk page

Achaudhary0205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to make a high number of edits with grammatical errors and edits to quotes without reference to the quoted material. Does not have adequate mastery of English to be making these kind of rapid fire copy edits. Was previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Achaudhary0205 making ungrammatical and inconsequential copy edits at high rate. Has gone on making these kind of edits and refuses to respond on any talk page request.

From prior report:

• from Grill'd Grill'd claim to have an Australian first sourcing promise and works with local farmers and suppliers to keep food miles low and ensure the freshest ingredients -> Grill'd claims to have an Australian-first sourcing promise and works with the local farmers and suppliers to keep food miles low and ensure the freshest ingredients. (incorrect grammar for regional dialect of article, and Achaudhary likes inserting extraneous definite articles)

• from Abductive reasoning The strike of the cue ball would account for the movement of the eight ball. -> The strike of the cue ball would account for the movement of the eight balls. (how many 8 balls are on a pool table?) and For instance: it is a known rule that, if it rains, grass gets wet; -> For instance: it is a known rule that, if it rains, the grass gets wet; (which grass is that again?)

• from Social enterprise Social enterprises have business, environmental and social goals. -> Social enterprises have a business, environmental and social goals. and deciding on which organizational structure and legal form (e.g. Non-Profit, for Profit) -> deciding on which organizational structure and legal form (e.g. Non-Profit, or Profit)

• from Dick Ayers when Sullivan "describe[d] what he wanted in the Ghost Rider" -> when Sullivan "described" what he wanted in Ghost Rider" (user likes editing quotes)

Since prior report:

Observed by R Prazeres (talk · contribs) making ungrammatical edits again, and warned on talk page (no response):

• from Khan el-Khalili built in 1284–85 -> built-in 1284–85 and It became known as the Khan al-Fisqiya ("Khan of the Fountain") for centuries -> It became known as the Khan al-Fisqiya ("Khan of the Fountain") for the centuries

Observed by Schazjmd (talk · contribs) editing quotes again, warned on talk page (no response):

• from Animals as leaders "We see nothing but great potential with Matt, -> "We see nothing but the great potential with Matt,

User was suspected by Wasell (talk · contribs) of being a sock puppet of UniqqMool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Joussymean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). UniqqMool and Joussymean were blocked by Bbb23 and block of Joussymean reviewed by Deepfriedokra.

Sock puppet or not, this user is causing ongoing damage to Wikipedia and given their lack of willingness to engage the ANI process or respond on their talk page I believe an indefinite block is needed. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, for what it's worth, lending my support to at least some kind of block here, especially given the sheer volume and speed of edits involved. Responding to editors is not that hard, if they can't even take a moment to acknowledge an issue brought directly to them, then they're not able to engage with the consensus-based approach of Wikipedia; a sign of disruptive editing, regardless of good intentions. R Prazeres (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Looks like another instance of a user not aware of their talkpage. Blocked, with an appropriate message in the log, to help them find it. (It doesn't look very likely that they'll be unblocked in any case, but stranger things have happened.) Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC).

• Update: I'm talking with the user now. Bishonen | tålk 13:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC).

  "To help you find it, I have blocked you indefinitely.". That's just poetic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? It did help. Bishonen | tålk 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC).

Even better! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat/death threat in edit summary could use revdel

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Veritas&diff=prev&oldid=1139335768 2601:18F:107F:BA80:BC6F:265C:C696:3D1E (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really rev'del worthy in my opinion. Just pointless political screed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2023 (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.

Potential dox of uninvolved party

@Loose canon reverted information on the Convergence Movement article using reliable sources from the Anglican Church in North America and the Kentucky Secretary of State, all because the information verified that an excommunicated priest became part of the Convergence Movement through a denomination whose founder has (according to the sources later provided) an erratic background. I would like for the admins to also bear in mind that they have seemingly doxx'd someone who has no involvement with editing here. I also want to highlight a very large almost obvious conflict of interest with their talk page draft article being rejected for Lumanog plenty of times. AndreasMar (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I also want to mention their edits to Cornell College] which also further verify a conflict of interest, and perhaps a self-expose of themselves. At jacklumanog.com they have this very article with others mentioning Lumanog's involvement with the college. For me, something isn't adding up. AndreasMar (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence on the "potential doxx" issue? I think the matter between you and Loose canon is just some content dispute on Convergence Movement. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They said I was "(Redacted)"...I am not whoever the heck that is. AndreasMar (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

On the article talk, I made a case that since they are claiming a personal attack and partisan information, their username and similarities between the Lumanog drafts being consistently written and deleted, associations with Cornell College, and the Convergence Movement article very recently may show this is a duck trying to merely write their own history. AndreasMar (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're concerned about outing, you really should just use diffs rather than repeating the name since now if it is outing, ANI is going to have its edit history erased too. In any case, without WP:diffs we still have no actual evidence that AndreasMar did anything, it's your responsibility to provide the evidence not ours to find it from what you've said. Duck for which other account? In a discussion where you brought up outing, you've alleged Loose cannon is an individual you've named with a link to another website (did they post this website before?). You haven't mentioned any other previous accounts the editor has used. If the editor has a COI that's one thing probably best dealt with at WP:COIN. Socking i.e. a duck is another. Please be clear what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case, without WP:diffs we still have no actual evidence that AndreasMar did anything You are talking to AndreasMar, who is also the OP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

After reading, I didn't bear in mind the quack is a sockpuppet thing; I was referring to them lining up with a COI initially. Forgive me. This is the Diff where they claimed I was another person in the edit summary. Here is their first Wikipedia edit adding the Anglican clergyman to the college page. And here is another when them [1]. This has to add up to a COI. Everything that account edits is very much tied to the associations of that clergy. AndreasMar (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to COIN though since its best dealt there. Didn't even know it existed. AndreasMar (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• The currently redacted name is reference to a source used in the section that was removed. COI and NOTHERE likely apply, but outing is a stretch. Slywriter (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:HabibKhosti's tendentious editing

On Torkham article an IP editor 39.41.6.68 probably the reported editor made contentious changes without explaination and usurped the article from a border crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan to a town in Afghanistan. [2] When he was reverted he started an edit war first as IP which was blocked and then with above account almost 6 times, 5 of them in just two days while 4 of them in last 24 hours with no regards to dispute resolution process or trying to build consensus for these contentious changes. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Not only that he even removed notice of Requested Move started by another editor [8] and second time even went on to move it bulldozing the discussion process. [9] And when I started the discussion on talkpage, he didn't even bother to come and explain and straight-away went on to revert again.

He has repeated the same feat at Wesh-Chaman border crossing by moving the article twice without any discussion. [10] [11] While making contentious changes [12] [13] and edit warring. [14] [15]

He's just pushing Afghan nationalist and irredentist POV and his behaviour clearly states that he's here with battleground mentality and not here to build encyclopedia. 37.111.137.135 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Banned edit-warrior (ShahabKhanJadoon1 (talk · contribs)) is behind the above IP (37.111.137.135). He's not allowed to edit any page or make any report, and if required I can list all his other names that haven't been blocked and tagged. As for me, I came to organize a few very messy pages which nobody oppose except this one-and-only banned edit-warrior based in the Islamabad, Pakistan, area who is network-switching [16] and creating multiple user names to evade his ban. I know all this simply by reviewing history of pages. It's the same exact character and thinker. He generally hates Indians, Afghans and Persians.--HabibKhosti (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia simply via my mobile network's shared IP addresses and because my operator is based in Islamabad so its IPs are assigned that location. I have no knowledge about the editor you're linking me with, you have did this with other editors too previously for which you have no proof and just because they are reverting your tendentious editing in Af-Pak area on Wikipedia. [17] [18] [19]

The same IP and account of yours is involved in similar editing on Torkham, Pakistan. [20] So this is clearly a pattern that you first make IP edits and then come from account to back them. You're currently evading your IP block too which has been blocked for edit-warring. 37.111.128.42 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not you? What about this? [21] Bro, the entire world knows that you're abusing Wikipedia by making countless spare user names and using them to edit Pakistan pages. Your character and specific thinking gives you away. 99.9999% Islambad people think and act very different than you do. It's all about the way you behave and write. Are you one of those deported Pakistanis from America?--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And your assumption about me is totally wrong. I don't revert others, just fix a page and go, but when you were spotted I had to expose your misbehaving. If you're not banned why don't you use one of your many spare names? An intelligent person like you shouldn't be doing these things.--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Every banned editor on Wikipedia from Shahab to Siddiqi and Ali banu sistani is me, happy? No proofs, nothing in rebuttal, just casting aspersions and being sockphobic. That's not how you defend yourself. I have presented the case with all the diffs about your WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Admins will better decide over it, I have no time to pay heed to your histrionics. 37.111.128.166 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's Siddiqui. [22] Don't these banned names write 99.99% like him? [23], [24], [25] And contrary to how he behaves, Islamabad people in general are humble and very respectful to others. Another give away is his unique fondness for Turkey (and anything Turkic). He's known for being arrogant and making frivolous statements. What's wrong with changing an article's name twice? The first was based on Afghan news reports and the second based on alphabetical order (C comes before S). Why would someone find this contentious or requiring a discussion? About using my Wiki name, didn't he write this to the other IP: "Instead of allegions and article hijacking why doesn't you login with your account and come here...." [26] Admins, notice how an educated person like him wrote "allegions" and "doesn't" there. This demonstrates that it was error for the admin to block the IP that reverted a banned editor. Admins, the entire educated world knows that Pakistan was historically India and Afghanistan. I think he wants to propose that we stop mentioning this in Wikipedia, and that we stop accusing him of being a banned editor.--HabibKhosti (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a shred of evidence presented here that can relate me to those accounts in anyway. I have started IP editing on Wikipedia barely a year or two and I'm being linked to Wikipedians as old as 17 years while interestingly you are only 3 months old account knowing so many old Wikipedians which means you yourself could be someone's sock.

• First of all you are in an open block evasion of the IP 39.41.6.68 as you're defending it.
• Secondly my IP range is different from the one you are linking me with and there's a clear difference in our prose. I have given the reason for my IP ranges location, interestingly that IP of yours involved in nationalistic editing is also based in Rawalpindi, Pakistan but I haven't called you refugee because that's least of Wikipedia's concern.
• Thirdly even after this report you're continuing with your tendentious editing by removing sourced content from article. [27]
• Fourthly renaming of Wesh-Chaman border crossing was reverted by User:AafiOnMobile (Torkham renaming was reverted by User:Paine Ellsworth who gave fair justification for their undo.

All these points further adds to the case against you and your mention of Pakistan as Afghanistan and India further tells about your nationalist and irredentist mindset against Pakistan. I will wait for admins to assess this report. 37.111.189.27 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Any person who taps on "View history" sees who did edits. I have children and even they do that sometimes. It's the year 2023 if you didn't know. When one taps on editor's name it is blocked and/or banned. I did it and quickly learned they [28] [29] [30] [31] had your characteristic. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] What if 39.41.6.68 is another person? And honestly, I had no idea it was blocked until you said it here. What's "nationalistic editing"? Fake news from 2007 about Pakistan building rail line in Afghanistan has no place in Wikipedia and I gave my reason. [37] Discuss that there, not here. You easily give yourself away. You writing under IP here is basically admission that you're banned. More importantly, you writing comments like a person who grew up in America, acting arrogant, and giving a poor country like Pakistan the image of a rich developed country in Wikipedia simply makes you a one of a kind. No other editor based in Pakistan does that.--HabibKhosti (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this has devolved into aspersions. HabibKhosti, if you believe this person to be a sock, present evidence at WP:SPI. If you continue to make such accusations without doing so, that can also be considered a personal attack which will get you sanctioned.

I am not weighing in on the editing dispute, just informing folks that they need to drop the stick and actually support their accusations or withdraw them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't directly accused him of anything, my concern here is his editing behaviour and I have presented proofs of it on which admins need to weigh in because he's only up on edit-war if I'm going to revert the article to its stable form since there's no consensus building effort from him. 37.111.134.208 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You, the sock accusation was central to HabibKhosti's quick defense here. And in exceptional circumstances WP:SPI can be bypassed because the filing and result takes a long time. Regarding consensus, see Talk:Torkham#Requested_move_10_February_2023 (1 support and 2 opposes).--HabibKhosti (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not an exceptional circumstance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This section has been so overwhelmed by the protagonists as to make it very difficult for any independent editor to see if there is any behavioral problem here. Both of you, please shut the fuck up unless you both want to be blocked. You have made your points several times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Commment, I think this thread should be closed with no action. My above friend who's using IP probably agrees.--HabibKhosti (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Shukry M.A - escalating concern

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.

---

Shukry M.A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is ignoring all warnings and continuing to add his father to various articles, without sourcing. He has admitted to a COI here. He has created three unsourced articles about his father as of typing this - Abdullatif siraj, Abdullatif Siraj and Abdullatif Cadhe Siraj. He is persisting to add his father to various articles, even after I remove him from them. Marawi Grand Mosque (I am aware that I am not allowed to revert again here), Contemporary Islamic philosophy, List of Muslim philosophers, Islamic philosophy and Shafi'i school. I'm concerned about every mainspace edit to date. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked indef at this point. They are clearly a SPA to promote their father, and are looking to promote him in every article they have edited. I also deleted the Abdullatif Cadhe Siraj article as well for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I endorse the block. I was getting to it, but I was deleting multiple copies of the article about his father per WP:A10. The only thing that's left now is a very short draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've salted the multiple titles as the subject clearly isn't notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both for your swift responses here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 16 February 2023 (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.

Vanishing editor

Hi, I hope I'm writing to an appropriate place. In August 2022, I started a Talk section in response to a note 'undue weight - discuss' on a page. The article is Identity Politics and the quote flagged is from one Brendan O'Neill.

Today I received two replies from the same editor, both containing intemperate language in what I consider to be ad hominem attacks. After replying in-page, I attempted to discuss the matter with the user as per WP guidelines. I received the message 'page does not exist' which suggests to me that the editor deleted their account soon after posting.

This is behavior that IMO could be a nuisance, since if the editor re-registers with WP they can do the same to other editors. I post this in case WP has protocols to deal with this type of behavior, since I can find no guidance myself. Chrismorey (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Chrismorey If you are talking about another editor here, you must notify them of this discussion(see the instructions at the top of this page)

It is not possible to delete an account, either by the user themselves or anyone- it is possible to delete pages, though an admin must do so, and that is not usually done to user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. 1, you have not notified Mike0000000 of this discussion, I have done so for you. 2, the user hasn't vanished–the user just doesn't have a userpage. They haven't vanished, they're still there. And like 331dot stated above, it is not possible to delete an account, see here. Tails Wx 18:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Better to try to talk to their user talk ages instead of their user pages.😛 Speaking of which, I see Bishonen has offered the user a few words of wisdom. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Intriguingly, I see no messages on User talk:Chrismorey and Mike0000000 last edited yesterday. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The OP did not provide any links but it appears the discussion took place at Talk:Identity_politics#Brendan_O'Neill_quote.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, talking on their user pages? WP:UOWN? Don't do it! ;) Tails Wx 00:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Thanks.

@Tails Wx: Never! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction, nor how to communicate with a 'use' who doesn't have a user page. The link is useless, only telling me what the red hyperlink does, i.e. that there is no link to the user. That was the only reason why, having been unable to communicate with the user as suggested, that I raised it in the only forum I could find.

I find the replies here highly confusing. It seems there are user pages and user talk pages, which are different things, but how are ordinary users supposed to know that, or know how to access them? Incidentally, nowhere did I ask for anything to be deleted, so I don't understand what you're talking about.

Well, it will teach me never again to answer an apparently bona fide request foe editor input on a topic. It seems WP has become so complicated that only experts in its internals can contribute anymore. Good luck. Chrismorey (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chrismorey: Wikipedia has had separate user pages and user talk pages since near its inception. See WP:User pages and WP:User talk pages. You have edited your own user page, and your own user talk page, and you've edited other peoples' user talk pages and never edited other peoples' user pages, so I guess you knew this at one time, and forgot. Fair enough. You can access Mike0000000's talk page by going to User talk:Mike0000000. It already exists, but if it had been a red link, you could still have created it to talk to Mike0000000. While I'll agree WP has become complicated, I don't think many people would agree with you that separate user page and user talk pages are complicated. That's probably the reason it didn't occur to anyone to explain in more basic terms. I think people are talking about deleting accounts because you said "...which suggests to me that the editor deleted their account" in your initial post. Finally, I don't think anyone has complained about your choosing this forum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion

88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked a few hours ago for DE. They have switched to 5.176.188.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and are continuing to spam See also links. See contributions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for evasion per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Oguzkaan76:: another account, same behavior, continued DUCK edits after block of IPs. See contributions and talk page for information.  // Timothy :: talk  17:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked indef, left a note that they would need to explain themselves for any chance of an unblock. --Jayron32 19:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also relevant to the reason for the indef, the user in question has had an account since 2020, has a usertalk page with a list of warnings longer than my arm, and has never used a talk page or a user talk page or ever even left an edit summary. Refusing to communicate is antithetical to collaborational editing. --Jayron32 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also also also, something is making my spidey sense tingle. I seem to remember an LTA that has been doing this sort of thing from years ago. Does that ring any bells to anyone? --Jayron32 19:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The block on 88.230.104.114 has expired, and they continued the same editing pattern that they were blocked for.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks this time. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Switched IPs again and spamming from 176.30.230.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  // Timothy :: talk  01:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked that one.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The block on 5.176.185.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has expired and they are continuing the edits from that IP.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

5.176.176.0/20 blocked 1 week.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Another 176.30.232.114  // Timothy :: talk  00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 176.30.224.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week as well. Also rolled back everything from that range. --Jayron32 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

176.220.98.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

And now, Special:Contributions/94.235.120.86. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the two above IPs for 2 weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

New spam ip 176.220.192.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  // Timothy :: talk  13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I rolled everything back, but they seem to have left that address in the past 24 hours and aren't using it right now. I checked the /20, and there's unrelated edits coming from that range so I hesitate to block it yet. Otherwise, thanks again for your diligence. --Jayron32 17:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They have moved on to 176.220.114.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to do. It appears they are using pretty much any IP address in 176.220.0.0/16, but that IP range is busy enough that we really can't block it. I'm not sure we can range block anything in there that is likely to be effective, and not have collateral damage. I'm afraid that if you see the disruption from the 176.220.0.0/16 range, playing whack-a-mole and just mass reverting is likely it. By the time an admin who is following this thread in particular notices and responds, they will have moved on to a different IP in that range. --Jayron32 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense at HQ (video game)

HQ (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AlmNack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
108.31.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:4040:21D9:C700:29FA:6807:238E:C420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So there has been at least two IPs and one registered editor has been attempting to add unreliable content about a player takeover of HQ (example revision here), sourced to Twitter and - you're not gonna believe me - screenshots. Could an admin check what's going on with this?

Pinging @Adakiko since he's the one who brought this up to me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just reverted an edit by 2600:4040:21D9:C700:29C4:3D04:A630:CE15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Screen shots that were uploaded minutes before the content and citation were added BTW. Adakiko (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, AlmNack took the screenshots of the conversation to provide as sources, as you both had said there was no sources. He was trying to provide sources to validate our claims. I was told in an edit that I had done that those sources were unreliable and very unreliable, so I removed them based on your request. I don't understand what type of sources you want us to use to validate our claims. This isn't a subject many people know about, as only 8 people were part of the takeover, so only 8 people would have access to seeing the whole conversation. In order to prove that, we'd have to use screenshots. That's why I don't see how you want us to provide proof. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

See, having nothing is better than having something bad. In this case, if there are no reliable sources (say, a newspaper talking about it), don't bother putting it in. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying we need an article talking about the takeover? Not sure any of those were written. Would Reddit posts work? There were some Reddit posts talking about it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPS has all the answers on what to use and not use when it comes to sources. Spoiler alert: Reddit posts are in the "not" camp. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The takeover didn't get much fanfare from the media. There are plenty of stuff bout the documentary though. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If there's not much information out there to be used as a source that implies to me that this isn't a particularly notable incident, and so it might not be justified to be included. — Czello 09:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a person taking a control of a popular trivia game. That alone I think is fairly unusual, and noteworthy, as most apps would have measures to even prevent that from happening. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then the question is why hasn't it been more adequately covered by reliable sources? Notability has to come from these sources, rather than us as editors deciding ourselves something is noteworthy. — Czello 09:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can attest to this. I indeed did take a screenshot of the message from "UntrustableRus" which read "HQ server now I own the HQ website !!!!". Said screenshot in question came from a direct conversation with him on the Discord application which can be viewed here https://ibb.co/cCKZmLq AlmNack (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@AlmNack Screenshots are not reliable sources. Now, tell the class, what is your association with those IPs? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this, school? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is`now. Did you bring your math homework? U-Uh, I mean, are you connected with @AlmNack in any way? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As stated in a previously removed revision of the article, both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be meatpuppetry, then. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We're friends. We've meet on discord from our shared interest in HQ. We both enjoyed the hosts, and the game formats it's had. I don't really see what the problem is with having friends, it's pretty natural if you ask me. It's something that nearly everyone has weather they like their friends or not AlmNack (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• The show Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia is scheduled for release March 5 on CNN and April 6 on HBO Max. Possibly what is behind the editing? Adakiko (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that is a part of it, as no info was provided about that previously in the article. Due to the fact that the documentary hasn't released yet though, the main reason was to tell readers how the player takever went down. If their is more to share after it's release though, then I'm sure we would wanna add to the article with that info as well though. At this point all we have is articles and a trailer talking about it. I can add some of that in if you want. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place to break stories. If regular mainstream media haven't reported on a story, neither do we. Tweets, screenshots of Reddit conversations and the like - these are things that a journalist might use to write a story. Once they do that, and it gets published by a reliable source, we can then write something about it. We follow the sources, we don't anticipate them. If the edit warring continues, blocks will likely be forthcoming, and/or the page will be protected. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thankfully, the edits have stopped, but with the supposed meatpuppetry going on (both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. as written above), I would argue that blocks would be needed anyways. I ain't an admin, though, so it's not my call (and I would be too involved to block if I were an admin anyways). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  user:108.31.92.88 describes their collaboration with AlmNack here: Talk:HQ_(video_game)#HQ Trivia Player, and Website Takeover Adakiko (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, are you saying an article has to be written about the takeover, then if we use that article as a source, it'll be accepted? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly. The article needs to be a WP:RS. If what you're trying to add has been covered in reliable sources then you're past your first barrier but it might still be the case that whatever it is isn't something we will cover per WP:DUE etc. All COI editors should refrain from adding any content directly. If you can find reliable sources you could propose additions of revelant material on articles talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. As of now I don't think any articles have been written about it, so I guess it can't be included at this time. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And now the IPv4 has attempted to report me to AIV, complete with bad formatting. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, what you call being an asshole to another editor? You're comment about tell the class your assoisiation was totally being an asshole, and certinaly uncalled for. Thought we're supposed to be polite here, not rude. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. Providing the edit warring stops, I don't think we need any further blocks just yet, but AlmNack and the IPv6 editor should familiarise themselves with the guidance at WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:MEAT before attempting to make any further edits to the page; they should also start using the article's talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add (now that I've noticed the IP saying that they were personally involved in these events) that WP:COI is something they all need to familiarise themselves with. Leave it to someone else to write about stuff you did, or were involved in doing. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Understood, but in some cases for things that are internal, other editors tend not to know about things so I don't really see how that would work in a case of that happening. Like I said though, there's no reliable sources as of now to include so it's a moot point at this point. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've tried being polite, IP. I really did. But no matter how many times I told you and your friends to not add unsourced content, you didn't listen. Of course I was gonna lose my cool after the 5th time I was getting told "but I have this (unreliable) source!"

As for further blocks, yeah, I think this is enough for now. As long as the editors follow @Girth Summit's advice, things might work out in the end. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The other IP is 100% correct that "now tell the class" was obnoxious and inflammatory. "I tried being polite" well no, not in that instance, you were rude and unpleasant for no particular reason. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, AlmNack, and I appreciate it. If only other editors could look at it the way you could. If I'm being honest though, I think we're treated differently as we don't have accounts. I think account users get better treatment, which is sad, but I think it's the case. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I wish that other editors could look at it the same way I could. I understand how they may think that I or another person here being part of said takeover may obfuscate our thoughts and such, but I am just trying to share what’s happened with sources to which I think are credible. I do not see how one could sustain an editorial status if someone continuously removed a post for little of a reason. The takeover was something that could have been avoided on HQ’s part by parking the domain right as their services got suspended but the person to whom I have mentioned in a now deleted source had the same hosting service as HQ, and he could do something with the dns to take control of the subdomain in which the app used. I am not seeing how very little sources and no sources at all to these regards are being removed when there is another few parts added by me which no sources stated; I mean, there are ways to get the sources, but at the time I didn’t know how to add them in and they are still up. I just think that given this, and that some people are interested in learning about HQ’s history, that this should have stayed included. I too also feel that the users that continuously reverted the page haven’t actually played HQ or haven’t played it for quite some time to have a somewhat big understanding of the app as I. I would love for you all to reconsider the addition to which I made because the removal of it was in my opinion, wrong. I have added sources per your (users) request, but what was the point of asking for me to do so if you all are just going to remove it and think that you know way more than anyone else? Please, grow up and just let someone who has the most insight to add in a section they know the most about. As per the CNN documentary, I did not add that part in nor know who had added that before removal, but that too should have stayed. People and some news article sites have talked the documentary about for the past year. A trailer finally dropped along with its release data and someone has shared what they know about it already. I understand the Doc hasn’t released yet, but that section on its own can be edited once the Doc releases to include more information than it already did. Please, if at all possible (I know it is) please reconsider all the changes you wrongfully made along with why you have impeded on age history of revolutionary app that once was. AlmNack (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call you messages polite. You said the various sources I had originally used were unreliable, and very unreliable, so if you look back at the history, I had removed the sources you had complained about per your request. So in that aspect, I did listen. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Should WMF legal be notified? Not making a legal threat, just pointing out that Title 18, US Code 30, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, covers unauthorized access of computer systems. Slywriter (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how WMF legal is necessary. The actions were entirely off-wiki, the editors here were just trying to get personal recognition for what they did during that event. I'd recommend they go to the press for a formal interview if they want credit so badly. They can then sit for direct interviews with law enforcement afterwards! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think I can speak for the whole takeover team in saying this, I'd be all for interviews with the press on it, but if law enforcement has to be involved, it would have the be Canadian law enforcement, as the person that actually took control of the app in the first place is Canadian. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a good question, and honestly, I'm not sure how it was done, and if it was technically legal. I can say this though, neither me or AlmNack had anything to do with the taking it over part. We were just involved in coming up with the ideas and stuff of what to do with it. We didn't have control of the app as we're not the people that took control of it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Since you missed my point earlier: trying to take credit for hijacking someone else's service is a bad idea. You should walk away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I see your point. Nothing good ever comes from hijacking something. Not sure if this would be considered hijacking though. I know it's a grey area though regardless. I still find it hard to believe it was even possible for the person to even gain control of the app to be honest. The fact that they did, it was kinda like, well might as well take use of what we have. I wasn't that shocked when they took it back either. I was more so surprised it took them that long to do so. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

More faking Eric West

Eric West
Fortress (2021 film)
User:Dam!ta

Someone is introducing false information into Wikipedia about a subject that has had a long problematic history.
On the page for Fortress (2021 film) multiple claims regarding Eric West were made, since removed. See [38] from the history.
1 Black Movie Awards. The claimed Black Movie awards links to American Black Film Festival who have a website of www.abff.com. The source used to backup the claim of an award in a wayback capture of www.blackmovieawards.org. There is only one capture of the site on 19 March 2022 and there is only one page on the site.
blackmovieawards.org was registered on 19 March 2022 [39] and has since disappeared.
2 Silver Horn Film & TV Awards. Claims he won 2 of these awards. Never heard of them. No surprise there, just another sham award. There is no sign of any independent coverage. They only exist in 2022. The first source used is a press release. The second source used to backup the claim of an award in a wayback capture of www.silverhornawards.com on 19 March 2022. There is only one page on the site.
www.silverhornawards.com was registered on 13 March 2022 [40] and still exists as the same static page.
3 Credits. West had been placed at fourth billing. IMBD (admittedly not a reliable source) has him much much lower. None of the reviews on RT mention him or his character.
Someone is trying to fake West back into Wikipedia.
Who introduced all this baloney? The award were first introduced here on 21 March 2022 and then reinserted here, both by User:Dam!ta. The billing here, again by Dam!ta.
So how did Dam!ta come across these links, why did they chose to elevate the billing? Someone smelly is clearly afoot. Any thoughts? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack SapientiaLinguistica

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.

---

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

The new editor since 14 February 2023 is constantly making personal attacks on me and reputable, reliable scientists - relating us to the extreme-right and right-wing political views; saying to be vandalizing, censoring and manipulating scientific viewpoints; etc. although am doing exactly the contrary making major edits of once badly written with errors and badly sourced article (from 21 to 57 thousand bytes), citing reliable academic & scientific sources. The dispute on the content was minimal (I hope for now settled in the article's lead, only about one-two words, the article is up-to-date and cannot be more than NPOV than it is now), and vast majority of their comments were not on the content yet baseless accusations on me and certain scholars, baseless advocacy for certain other scholars and so on. The comments can be found in the Chakavian edit summaries, Talk:Chakavian#Chakavian is scientifically considered a language of its own, not a dialect of serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian discussion (where are strangely using the same wording and sources as an editor who started the discussion almost 5 years ago), and User talk:SapientiaLinguistica#Chakavian discussion. I think that their initial edit was in good faith but am not sure they are completely not WP:NOTHERE. They are extremely misinformed about the topic, which is probably the main reason of frustration, as well as about Wikipedia, editing policy and guidelines. Since the beginning have friendly informed the editor, numerous times pleaded to stop such behavior and personal attacks, gave them explanations on the topic and explanations and wikilinks to various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, warning notifications, accepted an intermediate solution - without improvements in their behavior and apologies. They are WP:NOTLISTENING and wording is becoming only worse. I pinged admin Joy, but without response. I do not think to be wise of me to tolerate such behavior anymore (for mine and SapientiaLinguistica good), and do not feel as an editor to be able to do anything more than this to change their behavior for better and without further escalation. Please take it from here. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:56, 17 February 2023 (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:DoctorWhutsup

On the article Kievan Rus', DoctorWhutsup (talk · contribs) made four reverts within 24 hours (and a fifth one just after 24 hours) removing sourced content because according to them it is all "nonsense". They were previously blocked a few months ago for edit warring (where they have only made a few mainspace edits since then) and were also alerted about discretionary sanctions. When I call their edits disruptive on their talk page because they reverted five editors without using the talk page, they write: I am sorry, do you have some mental problems I am not aware of? Cause if you do, I apologize but you do sound like an idiot.[41] They continue to insist that they were not disruptive (but also admitting to being disruptive?) and that they did not make a personal attack.[42] I am not sure what should be done here but they only have 59 mainspace edits. Mellk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I'm considering a topic ban or 1RR restriction or some other restriction that might prevent future disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a topic ban or some kind of restriction is needed judging by the unblock request. Mellk (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access no longer required

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 User talk:CT-971, and consider whether TPA is still a necessity for this user. Bot or troll, they're clearly just wasting our time mow. Cheers, SN54129 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

TPA removed. Enough time wasted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (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:Brian K. Tyler

User has caused multiple disuption over the years and betrays a warrior personality in his edit summaries. The latest instance is refusal to provide WP:RS and a triple reversion in the Little Jack Horner article. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax doing mass editing of political parties claiming "Per longstanding consensus: no American political party should have their position on the ideological spectrum listed"

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

Now I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that this is on the basis of User:Orangemike telling them "we have reached a long-standing consensus not to describe "the" position of the Democrats because we cannot achieve a consensus on how to describe it.' This seems either a misunderstanding or editing to make a point. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidently we can't call the American Nazi Party far right according to this editor. I also see some heavy editing of Dixiecrat that needs review. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Same for the Communist Party USA, this editor thinks it is bad to list their ideology as, um, Communism. Their edits should be rolled back en masse ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the process of responding throughly and in detail to these concerns. (Which will likely take 15-20 minutes.)

As for the Communist and Nazi party changes: I don't really have any strong feelings on whether they're reverted or not. So feel free to do that. (e.g. My objection wasn't placing communist parties on the left. (Broadly speaking.) Obviously, they were. It's whether all self-professed communist parties can be uniformly described as far-left.

It's important to note that a lot of American and European Communist parties moderated themselves at various points in their history towards the center; see the Italian Communist Party.) I'm requesting that the other changes not be reverted as make a detailed response in the meantime. The changes are justified and defensible. KlayCax (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally think the changes are 'justified and defensible' is rather beside the point if you claim to be making them because there is 'long-standing consensus' on the matter. Provide evidence for the 'consensus'. 14:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider KlayCax's explanation, but on the face of it this looks an awful lot like disruptive editing to make a point. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is clearly no such 'consensus'. Roll back, and tell KlayCax to find something useful to do instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A nationwide consensus makes no sense, in any case. That's something for a case-by-case basis: if the Party platform declares an ideology, then that's their ideology, regardless of what other parties in the country may do. Cambalachero (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax response:

First of all — while I realize in retrospect that it may have unfortunately came across that way unintentionally — this had nothing to do with the discussion on the Democratic Party/Republican Party talkpages and/or with specific editors. There's a longtime agreement that attempts to classify past major political parties in the United States — such as the Federalist Party, Democratic-Republicans, National Republicans, Anti-Masonics, et al. — on the modern political spectrum are heavily problematic. I agree with that viewpoint. American political parties are unique in traditionally being heterogeneous and big tent organizations. The same context does not apply today. While applying the political spectrum to past (pre-1990s) American political parties is anachronistic, the modern Republican and Democratic Parties have homogenized to the point where they should be treated similarly to other country's articles. Whatever decision is made about how current Republicans/Democrats should be classified on the political spectrum: I absolutely don't support it being extended to a vast majority of political parties in the U.S. related to the past. This wasn't a case of editing to make a point. I support the changes, regardless.

Secondly, as you can check yourself, a majority of the changes of the past two days related to the state-level Republican organizations. Editors characterized them in contradictory ways that were often poorly sourced or reliant on overly-partisan/ideological sources. (Compare Colorado's position description being "right-wing to "far-right" to California's being described as exclusively "center-right".) While I do believe that proposals to place the national parties on the ideological spectrum in their respective infoboxes are justifiable and needed. I don't hold the same opinion about their state-level organizations.

Thirdly, I removed the majority of minor parties tags were removed because they were:

• Ambigious/unnecessary (e.g. Union Party and Pirate Party.)
• From unsourced/low-quality sources (e.g. Labor Party)
• Couldn't be easily characterized into the modern left-right spectrum and/or unclear.

I know that @Doug Weller: and other editors seem confused on why I removed American communist parties from being uniformly described as far-left. (The vast majority of which was unsourced.) The answer for this is simple: many Western European and North American self-professed communist parties moderated their ideologies at the time. (See the Italian Communist Party for perhaps the most famous instance of this.) I have no objections to the American Nazi Party change being reverted. Although it seems obvious to me that we don't really need to put "far-right" after that of "Nazi". It inherently within the term.

Finally, the changes I made (see here) to the Dixiecrat article were entirely WP: Due. The original wording in the article improperly used "[racial] conservatism" and "states rights" as a euphemism for white supremacist policy and the ability of states to legally institute segregation. Most Southern Democrats at the time couldn't be classified into either modern liberalism or conservatism. Many — including their ideological forebearers who predated them, such as Woodrow Wilson and Benjamin Tillman — supported white supremacy (supporting racial hierarchy; e.g. "right-wing") and economic redistribution (supporting economic equality; e.g. "left-wing") at the same time. (Of course, this didn't apply to all — Strom Thurmond was indisputably on the right in both aspects.) A multitude of historians, political scientists, and journalists in recent years have written about this, saying that summarizing their political thought as "left-wing" or "right-wing" is at best an inaccurate oversimplication and at worst actively misleading.

I apologize for the delayed response. There was a lot to respond to and I wanted to ensure that it was written in an easily understandable way. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

For source on Dixiecrats being hard to ideologically classify on the political spectrum in the modern sense: see here and here. Per FT, Katznelson’s book goes on to show how both Congress and President were kept in a stranglehold by the veto power of the southern Democrats. The segregationist south was intent on preserving the rights of states to run their own affairs as they saw fit, but it came to support progressive political and economic policy from Washington DC. Katznelson suggests this was because it was in the south’s economic interest: it was poor and economically weak relative to the north and the New Deal offered it the chance of economic prosperity on terms the southern Democrats could live with. While the “Dixiecrats” made the New Deal possible, their support for progressive economic legislation was conditional on non-interference with the right to run their states on segregationist grounds. It's hard to characterize many pre-1990s American political parties in the political spectrum. Since many took positions characteristic of "both sides", including the Dixiecrats, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans, et al. KlayCax (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You have provided nothing even approximating to evidence that there is any consensus that "no American political party should have their position on the ideological spectrum listed", which was the justification given for your edits. Provide evidence for such consensus (with diffs linking the relevant discussions), or revert, and then start a discussion in an appropriate place with the objective of reaching such consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I said nothing about the American Communist Party - I don't know much about it, but I am clear that not all communist parties advocate revolution and that in India they have and probably still do control state governments through democratic elections. Why no edit summary for that edit? Doug Weller talk 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Meant to tag @ValarianB:. Not you. Sorry. KlayCax (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax you have edited a whole bunch of articles based on the premise that a long-standing consensus on this matter already exists (and you have inserted a bunch of comments into the articles referring to that consensus). Your response above looks like some of the things you might say in the process of attempting to build such a consensus, but it does not point to any existing consensus. I think you now have three options: (a) point us to where the consensus you are referring to is documented; (b) self-revert those changes, and then try to build such a consensus in the normal way; or (c) refuse to do either, have your edits reverted by somebody else, and probably end up getting blocked. What would you like to do? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Removing the "political positions" from the Republican Party state-level articles was from the party's talk page. I'm assuming this is uncontroversial but wanted to be sure.
• There was a misunderstanding. (Although not from any comments that OrangeMike made — as suggested by @Doug Weller:)
• I completely reverted all of the changes I made on the "minor American political parties" page due to that. (Beginning at the 11:58, 17 February 2023 edit on the Federalist Party article; see my edit history)
• Note that this does not include (and I just wanted to ensure that the reversion of my reversion of these three aren't linked to the above and/or non-compliance) the Dixiecrats, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans articles, as there is an ongoing lack of consensus that can be found on their respective talk pages and it's not related to the issue of the ANI. I think the Dixiecrat discussion could probably be hashed out on the talk page while the Federalist/Democratic-Republican dispute is probably going to have to go to a RfC. KlayCax (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Hope that explains everything. KlayCax (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Girth and Doug and AndyTheGrump: KlayCax should pump the brakes on their change here and discuss it, and be open to there not being a consensus for said change. Andre🚐 15:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• KlayCax apparently thinks that a good response to this thread is to go back through all these articles, partially reverting the changes they have made, but rather than reinstating the original content, they are replacing it with an instruction to get consensus on the relevant talk page. E.g: Workers World Party now has no political position listed, just an instruction to go and form a consensus. Since it has said 'Far-left' stably since at least 2016, I think that consensus already exists. Is it time to block KlayCax from article space, and just mass revert? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Block from article space, mass revert. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Need to restore articles affected ......this should be KlayCax burden.Moxy- 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted them all back. @Moxy:. KlayCax (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax@Moxy Not at Dixiecrat, you didn't reinstate the sourced position but replaced it with "Get consensus on talk before adding ". Doug Weller talk 17:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm reverting now.KlayCax (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Everything - if I checked correctly - should have been completely reverted past

The only exceptions are:

• 1.) Democratic-Republican Party page (see Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party#Left–right_political_spectrum)
• 2.) Federalist Party page (see Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party#Left–right_political_spectrum)
• 3.) Dixiecrat page (For reasons above that I'm about to repost to the article's talk page; other editors have expressed similar concerns.)

Are you alright with those changes remaining?

I'm about to respond to your other question above right now. KlayCax (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Federalist restored as a 2 year old Talk page discussion that appears to have gone nowhere does not justify removing sourced material nor has the specific source been challenged. It is properly sourced and includes a quote to support. If there is alternative viewpoints, they need to be discussed on that articles talk page or in a larger centralized discussion. Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

About the communist party, see here: "The critique of capitalism and the promise of socialism and communism form the basic ideas of the Communist Party, USA, which came into being in Chicago in 1919." Cambalachero (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt here, but this seems like the right place to bring up concerns regarding this particular pattern of behavior by KlayCax. I normally would never come here but IMO this looks a lot like WP:CANVAS. I could be wrong, I am stepping away from the article until this gets sorted out, hopefully. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Nikolai Boyanov again for the 3rd time here

Nikolai Boyanov (talk · contribs)

As adviced by admins at WP:AIV to bring this. I had posted here previously on December 2022 and January 2023 which no admins responses/actions were taken, pertaining to Nikolai adding unsourced materials and/or failed verification materials to various articles including BLP ones in violations of WP:BLP and/or WP:VERIFY despite being warned multiple times by me and other editors, and also getting blocked for the same disruptive behaviour back in November 2022, clearly Nikolai couldn't be bothered (WP:IDHT) to comply with our guidelines and policies especially WP:VERIFY. Also noting that majority of their edits were made on desktop (noting the lack of tags in their edits) hence not because of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Here are some diffs since Nikolai was unblocked.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][[56]]. Can actions finally be taken against this user otherwise we're simply allowing this disruptive behavior to continue? Thanks a lot! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Nikolai Boyanov was just blocked in November for disruptive editing; I've now blocked 1 week for persistent unsourced changes. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo Thanks you, hopefully they learn from their mistakes and don't continue it again after unblocking. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

87.20.7.191 and external YouTube links

87.20.7.191 appears to be a stable IP address. For the past three months, they've attempted to add excessive YouTube links to song articles. (Some of the most egregious: [57][58][59][60][61]) Some of their edits add the licensed youtube link to the infobox[62] which is not unconstructive, but then they add multiple variations of the same song to External links.[63] Their talk page is full of cautions/warnings/pleas to stop. Could they be blocked from article space? They could request edits on article talk pages (which they've not yet used). Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by Lokys dar Vienas

Recently, in a discussion on the Terek Oblast's talk page where I politely asked Lokys dar Vienas to self-revert their page-move per WP:BRD and the cited Wikipedia policies (WP:NCCAPS), they made the following personal attack against me:

And thhis must be done by experts in the area, in this case wikipedians interested in Russia subjects with some expertise in the subject, not a random internet-savvy editor who knows how to (ab)use google searches/tools. So far as I see no one comes from WPRussia, so I DGAF and retiring after trying to attract a broader participation.

It's puzzling that an editor of more than 12 years believes that such obscenely offensive/rude remarks are warranted on Wikipedia. – Olympian ^loquere 09:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The remark falls short of being polite, especially with the use of "(ab)use", but is pretty normal discourse on WP talkpages, in my opinion. I don't believe "DGAF" is to be considered an obscenity in this day and age. Compare this recent Guardian article about a judge ruling specifically that the use of "I don’t give a fuck" in a business meeting is now "fairly commonplace". Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for sharing that – whilst the DGAF is rather brash, I only included it to contextualise the manner in which Lokys was replying to me, which I generally found unsettling and unamiable, which is why I brought it up here. – Olympian ^loquere 13:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize before user:Olympian, since they felt offended by the remark. In fact it was directed not to them, but as a general impersonal frustration with the situation I observe as "an editor of more than 12 years": a considerable drop in participation in Wikipedia (IMO). An overwhelming majority of edits of nonperfect articles I created are done by wikignomes who fix typos, formatting, etc. My special thanks to wikipatrollers of new pages, who do most of constructive edits to my content within several hours of creation recently. In this particular case I was frustrated by two facts: I noticed that several massive article moves were made by consensus of 2-3 wikipedians who made their decisions on the basic of ngram charts, not on the basis of expert sources, which, as I remember, is discouraged by the rules, hence my "(ab)use" abuse. The second fact is that despite my notice at WPRussia (it is Russia-related subject), it seems that they DGAD, so I DGAD as well. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lokys dar Vienas Thanks for the apology. Just for context, I think you may have misjudged me; you said such moves should be done by "wikipedians interested in Russia subjects with some expertise in the subject", the fact is, in addition to having researched the topic over 2 years, I've basically rewritten most the Russian Empire district/province articles within the Caucasus, adding their maps, demographics (1897 & 1916), infoboxes, translations, administrative divisions, etc. Not to mention, I authored the district (okrug & otdel) pages for the Kuban, Terek, Kutaisi, Tiflis, Chernomore, and Dagestan provinces. Basically, I don't want you to have the impression that I'm some random editor on the subject, since you expressed such a concern. – Olympian ^loquere 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Repeated spam by Trishamalford

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.

---

Trishamalford (talk · contribs) has been warned many times for their obvious conflict of interest regarding the rappers Moneybagg Yo and The Real Poison Ivy. The user repeatedly spreads promotional and poorly sourced material and claims that the The Real Poison Ivy is divine in some way.[64] The user has also received multiple warnings for removing page content and templates. Furthermore, they have accused our users and admins of being "in cahoots with this page [the deleted article on The Real Poison Ivy] being attacked with vandalism by evil celebrities" (?).[65] An anonymous username, not my real name 19:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd, clearly NOTHERE. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2023 (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.

Trying to create Tim Peel

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.

---

Tim Peel was deleted by User:RickinBaltimore in April 2017 as being an "attack page" — at the time, the article subject was an active ice hockey official. Since then, he has retired, and he has significant coverage (both positive and negative) that, I believe, establishes notability. I've created a draft at Draft:Tim Peel. I would appreciate if an admin would consider lifting the create block for this new draft. White 720 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

When 60% of your article is "Controversies", does this meet WP:UNDUE? Daniel (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The person is known as an official in sport; in many cases, mentions of officials in reliable sources tend to be critical in nature. Compare Ángel Hernández (umpire). I also respect WP:OTHERSTUFF, so if Tim Peel shouldn't be recreated with the draft I wrote, that's fine as well. White 720 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tim Peel looks like an attack page to me, and should be deleted too.AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As a reference the article I deleted in 2017 was just that, an attack page that linked to a blog post about his officiating, and the writers opinion on him. It was repeatedly reposted, which is why I SALTed the page. I agree the current draft also is WP:UNDUE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've G10'd it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by Iranian IPs

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.

---

• Progrock70s (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 151.246.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 151.246.128.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 151.246.152.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 151.246.160.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

User Progrock70s was blocked in December, January and February for edit warring, the final block being indefinite. Each time the user was blocked, IPs from Iran continued the edit war, for instance at Shades of a Blue Orphanage,[66][67][68] and at Thin Lizzy (album).[69][70] At Whiskey in the Jar, Progrock70s was supported in edit warring by multiple IPs from Iran, including Special:Contributions/2.147.139.145 and Special:Contributions/2.147.182.57 in addition to the ranges listed above.

Today, the blocked person is using Special:Contributions/151.246.167.79 to berate a user from Brazil, and myself, on our various talk pages. They are continuing a senseless edit war at Camel (album) and Killer (Alice Cooper album). Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I swear I'm not Progrock70s and I wasn't edit warring and evading blocks. Please stop this I'm just here to edit for temporary. I'm not an edit warrior. I don't know how to prove I'm not that user but I swear I'm not that user, there's a mistake going on. Compare the pages that Progrock70s with mine, I'm clearly not them as they were constantly editing on Thin Lizzy pages. I repeat my edits are not vandalism and I'm just trying to edit with peace in here, also my last edits on Killer (album) and Camel (album) was to inform the Brazilian user cause they are using different IPs and I just wanted to inform them that I texted them on their talk page. Please don't block me I'm telling you the truth I'm just an ordinary guy who wants to edit peacefully in here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.246.156.199 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the listed ranges for three months; come back if and when they find another range. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous! We're done here. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2023 (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.

Persistent unsourced changes by Hurricane Allen

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.

---

Hurricane Allen (talk · contribs · count) has been making persistent unsourced changes to hurricane articles, primarily to the listed wind speeds. As can be seen on their talk page, they have been warned multiple times not to do this. The changes started at Hurricane Ian. Here, the user stated that they just "wanted to make Ian a category 5" suggesting it wasn't a matter of disagreeing with the listed information. This behavior was repeated with Hurricane Iota. Leaving those articles, Hurricane Allen continued making similar unsourced changes to other articles ([71], [72], [73]). While I try to assume good faith, such changes to storm intensity in the past have been a form of subtle vandalism. It's unclear, as some other sources or original research could also be involved. This user has also directed a personal attack at another editor. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not only this, but shouting? Tails Wx 16:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Uhhhh... Tails Wx 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE. Anyone else should feel free to unblock if you're convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Valereee (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

How about revoking TPA access as they are shouting and making personal attacks? Tails Wx 23:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ayup. Valereee (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2023 (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.

Anonymous user making low-quality unexplained edits to corporate pages over the course of years

(Continued from the previous discussion due to regular IP changes making previous blocks ineffective)

Known IP addresses:

• 50.249.237.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.47.203.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B104:EC55:1D60:13E4:E629:8798 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B11E:E4DC:11B5:3F45:86BE:C03E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B11E:E4DC:250A:821B:A900:D09D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B123:D955:59E0:2640:A7DE:CA6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B11E:E4DC:6DED:9D12:8790:E9BD (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B129:C046:B898:1E20:B119:C4F5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B149:CD82:5135:A28F:F7BD:5E08 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B159:FD70:913A:4C00:61A5:1CB6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B163:88D3:11D6:729D:682:CDF4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B189:E825:7CC8:7E15:A35F:64FA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B1A2:D5C:ECE1:493B:FDE5:8068 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:39F6:94E7:D5C:F1E9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:55C8:1B5F:ACD1:DA31 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:5894:B507:BE4B:982C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• ‎2601:246:5401:9DCC:71EE:A1A8:9351:822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C053:3797:FE65:606 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C59B:E2A8:B59D:23E2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Possible IP addresses:

• 2600:1008:B004:D250:249D:2FA9:2957:3D1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B145:C36B:1D22:BA52:774A:197D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B145:C36B:ED5A:F7A5:F980:EA2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B158:28AC:7523:62D7:5E2F:D8A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:8801:3:D800:4DA1:863F:8709:ABF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Ranges to watch:

• 2600:1008:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Frequently targeted pages:

• McGraw Hill Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scholastic Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• READ 180 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Broadcast of Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Quizlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Huntington Learning Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sports Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hancock Fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hobby Lobby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jo-Ann Stores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A.C. Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Michaels Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Utrecht Art Supplies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CompUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Circuit City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blick Art Materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• S&P Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BrainPop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Random House Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abt Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sun Television and Appliances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TigerDirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fry's Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mathnasium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KinderCare Learning Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bloomingdale's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• H. H. Gregg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discussion:

This anonymous user (whose IP address often changes) has been making strange formatting edits to a variety of corporate pages for nearly a year. The edits aren't *quite* vandalism, but they're very bizarre, often turning reasonably spaced paragraphs into large text walls, removing tags, or needlessly changing the wording of headings. They've been reverted a number of times by other users and now myself, but they continue to make the edits while refusing to use edit summaries, the article talk pages, or their own talk page.

I'd like to request a block of their known IP addresses (possibly a range block) and semi-protection of their most frequently targeted pages, especially Scholastic Corporation and Best Buy. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Vast history of disruptive edit warring and personal attacks from a user at 42.190.128.0/18 (+ more IP ranges)

Hello all, I just wanted to bring to administrators' attention, the history of disruption and attacks coming from a user at this IP range:

42.190.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed the disruption pretty much all at computer/tech-related articles like GeForce 40 series, High-Level Shader Language to name a few.

It starts with the user either removing excessive amount of content without explanation, removing refs for no reason, adding improperly/poorly sourced content, or adding content against WP:CRYSTAL rule.

When the edits are reverted, they then follow up with vigorously "undoing" (edit warring) other editors' edits and often writing vile personal attacks in the following edits' summaries.

After-note: As I typed all this and went through all the instances to list in the table below, I discovered that this persistent behaviour has actually been going on for several years now, with disruptive edits previously coming from a wide range of different IP addresses where even the first (leftmost) octets vary. Please read carefully through the table, there are instances where the atrocity has been extremely severe.

List of incidents Date Article (linked to timeline of incidents) Involved individual IPs Notes/Summary 17 Feb 2023 — 219.92.0.0/16 I'm only just noting this IP range down, this seems to be yet another IP range the editor is using to evade blocks and disrupt articles. Couldn't be bothered to figure out the subnet yet so I just put it at /16. 6 Feb 2023 PCI Express
Sapphire Rapids 42.190.184.100 (talk · contribs)
42.190.146.35 (talk · contribs) After being reverted by Materialscientist for not properly adding a source (!), they went on to edit war and personally attack them. 4 Jan 2023 GeForce 40 series 42.190.172.23 (talk · contribs) Resumed disruption on GeForce 40 series again as soon as the protection expired 25 Dec 2022 Talk:GeForce 40 series
GeForce 40 series
GeForce 20 series
GeForce 30 series 42.190.189.165 (talk · contribs)
219.92.199.79 (talk · contribs)
42.190.183.189 (talk · contribs)
42.190.153.140 (talk · contribs) Severe disruption on the GeForce 40 series article with atrocious things being written in the edit summaries 19 Dec 2022 GeForce 40 series
GeForce 20 series
GeForce 30 series 42.190.182.79 (talk · contribs) Yet another instance of disruptive removal of excessive quantity of content on GeForce 40 series, and unexplained removal of content on 20 and 30 series articles 3–25 Dec 2022 High-Level Shader Language 42.190.153.140 (talk · contribs)
42.190.147.138 (talk · contribs)
42.190.174.117 (talk · contribs)
42.190.181.137 (talk · contribs)
42.190.183.181 (talk · contribs) Edit warring when T4C Fantasy made it clear they are wrong; calling them a "retard"; removing mentions of GCN from the article for no reason whatsoever at all. 10 Nov 2022 GeForce 40 series 42.190.143.105 (talk · contribs) One instance of the same disruption on GeForce 40 series involving removing excessive quantity of content that cannot be explained by just the edit summary they left. 22 Sep 2022 GeForce 40 series 42.190.172.10 (talk · contribs)
42.190.191.119 (talk · contribs) Edit warring - unjustified removal of excessive quantity of content, as well as calling other editors "AMD shill trolls that are extremely jealous of Nvidia's success" 21 Sep 2022 Tegra
Turing (microarchitecture) 42.190.176.151 (talk · contribs) DIYeditor considers the Tegra edit summary confrontational. Silent removal of image on Turing 20–21 Sep 2022 Ada Lovelace (microarchitecture)
Nvidia NVENC 42.190.176.151 (talk · contribs)
42.190.135.177 (talk · contribs) Disruptive behaviour on Ada Lovelace, edit summaries removed on both Ada Lovelace and Nvidia NVENC. Silent removal of image on Ada Lovelace afterwards 14 Jul 2022 Safari (web browser) 42.190.147.147 (talk · contribs) Just noting it down 27 May – 5 Jul 2022 Raptor Lake
PCI Express 42.190.146.18 (talk · contribs)
42.190.134.199 (talk · contribs)
42.190.145.160 (talk · contribs) More disruptive edit warring and some attacks at Raptor Lake 11 Jun 2022 AVIF
AV1 42.190.171.131 (talk · contribs) Not sure what to say for this one, just noting it down 30 Mar 2022 AV1 42.190.164.122 (talk · contribs) edit summary removed 29 Mar 2022
6 Mar 2022
31 Dec 2020 Talk:GeForce 30 series 42.190.164.122 (talk · contribs)
42.190.137.74 (talk · contribs)
60.50.69.99 (talk · contribs) talk page messages containing personal attacks and harassment 15 Mar 2022 Arc Alchemist series 42.190.159.229 (talk · contribs) PA edit summary removed ??? – 14 May 2022 Raptor Lake 42.190.158.104 (talk · contribs)
219.92.197.198 (talk · contribs)
42.190.176.136 (talk · contribs) some disruption at Raptor Lake 18 Feb 2022 Talk:List of Intel CPU microarchitectures 42.190.161.224 (talk · contribs) Personal attack against other editors, highly likely the same user involved in 27th May 2021 incident on the actual article. Blanked user page with a harassing edit sum that screams WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1–9 Feb 2022 GeForce 10 series
Talk:GeForce 10 series 42.190.184.211 (talk · contribs)
42.190.164.131 (talk · contribs)
210.187.210.212 (talk · contribs) Edit war to add unsourced content. Personal attack on talk page as well as edit sum of 42.190.184.211 blanking their talk page. 210.187.210.212 had edit summary removed 23–27 May 2021 Nvidia G-Sync 175.141.32.111 (talk · contribs)
118.100.173.32 (talk · contribs)
115.133.25.96 (talk · contribs) Unexplained removal of all mentions of a competing product/technology; NPOV breaking at the very least 11 Mar – 27 May 2021 List of Intel CPU microarchitectures 175.141.32.111 (talk · contribs)
118.100.173.32 (talk · contribs)
115.133.25.96 (talk · contribs)
115.133.27.58 (talk · contribs)
210.186.99.91 (talk · contribs)
60.50.71.219 (talk · contribs)
115.134.173.75 (talk · contribs)
110.159.98.99 (talk · contribs)
115.133.252.144 (talk · contribs)
115.134.161.225 (talk · contribs)
175.138.76.112 (talk · contribs) Extremely severe disruptive behaviour coming from a wide range of very different IPs, where even the first octet (leftmost) varies. Highly toxic edit summaries. Possibly the same user followed up with the talk page posting on 18th Feb 2022 ??? – 14 Mar 2022 GeForce 30 series Various IPs, too many to list Woah, I did not realise how long this behaviour has been going on for, until I saw this. Seems to date as far back as September 2020, nearly the beginning of edit history of the article.

I did some closer looking into contributions from the latest 42.190.x.x IP range, and have come across at least one user 42.190.153.175 (talk · contribs) who looks to be totally different from the one disrupting the tech articles and strongly not related. So a long-term full rangeblock probably isn't going to be suitable here...

Blocking the individual IPs is of no use either, as the user clearly is able to evade the block and continue edit warring, by simply resetting their modem...

Given the vast history listed in the table above, and the persistence of it happening again over time, I feel like some serious action needs to be taken against the problematic editor here to maintain a safe, peaceful environment for other editors, as well as to minimise/reduce the disruption that other editors have to deal with over time. There's already one editor I know of (User:Rando717) who has quit editing regularly, partially due to abusive behaviour of this editor.

Maybe permanently ban these IP ranges long-term or completely from editing computer/tech related articles only (e.g. ban from editing certain categories), if that's possible?

AP 499D25 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• This was discussed at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_142#Belligerent/edit_warring_IP and Drmies, Deepfriedokra and Widr were involved on the admin side, as well as Blaze Wolf (although Blaze Wolf seemed to defend this user for some reason when I raised the issue at User_talk:Blaze_Wolf/Archive_6#42.190.135.177). I'm not sure if it would be my responsibility to tag their talk pages with ani-notice. This anon user has some kind of severe problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  No recollection, but that's an awful big range. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps those with special glasses can finetune some range blocks. Maybe some SP protections? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was not defending them. I simply don't think it's a good idea to personally attack someone just cause they personally attacked you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about blocking the range for two years. It's been blocked for longer periods before, and I see really nothing useful coming from it--in other words, in theory the collateral damage can be big, but in practice it's not. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a start. They may get more creative about finding IP addresses to come from, considering this is a person who has exhibited at least some technical knowledge. Could be worth playing whack-a-mole including article protection given how abusive they are - the whole "retard" thing isn't cool. Given that the origin seems to be in a potentially repressive country, I'm not sure how I feel about contacting the ISP(s) - cuts both ways. Could be an option though. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  The latest edits from the IP range now involve creating talk pages that further attack other editors. I've already CSD'd the pages, but posting this here to let admins know that their TPA may need to be disabled. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing outside wikipedia

A canvass outside Wikipedia was caught on reddit, it's on this link. The OP of that post is previous banned user, user:planespotterA320,(for self-confession of having an account on reddit as WikipediaHistorian , read this link).

That post on reddit requests others make pression on Talk:Crimean_Tatars, Talk:Mountain_Tats_(Crimea) and Talk:Yalıboylu

Please be careful with recent dispute among these articles. --Lemonaka (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't notice the defendant, this is intentionally per WP:BEANS. Lemonaka (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what BEANS has to do with it, but this is SOP for them. The post was made four months ago, so about October, after their CBAN here and while RespectCE (a sock) was still active; yet more evidence for you to use, Lemonaka. No one obviously spurred on by that post has edited those talk pages since, though, so no sysop action is needed right now. Heavy Water (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Lemonaka (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles.

Sorry for bothering you.

I'm not very "into" Wikipedia, but today I saw that the user Sennalen after being knocked back in a failed RfC on talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (they were directed to the Marxist cultural analysis article as an alternate place to edit) that they immediately created a merge for that page (Marxist cultural analysis with Culture studies) - in order to, I presume, get rid of the obstacle/argument by merging the article. This manipulation seems to be part of their ongoing project to revive 'Cultural Marxism' as having currency or modern political relevance.

I also noticed on their talk page, that this is part of a "plan" they have for framing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and that those plans seem generally focused on substantiating the term as a specific "movement" rather than accepting "Marxist cultural analysis" as a less controversial (and already included) term for what they're trying to place emphasis on. I was just wondering whether this kind of maneuver, or article-gerrymandering is frowned upon at Wikipedia? I know there's WP:OWN, but I don't really know when that's applicable (persistence after multiple consensuses go against you?). I don't think this is stewardship, as they tend to overlook other POV's and distinctions in the subject matter. They themselves have a specific POV - that cultural Marxism is a set and well defined term, and should be substantiated on the page about the conspiracy theory usage. Multiple editors have pointed out the purpose of the conspiracy theory page, and have directed them to the Marxist cultural analysis article instead.

They have never had a consensus for their POV, but are very persistent. I believe last year they also tried to bring NewImpartial here [74] for reprimand, claiming the conspiracy theory represents an "actual movement" and that NewImpartial was the main reason they were unable to form a consensus, which is in no way true (NewImpartial is one of the few editors that negotiates with Sennalen, and I hope they're not over burdened by this).

Is there a solution, or does the attempted ownership/maneuvering by a SPA just eventually pay off with enough time and persistence? The articles/topic is a culture war topic, and the desire seems to be to get rid of the Marxist cultural analysis article in order to make sure the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory can be edited to be seen as a legitimate and modern movement currently persistent within academia/society (rather than a 50 year old mixed and divergent set of different ideas and theorists who haven't been mainstream since the 70s, or indeed, a term with little definition or definitive source).

P.S I have interacted with this user, and it's only ever felt highly adversarial. So I'm just looking for - answers I guess? Advice, direction, a warning, or a resolution to this POV backdoor culture warring. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, I just found this, so I'm not sure whether the issue will be acknowledged here. But at least there are some guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing#Suggested_remedies 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, I see related threads at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you the same IP that called me a racist troll and was blocked by Dennis Brown? If so, I do not believe that you are not very "into" Wikipedia - you are a long-term editor with a great deal of history in this topic area, including, bizarrely, drafting articles that are more or less in line with many of Sennalen's proposals. Also if so, calling your interactions with Sennalen highly adversarial is a bit rich to put it mildly, as your continuous inflammatory accusations did nothing but stir up trouble (you seem to have calmed down a bit, lately, again assuming this was you). I don't think Sennalen is a problematic editor, and many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged (some of them have been, resulting in their modification or omission, without any edit warring that I can remember). I think part of the problem is that the IP and others seem to fervently believe, without any evidence as far as I'm aware, that Sennalen believes in the conspiracy theory, and this is guiding their interactions with this editor. I suppose this is possible, but I think they just have a difference of opinion, based on a reasonable reading of the reliable sources. Perhaps I need to assume bad faith a little more often...  Tewdar  12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: I don't think Sennalen is a problematic editor, and many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged - I find this statement misleading, though perhaps unintentionally so. Sennalen's User account began with this edit to Marxist cultural analysis, arguing against the separation between that article and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory set out in the former article: The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree on the facts - the respectable scholars and the conspiracy theorists are supposedly talking about the same phenomenon. The article she began her account with BOLD impetus to change the lead is the same article she is now proposing to merge away into non-existence, while removing the material delineating a distinction between Marxist cultural analysis and the object of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. When the response to her original proposal was less than positive a process was begun to reach consensus on that article - but now Sennalen is attempting to achieve her original POV goal "by other means".

Similarly, Sennnalen began her participation on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory with the claim that conspiracy theorists and academic sources use the term "Cultural Marxism" to mean the same thing, which was once again the whole point of her recently opened[75], enthusiastically defended[76] and subsequently refined[77] RfC, which she decided to withdraw when it was clearly not going her way (it was then closed). Around the midpoint of the intervening year, Sennalen made another attempt to rewrite the article ("Objections to new content" in the Archive), which again was not well-received, although Tewdar aligned himself with some of her proposals. In all of this, Sennalen has rather doggedly pursued a POV that has been repeatedly rejected by the community (in the 2014 Cultural Marxism AfD, and as recently as this week), but that she believes to be true (check the edit summary), which apparently justifies a long march of different kinds of interventions (creeping edits, periodic discussions, and now RfCs and Merge/Move discussions) all in service of this "truth" that the community has rejected. For the record, I don't think the Sennalen account believes in the conspiracy theory, but she clearly believes that the conspiracy theory, and actual scholarship about Marxism and culture, are talking about the same thing. That view is "true" for her even though it is at best a minority current in the relevant literatures, and this "truth" must apparently be pursued by all techniques the community will allow. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You should recognize that you yourself are the one who suggested holding an RfC, endorsed withdrawing it, and suggested redirecting attention to the disambiguation link. Sennalen (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The only one of these things that is true, is that I suggested redirecting attention to the disambiguation link, and when I said what I did[78], I did not mean "wouldn't it be good to get rid of that article by means of a Merge discussion". Your interpretations of each of these aspects are deucedly peculiar; for example, to say that I suggested holding an RfC when I actually said "Without an RfC or other explicit instrument to change consensus, this just isn't on" seems - well, it seems pretty much on par with the belabored interpretations you offer for your scholarly citations, so I shouldn't be surprised at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"...that she believes to be true (check the edit summary)" more than the edit summary, I hope someone checks the reference, Buchanan's Dictionary of Critical Theory (OUP), which states that [Western Marxism] also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as "cultural Marxism" - an assertion that Newimpartial has repeatedly rejected, claiming that "Cultural Marxism" cannot possibly be a synonym for "Western Marxism". We'd probably need a citation for that, since we have a source that (probably) says it is, although we'd need to discuss what 'also known as' means for hours and hours first of course...  Tewdar  12:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

not well-received, although Tewdar aligned himself with some of her proposals - but in that discussion, the IP (who may or may not be the current complainant, I'd say 99% probable though) said It all just needs a clearer lead/framing. Other than that, it was quite good work! - must have been nicer weather or something that day! 😂  Tewdar  17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I find this statement misleading, though perhaps unintentionally so - either you think I am trying to be intentionally misleading, or you do not. Which do you think is most likely? This sort of insinuation is not exactly helpful.  Tewdar  15:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to insinuate that you intend to mislead. You almost certainly believe your statement, many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged, to be true. However, you also know that many other editors do not share that assessment, nor do we agree that Sennalen's editing is unproblematic, but you choose to make your simplistic assessment anyway. I find this choice misleading, no matter how much faith you have in the accuracy of your own assessment. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the content in that article was written by Sennalen, and you haven't reverted it, and wow are you quick to revert when you don't like something. I conclude that you believe those edits to be unproblematic. Which of Sennalen's currently extant edits do you disagree with?  Tewdar  16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: A lot of the content in that article was written by Sennalen - I don't believe this to be true, and would like to see some kind of evidence for your assertion.

Re: Which of Sennalen's currently extant edits do you disagree with? - virtually all of her Talk space edits and most of her gnoming in Sandbox, etc., which I believe accounts for most of her edits. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, lazybones... more than 10% of the total text, almost as much as my great edits, and even more than you. 😁  Tewdar  16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense to parse "more than 10%" as A lot of the content, particularly when many of Sennalen's edits that actually survive in the article were arrived at in a BRD process where she did the post-D edit. This pattern will over- rather than under-state her contribution to the current article text. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, so they follow BRD, take the time to reach consensus while you lot blather on and hurl wild insinuations and accusations, and then take the time to add the agreed content? Sounds real problematic...  Tewdar  16:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Attempting over and over again to attain the same POV in article text, in Wikivoice, against repeated community consensus is inherently disruptive. It doesn't really matter how much CIVILity is used to push the POV. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I defy anyone to take a look at the stinking monstrosity that was the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article at, say the end of 2021, and compare it to its current state. Then take a look at who was editing that article last year.  Tewdar  18:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you want people looking into the history... They might notice that your top 10 talk pages are Talk:Sex and gender distinction (492 edits), Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (444 edits), Talk:Cornish language (161 edits), Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy (136 edits), Talk:Irreversible Damage (135 edits), Talk:Kathleen Stock (124 edits), Talk:Gender (122 edits), Talk:J. K. Rowling (113 edits), Talk:Western Hunter-Gatherer (98 edits), and Talk:Cornish phonology (96 edits). now what do all but three of those topics have in common? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Perhaps you could spell out exactly what you mean here, and what conclusions you think onlookers should draw. Don't be shy now.  Tewdar  19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a conversation about editors trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles is it not? IMO all three of you need to a new core area to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Fair enough. Some of my other comments are probably a bit over the top and based on a misunderstanding, then. Anyway, talk page comments aside, sociology type articles are really a side project that I (used to) dip into from time to time. Perhaps I'll stick to my core interests - articles that nobody else really edits.  Tewdar  18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see why you would get from the impression you did from what I said. My comment is about the volume of edits, in case it isn't clear what they have in common is the same editors at the top of the edit list. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Pathetic insinuation, based entirely on talk page titles it seems, too lazy to even check the actual edits. Say what you mean, or retract this. (assume most of the rest are stricken too)  Tewdar  10:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly advise you to take a look at the actual edits on say, the sex and gender distinction article and talk page. See those bits where I'm aligning with Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th, and Firefangledfeathers? Against Crossroads? To make the article more reflective of the preponderance of reliable sources? Might want to back off a bit here...  Tewdar  19:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Or my vote in the 'RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?' discussion ob the Irreversible Damage page, whrre I said Yes It is in conflict with the existing scientific consensus, and there are no published articles supporting this hypothesis afaiaa. It is, therefore, by definition "fringe", which isn't necessarily an insult. It is not pseudoscience, however. Say what you mean, Horse Eye. Say exactly what you mean.  Tewdar  20:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial just thanked me for this comment, which means, of course, that you are talking complete and utter Horseshit's back... Tewdar  19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, if I might point your attention to a flaw, you have once again jumped from being correct in a small claim (See those bits where I'm aligning with Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th, and Firefangledfeathers) to an unsupportable large claim (you are talking complete and utter Horseshit's back). This again is why you can't have nice things. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) What do you think Horse eye is trying to say? (b) Do you agree?  Tewdar  19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) I don't know; (b) I don't know. Three cheers for epistemological modesty. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should wait for their explanation. If they provide one.  Tewdar  19:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Because guess what: I'm quite angry that an editor is making insinuations based on the fucking talk pages I edit.  Tewdar  19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

From your edit history, you look more than anything like a trifurcafed WP:SPA. As opposed to Sennalen, who looks like an SPA tout court. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Languages, archaeology, genetics, with a bit of troublemaking for variety is how I'd describe it... Tewdar  20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I find that funny, because I saw your troublemaking as two topics and those three as just one. I think the Talk-space analysis would back me up on that... Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been working on article improvements in the Frankfurt School oeuvre for over a year, at the school's main page, Herbert Marcuse, György Lukács, and areas where it gets more controversial, like West German student movement and Degenerate art. No one ever cares, except when it comes to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where the connection to Trump-era politics gets it on all the SPA's watch lists.

People would like to say that like the fruit of the poison tree, every single statement a conspiracy theorist ever said is false. The fact of the matter is, they read the historical scholarship too and sometimes just repeat what they read. Bringing those real authoritative sources to Wikipedia generates a lot of WP:STONEWALLING, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and general tantrum-throwing like this filing. Nothing else to see here. Sennalen (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is at least one thing to see here: it is very tiresome to encounter an editor who believes Wikipedia is wrong about something and needs to be corrected, and who treats each and every expression of community consensus behind that thing - no matter how strongly based in sources - as STONEWALLING and IDONTLIKEIT, an obstacle to be worked around using a combinarion of patience and new tactics. Very. Tiresome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, editors who edit on a variety of topics and who engage in this one if and when it shows up on their watchlists are, by definition, not SPAs. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's even more tiring to encounter an editor who believes all the sources are wrong about something. My interest is in bringing the scholarly consensus on the topic to Wikipedia. It's opposed by people with a culture war angle who want to prevent that at all costs. There is exactly one (1) source so far that support's Newimpartial's personal POV. Tewdar and I have together brought up easily 20 books and journal articles that give a more complete picture. It's always not enough sources, or the author is too young, or the author is a lawyer, the author is Belgian, and so on until finally NewImpartial declares the sources simply don't mean the plain English meaning of the text on the page. They mean something complicated and obscure that Newimpartial is never able or willing to describe. This is stonewalling.

Some people say I should be more cooperative. I have cooperated. When someone reverts my edits, I ask for an explanation. If they express their objections, I make a new edit that incorporates responds to that feedback. That's cooperation. No, when people say I should be more cooperative, they mean I should just stop talking about reliable sources that contradict the PoV they are pushing. Sennalen (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We have perfectly good sources, starting with Martin Jay, who distinguish between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory and who neither confuse nor use common terminology for the two. If you believe for some reason that Jay is the only one who makes that distinction, I would be happy to explicate that on talk, but given the way you have repeatedly presented sources as saying things they do not say at all, I am not hopeful about WP:SATISFYing you on this matter. I am not the one here who believes all the sources are wrong, I am the one who believes that there is a clear consensus of scholarship - that Marxist cultural theory and the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory are two distinct topics - and that the vast majority of the sources that discuss that relationship are clear on this point. Most of the sources on Tewdar's list, that you point to, don't address the conspiracy theory at all, many of them don't describe anything in particular as "cultural Marxism", and the only ones that do both of those things distinguish clearly between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory. The idea that because a tiny minority of sources on Marxism and culture use the phrase "cultural Marxism" (to mean different things), therefore when the conspiracy theorists talk about "Cultural Marxism" they are engaged in selective interpretation of something that actually exists - well, you'll need something more than a single peer-reviewed source to back that up, since the mainstream view is clearly to the contrary.

As far as something complicated and obscure that Newimpartial is never able or willing to describe, that is an unfounded ASPERSION, as I am never anything but willing to describe complicated and obscure things. Alas, on this topic I am usually the one relying on the plain English meaning of the text on the page and you are typically the one insisting that the text means something it doesn't actually say. Discussion after discussion after discussion clearly demonstrate this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, what does Christian Fuchs (sociologist) mean by The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism.[79] Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In plain English he is using "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for the activity, Marxist cultural analysis, and making the obvious point that the Frankfurt School tradition engages in that activity. I'm not seeing anything there in common with the object of the conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism", which acts in the manner of other antisemitic conspiracy theories to subvert Western mores. One isn't "based on" the other. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay. The quote's not about the conspiracy theory, but that's the point isn't it? There is a thing, a real thing, at least sometimes called cultural Marxism, and it has to do with the Frankfurt school. If we can agree on that it's a major breakthrough. Sennalen (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I can't agree about a real thing - you are giving it a Dinglichkeit the sources don't, which is kind of the whole point. It matters whether writers refer to a domain, an activity, or a group (or none of the above). If a group, it matters what group. These are not all the same thing, nor do they have in common something to do with the Frankfurt School. There is no thing there (and if there were, I'm sure you would have a more muscular statement about this pre-conspiratorial usage than that it has something to do with the Frankfurt School). Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

So we can't use a source that says "The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism." to say the Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism, because it lacks Dinglichkeit. I rest my case. Sennalen (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We have an article on the activity and domain "cultural Marxism" - Marxist cultural analysis (this domain is also known as Marxist cultural theory and Marxist cultural studies, and is not usually called "cultural Marxism").

We also have articles on Marxist Humanism, Critical Theory, Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School, each of which is a group of writers (only overlapping in places) that have been referred to as "cultural Marxism". Again, as a minority usage.

"Cultural Marxism", apart from the conspiracy theory, doesn't mean any one thing, and it is purest reification (Verdinglichung) to pretend that there is some singular "cultural Marxism" in which the Frankfurt School can be an important tradition. (Some of the sources you've pointed to define one as the other, which would make the cited statement tautological, but clearly that isn't what Fuchs actually means.)

We have to pay attention to what authors actually mean, not a convenient reification that we wish they had meant, or what is the point of using sources? Oh yeah, so you can pretend someone meant something they obviously didn't and immediately rest my case. I wonder whether ChatGPT can do that... Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are several things called cultural Marxism. The conspiracy theory, the Frankfurt School, the Birmingham School, Western Marxism, and more besides. Why is it sometimes we can agree these things can be called cultural Marxism, and sometimes people act like its saying Elvis abducted JFK in a UFO? Sennalen (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I have always objected to the proposal that there is a unitary, identifiable topic identifiable as "cultural Marxism", apart from the object of the conspiracy theory. I object to this because the RS, with which I am familiar, do not support this claim. I also know from extensive experience that even when those making the claim are somewhat familiar with the relevant scholarship, the vast majority of the time they claim that such a topic exists in order to make a second claim - that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was constructed out of a flawed, or simply alternative, interpretation of this actually existing "cultural Marxism". This second claim is very popular in SPS and op-eds, is very poorly attested among scholarly sources, and arrives annually or more on enwiki in sinusoidal waves. Since the first claim (that there is a thing prior to the conspiracy theory that scholars agree to call "cultural Marxism") is false, there isn't much reason to discuss the second one. (And that doesnt mean the CT was invented out of thin air, just that it wasn't based on an already existing "cultural Marxism"). Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now scholars don't call something cultural Marxism? 30 minutes ago they apparently called so many things cultural Marxism we couldn't possibly tell which one they meant. Sennalen (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but could anyone explain the context behind the author is Belgian please? As that seems a rather odd way to object to a source. Too young, and lawyer also are odd objections, but being Belgian is the weirdest of the bunch. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP ludicrously objected to the Jamin source because he's Belgian. I cannot remember exactly what Newimpartial says about him.  Tewdar  18:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This was you, was it not? Okay, changed out the reference. Jamin is a french academic, a bit silly to have them used for an American concept/social context. Braune is American and correctly summarizes the academic viewpoint on the conspiracy theory. Hope that's enough to please everyone. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Except you incorrectly described Jamin as French, and it was on the Talk:Marxist cultural analysis page that you made this statement.  Tewdar  09:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You may regret it, but it is an off-colour joke I make about Jerome Jamin. He has been mistaken by editors as being French, but is actually Belgian, and unlike other peer-reviewed scholarship he likes to draw parallels as well as distinctions between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory. So when I want to pigeonhole his personal idiosyncrasy, I refer to "Belgians". In reality, I have nothing against Belgian scholarship ourside of the problems posed by Jamin's peculiar take (which editors have repeatedly decontextualised, tendentiously interpteted, and tried to incorporate in Wikivoice where he disagrees with mainstream scholarship). Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The topics of Marxist cultural analysis and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory are pretty obviously different, so whoever is arguing that they are the same is simply wrong. I'm afraid my eyes glaze over when I read such reports, so I can't identify who that is. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Nobody's saying that, Phil, except drive-by kooks who occasionally show up at that article...  Tewdar  15:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Then let's do something about the drive-by kooks if they refuse to accept consensus, as I have accepted many times even when it is against me. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The drive-by kooks are regularly reverted and sent on their merry way. The recent RfC was started by a regular editor, when it was suggested that a RfC from 2014(!) was still binding today, despite lots of sources available that nobody mentioned in 2014...  Tewdar  15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, you know perfectly well that the community has continued to re-affirm that "Cultural Marxism" is the name of the conspiracy theory's imagined object and not anything else, through formal processes up through 2021. You also know that selectively citing only sources that use words the way you would like to see them used is not evidence of anything beyond "this phrase exists" - treating it as though it shows something has changed in the literature since 2014 is - well, it's beneath you, frankly. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" is the name of the conspiracy theory's imagined object and not anything else - rubbish. Even our cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article does not support this. There are dozens of excellent sources who use the term to mean something other than a conspiracy theory, including a SAGE Encyclopedia and the Oxford English dictionary.  Tewdar  16:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The SAGE Encyclopedia doesn't say what you insist it does, and the OED isn't a good source for the claim that the minority view should be presented as the mainstream one. Re: There are dozens of excellent sources who use the term to mean something other than a conspiracy - your evaluation that they are "excellent" seems to mean "that agree with you", several of these sources do not support the idea that "Cultural Marxism" actually does "mean something other" than the CT, and the ones that do aren't all referring to the same thing.

Believing something, no matter how fervently, simply does not make that thing true. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so Kellner is talking about the conspiracy theory when he says 'cultural Marx(ism/ist), is he? Nonsense. The sources collected here are all pretty decent, and certainly at least on a par with anything by Joan Braune. A source does not have to agree with me, nor another source, to be 'excellent'.  Tewdar  16:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Your linked list contains sources that use "cultural Marxism" strictly for an activity, ones that use "cultural Marxism" for a group of writers, and ones that use it for both or don't specify (Kellner is a great example of cultural Marxism as an activity). Your list also includes sources for whom "cultural Marxism" refers to the Birmingham School, ones for whom it refers to the Frandfurt School, and ones who are referring to Marxist humanism, as well as ones with no clear referent. There really is no there, there. You don't include sources there who talk about Western Marxism using its COMMONNAMES (which don't inclide "cultural Marxism"), nor do you include the corpus of sources that reserve "Cultural Marxism" for the object of the conspiracy theory. I'm afraid that, as I said before, you have no evidence of anything beyond "this phrase exists". But then again, we are now discussing a content issue which is outside the scope of ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would I include such sources you describe on a page devoted to collecting non-conspiratorial usages of the term 'cultural Marxism'? Anyway, this is irrelevant here, as you say.  Tewdar  16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If your argument, or Sennalen's, had simply been, "not everyone who puts the word cultural in front ot the word Marxist is a conspiracy theorist", we could all have agreed long since. But if one of you is going to argue that the source situation has changed significantly since 2014, and that RS now use "cultural Marxism" in a specified way that was unknown to the 2014 AfD, you need to provide more consistent evidence IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't just have drive-by kooks in this subject area; we also have well-intentioned editors who believe that conspiracy theorists and scholars of Marxist cultural analysis are talking about "the same thing" from different perspectives. This is a small minority view in both literatures (the literature on the conspiracy and the literature on Marxist scholarship), but Sennalen is an editor who tries in protean ways to incorpoate that view in Wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the dispute is actionable but I do think Sennalen should proceed with caution. The RFC was obviously flawed as there was no content proposal or substantive question. The idea that the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory," ie the theory that modern-day institutions are trying to promote Marxism subtly or secretly, is not a conspiracy theory but is in fact true, is problematic and tendentious. It's true that the Frankfurt School was a Western academic branch of Marxist critical theory and cultural analysis that was influential in the 1960s, but that doesn't mean "the conspiracy theory is actually true" and there also seems to be a bit of WP:OR spin happening here. Wikipedia is not going to acknowledge that "the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is actually somewhat true" because it isn't, but more importantly, WP:V is the issue: Verifiability. Conflating Marxist cultural analysis and a conspiracy theory is disruptive. The former is a legitimate discipline in academia that existed and still exists, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy to brainwash the masses and turn them commie. That is a right-wing conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 15:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have interacted with this user, and it's only ever felt highly adversarial. You are an IP with practically no history, and before today, all interactions between your IP and Sennalen have been one-way (from you; she has never responded to any posts by your IP before this report, and therefore could not have been "adversarial"). Would this constitute an admission of log-out socking by any chance? This is explicitly not allowed on project pages. DFlhb (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC); fixed pronouns DFlhb (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment here but IP addresses can change. This does not necessarily rule out socking but it also does not imply it, specifically, and that's why we assume good faith until evidence brings us to a different conclusion. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(She has never responded, etc. Pronouns, people.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. I usually use "they" when I don't know, but I guess I got confused here. DFlhb (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is very easy to get confused; I started to use "they" for Senanalen but had a nagging feeling so I checked her user page. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not an accurate characterization of the content dispute. The question is essentially whether to describe the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as

1. Something invented out of thin air, and the only thing ever called "cultural Marxism"
2. A set of lies about the Frankfurt School, which is also legitimately called "cultural Marxism"

The second is the consensus of reliable sources, but upsetting to of a faction of editors. Sennalen (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we must await the forthcoming peer-reviewed article, Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of Cultural Marxism, and the following ARBCOM intervention, to decide between these two perspectives. 😁  Tewdar  18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

But Sennalen, many of the sources that you have advanced in support of your view that "Cultural Marxism was a real boy thing before it was an object of the conspiracy theory" are not about the Frankfurt School. Nobody disputes that the conspriacy theorists have made up lies about the Frankfurt School, but from this you cannot conclude that there was a pre-existing usage, "Cultural Marxism=Frankfurt School", that was seized upon by the conspiracy theorists. Once again, you are assuming precisely the thing you are supposed to be demonstrating, and are creating straw goats ("invented out of thin air") to make your case for you. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Trent Schroyer A Critique of Domination (1973) used it that way, which you well know from your university studies, our recent talk page discussions, and the time you expunged it from Marxist cultural analysis.[80]

Then we also have sources that say things like One of the issues associated with the Cultural Marxist conspiracy is that Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School[81] Sennalen (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how a diff wherein I remove a bad paraphrase about a tangent to the article's topic becomes some kind of "gotcha" in your eyes. Yes , Schroyer refers to "cultural Marxism" as a broad domain. No, he does not use it as a synonym for the Frankfurt School, or any other group of writers.

And if you're reading Busridge as saying anything like, "the conspiracy theory is based on a misreading of Cultural Marxism as a philosophical tendency" - well, I don't know what to make of that. It seems on the face of it like a terrible misreading. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Marxist cultural analysis is not the same as cultural Marxism, although they have overlaps. You can see this in the writings of Raymond Williams that I used as a source recently on the Marxist cultural analysis page. Herbert Marcuse, whilst accused of being the main driving force of "Cultural Marxism" didn't use the term. So you claiming that his removal from the lede of Marxist cultural analysis is something wrong - well, I think that highlights some of what you're attempting. Fortifying the conservative views that you read in a way that aligns with Civil POV pushing. The reason I came here. You do a lot of edits, not because the page needs it - but because you want to rewrite it. You've said as much in various places (on the talk page, in RfCs, on your own talk page). Seeing you and Tewdar joke about cutting the heads of Hydras when you have these RfCs shows that you're not really here in Good Faith. The reasons you have been brought here are obvious for those who understand what's going on, and we are trying to explain it. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you take me to ANI, if you think you can show that I'm not here in good faith, because I made a joke about a hydra? Perhaps you can point out my edits on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article that you consider problematic, for those who don't understand what's going on? And why don't you ever use your user account? Was it about to be blocked or something? The behaviour on that article talk page is appalling, and you are the worst offender there. This section is a travesty, can someone either decide on a suitable action or close it, before it turns even more nasty?  Tewdar  10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

And it wasn't a joke about an RfC, it was a joke about Newimpartial being taken here.  Tewdar  10:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What would be the diff for that, Tewdar? I would have thought I'd remember a joke about being taken here: usually when editors make comments like that about me, they aren't really joking. Newimpartial (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's on Sennalen's talk page. You even replied to her reply! 😁 And it certainly was intended as a joke - occasionally I find you reasonably tolerable, on your good days... for clarity, the joke was made after you were brought here.  Tewdar  10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So (1) your exchange with Sennalen was actually about her bootless ARE filing against me, which I had pretty much forgotten, so it wasn't about ANI, and (2) I can see how your comment may have been meant as a joke, but hers seems quite earnest, albeit misguided. Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(1) ARE, ANI, you really want me to remember all these drama acronyms? (2) This was months ago and didn't seem to bother you very much at the time. People are always plotting to get rid of you, right? Waste of time if you ask me 😂.  Tewdar  11:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

People even plot about people who might plot about getting rid of me in the future ... it can be very meta. Newimpartial (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Here, this diff is a great example of me pushing the conspiracy theory. Perhaps you could start with that one?  Tewdar  11:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an accurate characterization of the content dispute? Thats not at all what appears to be on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Most things labelled "conspiracy theories" aren't conspiracy theories. Usually they are just allegations, and the term "conspiracy theory" is a POV addition / mis-labelling to discredit the allegation. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you dispute the scholarly sources documenting a Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? If so, who should we follow: your opinion or the peer-reviewed scholarship? Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Most things"? What? First of all, even if for the sake of argument most things considered conspiracy theories aren't conspiracy theories, have you read the lead section of the article in question? If after reading that you still believe that the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is not a conspiracy theory, you're basically aligning yourself with a fringe right-wing POV. There's no culture war conspiracy of the leftist universities to brainwash people. The fact that some people might use the term "cultural Marxism" broadly in no way validates the conspiracy theory. It's a literal crackpot theory about a conspiracy that our institutions such as universities are brainwashing people en masse into leftism. A sizable portion of paranoid right wingers believe this. Andre🚐 20:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Most things labelled "conspiracy theories" aren't conspiracy theories, what an irresponsible and ignorant comment. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved administrator please hat or delete North8000's comment and its replies? NOTFORUM. Sennalen (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As just one example of the peculiar behaviour over there, take a look at this RfC about the first sentence. Now, the conspiracy theory itself is given at least three names in the academic literature by various scholars; the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; the Frankfurt School conspiracy; and Cultural Marxism. Even noting that the conspiracy theory has at least three names is rejected! Just look at some of the stuff they're saying here! 😭  Tewdar  18:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by pointing to an RfC where Sennalen didn't participate, you retracted your !vote, and I commented briefly but didn't vote. It was also an RfC about the lead sentence only, and it is impossible to include everything RS say about the topic in a lead sentence. So what are you kvetching about, and why would it be relecant at ANI? You are giving me the impression of some kind of disintegration. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought Sennalen did participate in that discussion... 😁 Anyway, that discussion is fairly representative of the nonsense that goes on over there. Quite relevant background material, I'd say, but of course people can decide for themselves.  Tewdar  20:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

it is impossible to include everything RS say about the topic in a lead sentence what the fuck?! Two extra altnames?!  Tewdar  20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the RfC again, Tewdar. It doesn't present any choice that includes multiple "altnames". Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a better look at the 'Neutral, mixed, or other section', as well as the rest of the discussion. Do you not remember it? We discussed it on my talk page for what felt like years...  Tewdar  21:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, the best bit of that discussion is the claim that we shouldn't call it Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, because that might imply that it's a conspiracy theory about a real thing, even though the sources call it that, and it's the name of the article! 😂  Tewdar  21:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that you aren't inclined to respect community processes on that Talk page, citing as your key example the way a side issue, not raised in the formal RfC, was handled in a discussion section. If so, I submit that detecting, interpreting and evaluating peculiar behaviour (vs. legitimate consensus determination) may not be your strong suit.

Deciding for yourself what the article should say, and then evaluating the sources presented and the arguments of other editors based on whether or not they support what you believe the article should say - which is what your procedure appears to be - is not really how enwiki is supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a good job I don't do that, then. I say the sources give three different terms for the same conspiracy theory, and suggest we use all three. Respected community members say fuck the reliable sources, let's just use one of these, which happens to not be the title of the article.  Tewdar  22:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The procedure I described is certainly what your consistent disparagement of Joan Braune's scholarly work, and of the contributions of many other editors, tend to imply.

You said something in a discussion section of an RfC about something else, other editors disagreed with you, and you now caricature that disagreement as Respected community members say fuck the reliable sources - voicing that caricature at ANI, of all places.

I understand that this is how you feel, and I have observed over the years just how full ANI can be of feelz. However, this disaparagement of unnamed editors is unCIVIL, unhelpful, and frankly just unwise. If you can't stop using this discussion as an opportunity to paint a target on your own back while distracting attention away from Sennalen, you just might want to disengage. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I won't be replying to this part of the discussion again, I just wanted people to take a look at what community consensus looks like over there, so I'll let you have the last word.  Tewdar  22:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and concluding(?) wall of text

Some people have cast aspersions because my first edit on this WP:CLEANSTART account was to Talk: Marxist cultural analysis. What's actually important about that edit is that I came to a talk page with a constructive suggestion, using RS, and asked for feedback. Newimpartial's response to that was to delete my talk page comment and accuse me of being a sock.[82] That set the tenor for our following interactions, but I would only later come to understand how it fit into an existing long term pattern of incivility and disruptive editing by Newimpartial. I documented the situation and sought relief at AE[83] to little effect. Happily, I can report that since that time Newimpartial has provided more satisfactory revert edit summaries.

What I did not know when I started looking at Marxist cultural analysis is that about a year prior, Newimpartial had specifically curated that page to push their ideocyncratic PoV about the conspiracy theory. Because the phrase "cultural Marxism" is used in academic research, Talk page consensus was moving towards adding a disambiguation link from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Western Marxism or some similar page.[84] Newimpartial's priority has been to deny that link.[85] Sometime around October 2020, Newimpartial had discovered the abandoned stub of Marxist cultural analysis. Over a course of a couple of weeks they purged the little-watched page of content that confirmed scholarly use of "cultural Marxism".[86] Once the page matched their PoV, Newimpartial set it as the disambiguation link at the top of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.[87] I can't construe any way this explicitly violates a policy, but it certainly doesn't seem like fair play.

It's not the conspiracy theory page that provoked this paroxysm of opposition, but the suggestion to merge the semi-duplicate Marxist cultural analysis into cultural studies. The IP who made this filing is somewhat of an enigma. I've asked them to confirm what I believe to be their editing history[88] The recent entries are a near certainty based on geolocation and their pattern of interests. The older ones are a hunch - an IP with similar geolocation who was called before ANI at the same time as a discussion on Marxist cultural analysis. I'm reasonably satisfied they are not a sock, since in their early edits they were clearly still getting a feel for the topic. They do however seem to have particuarly restricted editing interests, even more restricted than just cultural Marxism. Several edit wars have gone by on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory without drawing their attention. In both timing and content their activity centers around my edits to Marxist cultural analysis. The only user talk pages they have graced are mine and Newimpartial'ss - and the latter to tell Newimpartial about the sandbox page where I was workshopping an edit to Marxist cultural analysis.[89] Is it wikistalking? Are they logging out to avoid scrutiny? Are there missing spans of edit history that would clear the air? Maybe the IP can fill us in.

I am being taken to task for periodically updating articles with reliably sourced encyclopedic content and due weight. Meanwhile the faction with their knives out for me have been engaged in a far longer campaign to prevent the addition of reliably sourced content and skirt the obligations of NPOV. Who should really be called to account for themselves? The IP speaks in ominous tones about my "plans" for the article, as if I shouldn't be collecting books and journal articles, writing outlines, and expanding articles. If the accusation is WP:OWNership, there's a numbered list of criteria at that guideline, and I match none of them.

I'm not a threat because I ramrod my versions over the objections of community consensus. I'm a threat because I'm all too ready to withdraw a rejected proposal, listen to feedback, track down the sources, and fine-tune the wording. That's why almost everything I wanted stands in some form on the live version of all the contested pages. I have found the consensus that people sometimes don't want to be found. As much as this filing was a cynical effort to drive away a productive editor, it has still furthered negotiation with those who are reticent to negotiate. In the vacillation about the meaning of a simple sentence from Christian Fuchs, reification has emerged as a cause for objection, and we can work on that. I just look forward to the day when obvious improvements don't require such disproprtionate angst. Sennalen (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

From the complainant.

I guess as far as I can tell there's never been anything close to a consensus to have The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on the same disambiguation page as Western Marxism, which to my mind would be like having The List of 20th Century American Presidents on the same disambiguation page as The JFK Assassination conspiracy theory (in that, one page is focusing on a conspiracy theory, the other, real life).

I also don't see NewImpartial "curating" the page to avoid this fate, or for that matter, for any other particular goal as Sennalen claims. NewImpartial in general has been a force (as mentioned in my complaint) for supporting and negotiating for the long term stability of the page, and the ongoing consensus around that.

I think most of Sennalen's claims shows that their goals for the page are - odd. Driven, self-motivated, internal, individualistic... and an anathema to what's come before.

Likewise when Sennalen talks about being unsuccessful at Arbitration Enforcement, that would be the same AE that they discuss on their talk page as "leaving a paper trail" against NewImpartial, a campaign of long term character assassination very much in line with the actions of a Civil POV pusher. A set up. The very fact that most of their replies here have been aimed at NewImpartial the individual (and voice of stability) rather than at my actual complaint also confirms that there's - some questionable moves and perhaps motivations going on here. Which is why I came here, because of the many attempted strategic moves being made.

Sennalen's above comments also confirm that these very civil claims of having had a consensus, or almost had a consensus, or disambiguating a page, or merging one that was getting in their way... well, this is the very stuff of trying to own a topic area.

More recently these sorts of behaviors have been suggested on the Marxist Cultural Analysis merge discussion (which as the complaints state, came on the heals of a failed RfC)...

So when you sit back, and take the actual statements and courses of events in - the claims of consensus that don't add up, the mischaracterizations, the desired page moves, it is all very Civil. But it's also fairly clearly aimed at achieving an outcome that only one editor really supports.

Sennalen has never backed down, never been caused to accept that others disagree with them (and have grounds to). Their one abiding answer always ends up being - that they'll try again later (and later is often sooner). As far as I can tell, the attempts against consensus, set ups, wrangling, POV pushing, whatever you wish to call it, will not cease unless they're made to listen by some outside force. It will always be one more editor in their way, an almost achieve consensus that was no where near, or a merger after a failed RfC to achieve their strategic goal of well... elevating the conspiracy theory to the level of being a legitimate, well defined, and relevant ideology, on par with other forms of Marxism in the west. Keep in mind, here, they've been told repeatedly- that consistency is lacking in the term, and that we've attributed a legitimate page for the topic at Marxist cultural analysis, and that there are others on the general topics of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and The Culture Industry... the beauty of these pages is that they're not about a conspiracy theory. They're about the real events.

Take that for what you will. Appraise the matter as the Administrators of Wikipedia that you are - because that's why I came here. I see something, wanted to know if you do too, and was looking for advice, a direction, or perhaps if it's warranted some causal outcome. Your 2 cents. Thank you. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

odd. Driven, self-motivated, internal, individualistic... and an anathema to what's come before.

Sounds metal. I like it. Sennalen (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The most obvious explanation for this odd exchange between IP and Sennalen remains that we are seeing GOODSOCK and BADSOCK accounts interact in an unholy, or at least inappropriate, dialogue. Newimpartial (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That possibility never occurred to me. Have you been reading those books again? Please, present your evidence at SPI and ping me to the discussion. I'll bring some popcorn.  Tewdar  08:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have little to add here, as I lost the plot of this thread quite a while ago. All I would like to say is that I salute the dedication and fortitude of any administrators who have been able to read this far and still have their sanity relatively intact. You all deserve a pay rise. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I say 50%, at least. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

UPE report for Garshaasp

During a recent NPP review, I've encountered an editor Garshaasp who I believe might be engaging in undisclosed paid editing on behalf of third parties. After consulting with another NPP, @Onel5969, who had previously reviewed a different page by this user and raised similar concerns, we have determined that submitting a report here would be the best course of action. I am providing below data indicating (though not conclusively proving) that UPE is likely.

The user created at least six articles all of which are about Iranian subjects--among them, a businessman, two companies, a boxer, and a musician--written in an arguably un-encyclopedic tone with dubious sources and WP:REFCLUTTER to make them seem more notable. The pages include: Yousef Imani (live), Hamid Peymoode (draftified and previously published under at least one other name--Peymoode), Iranian National Records Registration Committee (not yet reviewed but tagged for GNG), Behzad Qasemi (several declines for AfC), Overclock scientific research group (draftified), and Tehran Summer Code (unreviewed after realizing its connection to the "Overlock scientific research group").

It is important to note that the editor is not engaging in blatant advertising and their pages are quite inconspicuous, indicating at least a basic awareness of WP:POLICY and making this case more complicated to resolve on NPP level. While overcited, the articles rely on a plethora of Iranian sources that might at first appear reliable, some of which are available only in Persian and thus are difficult to independently verify (like 1, 2, 3). While this report is not the place to engage in politically charged debates, we can safely say that due to censorship and suppression of free speech in Iran, sources need to be vetted with particular caution. For example, Iran Front Page, an apparently reliable source with its own editorial team, includes in its "About" page the following statement: "By and large, IFP is trying to say that in Iran life goes on as normally as it can," which can be easily perceived as an implicit declaration of bias. The editor's reliance on and extensive knowledge of various Iranian sources can potentially make it much easier for them to engage in UPE without being immediately noticed.

Moreover, it is worth noting that Garshaasp has also attempted to project a sense of community engagement by joining WikiProject Computing, adding a Recent Changes Patroller icon to their userpage, and including a "free speech" userbox, all on February 18. Finally, we would also like to point to the editor's oddly reassuring new article summaries, written as if letting the reviewers know that they had done the work: "I published this article by reading the sources," "I wrote the article by reading independent sources and created it with the correct name," and "I completed the article using standard templates and reliable and official sources (universities, official news agencies, newspapers and news bases" among others," to provide just three examples.

Again, this is not a clear case and we cannot conclusively state that UPE is involved, though we have reason to believe that it should be investigated further and we kindly ask that the admins help us determine whether any violations of policy have taken place here. Thank you very much. Ppt91 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have asked Garshaasp about this - or at least, there is nothing on User talk:Garshaasp to suggest that the contributor has even been made aware of relevant policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump He was just notified as this was published. He also received multiple notices regarding his previous articles indicating consistent issues with GNG. The decision to post here was made after discussing it first with another NPP so as not to rush with any judgment. Ppt91 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As it says up above Before posting a complaint about a user on this page... Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page. A simple question regarding whether Garshaasp was aware of relevant policy, and was compliant with it, would be all that was needed. Depending on the response, and any relevant evidence, it might be appropriate to pursue the matter, but bringing it here before even asking the question seems premature to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 Would this be a good time to discuss (Redacted) HypocriteMuch? (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be slightly different for UPE If you believe an editor is conducting undisclosed paid editing as defined by this policy, please report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) Based on the extent of these contributions, @Onel5969 and I thought this would be the best route to take and will be happy to abide by the consensus and administrators’ determinations. Ppt91 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello friends, I hope you are doing well, I read the texts and I am surprised! I am a computer programming major and I am interested in studying in this field and in the field of sports. The reason for the articles I created was that there were no pages for such articles in Persian and English Wikipedia. I created the articles you mentioned in order to develop the encyclopedia. In cases where the articles had problems, I tried to fix them by re-examining them and re-reading the rules and sources of the article. Yes, I live in Iran, but I don't have a particular political side, except freedom of expression and opinion, which is limited in Iran, and that's why I write articles under the pseudonym Gershasp. I am interested in writing articles and I only search in my free time and related to my interests or expertise, and if there is no article in Wikipedia, I will create it. Is this against Wikipedia's rules? Garshaasp 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Garshaasp, the question is whether you have been paid to create the articles referenced above. If you have, you must disclose, per the instructions at WP:COI. Undisclosed paid editing is not allowed. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Valereee, i hope you are well. Did he get paid for writing Wikipedia? I have not received any money. I read sports articles on sports websites. And I created two events (tehran summer code, overclock science research group) that are popular among programmers in Iran (because I am a programmer and I follow events in this field). Afshin Esmaeil ghaderzadeh and Yousef Imani are Iranians who are registered in Guinness. All Iranian people know them. I have only created material that has not been on Wikipedia.

Behzad Qasemi was also a lecturer at the university where I was studying, and I have seen his online webinars only twice in 2020, and he is active in the field of cyber security. If these people are banned from creating articles, let me know so I don't do them. (I read the wikipedia rules but didn't find such a thing) Garshaasp 20:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Greetings. In addition to the points brought up by Ppt91, there are clear indications that this is a UPE account. In at least one of the articles they have created, it is indisputable that the editor has some relationship with the subject, Yousef Imani. Within the entirety of their editing, there are also clear patterns which indicate UPE editing. And I hate ANI, so I do not suggest taking someone here lightly, however, I agree with Ppt91, that it was appropriate to bring here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Onel5969, please provide more concrete evidence than your bare opinion, to make it possible for admins to evaluate the case. What exactly are the clear indications that this is a UPE account? Diffs, please. Why is it indisputable that the editor has some relationship with Yousef Imani? And, I realize this is harder, but can you specify what clear patterns indicate UPE editing? Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC).

  Hi Bishonen, if you email me, I'll be happy to explain my rationales. I'm loathe to publish online the tells that give UPE editors away to experienced reviewers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Er... why would I have to e-mail you first, Onel5969, when both you and I have wikimail enabled? E-mail me, please. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC).

• I noticed that the photograph of the subject used in the article (File:یوسف_ایمانی.jpg) was uploaded to Commons by Garshaasp, and labelled as their own work. I wonder how they managed to get him to pose for a photograph like that. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Girth Summit, Yousef Imani's picture has been published on IRNA with a permission to publish it for everyone, and I have edited that picture (made it smaller) and re-uploaded it. (because there were no other images of this person on the web that were free and used for non-commercial purposes). Garshaasp 22:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Could you provide a link to where they have published it and released their rights? Cropping or resizing someone else's image does not make it your own work - that statement was inappropriate, and at a minimum the copyright tags on the image will need to be changed. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit, this is a Link. I have read the rules using google translate. In the upload section, I have noticed that there is nothing wrong with cutting a part of an image or magazine for use in an article. In addition to this issue, the image published in IRNA has been used in all Iranian sites, and I found out that the first image was published by IRNA and I used it. Garshaasp 22:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  In addition, I change and upload the images using my Photoshop. I change the image in terms of dimensions Garshaasp 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Changing it does not make it your own work. You cannot turn someone else's photograph into your own work using Photoshop. Now, you've provided a link to the photograph, but I see no copyright statement - please provide a link to the place where they release it into the public domain, or grant a license compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that we release all of our content under. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit I did not know about this and I apologize for this. At the end of the IRNA website(footer), this text is written:

  "Quotation of material is permissible with reference to the source"

  I understood from this text that the news agency has given permission to the user to use the content posted on its website.

  (I feel that I need to read the rules again. I apologize to all my friends in this forum for unintentionally causing many people to be involved in my negligence) Garshaasp 22:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit, The only question that comes to me is that if I want to create an article and I don't have an image of it, how do I know that I can find a free image (without copyright)? (The copyright law in Iran is not respected much. Most websites all use the same image in their news.) Is there a website that can determine whether the images are free or not? Garshaasp 22:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  A vague statement along the lines of 'quotation is permissible' is a very long way from saying that you can take a picture and pass it off as your own work. Articles do not need to have images. We like to have them when possible, but they aren't obligatory. If in doubt, you should assume that any image you find on the internet is covered by copyright, and that you should not use it here. Copyright policy is a complicated area, which I'm not going to attempt to explain here, but you can dip your toe in the water here. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit, Thank you very much for your advice. I know I have bored you with my questions, but I want to ask you my last question. I study computer science, sports and a bit of music and art daily. But am I allowed to create such articles if there is no article in Wikipedia (of course, according to the copyright laws) or am I not allowed to do this? (Last night, I also translated the Alma Linux article into Farsi. You can also check it) Garshaasp 22:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Yashsahuji123

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.

---

Yashsahuji123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is clearly only here to promote the website Movieholik. They continue adding inappropriate links or unnecessarily changing refs to Movieholik and other sites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Additontally, they created the now deleted Draft:Movieholik.

This user has been warned before on their talk page, but has not listened. Courtesy ping to Callanecc, who left this user a {{subst:uw-agf-sock}} warning 2 weeks ago. Thank you. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just me, but when I click on the movieholik links my security software blocks it as an unsafe site, making it even less acceptable for use here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clicking the links, but they're clearly just a promotional spammer possibly even their own site. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Obvious spammer can be reported on WP:AIV. Lemonaka (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe their suspected sock-master needs to be blocked too : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashblogger/Archive. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. Editors who are here to spam need to go. Maine 🦞 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked them 4 days ago. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

Preceptor1008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Preceptor1008 on a content dispute repeatedly made personal attacks e.g [90] SutyaRashi is a malicious troll.

[91] You basement dweller are clearly acting out of agony. better learn to behave in social situations before using a keyboard.

[92] Sutyanashi is a troll account, and must be ip banned.

Inspite of my warning[93] the user continued their disruption. This is the message the user left on my talk page [94] Don't act out of your personal vendetta, because it shows you don't have any real respect in real life. If you think you can report, you can be reported as well. Better not cross other users' boundaries, dont act like a tyrant.

This all makes it clear that User:Preceptor1008 is not here for constructive purpose. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sutyarashi - I appreciate that you have been the target of repeated personal attacks by Preceptor1008, but please don't stoop to their level by calling them a vandal (as you did in this edit). I've blocked Preceptor1008 for 31 hours as a first step; if they make any further comments like that again, come back and I will increase it to an indef block. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, first if he's also name calling me why is he not being blocked? and second, what is wrong with factual information. You're the admin/higher up, you can verify my contributions. If Scandinavism and Nordism link to the same page, shouldn't they be grouped together? He's acting out of personal vendetta and you can verify it yourself. Preceptor1008 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that you were blocked for repeated personal attacks, and Sutyarashi only responded harshly after that.

In addition, you're going to need to provide evidence they are acting out of personal vendetta, or retract that accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with factual information - it's rather encouraged. You weren't blocked for the nature of the content changes you made, but for the unacceptable insults you levelled at another editor who disagreed with you. When you disagree with someone's contributions, if you want to discuss the matter with them, policy requires that you do so in a civil manner. Now, HandThatFeeds is correct - you, Preceptor1008, have accused another editor of acting in bad faith - you are going to need either to provide evidence for that assertion, or to retract it. I very nearly blocked your account indefinitely last time - I'm wondering whether it was a mistake to have made it a temporary block. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This user hasn't provided his own reasoning for reverting my contributions or why they call those as disruptions. Without evidence, he claims they are not relevant, and keeps on reverting factual information.

Evidence for personal vendetta, Exihibit A: Reverting my recategorisation on the wikipedia template for Ethnic Nationalism. The links for Nordic and Scandinavism link to the same page therefore it is better to group them together.

Evidence for personal vendetta, Exhibit B: He removed my addition from the page, Abro, and all the sourced content (linked to archive.org) and what H.A. Rose a british officer wrote in his journal about the people group. However, there is some mesopotamian fringe stuff, which I haven't contributed to the page.

Evidence for personal vendetta, Exhibit C: He removed a map I added to the page Jat Muslim, which shows the population distribution within south asia, whose sources include 1931 British census, Joshuaproject website, etc.

What are his reasoning to lash out like that? I wasn't aware of proper protocol to report his acts which is why I noted his edits under trolling. I call it malicious since he does not provide evidence for why he removed it, we're just supposed to believe his word? Preceptor1008 (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit[95] in which you so insisted to add H.A Rose because as per past discussions, the Raj era sources are not considered reliable, especially regarding the ethnic origins. Also there was much of IP disruption in the page with implausible claims of Sumerian ancestry, so I restored the page. As for my other edit[96] the map was obviously misleading because article was about a specific subgroup. I noted that you were the creator of that map, can I ask you what was its exact source? It does not seem authentic.

I find it rich that you blamed me of not giving any explanation of reverting as I provided fair edit summaries. I requested you to use article's talk page[97] and change your behaviour but what you replied[98] was the claim that I was trolling you.

As Girth Summit and HandThatFeeds have already told you, the main problem was not your unreliable additions but your way of conduct and the kind of language you used inspite of warnings[99]; and even now you are repeatedly accusing me of having some sort of personal vendetta against you.

Sutyarashi (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you're choosing not to address the Nordic Scandinavism edit, makes it pretty evident that you were in fact blindly reverting everything I ever did. I even wrote in the edit summary but you never saw it. This alone makes it pretty clear you're not acting in good faith. Tell us why did you disrupt that template page?

I have no idea about the IP disruptions he's talking about. It can be verified by a simple search. I only ever made two edits on that page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abro&oldid=1120085496

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abro&oldid=1140034746

The H.A. Rose part only mentions his findings from the 1883 and 1892 census reports for the Punjab. I don't think there's any window for subjective views there when it is a government documentation. There's a lot that he may have said, but I only included what was veritable. The cultural rhyme can be verified by any and all pakistanis from that region. What's your reason for objecting to it? Again why are you in the seat of judgements when you need to show proof of your doubt first.

And you are acting purposefully naive when you choose to ignore my talk about the Mesopotamian/sumerian bit. I already said I had nothing to do with it but you're still accusing me only proves my point, that you're acting in bad faith. Show me if you can find that I was the original editor to add that bit in the article.

How can the map be misleading? What is it misleading about? Be clear, and not vague. The people group it shows at large and it says its about "All religions". Theres, no misleading there. Wouldn't a Muslim Jat be interested in seeing the expanse of his people. Are we at Wikipedia supposed to promote ethnic/religious divisions?

As for the source, I have clearly mentioned them within the map itself. It's clearly in bad faith of you to feign naivete yet ask such blatantly wrong questions. But for the sake of argument, I can list some of them. Note: All these sources are post Independence era:

[1]

[2]

[3]

Add those up and you'll get the map I made. Now don't go claiming, boohoo the colors don't match.

I still haven't received any explanations from you regarding the same, just more cursory strawman arguments like "it does not seem authentic". Can you tell me where's the mistake so that it can be rectified? And for the sake of god, stop crying like it hurt your soul too much, you've actively been doing the same (noted by others here) as well as mud slinging by calling my edits as disruptions.

Aren't you over generalising everything to "win" this argument? Why are you acting so vague? And what kind of language, you're behaving as if I cussed at your mother? I hope I didn't.

@Girth Summit I take heed of the guidelines you told me. Consider it done, whenever it happens again. However, Sutyarashi's behaviour is pretty malevolent even here. I don't think it should be given we are discussing. Here's what I want to call your attention to. He continues to act in the same aggressively toxic manner. He's making false accusations such as, He's claiming that someone else's edits are mine, without proof. He never discussed before reverting, but brushed it off. I find out about it when I visited that page, meaning he didn't even bother to notify me why he did that. No He did it in his fit of anger. How are his edits "restorations" while anything someone else did are "disruptions"? Is he the son of god?

Again, this guy is bringing up unneccessary accusations when I was putting forth my point as to why I called him a troll. He's modifying it into seem as if I am making further accusations. Preceptor1008 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering you never addressed why you reverted the Nordic/Scandinavism edit, I feel its correct if I revert your disruption. What do you say @HandThatFeeds Preceptor1008 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read my reply at all? Haven't I made it clear that British era sources aren't considered reliable for ethnicity? Also, your main concern revolves around that i removed a map created by you, which does not give its sources at all in description. Make one for that particular article, and feel free to add it. As for template, they still are two different ideologies and require separate mention.

And I can't believe that inspite of coming from a block, you yet again made these remarks on administrator's noticeboard:

you're behaving as if I cussed at your mother?

stop crying like it hurt your soul too much, you've actively been doing the same

He continues to act in the same aggressively toxic manner.

Sutyarashi's behaviour is pretty malevolent even here.

you're barely cloaking your hatred under all the formalities.

Have some Ghairat!

Sorry, but you haven't understand at all that you were blocked previously for the same kind of thing. I have nothing against you personally. I guess your comments ask for a longer block.

Sutyarashi (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also please don't present yourself as a victim of misinformation, you had been fairly warned to refrain from making personal remarks against others, as well as guided to what to do in case of any dispute, on your talk page. You made accusations that I name-called you; I'm very interested to know that when did it occur?

Sutyarashi (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't act so smart, you're barely cloaking your hatred under all the formalities. Of course, you could have discussed in a civil manner, I dont think we would have a problem at all. Who gave you the right to continuously revert someone else's edits?

Very interested are we? What did you call me in this edit? Don't you ignore this like the rest of arguments. You've done it in bad faith/fit of anger so dont lie. Have some Ghairat! Preceptor1008 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Besides, When was it proven that my edits were in bad faith. Why were you calling them disruptions? Isn't that Personal attack? @HandThatFeeds Preceptor1008 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

One only has to visit your talk page to see that i guided you to what to do in case of any dispute. Your edits were clearly disruption due to the personal remarks in them, which again, prove that they were indeed in bad faith. Now, as you don't want to acknowledge that actually it was your conduct that was a real problem, I don't think that the previous block was even useful.

Sutyarashi (talk)

@Preceptor1008:

We are all encouraged to assume good faith on behalf of other contributors here. I see nothing about the reverts above that would lead me to suspect that the person who made them was not acting in good faith, or that they had any kind of vendetta against you. You could have reached out to them in a civil manner on the talk page of the relevant articles/templates and asked them why they reverted your changes. Do that next time someone reverts you. If you do suspect someone of acting in bad faith, you should still approach them in a civil manner; if they continue being disruptive, do not insult them, simply report them here. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I guess I did make a mistake the first time around. Preceptor1008 indef blocked for continuing with their personal attacks immediately after the temporary block expired. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Editors who make personal attacks for no good reason need to go. Maine 🦞 16:19, 22 February 2023 (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 Wes sideman for disruptive editing, attempts to intimidate others editors

OP blocked. Anything actionable is buried in walls of text. If anyone wants to make an actionable complaint against anyone else, please do so—concisely and with diffs—on a new thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wes sideman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) OgamD218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I apologize if any of this is amateurish in structure, it is the 1st time I've felt compelled to report another editor, I prefer to resolve disputes amicably/without wasting the time of myself and Admins. I noticed 2 of my recent edits were reverted almost simultaneously by Wes sideman w/ vague or false summaries. On follow up I saw I was the most recent contributor on 3 most recent pages WS edited-2 of which they appear to have never edited prior (1 was a minor change)-this was clearly not a coincidence. Those at issue were Woodrow Wilson and race where WS changed long standing (almost the entirety of the article's existence) content without going to talk and a summary of "ce". Right before they reverted my edit trimming the bloated and repetitive see also section for Neo-Confederates; which is the longest I've ever seen for a page of that length, many links are repetitive or excessive, others are to topics and conservative individuals who have no actual affiliation to the neo-confederate movement. EG Wes sideman repeatedly restored the Republican Party to the see also section. Myself and other auto-confirmed editors have tried to trim it for sometime but a handful of IPs keep adding links that don't belong. When we delete these Wes sideman reverts, often without a valid summary and ignoring the talk discussion that was opened. Upon realizing WS was wiki stalking me, I reviewed and restored with clear summaries. I later made edits to Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, a page WS is currently engaged in multiple contentious talk page disputes re their disruptive edits. I did not involve myself in any of these disputes however. 80% of my changes were new content-drafting a brief see also sect for the article. I did restore a tag WS kept deleted in breach of wiki rules re sources. Claiming somehow I was the one who was hounding them, WS reverted all my edits on Helms. Reasonable editors can disagree re the others but this was essentially vandalism. I restored + summary warning/noting the situation. Here they backed off, even fixing the issue for the tag. I briefly thought good faith may be salvaged but WS again reverted on neo-confederate w/ an edit summary falsely claiming I deleted ls and must discuss each link individually with them at talk. WS then left a threatening message on my talk page making the same lies/demands, irrational accusations of hounding and threats of ANI (while ignoring the fact they violated the 3rr). Once again there was a brief talk on this opened, no editors disagreed re need to trim for ^ reasons so I did not weigh in. WS never defended the recent adds/excessive links by IPs but just kept restoring them, meaning they were well aware the sect was not as they put it stable or ls before my changes. I would like to be clear, reasonable ediors certainly can disagree re my edits/I would have a productive discussion at talk. The serious issue that must be address is the threatening of other editors by Wes sideman for daring to disagree with them on politically contentious topics, that for continuing to do so they will be report to ANI with false accusations and lies about both parties' conduct. Once again, this is not a solution I've pursued before, but threats solely meant to intimidate other editors creates serious issues. It wastes the time of other contributors eg drafting reputable reports (esp for editors such as myself who are unfamiliar w/ ANI) to say the least but more importantly creates a chilling effect on the platform. Threats of ANI for hounding, when if anything that was what Wes sideman was clearly the one engaging in, appears to be a common intimidation tactic of their's. In a 24 hr period, I was the 3rd editor they accused of + made threats of for. Even looking beyond this I failed to see a viable alternative. Wes sideman is currently engaged in multiple talk page disputes re edits they made on politically contentious articles. WS's conduct in these discussions give little cause to assume good faith-personal attacks, false claims, deflections etc. No editor is perfect especially myself but this is bullying and should not be tolerated. OgamD218 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) I followed up on the first few links here, and I don't think we are being presented with a fair description of events above. Looking at the history of Woodrow Wilson and race, I see that a different user edited that particular sentence on 4 February; OgamD218 reverted the changes, reinstating prose which is simply ungrammatical (what is that hyphen supposed to be doing?), and reinstating the word 'incredible' (as in 'an incredible range of...'), which is WP:EDITORIALIZING, and not appropriate. Wes sideman attempted to fix the sentence again (ce seems like a reasonable edit summary), and Ogam reverted that too. It's not a great look to be edit warring to keep content as badly written as that in an article, no matter how long it's been there. With regards to the assertion that Wes sideman was hounding Ogam: WS's first edit at Neo-Confederates was in November 2022, OgamD218's was in December 2022, so WS didn't follow Ogam there; WS's first edit to Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act was in September 21, whereas Ogam's was just yesterday. I fail to see how Ogam came to the conclusion that WS is/was hounding them - if anything, it looks like the opposite is true. If any action is required here, it's likely to be a piece of curved wood. Girth Summit (blether) 16:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Yes 2 weeks prior another editor made a similar change however again that passage had been stable/there since the page's inception. Wilson's admin was dominated by racists however I did not want to convey the idea every single member was one-eg arguably the most notable American Liberal of the time, William Jennings Bryan served as Sect of State. The impetus for this specific wording was to preserve impartiality and factual accuracy not editorialize, I feel a disservice is done by deleting "though not exclusively composed of". I have no obj to deleting "incredible" or any grammatical fixes. Neither the prior editor nor WS however stopped there or even mentioned grammar-an appropriate edit summary would, imo be "fixed grammar" vs "ce" if that was the case. @Girth Summit I did not report WS for hounding, I pointed out that they accused my of such left and right without foundation stated if one of us was guilty of hounding it wasn't me it was them-cited to the fact they happened to in almost immediate succession edit the last 3 pages I contributed too-incl reverting me 2X, in light of this detail, that me and WS's 1st edits to Neo-confederates were 3 days apart months ago is irrelevant. Did you actually look at the details of the edit warring/disputes on the Helms Page? Please note that they actually backed down from their stance on my edits there bc their actions were so flagrantly indefensible. For further affirmation, please take note that is now topic banned from editing the Helms page. My report makes very clear that my issues with Wes sideman include edit warring, false accusations, lying about the edit history, breaching the 3rr as they did on Neo-confederates but above all else making threats against myself and other editors for daring to disagree, that they attempt to bully and intimidate editors who dissent from their stance on contentious topics. OgamD218 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Lots of articles are very bad when they are first written - a bad sentence that has not been fixed for a long time does not somehow become a good sentence. Edits that improve the prose (as both of the ones you reverted unarguably did) should not just be reverted - if you think that some important detail has been removed then by all means add it back in, but don't just revert the change. 'ce' is an abbreviation for 'copy edit'; it is an edit summary very commonly used for edits that make minor fixes to spelling, punctuation or grammar. I did not report WS for hounding: your initial report included a paragraph that starts with "Upon realizing WS was wiki stalking me," so it kind of looked like you were reporting them for that. If we leave that to one side, your issues with WS are edit warring (which you have also indulged in); breaching 3rr at Neo-Confederates (which they very clearly have not done, since they have never made three edits of any kind to that page within any 24-hour period); making false accusations (which you appear to have done yourself in accusing them of breaching 3RR), and lying about 'the edit history'. I don't understand this last point: where is your evidence that they have lied about anything? Girth Summit (blether) 17:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC) OgamD218 There remains above an unevidenced accusation of another editor lying. Are you intending to provide evidence, or will you retract that accusation? You cannot just leave it hanging there. Girth Summit (blether) 13:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC) My apologies for the delay, I am extremely busy at the moment. I've been open from the beginning about being new to this area. I honestly believed a breach of the 3RR was a total of 3 reverts in a 24 hr period vs 3 reverts per editor in 24 hrs, nonetheless I feel my decision to show restraint was wise-both in general and given the other editor's threats if I made what would've only been my 2nd. I apologize for making this mistake. However this is not the 3rr board and although I did make that accusation in error, I state clearly at the top and throughout the behavior I actually came here to address. Since I filed my report an uninvolved Admin intervened and imposed restrictions on WS for engaging in the conduct at issue. I now feel it unnecessary and superfluous to continue to pursue the matter, especially as they appear to have backed off completely. To be clear I do stand by what I said. There definitely does seem to be issues of miscommunication between us here but fortunately, the matter now appears moot. OgamD218 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC) @OgamD218 You don’t seem to have given proof of lying. You were told to retract or prove it. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC) @Goodtablemanners: - I just reverted your post here, because you inserted the text of a conversation between yourself and WS in such as manner as to make it look like the discussion had happened here, on this page - it wasn't obvious to me which talk page that had come from, so it's difficult to examine the context. Please add the comment that WS made which you interpret as a lie in the form of a diff (and explain why you think it was a lie). Thanks. Girth Summit (blether) 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC) In any case he agreed to User:HJ Mitchell’s request to avoid talking about Wes sideman while there were restrictions on him. So he should not be posting here. Doug Weller talk 21:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC) For what it's worth, I didn't agree to avoid talking about Wes. I think HJ Mitchell's decision was fine, but it didn't keep Wes sideman from defending himself, only from editing on abortion related subjects for a while. As to Girth Summit's request here's the diff: [100]. A good example of IDONTHEARYOU which some would consider a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtablemanners (talk • contribs) 01:05, February 21, 2023 (UTC) Here's the link. If I've misunderstood it, hopefully Harry will clairify. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) I asked you not to talk to or about Wes sideman while he was under restrictions and you agreed. It was a request, not a formal sanction, but I really hoped you would all give each other some space. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Kinda looks like you 2 are just censuring another editor for dissenting (they even included evidence)-not saying that is what you're doing but please see how it could be interpreted that way....... I didn't actually realize the full context of where this had ended up until till Doug's aggressive post, my intention was to actually pull away from this amicably in light of the sanctions on WS. The removed thread @Goodtablemanners at least appears to have been from a talk discussion that definitely did influence me that engaging WP may be futile-if it is the one I'm thinking of it contains not only personal attacks but what could be characterized as lies. As I stated above, WS posts show lies fairly consistently as part of their propensity to accuse any editor who disagrees with them of conduct they know they are not guilty often based on claims they no are false. Unless you want me to default presume WP is stupid (which they certainly are not regardless of anything else) or mentally ill (also not) both of which would be personal attacks and yes very valid grounds for censure. Beyond those presumptions, WS, who it appears has been a victim of hounding 1X. and is more than familiar with the elements, (but has accused idk lost count how many editors of it) had to have known that the Neo-Confederates sect was not stable as they adamantly maintained in their threats against me, in fact along w/ unfounded allegations of hounding it was part and parcel with their 'get my approval for each link individually or be reported for X'. I hope at least there's just honest confusion here bc it feels like you're borderline insisting I either cannot accuse WP or I be a proven mind reader. If you want me to try and narrow it (also long day and I'm really exhausted but), once again-Re knowingly lying: Their edit history displays that they could not possibly have been unaware of the fact that sect was constantly under revision, was definitely not "stable" when I made that edit and that consensus did lean in favor of reducing it. WP removed multiple links from there 2-3 weeks ago, when it suited them they agreed with the other editors involved it was too long. Many of these were more proximate to the topic than those they've so aggressively tried to preserve-eg deleting "solid south", "southern democrats" but making sure Trumpism, random conservative scholars, the states rights's faction of the Republican party / Republican Party (please note the former page does not even exist but WP deleted states rights which actually does). At least half the links such as these that I removed had been added after WP's own trimming, many had not been there a day-but when pov pushing IPs added them WP no longer felt the sect to be too long, in fact it had suddenly become "stable"-reverting me for trimming it, when I stood up to them they weren't just wrong or confused about the page's status or the other allegations they threw around, a reasonable conclusion is they knowingly lied. Not a single one of the links I removed were added by an editor other than WP-but somehow I was hounding them by removing them? Again, WP knew they were making things up. OgamD218 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) OgamD218 I will point out to you that it kinda looks like you are just trying to get an editor with whom you disagree sanctioned; an editor who has been the target of a sustained campaign of harassment by an indefinitely blocked editor, who you may be in communication with off-wiki for all I know. I'm not saying that is what you're doing, but please see how your recent actions could arouse suspicion. Back to the meat of the matter: this is another long post, but it is entirely devoid of actual evidence in the form of diffs. This thread has consisted of a series of accusations by you that have not so far borne any scrutiny. To accuse someone of lying (i.e. deliberately making statements one knows to be untrue) is a personal attack, unless it is supported by evidence in the form of diffs. You have still failed to do that. I am now asking that you provide diffs, along with your specific rationale for concluding that the content of those diffs amounted to a lie, or that to retract your accusations. Girth Summit (blether) 00:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) No, it doesn't look anything all like that at all, in a level debate you would never be able to successfully defend that assertion-please try? What exactly is my fundamental disagreement with WS over? Assuming you don't once again deflect and punt on this keep in mind whatever it is it would have to be serious enough for me to for the 1st time in 3 yrs report another editor and spend time I could devote doing anything else to coordinating in some widespread off wiki conspiracy against an editor I had no idea existing until they went on a reversion tare against me and started making threats. Girth since this began you've only seen what you wanted but my actual report clearly spells out that my issue is WS making baseless threats to myself and other editors. You have completely ignored this from the beginning-COMPLETELY (while devoting paragraphs to an imaginary dispute about grammar nobody involved ever previously brought up or cares about). The morning after I made my report an uninvolved Admin sanctioned WS for making unfounded accusations against other editors (that means lying). I noticed this and withdrew my request for action only to now find your determined unexplained mission to protect WS will not relent. WS has already been censured for the reasons that brought me here, just bc you dont like that doesn't mean you get to make indefensible accusations of a vendetta/conspiracy or pretend that clearly enough proof hasn't been presented. I'm also not really sure if factually speaking you can say I'm just trying to get someone I disagree with sanctioned meaning you're plain ignoring that they've already been sanctioned for that or you're ignoring plain reality I withdrew the req in light of that development. Again this point is moot for multiple reasons incl already found true. Moreover when I devoted time to providing diffs earlier you just ignored them, went to the pages and tracked down only info most favorable to your pov favoring WS and then devoted the rest of your responses to a nonexistent grammar dispute. As you know I'm unfamiliar with this process so I may be prone to procedural errors and I apologize but I made a major mistake coming here/even pursuing this matter with you. At no point since we've started have you acknowledge that WS was threatening and bullying other editors baselessly for disagreeing-fortunately someone admin did notice and take action. I'm extremely busy, some of us have lives that include neither destroying WS nor zealously defending them against proven accusations. Later on today I will provide the proper diffs-incl the ones I already provided however again, you would have seen many of them initially = should not have missed them in your earlier review of said pages if you preceded with an open mind. It appears you have no interest in arbitrating this fairly and never did from the bieging, having already made up your mind. I'm very anxious about preceding and giving any appearance of legitimacy to such an overly unbalanced evaluation. OgamD218 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC) I came here just to note that another Admin deleted another attack on Wes sideman by a Defeedmesock who spends a lot of time harassing Sideman. But now I'm trying to get my head around this personal attack by User:OgamD218. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) BTW, the sock also posted another message on the OP’s talk page, accusing Girth Summit of “false accusations”. I’ve gone ahead and reverted it. Tails Wx 12:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks. This is getting ridiculous. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC) I'm very confused. The OP has posted a lot of words (most of which, I'll be honest, I haven't read) but no diffs or evidence of any kind after their first post, and most of the diffs in their original post don't support their accusations. I'm not really sure what there is to discuss here, especially as Wes hasn't edited since before this thread started. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I didn’t either. I’ll point out the key points of the OP’s message: Girth since this began you've only seen what you wanted but my actual report clearly spells out that my issue is WS making baseless threats to myself and other editors. You have completely ignored this from the beginning-COMPLETELY (while devoting paragraphs to an imaginary dispute about grammar nobody involved ever previously brought up or cares about). Again this point is moot for multiple reasons incl already found true. Moreover when I devoted time to providing diffs earlier you just ignored them, went to the pages and tracked down only info most favorable to your pov favoring WS and then devoted the rest of your responses to a nonexistent grammar dispute. WS has already been censured for the reasons that brought me here, just bc you dont like that doesn't mean you get to make indefensible accusations of a vendetta/conspiracy or pretend that clearly enough proof hasn't been presented. These are, IMO, are key points the OP stated, and shrinking the Wall of Text into a more evidential approach. Tails Wx 12:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Blocked. I have blocked OgamD218 for 48 hours for the personal attacks above. Bishonen | tålk 13:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC).

Bazzascott1234

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.

---

Bazzascott1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been editing for over a year but, as far as I can tell, every single edit that they've made has been reverted as vandalism. They have a long history of editing in some fake gaming info into the Bongani Khumalo. Notice in this edit that they are self-promoting: 'Barry Scott Jr' is mentioned near the start. They also mention FRZ Mantor, which is the name of one of the three accounts that was vandalising EGames, along with Bazzascott, and ended up getting blocked indefinitely. Somehow, Bazzascott was spared but their two accomplices were not. Further vandalism includes this edit to James N. Butcher (User:Jamesbutcher41 assisted with this act of vandalism). While a few of these acts were a while ago, the most recent Khumalo vandalism was only 5 days ago. Today, they created Dylan Brownsell, a wholly negative BLP with some quite offensive content. The final section of the article was all about Brownsell's alleged body odour and how he apparently doesn't seem to care. The article appeared to be about a minor and also contained what appeared to be some quite derogatory descriptions of his alleged conversion to Judaism. This has now been speedy deleted but, in my view, it's further evidence of WP:NOTHERE from an account that has committed vandalism since Feb 2022. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 19 February 2023 (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:Topwritersforhire2

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.

---

Topwritersforhire2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:DUCK paid, but blocking without warn seems aggressive. Someone please help out with this. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

We block lots of users without warning. I've indeffed them for WP:UPE. They pretty much invited the block anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2023 (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.

Second rangeblock needed for Redmond genre warrior

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

---

• 2600:1700:9E70:1210:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Redmond, Washington, has been genre-warring for three years by using the IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9E70:1210:0:0:0:0/64. They were blocked last June for three months. The disruption has picked up recently,[101][102] and we need another block. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP range, and also WP:BOOMERANG blocked Binksternet, who has joined in edit-warring against the IP editor, and who also has a long history of blocks for edit-warring, far more than the single previous block on the IP address which he has pointed out. (Incidentally, this was the wrong pace to report this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring was the right place.) JBW (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A revert of unsourced genre at Caifanes (album) on 6 Feb, then again on 15 Feb, then on 17 Feb, then on 21 Feb = edit warring? This is chilling for editors who watch over articles that are frequently the target of similar disruptive/unconstructive/unsourced additions and often find themselves repeatedly removing the same disruptive edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've left some lengthy comments at User_talk:Binksternet#Blocked, but suffice it to say, I think the boomerang block is both excessive and uncalled for. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Locke Cole is correct. Per the policy on edit warring An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. This situation comes nowhere close to that. Adding unsourced genres is also against Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. JBW's own words who also has a long history of blocks for edit-warring, far more than the single previous block on the IP address which he has pointed out is problematic as: a) there is a whiff of vendetta in the first part IMHO and b) shows a rather shocking lack of understanding of the math involved. IP hopping genre warriors can't possibly have more blocks at any one address than long time editors link Binksternet. Considering the fact that no edit warring notice warning was issued - I would think a warning is imperative if the rules regarding 3rr are not going to be followed - this block is clearly punitive and should be overturned ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 18:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@JBW, you should unblock immediately. I was WP:AGF that the diffs provided on Binksternet’s talk page were all part of a larger 3RR violation or an immediate indicator of generic WP:EW so I didn’t even notice the dates, but as @Schazjmd notes these are all over a very long period, and as @MarnetteD also notes there is a very clear misunderstanding of policy or at worst a vendetta at play here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to editors criticising my actions, or seeking to have them reversed. However, they should try to, as far as possible, do so from a position of knowing their facts. Quoting the "three revert rule" and then talking as though that is a definition of edit-warring is missing the point, as can be seen by anyone who carefully reads the edit-warring policy. "IP hopping genre warriors can't possibly have more blocks at any one address..." firstly misses the point that this editor has stuck to that one range, and, as is usual with IPv6 blocks, the /64 range as a whole has been blocked, not individual IP addresses, and secondly is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the block of Binksternet. It was Binksternet, not I, who brought up the fact that the other editor had once been blocked for edit-warring, and I was merely pointing out how applying Binksternet's criterion, not mine, to Binksternet would work out. As for "Considering the fact that no edit warring notice warning was issued..." it is normal to warn an editor about the edit-warring policy if they may not yet know about it, but we are talking here about an editor who has had plenty of warning, and has even been blocked numerous times for edit-warring. There is no need to keep on warning an editor who already knows about the policy every time they start edit-warring again. Then we have "if the rules regarding 3rr are not going to be followed": no, they aren't, because this block is nothing to do with "3rr". Accusations of a vendetta should be either supported by evidence or withdrawn. Finally, if I have made "a very clear misunderstanding of policy" then please tell me what policy I have misunderstood, and in what way. JBW (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I want JBW to know I support their acting, but not their action. The block-length comes across as punitive and is way excessive, IMHO. The linked actions were each intended to improve the pedia, not to edit war, IMHO. As a trusted editor, Binksternet has a surprisingly lengthy block history, but only one of these previous blocking incidents was in the last two seven years (and that was quickly truncated into a 24-hour single-article restriction). For a long time positive contributor, I can't imagine how a three month block is warranted unless there's something not in the record. And just for the record, JBW, how DOES a wikipedian in good faith properly respond to repetitive vandalism except by reverting it, reporting it, and discussing it? BusterD (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying my two cents from Binksternet's talk page: I have to agree with Schazjmd, mostly because I constantly deal with similar situations where users add unsourced genres to articles repeatedly and think they can just come back and add them again if they're removed for violating this site's core policies. All challengeable material requires a citation, and genres are no exception. It's not our fault if the vandals refuse to acknowledge our existence and treat Wikipedia like their own personal Fandom, and blocking Binksternet for this long is way over the line IMO, especially if he was just reporting one of the countless disruptive editors we have to deal with daily. I honestly can't comprehend how this constitutes "edit warring". ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Binksternet has worked tirelessly for years to ensure unsourced genres don't creep into articles despite the onslaught from drive-by genre warriors and IP-hopping sockfarms. His institutional knowledge of the various sockmasters active in our music articles is incredibly broad and his reports to this board are useful in squelching disruption. You know how much I respect you, JBW, but in this case I think you've got it wrong. If there is consensus that the block should stand, I really hope that it is shortened considerably.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@JBW So help me see the facts here. Your block log simply said edit-warring, which leaves us to use the WP:EW policy as the process you’re claiming to place this block under. What is the part of that policy you’re invoking here to justify this block and its length? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is unfortunate. JBW, I don't see how blocking me is protecting the wiki. When the block expires, I will return to editing, but without a constructive discussion about what behavior of mine should cease. You could have simply initiated such a discussion without blocking me, something along the lines of "veteran editors are overstepping their bounds by policing unreferenced stuff on the wiki", and we could have talked about what was best for the wiki—what I should stop doing and what I should start doing. I'm a trainable guy; I listen to reason and weigh evidence with the best of them. We could have done this without the drama, and with lasting results. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC) – copied from User talk:Binksternet by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've taken a look at this and I agree with others that the boomerang block is unjustified. The only mistake Binksternet seems to have made was not reporting them here earlier on as soon as the IP continued with the behaviour that got them blocked previously. While it's true that edit warring isn't only 3RR, I think it is commonly accepted that edits like this where a single editor has reverted a disruptive editor over several weeks don't constitute edit warring. SmartSE (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are 100s if not 1000s of editors who perform exactly the same kind of removal of unsourced edits to articles regularly. They are no more "edit warring" than Binksternet was. I do not see JBW blocking them so, yes, singling out one editor to apply a 3rr/EW block is highly problematic, The block has to have occurred for some reason other than protecting the article and I have yet to see one presented other than "B has had lots of past blocks." It never ceases to amaze that AGF is applied to newbies and IPs but not to long time editors. Yes it is normal to warn someone that their editing may lead to a block, no matter how many times they have been blocked in the past, if an admin is going to apply the rules differently from editor to editor. MarnetteD|Talk 00:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Newbies and IPs given better treatment than long time editors is exactly correct. And that sort of behavior goes all the way up to Jimbo. Sectionworker (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think our edit warring policy is flexible enough to handle prolific genre warriors who never engage at talk pages. I think the "right way" for someone like Binksternet to respond would be to
  • See an editor add unsourced genres to an infobox
  • Spend a few minutes trying to find supporting sources
  • Tag with cn if no sources can be found
  • Return after a suitable amount of time has passed and revert
  • Tolerate an unexplained re-revert
  • Post a talk page comment
  • Return after a suitable amount of time has passed with no talk page engagement and revert again
  If an editor who is willing to follow that flow is available, it would be great if they could say something like "Bink, I got this, and ping me if I miss one". If not, I think Bink's way is better than nothing. They do routinely drop a templated warning at the user talk pages of editors who act this way, and it's common practice to address a problem that affects many articles at a user talk page as opposed to multiple article talk pages.
  I appreciate JBW's desire to mop the mess laying just a few steps from the bright 3RR line. I see such enforcement so rarely that I do think a warning is useful, even for editors that are definitely aware of the policy. I just think it can look like "heads up, I plan on handing out blocks for edit warring in this topic area for more than just 3RR violations, so please use the talk pages and be skittish around the undo button". The problem with technically correct but rarely seen enforcement is that it feels arbitrary, and I think seemingly arbitrary enforcement is more likely to lose us quality editors than it is to act as a motivator toward better conduct. I hope to see the block undone.Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that going through the steps you outline with genre warriors is just not worth it. 99% of them aren't doing it in good faith, you could credibly classify it as vandalism which is an exemption of edit warring, and it's a lot easier to not waste your breath with people like this. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Blocking was a mistake, and I have now lifted the block. JBW (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• A fact which may have got lost amid the above discussion is that I blocked the IP range which was the original subject of this section for 6 months. JBW (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2023 (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.

Incoherent text strings from Memphis IP range

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.

---

• 2601:3C7:C100:FCF0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody from Memphis has been adding strings of nonsense text to music articles during the last two months.[103][104]] Let's stop the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2023 (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 editor

Radioactive39 has been make disruptive actions on Wikipedia for months. They have frequently made unconstructive edits to articles. Their worst behavior though has been repeated recreation of material previously deleted through XFD process. This article is an example and they even went as far as using a slight variation on the title of the article to circumvent article creation protection imposed on it because of their actions among others. They have done the same with a least one template. A whole list of warnings about their behavior has been already posted on their talk page, but they just don't seem to be heeding these. I don't think their is anything more that editors can do to try to make them change their ways. Tvx1 20:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Is no one going to take a look at this?Tvx1 03:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick look at some recent contributions by Radioactive39 (talk · contribs). There are a heap of warnings on user talk and perhaps I did not look hard enough but I did not see any clear issue that I could examine. The comments are often generic complaints without diffs. For example, one mentioned "unconstructive edits" at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix but I can't see anything that an outsider could tell was a problem. A point in their favor is that the four replies they have made on their talk are very reasonable. I can't see any other article or user talk page comments. Is there a discussion somewhere where claims of problems have been spelled out? Can you identify any of the many recent edits which are a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at anything I linked to in my post at all?? They’ve been recreating articles in defiance of XFD discussions’ outcomes for months, even going as far as trying to circumvent article creation protection. Contributions on deleted articles won’t show in their contributions log. Tvx1 13:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Your first link shows that Radioactive39 is a typical confused user who has no idea that List of Formula One Grand Prix wins Max Verstappen was purposefully deleted and should not be recreated. The second two links are from 31 October 2022 and 31 December 2022 with similar but out-of-date confusion that does not rise to sanction level. User talk:Radioactive39 is full of mainly templated warnings and unfortunately the page is now incomprehensible. What I was getting at is that generally an unhelpful editor is unhelpful in more ways than simply recreating deleted articles. There are lots of recent edits and I wondered if they were generally good or bad. Knowing how to proceed would be difficult if recent edits are nearly all sort-of-ok but not really helpful. On the other hand, if there are clear problems that an outsider with no topic knowledge can understand, I could start a process to fix the issue. A clear problem would be one with a diff and an explanation of what is wrong with the edit. At any rate, it would help if there were a clear statement of the extent of the problem. One approach would be to archive their talk (a manual archive, not a bot) then add a new section with no templates in which a single problem is explained in some detail (not too long, but enough that we would expect a competent editor to follow). If there were an inappropriate response or if the problems were repeated, admin action could be taken. When I asked about "discussion somewhere" I meant that it can be useful to outline a problem at the relevant wikiproject then get other opinions on whether the edits are helpful or otherwise. A wikiproject should not discuss an editor but they should discuss particular actions. Even if there were no reply to a post at a wikiproject, the fact that it had been posted would provide confidence that there was no dissent. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe confused is a correct assessment here. My second link shows them already attempting to recreate the article back in last July. They tried again in late October. There and others' repeat recreations led to the article being salted. Then on 17 February they tried again by circumventing the creation protection through using a slightly different title. They also tried to have it recreated through the AFC process, but the draft was rejected and since deleted (I can't show Radioactive's diffs on it myself because of that deletion). They were explained that the article had been deleted through the AFD process on their talk page and in the deletion notices. I really don't know what they would still be confused about. Tvx1 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I too had a cursory look. Special:DeletedContributions/Radioactive39 (admin only) does reflect an unusually high number of deleted edits; something on the order of 1000+ in the last 7 or 8 months. It looks like the editor works extensively on "List of Formula 1 Grand Prix wins by (Driver X)" type articles, and it looks like these lists fare quite poorly at AfD (although according to the editor's talk page it looks like one actually was promoted to a Featured List before being deleted). I do see some attempts at recreation. I have not compared timestamps enough to see how egregious this is. The editor might just need to commit to avoiding this behavior, or we could be looking at a WP:CIR situation. I'll try to look in more detail tomorrow. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been seing the same thing on Formula One articles on my watchlist over the last few months as well, and it doesn't seem like confusion at this point, it seems like stubbornness to create these articles despite them being repeatedly deleted. It would be helpful if Radioactive could respond to these complaints. TylerBurden (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add the fact that I had to add this: Special:Diff/1140815052 to his talk page to the list of concerns about this editors practices. I originally told them about MOS:ACCESS in this thread, but he keeps ignoring me.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

User:JAMESEARLRAYISINNOCENT

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.

---

Username clearly shows this user is not in line with reliable sources and prone to conspiracy theories. Furthermore, they've engaged in disruptive editing. [105] Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:40, 22 February 2023 (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 conduct at Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria Controversy

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 come here on bended knee as a proactive attempt to minimize the inevitable sanctions I will most likely be facing. Recently, I attempted to restore several talk page topics that had previously been archived at Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. I was under the mistaken impression that the topics in question were still being actively discussed. I was wrong, and I am sorry. I am not going to make any excuses for my behavior except to say none of my actions were done with any kind of malice. It was an error in judgement, a bad error, and one I regret because it reflects poorly on my competence as an editor. I want to thank user:Sideswipe9th for their quick and correct action in reverting my mistake. I will also be self-imposing a week-long hiatus on any and all editing. If other editors have an objection to this, or feel I deserve more severe penalties, I will absolutely not object. Again, al I can say is I'm sorry and I am terribly embarrassed over the whole nasty business. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:D9E8:4DA:4340:12D1 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up over it. It was a very minor mistake. I think I might have even made a mistake once myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Page move, draftification cleanup

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.

---

Maran San Awng Mai - Daniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, User:Maran San Awng Mai - Daniel has hijacked an article, which I have since cleaned up. They have now created two nearly identical articles about themselves, which I have draftified. I have tagged the redirects with G3 and G6, but I need some extra eyes to make sure nothing got tangled up, or delete one of the nearly-identical pages. I'm going cross-eyed looking at the various page moves. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like blatant vadalism, I've reported them to AIV. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Spammer blocked, drafts/redirects/spam deleted. Clear to close. Thanks to all. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2023 (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.

@GizzyCatBella Editing topics under pending arbitration review

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.

---

Currently there is a pending arbitration review in response to an outside source suggesting that select Wikipedia entries were edited to objective and bias. I am not alleging wrongdoing in terms of editing here; In my estimation an outside research paper makes a case and hence there is an arbitration review.

There needs to be a temporary hold on the part of mentioned editors (on a wide range of related topics) until the arbitration is resolved.

"For the last few years, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland have been shaped by a group of individuals (‘editors’ or ‘Wikipedians’ in Wiki parlance) with a Polish nationalist bent. Their Wikipedia names are Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, @GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, Lembit Staan, and Xx236, as well as previously active editors Poeticbent, MyMoloboaccount, Tatzref, Jacurek, and Halibut. Their massaging of the past ranges from minor errors to subtle manipulations and outright lies."

Topics in question are actively being edited even in light of alleged wrongdoing. This adversely impacts the credibility of the platform.

Continued editing on topics of sensitivity by editors highlighted both in an independent research study and now pending review via arbitration is simply wrong.

It is wrong for the editors not to recuse themselves on related topics. Continued editing in alleged areas of wrongdoing displays a lack of sensitivity to people internally and externally; and frankly it displays personal irresponsibility.

To edit into alleged wrongdoing detracts from the credibility of Wikipedia and frankly it reinforces the conclusions in the research study

There needs to be a temporary measure to suspend editing on topics where wrongdoing has been alleged pending review.

The contribution history of @gizzycatbella speaks to a single minded purpose to edit on topics that are clearly conflicts of interests given the research study and follow on internal review.

The parties mentioned in the research study are "interested parties" and thus have an active conflict of interest pending the outcome of the arbitration. Although the COI documentation speaks to corporate conflict of interests it applies here

"Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment .... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Legions_Home_Army_Infantry_Division

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wierzchowiny,_Krasnystaw_County

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2023 (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.

Poor quality articles throughout the site

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.

---

My title says it all. Articles on this site are frequently misleading because your editors do not understand the key concepts of scope, context and structure. It is a case of too many chiefs. An article requires one qualified author with one qualified reviewer. Why not limit edit access accordingly?

The other big problem is the inability of many regular editors to write good English. The typical article has far too much incoherence allied to multiple errors in spelling, grammar and syntax. Reading a Wikipedia article soon becomes a tiresome experience. As I say, poor quality throughout. 😕 No wonder the site has such a low reputation in academic circles. You need to weed out the bad editors and remove them.

I have no doubt, of course, that this feedback will be unwelcome and nothing will be done to improve article quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.212.245 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, there is WP:ANI, for such kinds of comments, it's better for you to discuss on village pump or teahouse. -Lemonaka‎ 00:03, 25 February 2023 (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.

Christiaanp – Bona fide editing mixed with a little trolling

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 quick look at Christiaanp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests that they seem to actually be here to build and to maintain the Wiki. Unfortunately, this comes with a cost in that the editor sometimes dabble in some trolling themself (not convinced? they undid the revert). This includes restoring unsourced content, "me no like. angry? go cry. hehe" and whatever this is. But the most definitive proof of trolling is their long ([106], [107], [108], [109], [110] +extra) history at Morbier cheese, in which they persistently argue that it's actually called "Morbius cheese". Yes, the editor has been warned.

At least partially block this user from Morbier cheese. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone is mixing trolling and useful edits then they should be treated as a troll, because every edit has to be checked for usefulness. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I'm puzzled by the cheese meltdown. That's been going on for a year. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Could've sworn ANI was very strict with reporters. At least I didn't write a fountain of fondue, I guess ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We good cops have done our bit by lulling you into a false sense of security. Just wait for the bad cops to come along... Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I gree with Phil. Someone mixing good with bad edits causes more work than a straight vandal. Indef'ed. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2023 (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:Wikianon2023

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 strongly believe that this account is one near-solely dedicated to the harassment of me and potentially other editors who have taken the same side as me in a recent dispute. The account User:Wikianon2023, which likely is connected to some editor from the dispute, This account was created VERY recently, in light of the recent discussion which led to the TBAN of Jim Michael 2 from Years articles and most likely led to the retirement of TheScrubby, and has left messages not only on Scrubby's talk page requesting that he return but also on my talk page claiming that "I am subject to an independent panel regarding my ethics". I am unsure as to why it was me who received the slamming. The account further claimed that I should not get the right to defend myself since (allegedly) Jim Michael 2 did not get to "defend himself", and per the account's comments on Scrubby's talk page, it claimed that Rosguill, an independent admin who had no prior known involvement in the recent events on main year articles, perpetuated a Kangaroo court against Jim Michael 2. It is possible that Wikianon2023 is a sockpuppet for another editor, but though I have personal suspicions, I do not want to jump to that conclusion now unless the community and administrators believe it should be moved to a sockpuppet investigation; as such, it's been listed here first. If possible and seen as justified by administrators, I would request the indefinite blocking of Wikianon2023 due to them being WP:NOTHERE and for harassment against me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef for WP:NOTHERE. There is no "independent panel" looking into your edits. This is clear harassment. Might need a CU to doublecheck for sleepers though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. Editors who are here to harass other editors should be blocked. Maine 🦞 16:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have opened the SPI case under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/92.14.216.40. I suspect this is a persistent block evading troll who has been here for years, though they just recently made a jump to WP:YEARS related pages. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2023 (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.

Outrageous personal attacks on ANI by Silver Seren

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 extreme personal attacks by Silver Seren in this post are deeply offensive and violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Without presenting any evidence, Silver Seren launches into a tirade of personal insults, including the usual suspects are above that have long been pushing an anti-trans focus (no evidence) their desire to slant articles to promote their anti-LGBT beliefs (strong accusation and no evidence), anti-trans editors pushing pseudoscience and promoting the viewpoints of bigoted groups (strong personal insults, no evidence), They know who they are and they know the sort of nonsense they're pushing (assuming bad faith), a coalition front of fringe-pushing editors (still more personal attacks).
In over a decade at WP, I never saw such a tirade of personal insults and incivility at ANI. Personally (as the OP), I am entirely pro trans (though I do not edit that area) and only reported Newimpartial based on behavior. Can I say that I find Silver Seren's behavior here far worse. These hurtful accusations by Silver Seren without any evidence are deeply offensive. Jeppiz (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of us may not have completely gotten over the deadlocked Athaenara ANI. Yes, I bludgeoned in that venue and no, that was not OK. But the dismissal of anti-trans hate speech as a serious issue, on the part of a substantial minority of the !voters in that debacle, certainly colours my perception of those editors when I encounter them in other venues (even when they aren't callin g for me to face a ban). Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the case, but I agree entirely that anti-trans hate speech is a serious issue. Any anti-trans hate speech should be purged. I trust you agree that that is not an excuse for Silver Seren to engage in that kind of uncivil behavior and making offensive insinuations about other users. Jeppiz (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Now I am not accusing you of holding anti-trans views, but what you said at that ANI that you clearly don't remember was Having followed this for the past 24 hours, it is starting to look increasingly like a witch hunt. I don't defend the comment in any way, and an admin opposing a user over their identity is particularly problematic - but the comment in question is nowhere near that 50 worst NPA violations I've seen. You said this while opposing a community ban for the ex-admin in question. The fact that you don't remember the case suggests to me that perhaps you underestimated the effect of the attack by Athaenara at RfA, and the effect of the community's lukewarm support of trans editors at that ANI, on trans and nonbinary editors within Wikipedia. (Your comment is visible at the link I already provided[111] and is date-stamped 20:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC).

DeCausa, who made several comments supporting sanctions for me above, said in the Athaenara ANI, I would also strongly agree with Jeppiz's comment below. Athaenara's comments were indefensible. But the reaction is becoming mob-like and quite disturbing in itself. (20:09, 12 October 2022) - I am not accusing them of having anti-trans views, either, but the argument made by a minority in that ANI that the desire for a community ban for Athaenara on the part of trans editors was "a witch hunt" or "mob-like" - essentially that we were being irrational for feeling vulnerable to that kind of UNCIVIL speech on-wiki - had a lasting effect on me and I suspect on other trans and nonbinary editors.

Now Red-tailed hawk's position in that discussion was more nuanced, but they said And, frankly I don't see evidence of repeated disruption thus far; there's all of a single bright line personal attack that's provided here (20:39, 15 October 2022) which, given the evidence that had already been presented at that time, struck me at the time as dismissive of the concerns various editors had brought to that discussion. It was a back-and-forth between me and RTH in that ANI discussion that precipitated the interaction that ultimately brought me into the ANI filing above.

I am not saying that I know anything about the views any of you hold towards transgender rights or gender identity issues. But I can tell you that the systematic minimization of the concerns of trans and nonbinary editors on-wiki, which is scarcely a rare occurrence, makes it easy to feel that editors are trying to remove you for disagreeing with them when they, you know, try to remove you from a topic for disagreeing with them. Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I expect that fewer editors would be dismissive of the issue if it wasn't for the propensity of all too many editors (on all sides of the political spectrum) to react with hysterical hyperbole upon seeing speech they don't like, and jump straight to classifying even mild expressions of doubt as "hate speech." As other editors point out, Silverseren does not actually target anyone, and really the point of ANI is levying accusations against other editors. (The OP, for example, seems to have no problem with characterizing Silverseren's edits as "deeply offensive" "extreme personal attacks.") The OP cannot be very familiar with ANI if they find Silverseren's outburst to be uniquely egregious -- seriously? -- with this being one of the areas of Wikipedia where thick skins are a must. Ravenswing 02:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The OP cannot be very familiar with ANI if they find Silverseren's outburst to be uniquely egregious You are not wrong ;-) Ok, so perhaps better to state that I do not think those kind of comments are productive. If a policy violation is being discussed, it might seem better (in an ideal world) to discuss whether a policy was violated or not. Jeppiz (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Then you should have made that statement, instead of tossing around charges levied in ignorance. Certainly making claims concerning areas in which you're unfamiliar feeds into the "hysterical hyperbole" I cited. Ravenswing 09:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be another matter if these accusations were directed against specific named editors, but as it is I don't see anything over the top about such remarks. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Because WP:ASPERSIONS largely doesn't apply at WP:ANI (since this is the place to take accusations of bad behavior), you're allowed to say some very direct things here. As such, I don't see the problem with what Silver_seren said. On some unrelated talk page, it'd clearly be full of WP:ASPERSIONS, but again, not here. Loki (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

We are not that many users who participated in the discussion, so it is very hard not to take the insults personally when Silver Seren claim "a coalition front of fringe-pushing editors". I am not aware of any policy saying that insults are ok on ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, there have been a lot of fringe-pushing editors on trans topics. Are you personally one of them? No, not to my knowledge. Loki (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course WP:ASPERSIONS applies at ANI. Are you kidding? Levivich (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• In over a decade at WP, I never saw such a tirade of personal insults and incivility at ANI. I mean, just on its face, this statement is somewhat laughable regarding many, many things in ANI's past. And I'm sorry, but if you think there aren't various groups of fringe-pushing people on any number of topics, then you're purposefully ignoring them. And there very much is one in regards to LGBT topics and trying to push pseudoscience fringe claims about gay and trans biology to claim neither actually exists (as one example of a fringe group, though there's other fringe group focuses, such as the "grooming" conspiracies). Those sorts of editors have had to be dealt with frequently in the topic area in the past. It's why we've had to have ARBCOM cases on said topic area. Also, I never mentioned you in my comment (or anyone, for that matter), I was speaking in generalities about the topic area as a whole and not about you as OP. Silverseren^C 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)I do not doubt there are fringe-pushing groups for most topics. I do not edit the LGBT area (my recent involvement is limited to a case brought to WP:RSN and the content dispute there was purely over WP:RS. So no, I never came across anyone claiming gay and trans biology don't exist, but you are absolutely right such claims would be fringe, pseudoscience, and bigoted. I take your word for it that they have been made, and give my support to anyone combating such claims. We seem to agree there. Surely you can understand that as OP, a broad insinuation that the case is meant to silence a user rather than to address a policy violation, is insulting and false ascribes motives to me that I do not hold. Jeppiz (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh. I've seen a lot worse at ANI. I'd classify Silver seren's rant as (a) uncivil, and (b) almost certainly counterproductive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Frivolous. It's a heated topic, people have thoughts. Very Average Editor (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Silver Seren's comments were inappropriate. At the very least, they violate the spirit of WP:ASPERSIONS and would not be an example of assuming good faith. I would recommend Silver seren to strike the comments. However, this certainly is not a big deal and no action of any kind needs to be taken against Silver seren. Furthermore, Jeppiz, I understand that there was behavioral violation here, but not every bad behavioral decision by every user needs to be drug to ANI. No body is perfect. IMO, you should have discussed the concerns with Silver seren beforehand and it likely would have been resolved. Also, this is the second ANI discussion you've started in like the last 24 hours. You do you, but remember, what goes around comes around. It's not something I would do all the time. That's just my opinion though. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a scattergun personal attack by Silver Seren. May I ask if I am among its intended targets? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC).

Do you even edit in said topic area? I thought you were primarily physics topics, Xxanthippe? Silverseren^C 03:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And answer came there none. I have made 17,000 edits in many areas and I have forgotten most of them. Let me know if there are particular edits that you object to. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC).

• Comment That diff and others by Silver seren are certainly uncivil and casting aspersions needlessly. That said, I don't think that rant even falls in the top 100 ANI bangers. There's a reason WP:CESSPIT redirects here. I think cautioning him to be more careful about throwing accusations around might be in order, but I don't see a reason any real sanctions would be needed without some stronger evidence of a pattern. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support warning; this sort of thing should be called out. When SS wrote about "the usual suspects above", the editors who had supported a topic ban in that thread were Jeppiz, YouCanDoBetter, Ixtal, Xxanthippe, The Wordsmith, Czello, Tamzin, Red-tailed hawk, AndyTheGrump, and TylerBurden. Now I don't know everybody on that list, but I don't think any of them are anti-trans or fringe-pushing, and to emphasize a few obvious names: Ixtal? Tamzin? Andy? You've got to be fucking kidding. I'd have a little more tolerance of this sort of outburst if there was any truth to it, but basically you're throwing mud at a bunch of editors who do not deserve it. It shouldn't have to be among the top 100 ANI bangers for us to call it out. Levivich (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You missed one person right above my comment there. And I'm fully willing to acknowledge said editor being one of the prime examples of what I was talking about. Their edit history is self-explanatory in that regard and the very specific set of articles they've been extensively POV-pushing on. Silverseren^C 05:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You missed that said editor did not support a topic ban. That's how far afield your comment was: not only did you shotgun-spray a whole bunch of innocents, but the person you were aiming at wasn't even armed. Also, note how that editor struck the uncivil thing they said when someone complained; you have not, instead you've doubled down. Which, BTW, is also what the other two editors at the other two threads on this page did. You do realize what's going to happen to this topic area if we end up TBANing all the "good guys"? I don't usually speak for others but I think I speak for most everyone when I say that nobody really wants to sanction you, Newimp, or Tranarchist. As I'm sure you know, keeping your cool, walking away, and striking/apologizing, are survival skills on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There I have to disagree with you, Levivich. There are several editors in the above discussion who have found me inconvenient to interact with on GENSEX issues (including the editor who attempted to strike their personal attack, and the one who violated BLPRESTORE to reintroduce content against GENDERID) and who "really want" to see me sanctioned. I'm pretty sure most of the enthusiasm for a TBAN is genuine, as it were. Newimpartial (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

and the one who violated BLPRESTORE to reintroduce content against GENDERID) I presume I am "the one" there; in which case I have to once again point out that once the relevant guideline was presented, I thanked the user who directed me to the policy and self-closed my own thread on the issue. This seems to be an astounding assumption of bad faith based on a single, mild disagreement we had a week ago. — Czello 09:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody wants to sanction them? I see you didn't see the editor who immediately proposed banning Newimpartial from their own ANI thread, or the editor who immediately agreed with that (obviously ridiculous) proposal before the tide turned on them. I don't see any logic behind that sanction other than to prevent Newimpartial from arguing their own case. Loki (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposing a sanction is not the same thing as wanting to sanction. Levivich (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have my reservations about how many of the editors in that discussion were conducting themselves. But this particular diff? I'm a bit of a stickler for WP:CIVIL, but I don't see an issue worth creating a new ANI discussion. I'll go a step farther and say that there are such editors. I've been looking at some of these talk pages since the issue came to the noticeboards, and it's discouraging how often the same usernames always appear. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• I do not detect egregious personal attacks in that diff. I detect exhaustion and stress. If you come to ANI you will encounter people who are tired and stressed.—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Silverseren's remarks do not rise to the level of personal attacks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• This is now the third thread on this issue, which all stem from one content dispute on one page. Maybe we should all just step back a bit. Pinguinn 🐧 11:12, 22 February 2023 (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.

Sophie Labelle

According to someone on the Telegram Wikimedia General chat channel, someone is making edits there that violate WP:BLP but instead of reverting the edits or bringing the issue up here, is complaining a lot there. Since I'm busy preparing to leave for work at this time (local time is a quarter to 7 am), I am limited to mentioning this as a possible problem here. (To do a proper job would require time to actually investigate, & I know next to nothing about this person, let alone whether the edits are within the rules.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Appears to be fine at present. There's a lone editor trying to add questionable content today, but has been reverted twice. ValarianB (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That might explain why that someone insists on complaining at length about the article on Telegram -- including accusing people of being insensitive to transgender issues -- while ignoring all advice from others on that channel about how to usefully handle the situation. At least raising the issue here nudges something into action, unlike complaining at most off-wiki locations. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting TPA removal for User:169.139.8.156

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.

---

169.139.8.156, an IP address belonging to a school that was blocked for nearly three years in November 2021 by HJ Mitchell, has abused their talk page access here [112]. I personally believe that it should be revoked to prevent further disruption of this sort, but I will leave an admin to be the judge of that. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Revoking TPA would be over reaction to one silly edit in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman: I agree with HJ Mitchell. There have been edits from that IP addresses over a period of well over 6 years, in which time there has been just one trivial childish talk page vandalism edit. It's been reverted, and that's plenty. JBW (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your input. I definitely agree, in retrospect. If this were an ongoing pattern, that'd be one thing, but this is the only edit they've made since being blocked sixteen months ago. Feel free to close this, this was kind of an overreaction on my part. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2023 (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:Ayodhya-prayagraj - NOTHERE and net negative

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.

---

Ayodhya-prayagraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user only engages in tendentious editing clearly pushing a POV agenda to change all things Faizabad to Ayodhya (and Allahabad to Prayagraj). A glance at the talk page ([113], [114]) and the edit history [115] gives an overview of numerous warnings given against the caused disruption across several articles, yet the user fails to contribute constructively. The user is a net negative to the project, and now has engaged in direct personal attacks [116]. Requesting for a WP:NOTHERE block — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ayodhya-prayagraj as not here to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2023 (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 with a mixture of WP:CIR and WP:GREATWRONGS problems

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

---

User:Citizen Todd6 is a user that communicates using a bizarre mixture of User:text mdnpisms and pseudo-legalese and seems to have some incomprehensible agenda regarding animal rights terminology. Every single mainspace contribution they’ve made has been reverted and just recently they posted this nonsensical… manifesto, I guess… at the Village Pump, as well as this strange POV edit. People have previously tried to reason with them but they’re still making these disruptive edits. They seem fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia and should probably just be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus, I've edited your header, hope you don't mind. Please avoid calling people "weird", especially in headers. (You can call their contributions weird instead.) As for your message, I agree the user's contributions have been unhelpful and frequently hard to understand. It seems unfair to say that they're "not here to build an encyclopedia", though — I think they're doing their best. It's more that their approach is incompatible with Wikipedia. So I've blocked them for that. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC).

That’s fine, thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(scritches his head) You almost want to corral the fellow, after reading a couple of those items, and suggest that there are any number of civil litigation attorneys who'd salivate at the chance of going after the bucket shop which purportedly handed out to him that "Bachelor's of Science in Communication's." (Not least of which is that no reputable institution has a BS in that field, as opposed to BAs.) Good grief. Ravenswing 13:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

But I have a BS in BS... RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term low-quality edits from EvanTheMusicMan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved, editor was indef'd by User:JBW. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

EvanTheMusicMan (talk · contribs) seems to have some major WP:CIR issues here.

• Citing "liner notes" on a digital-only release
• Repeated addition, repeated addition, Repeated addition of links to disambiguation pages despite countless bot warnings
• Obviously fabricated credits on albums (I own this album, and it does contain any "liner notes", just pictures. In fact, the fabricated credits previously made it onto Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.)

Their talk page shows a myriad of warnings for disambiguation links, unsourced content, poor sourcing, unnecessary information, and edit-warring on Little Bit of Life (song) to name a few. Not once in 3+ years has the editor acknowledged that their talk page even exists, and they continue to spam Wikipedia with their low quality edits. A previous ANI thread in 2020 came and went without anyone saying anything.

It's clear that EvanTheMusicMan has been here long enough to know better by now, and has had more than enough warnings for their constant low-quality edits. What can or should be done to rouse them from this routine and maybe make them slow down a bit? Anything? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Addendum: 152.208.57.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be the same editor logged out, as the edit patterns (including the fake Mr. Misunderstood credits) are very similar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk:Ruckersville, Virginia needs extensive revision deletion

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

---

Long-term trolling has effectively polarized any real discussion on the talk page. As per what was done on Cat Creek, Montana back in the day in response to abuse, the talk page should have all bad revisions selectively removed from the page history per WP:DENY. Page protection will expire in a month, so this should be done due to the fact that it will likely never end, and the only target of the abuse seems to be the revision history. 185.227.183.250 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:LTA/CCCC. I'm amazed he's still active after 11 years. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh hey... that IP user's geolocation looks like a proxy. Sounds like a self report to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a Turkish local landline provider. The "suspected network sharing" device is normal for ISPs like these. It's not a proxy. I can see where you're coming from based on my lurking, but the user has a point on why it should probably be applied considering the consensus that the subject should not be mentioned at all on here.

abuseipdb.com/check/185.227.183.250 184.146.97.29 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

https://ipcheck.toolforge.org/index.php?ip=185.227.183.250 — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by User:174.73.54.10

This IP editor is removing sourced content from an article and making legal threats in edit summaries. Likely a case of WP:NOTHERE. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is an incompatibility between editing Wikipedia and making legal threats, but much of what was removed from this BLP was not sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try to clean up this article over the next few hrs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect block applied

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 where else to take this issue, since WP:AN specifically prohibits requesting blocks at that page. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KieranCallahan72, Callanecc closed the SPI case stating that he blocked Callahankierankiki as a sock of KieranCallahan72, a user who was already permanently blocked. But I believe Callanecc made an error, and imposed only a temporary block on CallahanKieranKiki, which has now expired. I've written to Callanecc about this, but they do not appear to have logged in to see the message yet. I've also noted this problem at the relevant SPI, but since it's already closed, it's unlikely any admin will look. Can any admin address this issue? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely a mistake since the template on Callahankierankiki's userpage says "blocked indefinitely". Or maybe it was a temp block that was set for so long that it ended up underflowing to be extremely short... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If there was any chance of doubt, I'd have waited for Callanecc to do this, but it's so obviously just a small misclick that I've changed it to indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:00, 23 February 2023 (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:Gurther

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

Hello. The editor in question has been conducting themselves in an unconstructive manner for a while now. They have been using talk pages to make personal attacks against other editors (accusing them of promoting a certain POV, doing original research, promoting fringe views, dismissing them due to their ethnicity and etc), as well as to soapbox, promote and impose their POV (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). I have informed the editor before not to make personal attacks against other editors and to practice good faith or at least focus on content during talk page discussions (see 14, 15 and 16). Despite this, they continued with the same conduct. They were edit-warring on their own articles Rizo Rizov (see 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22) and Alekso Martulkov. They were also blocked for edit-warring on the latter (see here). I think this requires immediate attention, considering that multiple editors have tried to constructively engage with the editor in question. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

These attacks arent personal, they are based off several warnings that the editor has gained for manipulation of evidence and vandalism right here : https://mk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Jingiby also i was edited warned for Alekso Martulkov not Rizo Rizov, you've failed to take any steps of explaining and have purposefully jumped instantly to contacting higher ups without any warnings, i dont know if you know this but thats a terrible way of communicating i think the mods should see the talk page where you've done nothing but ignoring questions,(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vasil_Glavinov) also i dont see any reason brining up Alekso Martulkov ive tried to suggest a NPOV version of the article where I want him to be labeled neither Macedonian nor Bulgarian, you've failed to provide a good reason and even proved accidentally that some of your sources arent up to date or correct, this is hypocrisy Gurther (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance in what an editor has allegedly done on another language version on Wikipedia, especially when they were already sanctioned there. You have repeatedly accused editors of promoting a certain POV in pretty much every talk page discussion you've been in. It's unconstructive and doesn't contribute to the discussion. You were indeed blocked for edit-warring on Martulkov, but that doesn't mean that you didn't edit war on Rizov too. I answered all questions that were related to improving the article. I brought up the last talk page discussion because you've continued to make personal attacks, despite being informed three times before not to do so. The diffs speak for themselves, you have even openly insulted an editor before. I think you need to learn from your past mistakes and take responsibility. Perhaps if you behaved constructively on that talk page discussion, we could have even reached a common understanding on how to improve the article. It's harder to reach it without constructive conduct though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You may not see it, but i do, at the end of the day they are still in Wikipedia, if it was on a different site then your stance would have had more logic, this is unexcusable, my evidence is well enough sourced, while yours is deeply flawed "I answered all questions that were related to improving the article" incorrect you ignored a majority of my sources, ignored my statement on why Jingby considers new evidence as flawed but you consider old evidence as flawed, which leaves an air of unclear communication "I brought up the last talk page discussion because you've continued to make personal attacks" It's not personal if its well sourced. "I think you need to learn from your past mistakes and take responsibility. Perhaps if you behaved constructively on that talk page discussion, we could have even reached a common understanding on how to improve the article. It's harder to reach it without constructive conduct though" I would learn if you didn't instantly threaten me, and have even ignored my questions, i dont like repeating myself but you and Jingby seem to ignore this question that ive asked several times practically begging for your answer and ill ask you this question one more time : "When a Macedonian historian claims something is Bulgarian you accept it instantly, but when a Macedonian historian claims it as Macedonian you label it "bias" why?". Gurther (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this editor is not new here. It seems that he has written before. His edits in different articles are at times far from neutral. His comments on the talk pages of a number of articles are strange and sometimes cannot be understood. Jingiby (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty new here actually, I've never had an account before this, although i am aware of you Jingby, several forums from some macedonian website mention you a lot, my edits are well sourced and mostly neutral, while you've created non-neutral articles in several languages and when you've been called out in the Macedonian wiki instead of accepting you've doubled down and even labeled them as "propagandist" and "censors" which isn't neutral. Gurther (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And here may be seen your NPOV, which resembles in fact WP:VANDALISM; WP:NATIONALIST; WP:NOTHERE; WP:DISRUPTIVE; WP:SPA, etc.: [117]; [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]; [123]; [124], etc. Jingiby (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The examples you've used are old, and barely useful, and ill give you an explanation for most of them and why they barely contribute :

1- Gjorgji Pulevski, when i was new to Wikipedia i assumed that if the source isnt linked its not reliable, secondly i thought the book about Macedonian immigrants in toronto sounded not connected to the topic so i removed it, it was a basic mistake that ive learned awhile ago

2 - This one makes sense to me, besides writing 4-6 poems in Bulgarian, what else has he done to contribute in Bulgarian media? makes sense for Serbo-Croatian since he was a helper of the YCP and his book "Beli Mugri" used both Serbo-Croatian grammar and letters

3 - What's so wrong with this? i labelled them as bandits since that's what the sources suggested? you wanted me to label them as fascist?

4 - I dont see anything wrong here? the claim comes from a section from a book stating "D. Vlakhov gave the following characteristic of R. Rizov: "Rizo Rizov from Veles, a great Macedonian hero, comrade in arms of Delchev, founder, together with Panko Brashnarov, of our Macedonian revolutionary organization VMRO (United)"

5 - You've changed the material but not the sources, the sources didnt mention anything about the BCP, this is a valid concern

6 - You've linked the same thing twice??

7 - This edit was to protect the abuse of Fringe Views a single historian cannot be used as evidence to decide an entire persons ethnicity

8 - I am gonna be honest here and admit this was a personal mistake from me, the only reason i added these is because it made no sense, he had a record of pro-macedonian views and to suddenly change like this was skeptical, and my theories were right, this section entirely was removed due to insifficent sources

Also since we are digging up old peoples edit wars, lets look at yours jingby.

Heres you attempting to insert the old pre-1945 spelling of Gotze Delcev despite being warned several times by mods that its useless

here's you attempting to add not wanted info about Jane Sandanski despite being warned and asked to stop

Here's you inserting fringe theory onto the MRO wiki despite the fact it was clearly BPOV

Here is another example of fringe views where you've used nothing but a Bulgarian source to support your theory, and even after it got reverted you attempted to insist that its not bias

Here you are inserting Bulgarian sources for a topic that is more connected to the international recognition of Samuil (which should have used English sources instead)

Here you are blatantly assuming that since its Serbian sources its a forgery, which isn't NPOV

Here is an edit you reverted where you've attempted to assume that a majority of historians classify Samuil as Bulgarian, without any evidence

Here is an edit of yours being reverted due to making more Bulgarian centered claims without any proper evidence, "Krste Misirkov, Letters 1912-1917" isnt accurate and its an extremely wide term afterwards u would be warned due to an edit war on Krste Petkov where you would call him a bulgarian and afterwards say to the editors "It is a pity for a person to see you interfering with the truth, but there is no escaping it. " which completely breaks any NPOV

You would get banned on editing Griror Prlicev wiki for the following reasons : "Jingiby - due to a large number of nationalist comments towards the Macedonian nation and culture, the user Jingiby has been blocked twice so far, but without success. The user continues again at the same pace and with petty insults and provocations towards editors and administrators, which violates the rule of respecting users and not attacking them personally. In addition to this, he has also broken the rule for cross wiki insults, which worsens the atmosphere here and his insults to individual users of the English Wikipedia and to the Macedonian people in general. Because of that, he was blocked there for 1 year. As a preventive measure, the user is banned for a period of 6 months and may not edit topics related to the Balkans. With just one violation of the ban, a block of 3-6 months will follow. Any user who notices that any banned user is violating the policy should report it on the ban request page or on the admin announcement page." Gurther (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, it's pretty obvious that you have a problem with editor Jingiby here. However, it was still unconstructive to obstruct discussions over a problem you have with him, to insult him on the basis on his ethnicity or to even accuse others of promoting a certain POV. You have accused others as well, not just Jingiby, as my diffs clearly show. Article talk page discussions are for discussions related to improving the article, not to accuse others of POV. By the way, I have noticed that you read or at least select only certain parts of what someone wrote and then misinterpret what they actually wrote. I ignored that question because it's only an assumption, unrelated to the subject of the article's improvement and doesn't reflect what I think. Also, your last reply here makes me wonder. Since the Macedonian Wikipedia contradicts with information on the English Wikipedia (ex. The ethnic affiliations of Jane Sandanski, Tsar Samuil, IMRO and etc), are you claiming that the English Wikipedia is the one in the wrong? StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Stephen i am in no way insulting his ethnicity or identity im pointing out his BPOV in other wikis, thats not insulting, I haven't accused anyone else of BPOV other then Jingby, if you actually checked my edit history the only person ive ever accused was Jingby, nobody else "I have noticed that you read or at least select only certain parts of what someone wrote and then misinterpret what they actually wrote." No not really if you checked the edit history of the IMRO, Jane Sandanski, Gotze Delcev, Tzar Samuil macedonian wiki you'll easy spot these edit reverts they've done on Jingby (it took me 5-10 minutes to find all of them so you can find them easily) "I ignored that question because it's only an assumption, unrelated to the subject of the article's improvement and doesn't reflect what I think" Alright you've got a good point but the problem is when Jingby uses sources like those without answering the question it causes more confusion. No Stephen im not trying to suggest what Wiki is right or wrong, im just using the evidence I've found on those wikis and nothing else, what i mean is that the mods in the Macedonian wiki view them as Macedonian and Jingby should respect their views, and if the ban reason from the Grigor Prlicev article is correct then Jingby has failed to respect the admin and mods wishes Gurther (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, but this is still the English Wikipedia and these alleged offenses didn't occur in this language version. Here is you accusing another editor of POV] and your insult here. It's all included in the diffs above. You're not helping your case here. This report is against you, not Jingiby. If he had done any wrongdoing here in the English Wikpedia, then he would have been sanctioned. That doesn't appear to be the case here. As far as I know, the Macedonian Wikipedia is bound by the same policies as the English Wikipedia. They don't get to pick. An editor is only obliged to respect the policies. If, for example, reliable sources write that the ethnic affliation of something or somebody is "this" or "that", then anything else other than "this" or "that" amounts to nothing more than a fringe view, which obviously isn't tolerated, especially here on the English Wikipedia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You've seemed to take things out of context, the first one i didn't accuse anyone, i asked for an explanation, not accusing, just asking for an explanation, I've never ever directly insulted an editor, this evidence of yours makes no sense, why did you use me deleting one of the Wikipedia talk pages for Alekso Martulkov? Makes no sense to me. "This report is against you, not Jingiby" Yes i know, im defending myself, the only reason ive even shared these stuff is to prove to you that im not accusing an editor for no reason, that in reality some of their actions can seriously be labeled as BPOV. "An editor is only obliged to respect the policies. If, for example, reliable sources write that the ethnic affliation of something or somebody is "this" or "that", then anything else other than "this" or "that" amounts to nothing more than a fringe view, which obviously isn't tolerated, especially here on the English Wikipedia" you've seemed to miss my point again, in some of the Macedonian wikis (especially those of Gotze Delcev) are edited by the administration of the Macedonian wiki, not just some random editors but those who can directly warn or temp ban someone, and Jingby has failed to respect their opinions. Also this just proves my point, all of Jingbys claims that hes Bulgarian are Bulgarian sources, I've shown you and him a link to all the books about Vasil, in which most of them either label him as a Macedonian or not label him anything (Some label him as Bulgarian ofc but thats a small minority) Which suggest to me that the"Macedo-bulgarian" claims are Fringe View Gurther (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I have the feeling that reasonable dialogue with you is very difficult. You writings are strange and you keep hurling illogical accusations against other editors that, apart from being untrue, have no direct bearing on our discussion here. Jingiby (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"you keep hurling illogical accusations against other editors that, apart from being untrue, have no direct bearing on our discussion here." Jingby, ive linked a lot of messages to support my accusations, which was why i even accused you in the first place, do you have any way of disproving my links? If you do then share it here, thanks Gurther (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

All right. So let me sum up your offenses for you.

- Obstructing discussions on article talk page discussions and accusing editors of promoting POV (You deflect from your own offenses by citing alleged POV edits that occurred on another language version of Wikipedia, however they do not count, and Macedonian Wikipedia admins are not involved here. So, the conversation about the Macedonian Wikipedia is useless here. You haven't proved the POV of any editor here, especially on the English Wikipedia. Even if you did, your behavior on talk pages still wouldn't be justified, because article talk page discussions are still for discussions related to article improvement only. Furthermore, you accused another editor of "Bulgarization", which is completely unsubstantiated. All of these count as personal attacks. You also used talk pages as a forum and to soapbox.

- You directly insulted another editor on the basis of his ethnicity. There's no good reason for insulting someone on Wikipedia ever, even if you were in the right.

- Your editing pattern appears to have been disruptive. You removed and changed content without any good reasons (ex. removals and changes which weren't based on policies and guidelines). I'd like to add that prior to edit warring on Martulkov and Rizov, it appears that you have been aware that edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia, yet you did it anyway (diff). Also, the examples that editor Jingiby cited above as proof of your disruptive behavior are not "old" and "useless", considering that some occurred this month. Not to mention that you have been warned for disruption before.

So, I'll give you the following options: Either you'll apologize and take responsibility for your conduct, which is the most reasonable thing that you can do in this situation, as well as ensure that you won't repeat the same mistakes. Or we can safely conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, because without acknowledging your past mistakes, it means that you will repeat them and your unconstructive behavior here would continue. It's the best that I can do for you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Stephan "Macedonian Wikipedia admins are not involved here. So, the conversation about the Macedonian Wikipedia is useless here" At the end of the day its still in Wikipedia right? So you've suggested to me that i can be the most absolutely terrible on all these language wikis without suffering punishment from here? "you accused another editor of "Bulgarization", which is completely unsubstantiated. All of these count as personal attacks. You also used talk pages as a forum and to soapbox." I didn't ask accuse them, i asked them, this is having bad faith on your editors and labeling this as a personal attack isn't proper, "You directly insulted another editor on the basis of his ethnicity. There's no good reason for insulting someone on Wikipedia ever, even if you were in the right. " again Stephan where? I've never insulted anyones ethnicity. I've accused Jingby on promoting BPOV, but thats not insulting an ethnicity, because if it was, then you've pretty much insulted mine. "your editing pattern appears to have been disruptive. you removed and changed content without any good reasons (ex. removals and changes which weren't based on policies and guidelines)" Yes Stephen its called being new to a site, i didn't even know there were wikis for rules, now i do, this example is ridiculous. "Also, the examples that editor Jingiby cited above as proof of your disruptive behavior are not "old" and "useless", considering that some occurred this month." Oh so old sources work now? Huh, interesting. But I've already explained all my reasons and you've seemed to ignore all them, which considering how this conversation is going, its not a surprise "So, I'll give you the following options: Either you'll apologize and take responsibility for your conduct, which is the most reasonable thing that you can do in this situation, as well as ensure that you won't repeat the same mistakes. Or we can safely conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, because without acknowledging your past mistakes," Stephen have you even seen my responses? ive apologized for most of my older edits since i barely knew anything about Wikipedia, ive apologized for the edit war on Alekso, plus all these edit-wars I've caused have already been solved by me and Jingby, I've expanded the Alekso wiki in a more neutral light, Jingby has did the same. The issues that you're complaining about have already ended and ive apologized for most. If you really want me to apologize, then why did you go out of your way fo report me? This isn't how you properly ask some to apologize, neither does it help in a situation but this report of yours has caused even more tension when you could have easily solved the situation by asking for an apology in the Vasil Glavinov talk. But yes i am really sorry for my edits (all my old ones especially) I'm still learning Wikipedia and you're introduction to Wikipedia is barely welcoming and more threating, i also like to apologize for the stuff on Alekso Martulkov, i barely knew any of these terms like "NPOV" "bad faith" and "fringe views" and thats why the wiki was flawed, i also apologize for Rizo Rizov since it was my second wiki and when this edit war began they were both being edited by the same time, so i had no idea. After learning how important NPOV was i decided to implement it to other wikis, such as Dimitar Vlahov, but here's the thing, I've tried to neutralize the English Wikipedia of Vasil Glavinov, and Jingby stopped me, which was odd since a lot of evidence supports he had both Bulgarian and Macedonian declarations, similar to Krste Petkov Misirkov. Anyways yea im sorry. Gurther (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 and Gurther: Probably the worst possible way to get attention to a perceived problem, or to an explanation for it, is to post walls of text that nobody reads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We've already solved the dispute, currently waiting for Stephen to archive it Gurther (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

MilesLogic and weird page moves

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.

---

MilesLogic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So I stumbled upon a new user whose contributions consist mostly of odd moves. I originally reported at AIV, but wasn't sure if this was vandalism (this seems more like CIR), so I chose to go here instead. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say the same regarding CIR/ICHY. Btw, @LilianaUwU, thanks for moving the article back to draftspace (I had done that previously, and repeating my actions was out of the question). This use of their talk page says a lot. Silikonz💬 02:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

For a "new user", has some very sophisticated template stuff going on on their user page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, not quite sure what point you are trying to make here? It's just a copy of Template:Authority control, with /doc transcluded. Could you please clarify? Silikonz💬 03:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this person is new and is probably a sock. They are doing some template stuff both on the user page and a protection template on the talk page, but I don't have the experience to know who this would be a sock of. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• CU-blocked and tagged - see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MinecraftFan35.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 24 February 2023 (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.

71.234.178.78 and disruptive 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.

---

This user keeps changing all the singles in infobox into promotional singles. I believe this is some kinds of disruptive edits, but I'm not familiar with these topics. Also, after reading their user talk page, I believe this might be some kind of block evasion. -Lemonaka‎ 04:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This message is baseless and should be ignored. "All the singles" is one article, It's a Wrap (Mariah Carey song), which does not fit the criteria for an official single according to WP:SINGLESCRIT without a source. 71.234.178.78 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That user also seems doesn't seem to be open to communication on their talk page and has been blanking it with uncivil edit summaries for years. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Note this Diff Special:Diff/1065785987 on user page. Probable socking. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Check block logs, this need to be a year or longer. Oh, yeah, and batch revert their edits. -Lemonaka‎ 05:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Note they stealth-edited your first message, removing the block evasion comment. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added it. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• IP blocked for obvious and persistent block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:12, 24 February 2023 (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.

Multiple IP addresses (possibly more) are disrupting the article Morrigan Aensland

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.

---

2800:a4:22ba:a400:8c80:8b22:e2d6:c0f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

2800:a4:23fb:9500:b46c:c8f5:1fb4:b218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

2800:a4:2396:2600:b46c:c8f5:1fb4:b218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

2800:a4:229b:a200:555e:e7c2:4ae7:13ea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know how many there are but these IP addresses keeps on adding/undoing edits that are not following the neutral point of view on the article Morrigan Aensland. Additionally, some of them are leaving harassment summaries against the reverting user.

From the actions these IP addresses made, they are most likely connected with Omni-Edition who has been blocked months ago on the same article. Could you look into this? Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 07:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Protected article, revdel'd the worst of the edit summaries. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and personal attack against an 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.

---

Please check this [125]. This looks like a personal attack and legal threat to an editor from an IP. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits reverted and IP range blocked 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2023 (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:Edifice70

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.

---

Edifice70 (talk · contribs) continues to make disruptive edits in which they change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in historical articles against the consensus (see WP:KIEV) but also other spelling changes which do not follow the article title (such as Vladimir the Great to "Volodymyr" or Kievan Rus' to "Kyivan Rus'"). See these recent edits for example[126][127][128][129]. In all their edit summaries they write "typo" and when they have been warned countless times on their talk page, they have not responded to a single warning and have only continued with these edits. My last warning[130] a few days ago did not stop them so at this point I think a block is necessary. This is pretty much all of their edits which usually get reverted. Mellk (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Edifice70 for disruptive editing, specifically editing against the consensus established at WP:KIEV, and lying in edit summaries, and failing to discuss and collaborate with their fellow editors. The editor can be unblocked if they acknowledge the problems with their editing and pledge to correct the problems. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2023 (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.

London IPs placing copyrighted images in the wrong 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.

---

• 2A02:C7C:6748:E900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The London IP range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:6748:E900:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked three weeks ago for disruption. They are back at it today, adding copyrighted logos to the wrong articles,[131][132][133] and incorrect names to lists of people involved.[134] Let's give them a longer time-out. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Yeah, nothing is useful there. 1 month this time. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2023 (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:JBW

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

---

Hi. Just wanted to bring in attention that JBW (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), an admin, speedy deleted a reviewed article, Belgin Aksoy, check here. How can they delete a notable article unilaterally? Why not nominate for deletion and let people do WP:BEFORE or just revert to better version? We have lost good old Wikipedia values. JBW have been doing this (speedy deleting pages) from quite some time and it is time to check their log and ask them to please stop being a dictator. FYI, it was nominated by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). 5.194.136.168 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the admin about it? I note that this was deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", so it was nothing to do with notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRV is thataway. Your first stop is to talk to JBW, preferably politely and without the assumption of bad faith on display here. Your complaint amounts to a personal attack with the "dictator" swipe. Review does not confer immunity from any kind of deletion. Why are you using the checkuser template for JBW and MrsSnoozyTurtle? Acroterion (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, JBW and MrsSnoozyTurtle are right; the article is unambiguous advertising or promotion. This mention at ANI brought my attention to Belgin Aksoy's Global Wellness Day, which I also consider advertising and remarkably miserably sourced. I've prodded it. Bishonen | tålk 19:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC).

It probably won't surprise anyone to know that checkuser tells me that the authors of both aforementioned articles are 95% probably the same person. Also worth taking a look at Pamilerin Adegoke, Christian Okoli, Stephen Akolade Akintayo, and Simone Jewels, all of which are not going to be unrelated. Good old Wikipedia values, eh? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Zzuuzz, are you planning to block the obvious socking UPE and delete the spammy articles? I can speedy the articles if you like, but I'm not as well placed to deal with the user. Shall we share the cleanup? (Not now, but after I wake up tomorrow is a good time for me.) Also, I know you're not supposed to say anything about any relationship of the sock accounts to the IP who made this report, but I expect you looked. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC).

Or maybe not..? Anyway, I've speedied the mentioned articles as advertising. None of them have any non-promotional sources. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC).

Mmmh, rabbitholes. I've blocked some, probably all I'm going to block at this time. There's some other articles, such as DAW Empire. FWIW, incantations from previous CUs suggest this is likely related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruralman1. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

JBW posted the following at User talk:Bishonen#Help! (diff) Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my computer has stopped working, and my phone can't cope with really long pages, such as ANI has recently been, making reading the page at times difficult and at times impossible, and making editing the page totally impossible, so I am asking Bishonen if she will help by posting this for me. All I have to say about this is that I've read it, and everything I might have said has already been said. JBW (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2023 (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.

Lecorrecteur23

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.

---

Lecorrecteur23 is a LTA from fr-wp who comes here to troll. Thanks. — Jules* ^talk 18:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Already a block, really ? Kadishon vraiment (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Question about accounts

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

---

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the right page for this, but I have a question. Admittedly, at one point in time I was briefly a sockpuppeter. My "original" account was user: Jwb23. My short and regretful time as a sockpuppeter and wikipedia editor lasted during the summer of 2021. Although I did use multiple accounts, I never was a vandal and tried to be helpful.

Now, almost two years later, I want to return to wikipedia and hope to turn a new page. I respect the work you all do and want to participate thoughtfully. I hope the fact I abusively used multiple accounts back in 2021 when I was a naive, brand-new editor does not prohibit me from rejoining after this hiatus. Will be still be able to edit now?

As I am now aware how wikipedia operates, I will not make the error I originally made. I am here admitting to my old involvement in order to start anew. I hope I can now rejoin.

--MinnesotaTwelves (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Damn, that's A LOT OF SOCKS. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jwb23/Archive. You were blocked not only for being a massive sockdrawer, but also for edit-warring.

@Oshwah: the blocking admin, should have also been pinged here if you are truly wanting transparency and accountability. I also suggest that you ping those you had conflicts with and those who put in their time and effort at SPI to deal with your massive disruption. Additionally, why didn't you ask to be unblocked under your original account? If you now understand how WP works, we have procedures for requesting unblock. I'm not particularly impressed by the fact that you created yet another sock to do this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You also look to have created this sock: Discospinners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to impersonate User:Discospinster, the admin who blocked several of your sock accounts. Given all of this, I am blocking this new sock. You can go back to your sockmaster account and use the usual methods explained to you on your talk page for appealing blocks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:57, 25 February 2023 (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:64.183.239.42 editing again

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

---

Hello administrators, The IP address user:64.183.239.42 has started editing again after their one year block for block evasion. It looks to me as they are editing the same things, and the block should be extended. I don’t know what to do, so I thought I would just ask here.

Sincerely, Illusion Flame (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This is unfortunate, the block has expired. 64.183.239.42 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the block has expired. I am asking for it to be extended, as you clearly are the same user that block evaded. Illusion Flame (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Is the IP being used to evade a longer or indef block of a named user acccount? If you don't want to post the named account (I don't see one in the block log), I suggest contacting the blocking admin. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I contacted the blocking admin. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu (2nd nomination)

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 article Leo Liu was taken to AfD, which was closed less than a week ago as a unanimous "keep". Banks Irk disagreed with the close and opened another AfD, which is rather disruptive. As they are ignoring my close, I consider myself now involved, so I haven't taken any action. --Randykitty (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Daily Magzines, The American Mail, and Vents Magazine reliable?, I suggested it be nominated at AFD again because the original AFD had problems. Levivich (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Your advice is not very good. If you don't agree with the outcome of an AfD, you take it to DRV, you don't open another AfD until you get the outcome that you desire. I have no problem at all if it is shown that one of my closures was perhaps incorrect, or if people ask me to relist instead of closing. But opening another AfD that I just closed without even contacting me, that's not how we do things here. --Randykitty (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Chill, it was a bad close and you need to take a step back and let the community address that. HTinC23 policy based argument was overwhelming and you completely ignored it and instead counted votes. If this is how you normally do closes I think we need to be discussing a topic ban. Did you even notice this [135]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Randykitty, I agree the ideal procedure would have been been to take it to WP:DRV but I see no reason to doubt Banks Irk when they say they were not aware of DRV (it's not exactly one of the better known parts of WP). There seems to be rather unanimous agreement that the close was "wrong" (though understandable based on the first AfD so not meant as criticism. Correcting that mistake seems more important than whether it should have gone to DRV and I'm sure Banks Irk will use the DRV the next time. I don't see what there is for ANI to discuss here. Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I actually think in this case, per WP:NOTBURO, re-noming the article is better than taking it to DRV, considering it'd been a week since it was closed. We don't need to discuss the close, we just need to have another discussion about the article. Yeah, a week is quick, but sometimes that's just because it's extremely clear that the first AFD was a mistake. We should do the thing that makes the content policy-compliant (it's an unreferenced BLP) while using the least amount of editor time. DRV would be a waste of time. Levivich (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• To be honest, given that there weren't any actual Delete votes apart from the nominator, it is likely that DRV would probably have sent the article back to AfD, so even though Banks Irk was unaware of the process, we've probably unintentionally saved some electrons (and some time). Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• HTinC23 was clearly in favor of deletion, I don't see how you can interpret that as anything other than a delete vote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, but you know how DRV works - it almost certainly wouldn't have got overturned to Delete; there is a tendency at that venue to say "OK, let's delete it properly then". Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A 2nd nomination so soon afterwards is surprising but upon closer inspection it appears to be entirely correct in this case. There is no indication of sufficient notability in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've never heard of DRV, but it hardly seems, and was not intended to be, disruptive to open a new AFD. I've had no prior involvement with the subject article.This came up at RSN, and it was painfully obvious that none of the sources being cited were remotely reliable. Reviewing the initial AFD, it was also apparent that all the "Keep" posts were by recently opened SPAs who claimed there were numerous, but unidentified reliable sources for the article. A review of potential reliable secondary sources showed that, to be frank, there are none. So, I started a second AFD after removing the unreliable sources. I cannot imagine why it is "disruptive" to have the discussion at AFD vs DRV...AFD actually appears to have wider participation. Banks Irk (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to point out, that contrary to the accusation above, I promptly notified Randykitty on their talkpage that I had opened the 2nd AFD.Banks Irk (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Disruptive, sure, but let's WP:AGF here and take Banks Irk at their word that they didn't know about WP:DRV. And a WP:TROUT to RK for jumping the gun and taking this tempest in a teapot to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• An AfD closes with 4 keeps, technically Zero deletes, 99% of the time should be a slamdunk, but nope, this is the 1%. User HTinC23 raised concerns about the sourcing that literally no keep voter addressed, and as AfD #2 has seen participation by users who appear to have a clue about reliable sourcing. Closing #1 as delete would have been one of the rare, valid invocations of WP:IAR. Trouts all-around for every participant in AfD #1 save HTinC23, who gets an award. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang

I propose a topic ban for Randykitty from making AfD closes. That was clearly not a unanimous keep, their explanation was completely insufficient, and attempting to have the editor who pointed that out sanctioned is completely beyond the pale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

??? How was this AfD not a unanimous keep? The nominator doesn't count in regards to unanimous keep or not. And their closing reason was simply "Keep", as seems appropriate for that discussion. Also, I don't see them calling for sanctioning above. Are you okay, Horse Eye's Back? Silverseren^C 00:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you summarize HTinC23's position for me? It certainly isn't keep. Also how is taking someone to ANI for disruptive editing while saying you would have done something yourself if you weren't involved not calling for sanctions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

HTinC23 was the nominator. As I stated, the nominator doesn't count toward unanimous keep or not. And even if they were a separate Delete vote, the discussion very clearly was a Keep from the other editors there. And doing a separate AfD rather than DRV is inappropriate (though mildly so). Silverseren^C 00:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What valid policy based arguments do those arguing keep present? Literally the only valid policy based arguments I see are made by HTinC23. Also note that the first two keep votes are SPA's which appear to have a COI problem. Something which the closer is supposed to take into consideration, this one did not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a unanimous Keep because all of the Keep rationales were wrong. However, I don't think you can suggest a topic ban for the closer without providing a significant history of problematic closures. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, whether the Keep votes were wrong or not is subjective. But if the only votes in an AfD were Keep, then I don't see how you could close it other than Keep. Silverseren^C 00:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." WP:CLOSEAFD. This is unbelievable, the only reasonable, logical, policy-based argument which was made was made in favor of deletion. The closer had no option other than to close as delete. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not subjective. Levivich (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It was subjective in this case because the editors were making policy-based arguments saying the sources were reliable. And the nominator's non-independence claim of the coverage would be something that would need to be substantiated prior, not saying they look like they are because they were made recently. HTinC23 might be correct, but they have to back up the claim with more substantial evidence and not just how things look like to them. Silverseren^C 00:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They did back up their claim with substantial evidence. The "keep" side offered no supporting evidence at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they weren't. Sorry to keep disagreeing, but my view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu is the literal opposite of what you've written. HTinC proves that those sources aren't reliable, in a very clear and objective way. On the other hand, the keep !voters are just asserting reliability (two obvious SPA/socks, plus "There's wide coverage in third-party sources, I believe" and "there are enough independent sources to justify the existence of this article"), and none of the four keep !voters responded to any of the points HTinC made. This isn't subjective, it's 4 editors nakedly asserting GNG coverage and completely ignoring 1 editor who is pointing out why the sources aren't RSes. It's a textbook example of why we have WP:NOTAVOTE. Levivich (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This, as of right now, is an overreaction. If there's a pattern, provide evidence of it and the community can go from there. Topic bans shouldn't be replacements for trouts. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure of a ban. Certainly a trout, even a double-whammy trout (one for the bad close, another for bringing Banks Irk here just for doing the right thing) but that's probably all we need to do here. Jeppiz (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How about a warning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How about a reminder that it's not a vote and not a bureaucracy? Levivich (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A reminder to go "You're right, I goofed... Lets fix it" instead of hauling someone to ANI when they politely point out your screw up? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many ways to warn but a BAN is certainly also an overreaction. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Question to Randykitty. You claim above that Banks Irk started the AfD "without even contacting me". What you say is false. They clearly notified you [136] You were aware of that, because you responded to them prior to starting this thread. Why on earth would you misrepresent what happened in that way? Concerning incidents really start to pile up. (1) a very bad AfD close, (2) bringing Banks Irk to ANI for no reason, (3) misrepresenting Banks Irk's actions. Starting to be a bit much. Perhaps Horse Eye's Back is right that a temporary break might be good. Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Don't they mean "without contacting me" prior to doing any form of AfD to discuss the close with them? Silverseren^C 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Let's hope so. But in my reading (entirely uninvolved) Banks Irk has done everything well and in good faith. The accusations Randykitty makes against them look bad. Jeppiz (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Umm -- I have no idea what this case is about, but I also have no idea how anyone here thinks this AfD would have been closed as anything BUT keep. Was it supposed to be closed as "no consensus"? Where's that? Or, better yet, as "delete"? Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  It certainly shouldn't have been closed as keep, probably another relist or a no consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  It was relisted once, so the nomination was live for a period of 2 weeks. And I do agree that the article is terrible in terms of sourcing, and should have been either relisted or closed as no consensus, but there shouldn't be any bans here I think because they're technically not wrong. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  If they're technically not wrong what was the reasonable, logical, policy-based argument to keep? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  None of the !voters had any, I'm sorry to say. I just don't think any ban is appropriate because the close was sort of difficult and I wouldn't blame the closer for that. Two weeks available for anyone to vote and every vote was to "keep", only problem is the votes weren't actually meaningful. The closer isn't to blame for that. I don't think it's ban-worthy, but we probably should just advise Randykitty on how to better handle AfDs of this sort. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  HTinC23 made a reasonable, logical, policy-based argument to delete. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a tough sell to sanction somebody for not doing something that almost nobody else does, either (close a 4-1 against the numbers). I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a closer do that. Levivich (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Relisting is always an option. So is offering your opinion instead of closing. Nobody is forced to make a close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, and suggest speedy closure of this subthread. Proposing such a restriction based on disagreement with a single close is obviously unwarranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No disagreement there, apart from suggesting the original thread could likewise be closed. Clearly Banks Irk did nothing wrong (not being aware DRV exists is hardly sanctionable). Jeppiz (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Randykitty obviously made a lazy close, but there have to have been a thousand or more closes of XfDs that have gone on headcounts rather than on the closer doing his or her own research on the issues, especially with unanimous sentiment. If bored ANI regulars want to hand out tbans, how about on some of the voters in the first AfD? "There's wide coverage in third-party sources, I believe" is pretty patently one of those "Oooh, I gave the page a four second glance and saw that it lists sources" kneejerk votes; what about that editor? And never mind that Levivich is right: it's uncommon for a closer to argue policy against headcount, and I would expect a closer who ruled against a unanimous sentiment to Keep to wind up at ANI for abusing the process; I've seen that happen for simply bucking a 2/3rds Keep sentiment. Ravenswing 03:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Good grief, someone close this. We now have a cascade effect of impulsive, poorly-considered, non-starter proposals. As I see it, this subthread is a massively histrionic overreaction (by Horse Eye's Back) to a moderately misguided posting (by RandyKitty) to a course of action (by Banks Irk) that was perfectly reasonable, in the circumstances, but which was, if nothing else, a nuanced call that required Banks to thread the needle on the role of the closer in interpreting community feedback in the form of local consensus, relative to broad community consensus. That IB made the right call is to their credit, but that observation only reinforces the fact that it was not the most immediately intuitive conclusion of all times.

HOB, I understand that you made the boomerang proposal that you did because you want to send a message to RK for having "hauled" Banks here. But sanctions are only adopted for preventative purposes, not punitive, and I think we can presume that the community response here fairly uniformly puts Randy on notice that most of us believe that Banks had the right end of the stick here--and certainly was not trying to operate outside of process or otherwise disruptively. You would need a substantial pattern of disruption on RK's part to establish that the suggested TBAN is warranted, especially considering the fact that reasonable minds on this project do vary on the precise role of the closer and the appropriate approach when summarizing local consensus that conforms poorly with policy. Besides which, RK did exactly what we'd expect an admin to do in these circumstances: passed the issue to the community to consider, rather than acting unilaterally. I can't see there being even a remote chance that this proposal can gain traction, and it's therefore just a a time-wasting out-cropping extending an already needless thread. I mean, we don't even need proper trouting for anyone at this point: a mere scent of trout in the air suffices. I really suggest the second AfD be allowed to proceed and everyone just move on in every other respect. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:40, 26 February 2023 (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.

120.22.86.142

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.

---

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

Edit warring at Half-frame camera and has been very rude on my talk page. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no edit warring just a user here showing their hapless incompetence rather than wanting to contribute towards making a project better. This incompetent editor reverted an article I was working on to one with even fewer references, and said they did a good job after displaying their incompetence. Don't drag your nonsense here unless you like boomerangs --120.22.86.142 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Behavior consistent with a sockpuppetry. IP that hasn't edited since 2016 suddenly making dozens of edits to one article in only a few hours, knows what WP:Competence is required & WP:BOOMERANG are and how to cite them (so obviously they have prior experience), and is quite rude. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no socks, but there is plenty of meat in that boomerang you're building for yourself lol. You might also want to check how stale that bot thought my IP was before you start cracking off with nonsense including your nonsensical abuse of BRD. How's about you quit while you're behind like Ted Bundy should have where in actuality if he did, he would not have been electrocuted. But you're more built of the hapless incompetent that likes sticking forks in electrical sockets to see what happens next. --120.22.86.142 (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the edits themselves, your reaction is needlessly hostile. Personal attacks alone are likely to earn you a block. I suggest you retract/strike them. — Czello 10:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

When this whole project is built around hapless incompetents that like to stifle projects with BRD because they think they're the next Donald Trump, that might know something about filibusters and how to say neigh more than horses you'll know why I no longer put up with hapless incompetence. --120.22.86.142 (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I can't say I didn't try. — Czello 10:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe when you get over being an incompetent you'll stop filibustering actual improvements on articles with BRDs? --120.22.86.142 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Humanity is about to fail because someone was asked to provide sources on Wikipedia. Incredible stuff. — Czello 10:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that is incredible is reverting an article to a worse state, because you like to abuse due process. I wonder if we'll have the competence to do with Donald Trump though what humanity did with Louis the 16th when he displayed such ingratiated incompetence and he lost his head? See the problem is... People like you never learn from history, abuse process and then wonder why someone else here who is the next person calls for your own head. See even buried in the rule book somewhere for this stupid project there is a rule somewhere that says if you see a problem fix it, don't revert it. Your sheer incompetence and mendacious behavior is on display. I was in the middle of fixing that issue also, but I don't suppose I will now due your grandiose display of incompetence. As to trolling, oh lord, I'm sure you'd find the word bold somewhere in the field manual. But just like Saving Private Ryan we seem to be all out of field manuals at the moment and stuck in a world full of incompetents. If you even began to understand what the word bold means you wouldn't need me to drag civil process here for me to spell it out to you that sometimes bold does mean naughty and badly behaved especially in Irish English --120.22.86.142 (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that you mentioned WP:BOOMERANG (and I don't think you know how that works given that OP clearly won't be getting one), I wonder if there's a term for the opposite - where someone is brought to ANI and they categorically make it worse for themselves. — Czello 10:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether you understand what bold actually means, or that after studying law, words actually mean things and lawyers are paid to use them.... Please refer to what I posted above in case you missed the point I was making --120.22.86.142 (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments like "hapless idiots with a superiority complex" and hapless incompetents and How's about you quit while you're behind like Ted Bundy should have where in actuality if he did, he would not have been electrocuted. are worthy of a block. Can someone please block this troll? Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes pretty please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to stick the fork in the socket like Ted Bundy did when he still had a perfectly good argument on the table to save his life. I'll bring the clowns to watch and laugh at you, not with you. Speaking of forks, this project would have been better off following the model of GitHub, there would be less people like you if it did. Anarchy solves nothing, never will just look at the UN. 120.22.86.142 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This troll is still attacking other editor(s) and has deleted a warning on their Talk page regarding this. I believe a block is necessary to stop this behaviour, which is against all Wikipedia conventions. David J Johnson (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised no administrator has reviewed this case yet. I'm still waiting here after 2 hours. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48h for personal attacks and trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2023 (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.

Mikoczi and WP:MOS

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.

---

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

A new user is determined to add the information that Alexandra Borbély, who is Slovakian, is ethnic Hungarian to the lede and infobox of this article. They have now did it five times in three days one, two, three, four, five, and specifically the last edit was after I have left a message at their talk page explaining that WP:MOS discourages the mention of ethnicity in the lede. Some edits to other articles are not fantastic either [137]. Probably a block is needed. I am not sure the user has already discovered their talk page though. Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

He seems to have just now read your message on their TP, apologised for their edits, and seemingly expressed willingness to learn (and comply with) wiki policies. In the interest of expediency I have taken the liberty of editing the article removing the MOS:EASTEREGG from the lede and adding the link to the bio. The changes are very minor and I hope they're agreeable to both parties. Ostalgia (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed, we seem to be done here. Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

IP harassment

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.

---

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

Ongoing harassment-only IP. See recent contribs and user talk page. IP tools say its a static residential IP in Canada. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to allegations of Polish ultranationalists engaging in historical revisionism, and rehabilitation of Polish Nazi collaboration. https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 206.45.2.52 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting Levivich is also mentioned in the paper referenced above. Please recuse yourself, Levivich. Let's at least have some appearance of impartiality. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been called a lot of different things on Wikipedia, but "Polish ultranationalist" is a new one, thank you for that PS you might want to actually read the paper before taking to Wikipedia about it. Levivich (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just want to make it clear before the politruk bans me. Academia has taken note of the Polish-ultranationalist revisionist project on Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind as you proceed to handle this incident. The research is not going away, in fact there is already further research being conducted. Govern yourselves accordingly, friends. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

нет политрук. Ale istnieje kabała. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If trolling resumes, the next block will be a lot longer. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2023 (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.

Doxxing

2002:5969:dba5::5969:dba5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user continuously vandalizes Asmongold's (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmongold&action=history) Wikipedia page by posting unverified information, private and sensitive information obtained from unreliable sources in an attempt to dox Asmongold). SturmFernmelder (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@SturmFernmelder How is that IP connected to the others? —C.Fred (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: They probably meant to begin a new thread, which I've just done. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@SturmFernmelder: assuming you intended to begin a new thread, you have failed to notify 2002:5969:dba5::5969:dba5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of this discussion, even though the prominent warning box on top of this page clearly requires you to do so. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User: Lard Almighty

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

Both myself and Lard Almighty have been editing the this page Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally, Lard Almighty had reverted an edit and allowed a BLP disputed name to stay [here], which was undone in [this edit].

After this, there have been several issues that have happened involving Lard and their subsequent edits.

After their edit was removed, the subsequent user who added it received the following message on their talk page Darrencdm1988 [user page

"Please note that we are not naming the suspect per WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)"

This would appear to go against a fair consensus building, since edits to a page should be addressed on the talk page itself, not on a members user page. Also, this would appear to be an issue with WP:OWN, since it doesn't mention trying to obtain consensus or the like.

Lard created a talk page [here], with the first post being

Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

On a prior BLP discussion [located here], Lard had stated the following.

We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service.
— User: Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

However, in the talk page discussion, this is contradictory to the following quote

Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I started [a discussion] on the Dispute Resolution board to try to see if maybe I was misunderstanding consensus being made, and Lard said

The reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it. I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

, but this is contradictory to the statement on [this edit where they say that sexual assault was not the cause of death.

When I noted that it didn't involve paedophilia since it has never been stated in a single RS, this was the reply

It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the revert comment, that is somewhat correct, but I believe it's skewed by the fact that the original talk page statement says not to name the suspect as the very first comment, which most people would more than likely read the first post and assume it's what should be followed without second guessing it. The name has been added 28 times, 13 of those being Anonymous edits, with 14 being registered users. One of those additions is mine, and three are the same user adding it. There have also been 29 removals, 13 of which were by Lard, and 22 of the 29 mention to see the talk page or make mention of the consensus needing to be reached. I listed the ones mentioning the talk page below.

Lard, See Talk

deleted by Lard, PLEASE SEE TALK PAGE. WE ARE NOT NAMING THE SUSPECT.

deleted by Lard, See talk page.

deleted by Some1, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk Page.

deleted by NtheP, talk page.

deleted by Lard, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page. There is no consensus on adding the suspect's name.

deleted by Lard, Added hat note to see talk page.

deleted by Lard, See hat note and talk page.

deleted by Nthep, See Talk page

deleted by Kashmiri, see talk page

deleted by Lard, see 'various discussions'.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk Page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page.

deleted by Lard, Talk Page. No consensus to add the name yet.

removed by Beccavnr, 'per hidden text, and article text page.'

removed by Dumuzid, 'get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs

I personally think that several policies have been involved - - WP:STONEWALL by ignoring the concerns presented by others, and seemingly cherrypicking which arguments they would counter with brief dismissals, and nothing substantial in terms of rebuttals. - WP:TALKPOV by not staying objective, or remaining neutral. - WP:TALKDONTREVERT by reverting every mention of the name, regardless of what the consensus seems to be at the time. - WP:NOTUNAMITY by ignoring the arguments, and essentially creating a filibuster by removing every addition regardless of what the talk page has stated.

I just want to be able to have a fair consensus, which had appeared to be reached prior but I am not sure of that, and if I am wrong in any of the above statements regarding anything, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as possible, and while I have used Wikipedia for several years, I only recently made an account, so I'm more than likely going to make mistakes.

Awshort (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, not a user agreement. As a policy it cannot be overridden by a consensus on an individual talk page it would need to be altered at the Wikipedia policy level. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what this is doing here. There are lots of people adding the name and lots of people removing it. That points to a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. What happened to your referral to WP:DRN? And why are you eager to include the accused's name in the article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail - I understand about the policy, but I would further like to point out that that said policy states that "editors must seriously consider not including material" (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which was the issue being discussed on the talk page since it does appear elsewhere when it comes to arrests in connection with murders and higher profile crimes. It should be noted as well that the policy does not outright say that it cannot be done, and it seems to be up for discussion as it currently stands. Several high profile crimes have had their suspects named without convictions, which is the issue I was trying to address. The recent Idaho college murders come to mind, as well as the Pike County murders that were updated with the arrest of the suspects who later were charged, and convicted of the murders.

@Rsjaffe - I put this here because it involves user behavior and what I feel is issues that are hindering consensus, which was the instructions from Wikipedia:Consensus "Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.". The reason for listing the additions was to show that other people had wanted the info inserted, in counter to the argument of "I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include." (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which as stated above I felt was not capable of being met based on user behavior. As for the referral, I haven't been able to follow up to the discussion there yet regarding the content issue due to not having a lot of time around schooling, and figured i would address the user issue here. In regards to your last question about why I am 'eager' to add it,it has been an unsolved murder for several years with no arrests. When the arrest happened and the suspect was publicly named, several people tried to add it (which I understand is WP:NOTNEWS, and should probably have been avoided as being sensationalism). The fact that it was almost continually removed by the same user, and the general consensus on the talk page was ignored as stated in the reasons of my original post brought me here since I felt it was damaging to the consensus process.

Awshort (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

report edit warring on Gautam Adani page, looks like a fan page

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

---

The Gautam Adani page, looks like a fan page all weasel words, certain editors can't stand seeing anything about Adani in bad light.

Got to report edit warring by Toddy1 like this: [138](removal of edits without any explanation whatsoever).

and other edits like : [139]. Since when do we put trivial details like "he was hiding in the kitchen, under the table" ..etc ?!

It is already in the news that Adani group has hired people to edit their articles on wikipedia. There have been proved instances of socks as well. Need another round of sockpuppet investigation. see : 1) https://www.siasat.com/the-signpost-bans-40-sockpuppet-accounts-used-to-clean-adani-wikipedia-pages-2532218 and 2) https://thewire.in/media/adani-group-wikipedia-articles

It will be an unfortunate disgrace to wikpedia if not taken care of.

I also see Toddy1 and 'partially blocked user' - Rejoy2003 jumping to support each others edits and tag teaming (WP:TAGTEAM) against me on my talkpage giving me "will be blocked" warnings without any explanation whatsoever.

Strandofhair (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive#28 February 2023

• This is a clear-cut content dispute. I don't see any misconduct by those users. I would suggest you to go back to talk page and resolve the issue there. I will be watching the page. Capitals00 (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The report was filed by a sock. It can be archived now. Capitals00 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2023 (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:William Suss of Blackwaterwells Revoke TPA

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

---

User:William Suss of Blackwaterwells is trolling on their talk page while blocked. Please revoke their talk access. I tried to contact blocking admin, but their talk is protected. Illusion Flame (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 TPA revoked by Acroterion Thanks! Illusion Flame (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2023 (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.

Pixius

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

---

The editor Pixius (talk · contribs) arrived at a discussion in progress, and introduced themselves with:

the destructive work you are conducting here is against wikipedia policies. The "cancel culture" you are trying to impose on the name of the series and to push the WP:OWN is beyond any normal conduct.[140]

You behave like in 1984 novel the ministry of truth[141]

An uninvolved editor @DMacks warned them about tone,[142] but they insisted No, the tone is quite fine and accused me of using language from MSM (actually from current scholarship which I can cite) not in good faith, but used as a cover for the wrong doings”[143] Finally, they resorted to speculating on my ancestry, something I feel is subject to my WP:PRIVACY, and using it to cancel my ability to edit:

You being an of Ukrainian descent disqualify you from being objective[144]

I asked them to take it back,[145] but they refused.[146]

The user accuses me of Taking only one dubious source and build a narative around it post 24.02. is a part of canceling culture. We were discussing more than one source, and I introduced several others during the exchange, while they offered links to a personal website and an image search. So I don’t think this user’s problem is really about sources. The mention of post 24.02 is a reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favour of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and de-colonize their scholarship.[147] This user may be attacking me to prevent this from being reflected in Wikipedia articles. I apologize for speculating about their motives: I don’t really care about their motives.

I believe I have a right not to be treated this way. It constitutes WP:casting aspersions, openly justified by racism. —Michael Z. 00:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The talk page is for an article subject to WP:ACDS because it is related to the subject area of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed.

The editor was notified of DS nearly two years ago.[148]  —Michael Z. 00:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there.

As you stated above you don't care about the motives - my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia. It is difficult time for all of us, but "yellow band star of David to mark those Russkies" will not happen again.

Alleged "speculation" of your ancestry (I do not have to speculate), is not under the WP:PRIVACY. Privacy, as written in WP:PRIVACY, refers to your personal information, address, IP address, pictures, documents, your personal information etc... which none of these I have mentioned, nor used, nor written anywhere.

"...and using it to cancel my ability to edit...": No I am not preventing you in any way to edit and to write what you want. But also a new emotional source "academic" forgeries are not WP:RS. These authors have to deal with their problems personally.

Regarding the sources, I gave the sources not under the influence of MSM hysteria. Google, unfortunately, has become part of MSM. Hence the Bing, hence the "private" webpage dealing only with Degas work. Literally the first sentence in talk page of the Russian dancers article is from only one PhD thesis

"The name given by the author is 'Russian Dancers', so the title must be consistent. "Degas himself (mistakenly) titled a series of works with this name"." What was exactly mistaken? Has Degas had a chance to speak with those people? Most of the pictures have red dresses, red boots, a part of Russian culture. Has the PhD thesis taken this into evaluation proclaiming the "mistaken" name? The source is dubious, one sided and fits to the narrative. What you do is a pure cherry picking based on one PhD thesis and all other, the majority of them, sources have appeared post 24.02. events

Even now you are mentioning the Russian imperialism and cancelation of identity.

Stop playing the victim here. "In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favour of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and... " ::This is a pure MSM narrative, and it is not objective. I see no dissing on UK Comonwealth Imperisalism or USofA Imperialism. The whole tone of the article is pure cancelation culture of anything even remotely in touch with Russian. For God's sake, even the cat breed "Russian blue. " was renamed by some feline associations. It is a pure lunacy

When looking on your talk page, you frequently enter into a wars with other users. pushing your NPOVs, deciding what is right what is wrong, what sources a re reliable, which one ar to be frowned upon (example: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and leaders, you even write the same threatening text and warnings to the other users, and as well to me. You tend to attack people when you face the facts.

Concerning the ongoing cancel culture

Living in the west, in Germany, and having many friends of Russian and Ukrainian descent, from mixed marriages, and all sort of different combinations, I hear their daily struggle, their bank accounts being blocked, frozen, they being bullied at jobs, asking to publicly denounce the 24.02. event, being laid off from work, whole family companies being in blockade, and only because of their ethnicity, now we face a complete cancel culture of everything that it has a name Russ or Russian in it.

Wikipedia is not a place for buffs and vendettas. Don't make the English Wikipedia to spiral down like the Croatian one did.

Pixius talk 02:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Decolonisation time! We should ASAP run a bot to replace every instance of "Russian" with either "Ukrainian" (for good guys and things) or "Orcish" (for bad guys and stuff), merge Russia to Mordor, and site-ban on sight all Russian editors, 'cause they all are mafia who cannot handle criticism and censor those who oppose them. Why we still allow terrorists from a lawless wasteland of bandits to edit our free encyclopedia? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is supposed to be some witty retort, but it just reads like WP:POLEMIC to me, and potentially sanctionable at that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It is witty, but he has a point. Check the @Mzajac talk page Pixius talk 20:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, whether it was witty retort, polemic or just blowing the gasket from absolutely stupid "disputes" in Eastern European topic area, I don't fucking care anymore. I'd rather sniff lung-ful of NO2 than to take part in any Eastern Slavic shenanigans on WP. I'm fucking tired of this macabre, it sucks like vacuum pump. a!rado🔫🦈 (C✙T) 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Then quit commenting on the topic. It's entirely up to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO Pixius should be blocked the personal attack i.e. claiming an editor cannot be objective due to their ancestry. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would add their comments including on this very thread seem to have strong signs of WP:RGW so perhaps they are enough for an indef. My main poiint is at a minimum Pixius's personal attack which they don't seem to be withdrawing or apologising for should have consequences. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne

Hi Nil. I understand/speak Russian, and Understand Ukrainian, and several other Slavic languages

The guy/girl has a name (M)Zajac - the rabbit. He is active on UC Wikipedia. His talk page is full of warnings not to push the UC POV in topics. I said he is not objective, it was not intended to be a personal attack.

You can read from first reply that I have both Russians and Ukrainians as friends - I do not draw any distinction between them.

If it was offensive to assume @Mzajac being Ukrainian, then I apologize to the @Mzajacfor the offence.

But I still stand to my observation he has a subjective opinion and he has disruptive behavior Pixius talk 21:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pixius: to be blunt, we don't give a damn who your friends are. And you're missing my main point. Regardless of whether Mzajac is or is not Ukrainian, it's completely unacceptable for you to suggest any editor cannot be objective because of their nationality, that's a personal attack. If you have evidence that Mzajac isn't "objective" you need to demonstrate that in the forms of diffs of this behaviour. You cannot use their nationality as evidence they are not objective. You need to treat your fellow Wikipedians like you treat your friends. This means rather than assuming an editor is not objective because of their nationality you need to treat them all equally regardless of their nationality. It does not help us in any way if you treat your friends the same whatever their nationality but then treat Ukrainians on Wikipedia poorly by making an assumption they are not objective based on their nationality. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nil,

per Wikipedia rules you are not allowed to talk like that to me. You being an admin does not put you above the rules of civil discussion. Second it seams you have not read the first comment regarding the racism the Russians are taking in Germany.

I got your point clear and I have already said that I apologize, even pinging the user to see it.

I have provided the links to his talk page with the warning issued to him - that is main source of objectivism/subjectivism. Please, check his talk page.

Unfortunately, because of the first sentence you have written, I would like you, together with @DMacks and the "last warning" breaking rules, being excused from this panel/case and the whole case to be lifted to "higher instances" Pixius talk 21:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Any racism you've experienced in Germany has my strongest sympathies but it does not excuse you treating Germans let alone Ukrainians here any less than you would any other editor. Just the same that Russians here (and Serbians, Croatians...) need to be treated the same as any other editors. And if you're going to keep bring up your random friends, expect to be called out for it. And your apology is still very unclear. You seem to be saying you apologise for assuming Mzajac is Ukrainian. This is good assuming Mzajac does not identify as Ukrainian. But it is not sufficient. As I said, regardless of whether Mzajac is a Ukranian you cannot make assumptions about their objectivity based on ethnicity or nationality. You need to recognise that this is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia and you still haven't clearly done so. Again please apply the same standards of behaviour here as you do with your friends and treat them all the same regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. And the only "high instances" is arbcom. There's zero chance they will take this case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'higher instances', but I don't see that Nil Einne said anything outside of policy with the sentence "to be blunt, we don't give a damn who your friends are." You may have misunderstood what he was likely trying to communicate: that anyone can say anything about themselves here on Wikipedia, and we don't really care. It doesn't matter whether you have Russian and Ukrainian friends. It doesn't matter whether you privately sympathize with Russia or with Ukraine, as long as you don't let it affect your editing here. Ditto Mzajac -- we don't care what their private opinion is. What we care about is whether they edit objectively here on enwiki. What we care about is that they are here to build an encyclopedia and can help to do so with well-intentioned, competent compliance with policy. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My warning to this editor at the Ukranian-dancers talkpage was at 14:01 on Feb 10. Yesterday, I checked up on their later contributions, at which point I found that they have been at Talk:Sonja Yelich, hammering on that BLP-subject's ethnicity for over a year via OR and rejecting RS. Timestamped prior to my warning at the dancers talkpage, he responded to a neutral comment from User:LivelyRatification with "do not ask for mercy for the load of stupidity you have wrote there" and "should I call you potato". I left a final-warning about civility in discussions (timestamped subsequent to my warning at the dancers talkpage). Their response was again a rejection of the warning and rejection of our standard of WP:RS for BLP. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks: How long does this user need to be blocked? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Prior to their response here, I was at "final warning", having initially had my finger on 31h block as a quick-stop. I usually think 72h or 1wk for a first block for major disruption, or whatever would get them out of time-limited discussions (RFC, AFD, RM, etc.) where they are disruptive. Here there's no such discussion in play, and their response here indicates they need some serious self-reflection and policy-reading and we need some serious time without their participation. DMacks (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pixius has clearly stated that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but instead to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Between that and the racism and the absolute lack of any repentance, their apparent conviction that what they're doing is not only okay but is actually their duty...I'm kind of in agreement that this person needs to do some serious learning about what WP is and isn't. I'm wondering if we shouldn't just indef. People can just ignore short blocks and come right back and pick up where they left off. This editor, if they want to work here, is going to have to make a major change in approach. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee Please, do not twist my words. I wrote that the racism toward one nation in the eye of 24.02. event is unacceptable and it is against the rules of Wikipedia. Again, read the talk page of the user @Mzajac. and multiple warning he has for his editing behavior related to Russian/Ukrainian topics. I have pointed out that all the sources citing the Ukrainian dancers are after the 24.02. The only PhD thesis prior to the 24.02. events is puling a construct <<mistakenly>>, and the thesis is not taking into account the whole "dancers" opus of Degas's with numerous drawings depicting the in red boots/ white dresses/red dresses, floral patterns, etc.. and other sources (i have provided the link to Bing, which , contrary to Google, indexes Russian sources as well) depict very same Russian women doing folk dances in red boots/ white dresses/red dresses, floral patterns, etc..

You are taking my words out of the contexts and you do not bother to read the whole conversation, nor to check the links I have provided, but you have "decided to shoot me first, and then I will have a fair trial".

I am here to build encyclopedia. The racism you are mentioning cannot be pinned to me, and racism has no place on Wikipedia Pixius talk 21:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pixius, you literally wrote "you don't care about the motives - my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia". That is being NOTHERE and being here to RGW. It's practically the definition of it. Ditto your statement that "You being an of Ukrainian descent disqualify you from being objective": that is practically the definition of racism. Valereee (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I have literally quoted the text written by the user @Mzajac This user may be attacking me to prevent this from being reflected in Wikipedia articles. I apologize for speculating about their motives: I don’t really care about their motives."

The user is editing the Wikipedia in bad faith The part "my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia" is a reaction related to his destructive behavioral pattern and WP:incivility,WP:IDONTCARE and sentences like {{tq |In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favor of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and de-colonize their scholarship, "...In case you’re not aware, different terminology was used for Ukrainians under Russian imperialism than is today..."Talk:Ukrainian dancers, We don’t refer to Ukrainians as “Russians,” “Little Russians,” or “Khokhols,” all of which are seen as expressions of diminishment or denial of Ukraine and Ukrainians.[[149]]

Then again Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Commanders_and_leaders User_talk:Mzajac#Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and leaders, and again User_talk:Mzajac#Talk:"knowingly repeating disinformation", and again User_talk:Mzajac#Talk:Kostomarov and again discussing which source fits, and which not, because they are from Russia User_talk:Mzajac#Talk:Casualties at War in Donbas (2014–2022), and again here in a lengthy discussion User_talk:Mzajac#Talk:discussion about Labelling of the conflict at Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022) disruptive editing [[150]], and this[[151]], and this[[152]], and here openly attacking the users, abusing teh administrator privilege

Here’s the gist of my beef with the comments you made. This is not comprehensive and I’d rather not start a project tracking down all the comments everyone made in several different talk pages, some of which I think were removed.

My understanding is that Joaziela made statements that Ukraine is Nazi (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide in Ukraine over seven years (false), and that not including this in Wikipedia is “historical negationism,” i.e., genocide denial (false). These statements share several distinct themes straight from the Russian state’s justification of mass atrocities and its genocide incitement, as outlined in a report by 35 legal and genocide experts.

["knowingly repeating disinformation"]... Pixius talk 22:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time following all of that, but the most serious accusation you're making there is that Mzajac has abused administrator privileges, which doesn't seem to be followed by a diff, so if you could please just take your time, slow down, and give us a very clear example of that, we can take a look. I'll warn you, though, that's a very serious accusation, and if you really better have a clear example you can give us a diff/diffs for. Please be as brief as possible. Valereee (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, let me just to rephrase my sentence "abusing administrator privileges" before I get into a new trouble: not in sense that he is using his admin rights for something illegal ( or against Wikipedia Administratinf policies as I do not have the admin rights nor the panel, nor the tools) , but more in a spirit of Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, using profanity in replies while talking with users and not being penalized, sanctioned for it, wikilawyering the answers, rejecting source coming from the Russian side, but any source supporting the UC cause or is apologetic to Bandera is valid, (...supporting the false assertion that Bandera committed genocide...) and then refers to the document issued by some bogus Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy [[153]] which is an "independent" think-tank based in Washington D.C. already exposed as a tool of US propaganda: here:[[154]] and here[[155]]

(I would say it is a "3_letter_agency" lead covert info-war exposure, but that opinion might get me into trouble for saying this, time will tell if it is "3_letter_agency" sponsored or not)

The examples would be listed under["knowingly repeating disinformation"]

Michael, you accused me of:

knowingly repeating disinformation[[156]]

openly defending lies[[157]]

I asked you (repeatedly) to back up your serious accusations with diffs or strike it. You repeatedly refused or ignored my requests. Being an administrator, you should be a model of the proper conduct. I'm not seeing it

Then openly plotting how to raise awareness with another user in ANI in order to block the users on [thoughts on POV pushing Ukraine editors], which write about the "support of UC Government of Nazism in Ukraine" - ( I am not going to dive into this rabbit hole and post here links to Azov battalion, insignias, brainwashing kids in UC, tying people to the lampposts and other atrocities; other people are doing it on Wiki, and it cases them trouble ) Pixius talk 00:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me just to rephrase my sentence "abusing administrator privileges" before I get into a new trouble: not in sense that he is using his admin rights for something illegal or against Wikipedia policy, but more in a spirit of Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, using profanity in replies while talking with users and not being penalized, sanctioned for it, wikilawyering the answers, rejecting any source coming from the Russian side, but any source supporting the UC cause or is apologetic to Bandera is valid, (...supporting the false assertion that Bandera committed genocide...) and then refers to the document issued by some bogus Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy [[158]] which is an "independent" think-tank based in Washington D.C. already exposed as a tool of US propaganda: here:[[159]] and here[[160]]

(I would say it is a CIA covert info-war exposure, but I might get into trouble for saying this)

The examples would be listed under["knowingly repeating disinformation"]

Michael, you accused me of:

knowingly repeating disinformation[[161]]

openly defending lies[[162]]

I asked you (repeatedly) to back up your serious accusations with diffs or strike it. You repeatedly refused or ignored my requests. Being an administrator, you should be a model of the proper conduct. I'm not seeing it

Then openly plotting how to raise awareness with another user in ANI in order to block the users on [thoughts on POV pushing Ukraine editors], which write about the "support of UC Government of Nazism in Ukraine" - I am not going to dive into this rabbit hole and post here links to Azov battalion, insignias, brainwashing kids in UC, tying people to the lampposts and other atrocities Pixius talk 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Briefly please. Take it to the bottom so others can try to figure out how to follow. Valereee (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks You said it was the final warning. When was the 'first warning'? By the rules of Wikipedia, you have to issue the 'first warning' first.

Please do not twist and pull my words out of the context. Read whole conversation with the user @LivelyRatification. I have explained in several replies to the user that the article written in magazine by a journalist who is writing about the music and not about someone ancestry is not the WP:RS as the same journalist does not have a clue what her nationality is. It is obvious that people in the west tehnd to use the nationality and ethnicity in the same context and often mixing these 2 - see Nikola Tesla for example.

I have pointed to the user on numerous occasions that the RS the genealogy website which actually uses and cites the actual/official immigration data from the New Zealand Governmental institution - the primary source.

I have wrote that the place of birth of some person does not automatically assume the nationality of that person, again see Nikola Tesla, and said that her grandmother(half Jewish, half Serb) and grandfather (Serb) cannot, let me paraphrase here " give birth to the croatian" and "if you are born in potato field are you potato".

I made one edit, he reverted, we went into conversation, but obviously he/she insisted on one single magazine which ciutes another magazine. No further edits were made form my side, as I do not have nerves to explain what is a primary encyclopedic source, what is secondary, tertiary and when the writing of some tertiary source can be taken as a factual one Pixius talk 21:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) You cannot ignore a warning just because it's your 'first warning', treat all warnings as your last warning. There's no rule that editors must be given any warning let alone more than one. (With the exception of an editor needing to be aware before CT sanctions can be applied.) To be clear, this means editors can be blocked with zero warnings if their behaviour is bad enough. As for the rest, this isn't the place for content discussions but do note that genealogical websites are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia and especially not on BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the genealogical webpages rule, this is why I have written and pointed to the sources of NZ Gov related body, and I have wrote this as well that the NZ Gov body has a document where the actual nationality is written . The documents were available online Pixius talk 21:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I was not ignoring the warning. And I am aware the instant ban can be issued for especially bad behavior.

I have already written, and I am going to write again, it the user@Mzajac has found it offensive, I apologize.

I have wrote this in light of the edit wars and warnings from his talk page Pixius talk 21:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Non-apology apology which seems to be what you're doing. It does not matter whether Mzajac found it offensive. If an editor does not clearly identify as a certain nationality or ethnicity, you should not be saying they are that nationality or ethnicity. This applies even if the editor does not find it offensive for you to do so. More importantly you cannot accuse an editor of not being objective because of their nationality. Offence simply does not matter, it's complete unacceptable to do so on Wikipedia. P.S. Primary source of that form especially public records are frankly even worse than genealogical websites for BLPs per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please refrain from editing BLPs as long as you're so confused about what sources are acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nil, I have wrote now in multiple comments in replies to other users that I apologize and i was pinging @Mzajac each time as well.

Regarding the WP:BLPPRIMARY: I am not editing the page of Sonja Jelic, it has remained as is, at least when I was involved. There are secondary sources calling upon these primary from NZ, and Primary from Serbia/Yugoslavia, but users will find all sources from Serbia as WP:NRL and I just do not heave nerves to argue with them Pixius talk 23:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

And one more thing, per Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings it is explaind what the warnigs are and how they are going to be used.

There is a first warning, and user has to be notified about it, and be able to respond. Then there is an observation period and trying to see if it was in one period of time or there is a long term pattern. Then it is a second warning, which can be resulted in short term ban if the behavior is repetitive, but not during the explanation/ discussion process.

Blocking the user after second pattern, and you have the first couple of options within a week(s) period of time.

You are talking here about indefinite ban, skipping the procedure and purpose of user warnings Pixius talk 22:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Pixius, you're misunderstanding the rationale behind warning people several times. It's to make sure we've given them a chance to try to understand and internalize and comply with policy. If someone comes in here and tells us they don't intend to comply and they're here to right great wrongs, we aren't going to give them three more at-bats. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not misunderstood the rationale behind warning people. The chance has not been given, but the final warning.

I have explained to @Dmacs that the user is disruptive, I have also pointed out to the mistakes the user is making and disruptions, which @[[User:DMacks|DMacks] simply did not took into account WP:HEAR. The user @Mzajac continued with attack and patronizing which resultend in my sentence that he is Ukraininan and he is biased and taht he is pushing NPOV which lead to the ANI board.

Now the cause for ANI was my last sentence, and I have already apologized for "calling him Ukrainian" (this is a paraphrase, I did write it) and offending @Mzajac Pixius talk 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajachttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUkrainian_dancers&diff=prev&oldid=1140618379&diffmode=visual Pixius talk 23:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That is completely disingenuous. The problem isn't calling him Ukrainian. The problem is saying being Ukrainian means he can't be objective. I am fast losing patience with you. Support your accusations of administrative misconduct now, please. Valereee (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ll point out that @User:Pixius has advanced to the bargaining stage: if my speculative Ukrainianness is not good enough to prevent me from participating, then maybe some diffs can be collected to right the wrong. (I admit I’m not a perfect editor, but always trying to be better.) Makes me think it’s not about me personally, but perhaps that I’m an editor willing to accept postcolonial sources. It seems to be more than just a way to get one article renamed.

I will remind that this didn’t start as a content dispute between us, but they approached me directly about my “destructive work” and imposition of “‘cancel culture’”: which is their characterization of my respecting reliable sources from the last four decades, including scholarly work and notable decisions by the National Gallery (London) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art (NYC) that received coverage.

For IRL reasons, I may not be available to monitor or respond here for some time. —Michael Z. 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

...which is their characterization... I really don't intend to discuss with you any further.

The malicious tone of your reply (whom are you referring this ...which is their characterization..., me? Who are their?) is suggesting that you have a personal vendetta against me and that you do not accept my apology.

I will leave to the other people involved in this discussion to decipher what lies behind ...which is their characterization... and why do you think you can behave like that.

In 4 decades of my presence here at Wikipedia, I have never encountered such behavior Pixius talk 00:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

4 decades is quite an accomplishment. Please support the accusations of administrative misconduct now briefly and in a way someone coming in to this conversation fresh can understand. Please leave out anything content related, this should be only about behavior. Valereee (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee Hi Valereee, I did not intended to create a wall. I wanted to say in 4 decades of my life and 2-3 decades on wiki, but it got short-circuited

This is a brief report with links

User is using profanity in replies, admin shows disrespect toward fellow Wikipedians accusing them of lying [163][164], disrespectful tone of his replies [165], and shows non-neutrality [166]

The admin is colluding, or at least not objecting, with another user [thoughts on POV pushing Ukraine editors to find a way to ban the users from posting the content and sources which he does not like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mzajac#Kostomarov] which might be listed under the conflict of interest and/or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involve, for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party Pixius talk 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pixius, I do not see the problem with this? This is certainly a personal attack/lack of assumption of good faith; I don't know the context -- @GizzyCatBella isn't here complaining -- but, yeah, @Mzajac, you need to support such accusations with diffs. Definitely nothing wrong at this one, that looks like nothing more than mild exasperation to me. The final numbered diff seems to be a repeat of the first? The link to a discussion at their talk is not collusion -- another serious charge -- but simply two editors discussing another editor's behavior. None of these seem to remotely involve the use of administrative tools, as far as I can tell. No one was blocked, no pages were protected or deleted, no one's rights were changed...what administrative tools do you think were used anywhere? Valereee (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• What with all the walls of text I've gotten confused, and I'm kind of wondering if that's been the point. Does anyone have a solution here? It does seem that Pixius may be NOTHERE. It also seems they can't support accusations of administrator misconduct in a way that is clear and brief. I'm tempted to indef simply to move the discussion of their behavior to their talk where in an unblock request they might be more willing to listen, but I'm a bit loathe to do that unilaterally at this point without at least checking to see if anyone thinks that would be over the top. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Reading through all this, yes, indef is the solution. This user is here to right great wrongs and throw insults in the process, while dodging any requests to provide evidence for their accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• After a lot of thought I've warned this editor that they're on very thin ice. I hope that will be the end of this, and that this was all the result of a lot of misunderstanding of enwiki. Mzajac, please bring it back here and ping me if the issue continues. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2023 (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.

Genocide denial and blatant racism

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

---

User:Otavilog’s recent edits to Talk:Armenian genocide denial have displayed casual anti-Armenian sentiment, including (unsurprisingly) genocide denial that is utterly unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor. I think a block is in order. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of those do look pretty raw: [167][168][169][170]. Given how sporadically they edit, I can't see we lose anything by an indef. Ravenswing 11:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, didn’t even see the first one. Dronebogus (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I usually don't swear on Wikipedia unless it's extreme circumstances, and I think it's appropriate here: holy shit. Not only is an indef in order, but a CBAN as well. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Ravenswing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you all. Just indef them. Jeppiz (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Should this also include a community ban? Dronebogus (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why not. Jeppiz (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

For y'all's information: Ymblanter just indeffed them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a CBAN is realistically likely here. I can't see many objecting to the indef on CIR and NOTHERE grounds, but a CBAN would require a robust community consensus of blatant violations of community norms with no realistic chance of amelioration. The Armenian genocide is a highly contentious topic and one which has consistently inflamed discourse surrounding it on this project, for obvious reasons. Being on the wrong side of a content issue on this project (or for that matter, being on the wrong side of history in the broader world, with regard to a factual issue with a moral component), is not sufficient reason for a community ban unless a user also has a long and pronounced history of violating community standards.

Now, don't get me wrong: I think this comment says it all about why we can and should indef here on a NOTHERE presumption-- there's no reason to humour someone drawing battle lines on the nexus of such a bigoted perspective. But of all the diffs presented here, it's really the only one that is a brightline violation of policy. The others are suggestive of bias, a lack of respect for open discourse and other editors disagreeing with them, and a slew of other concerns going to support the NOTHERE determination. But I would not describe the other comments as overtly racist so much as highly biased. And we just don't CBAN members of this community merely when they express the opinion that content made its way into an article because of nationalist bias--no matter how wrong we think they are in that belief or how convinced we are that they are the ones actually operating from under heavy bias and lack of perspective.

So it would really come down to pressing for a CBAN on the basis of one comment. Which is a tough sell and dubious standard to adopt. All of us here might very well agree that this editor can easily be judged a racist (I think we in fact do), but it would require more than out assumptions based on the current comments to get a CBAN, and there's a reason we need to preserve a high standard in this area, because there are other cases on this project where controversial claims and counter-claims between ethnic groups are inevitably going to lead to community members expressing analysis that suggests misinformation on the part of one group or another. Including many cases which will be much closer calls, and where such analysis is supported by the sources. We can't get in the habit of banning users just for expressing doubt about the provenance of certain facts that arise out of certain ethnic or national sources, simply because a majority of editors find those implications to be bunk. That's just not a workable standard. The INDEF works perfectly well here to arrest any disruption without imputing all of those more complicated issues and slippery slopes, so that's good enough imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for an indefinite duration since they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2023 (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.

Deian Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten

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.

---

Deian Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question, known for submitting completely unsourced and purely promotional drafts, responded in a very insulting way to the latest MfD nomination concerning another of their drafts. Someone should look into their conduct, for sure. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The reported user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and is not being civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was insulting him by calling him a friend. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deian Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• There's nothing here that merits blocking anyone. I'm closing this down. --Jayron32 17:35, 27 February 2023 (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.

Noissues572

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.

---

• Noissues572 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to remove hyperlinks on Pakistani Wikipedia articles they come across which I believe is a non constructive and distruptive attempt to reach extended confirmed status. They also ignored my notice of unconstructive edits by continuing their distruptive behaviour). Uzek (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked at, and cleaned up after, all their link-related edits so far. They have removed large numbers of wikilinks from Pakistan-related articles; maybe about 5 to 10% of these are links that probably should have been removed (but would have been harmless if left in place), the rest were definitely appropriate, and so removing them was disruptive. I reached out on their talk page once, which had no effect, and then a second time, with a more strongly worded message. They haven't edited in the couple of hours since then (though it's possible they just haven't been online in that period).
  If they resume any link-related edits in a similar vein without engaging with their user talk page or here, then these edits should probably be reverted on sight, and the user blocked for a short period (maybe they aren't aware of their user talk page? a short block with a clear explanation would help). – Uanfala (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Agreed! Seems to have gone inactive for another day maybe. Uzek (talk)
• This needs a short block to begin with (for something like three days: if it's shorter they may not notice it): they're back today, with a dozen edits of exactly the same type [171]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this mobile user to communicate. They recently did find user talk pages for the first time, and I've left instructions in the block message for them to go to their user talk. Valereee (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. Editors who are here to edit war cannot be allowed to edit war. Maybe, we should even block @Noissues572 on all of Wikipedia. Maine 🦞 16:23, 22 February 2023 (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.

IPs adding broken interwiki links

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.

---

• 180.252.7.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.251.147.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:448A:70AE:6376:FDD4:B335:CF1B:1AF5/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After several warnings, the IP refuses to stop adding broken interwiki links (doesn't exist on tkwiki, doesn't exist on nnwiki, doesn't exist either on nnwiki, etc). By including interwiki links in stub templates, an article tagged with the stub template gets interwiki-linked to the template page, instead of the correct page using Wikidata. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 13:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Still going on on 180.251.145.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 04:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/180.251.145.183 for a week. Please let me know if the other IPs resume editing or if new IPs are seen. Post the IP info here and ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like this has been going on for longer than I thought: [172]. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 01:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq They are now doing it on 180.251.148.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I think there may be a rangeblock option for the 180.251... IP. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked 180.251.145.0/20 for a month. The IP adds interwiki links (and the ones I've tested don't show anything) and make-work templates such as stub or translate. I can't see anything else from this range. If this continues, an edit filter might be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit dispute that has gone awry

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

---

A few day ago I removed some content from a page about the NBA sportswriter Shams Charania. The content I removed had some sources but they were from what I believed to be unreliable sources. Soon after user Gamowebbed reverted my edits and this led to a small edit war between us which I soon stop participating in because it started to get out of hand. However, Gamowebbed soon started to reverting my edits on other pages I have made. I will say that I have should have been more communicative in explaining why I removed the content with Gamowebbed on the talk page but I believe that does not warrant his retaliation edits. I have also made a recent attempt to talk about the issue on the talk page but Gamowebbed has not responded. —DiSantis19 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried to open a talk but you instead used edit summaries (for once) to try and justify your reverts. Only now did you reply. I hope we can calmly discuss this on talk without things getting out of hand.

Regarding my edits, they are not retaliatory. Out of over 3000 edits, less than 5% have included an edit summary.

Besides that, your edits were not sourced either. When I tried to research valid sources nothing came up which is why i reverted them. You are more than welcome to revert those back, I have no objection. Gamowebbed (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A majority of those 3,000 edits are for lists of pages where providing an edit summary would be redundant. If your are speaking about my edits that you reverted on list of nike and adidas sponsorships a majority of what I added were North American colleges and universities which can be easily verified by simply going to its website. Most institutions (especially smaller schools and universities) don't announce their partnerships with these brands so you have to find images on the website to see which brands sponsor them. But in the case of Shams Charania I have told you multiple times that the outlets Focus, Vendetta Sports Media, The SportsGrail, BroBible, and HITC are probably not the best sources to use to justify someones alias. The name is a meme and it is not something that he commonly goes by. Putting the name "Rizz God" as an alias for Shams Charania would be like putting the name "Dark Biden" as an alias for Joe Biden. DiSantis19 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, including that name based on those incredibly ropey sources is nonsense (apart from their poor quality, a number simply comment on the name being used by people on social media), and I have removed it again. This is a BLP and therefore defaults to removing disputed material, so it is now time to take this to talk; please do so. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia needs better sources than online blogs. We are not a tabloid!

  I support what @Black Kite is doing here and I thank Black Kite. Maine 🦞 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Maine Lobster: Can you please stop with the drive by piling on on threads on ANI. Your responses are not beneficial, and in many cases are to incidents that have been completed just not closed. It makes it look like you're just trying to game the system by having more edits. Gamowebbed (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2023 (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.

Tatar Latin

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 colleagues. I want to turn to you for help. In the pages about cities and settlements from Tataria, two participants, united in a single group, arrange an edit war (User:Ilnur efende User:Bolgarhistory). They add the names of the city in the Tatar Latin alphabet without providing authoritative sources of information. I do not know whether the name of the city is written correctly in the Tatar Latin alphabet or not. Therefore, I demand to provide a source of information. My template about sources of information is deleted and an edit war begins. I ask you to block two participants who are colluding to promote the Tatar Latin alphabet without providing authoritative sources of information.

One of the administrators of Wikipedia (User:Ymblanter) has already canceled their edits about the Tatar Latin alphabet. He argued his position due to the cancellation of edits. The two participants were not affected by this and they continued the edit war.

Thank you for attention RedBull1984 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You know, the entire contribution of this user lately consists of a war of edits. I tried to discuss it with him on his page, but I didn't hear any response from him both the other day and last year. The user does not answer the questions asked, but leaves the topic. On his discussion page six months ago and the other day I left links to the official rules of transliteration of the alphabet of the Tatar language, to which he does not pay attention and asks for a source for every word. Which is a game with rules. At the same time, the participant does not know the Tatar language or the rules, and does not want to learn the rules, but he may well request a translation of the transliteration rules, because the source does not have to be in a language he understands, especially the rules of the Tatar language. To date, there are three official alphabets for the Tatar language, these are the Cyrillic alphabet, common in Russia, the Arabic alphabet in China and Latin in other countries (Poland, Turkey, Finland and other countries where all work is done in the Tatar Latin alphabet). The Tatar language has the status of the state language in the Republic of Tatarstan, where both Cyrillic and Latin letters are used at the state level and there is an official transliteration rule approved by the State Council of the Republic. The Latin alphabet is also used in state institutions on a par with the Cyrillic alphabet. Tatar also has the status of a regional official status in China and Poland, where Cyrillic is not used at all. Further, the opponent has already begun to violate the rules of ethical behavior, accusing him of collusion. In the Russian Wikipedia, from the participant's side, you can also see unethical phrases regarding Tatars, for example: "it's time for Tatars to understand that you can't breathe enough before you die," he commented, putting forward for renaming an article about the president of Tatarstan to the head of Tatarstan.

Earlier, he claimed that the Tatar Latin alphabet violates the rules of the English Wikipedia, but did not respond to a request to provide links to this.

I think that for a participant who violates the rules of ethical behavior, the war of edits, playing with the rules and destructive behavior has no place in Wikipedia. You know, the entire contribution of this user lately consists of a war of edits. I tried to discuss this with him on his page, but I didn't hear any response from him either the other day or last year. The user does not answer the questions asked, but leaves the topic. On his discussion page six months ago and the other day I left links to the official rules of transliteration of the alphabet of the Tatar language, to which he does not pay attention and asks to indicate the source for each word. This is a game with rules. At the same time, the participant does not know the Tatar language or the rules and does not want to study the rules, but he may well request a translation of the transliteration rules, because the source does not necessarily have to be in a language he understands, especially the rules of the Tatar language. To date, there are three official alphabets for the Tatar language, these are the Cyrillic alphabet, common in Russia, the Arabic alphabet in China and the Latin alphabet in other countries (Poland, Turkey, Finland and other countries where all work is done in the Tatar Latin alphabet). The Tatar language has the status of the state language in the Republic of Tatarstan, where both Cyrillic and Latin letters are used at the state level, and there is an official transliteration rule approved by the State Council of the Republic. The Latin alphabet is also used in public institutions along with Cyrillic. Tatar also has the status of a regional official language in China and Poland, where Cyrillic is not used at all. Further, the opponent has already begun to violate the rules of ethical behavior, accusing him of collusion. In the Russian Wikipedia, on the part of the participant, you can also see unethical phrases regarding Tatars, for example: "It's time for Tatars to understand that you can't breathe enough before you die," he commented, pushing for renaming an article about the President of Tatarstan to the head of Tatarstan.

I think that for a participant who violates the rules of ethical behavior, the war of edits, plays with the rules and has destructive behavior - there is no place in Wikipedia. Ilnur efende (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Well, may be I should give my opinion here. Tatar language was historically written in Arabic script (till the 1920s), then in latin script (for a short time in the 1930s), and since then in Cyrillic script. Whereas some enthusiasts including apparently a bunch of Wikipedia users continue to use Tatar Latin, it has no official status whatsoever. Moreover, there is a law in Russia that all "native" languages must be written in Cyrillic, which also applies to Tatar. I personally find this law stupid, but we have what we have. Now, whether names should be at all in Tatar in the articles is a matter of discussion (strict reading of MOS would say no, but there are some exceptions, and this is a contentious area anyway), but IMo adding next to Cyrillic Tatar also Latin Tatar everywhere, which has a status of a hobby, is beyond the pale. Edit-warring for it (this is what has been happening for two days) is even worse. Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

For comparison, note that we do not use Cyrillic Romanian anywhere, despite the fact that it was an official language of the Moldovan SSR until 1990 and remains the official language of Transnistria. Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

But the laws of the Russian Federation do not apply to Wikipedia, and the Tatar language officially uses not only Cyrillic, but also Latin, and Arabic writing, including in state institutions. I have already shown photos from the medical institution of Kazan on your discussion page. Moreover, today the Tatar language has the status of an official regional language both in China and in Poland, where Tatars do not use Cyrillic. For example, in the article Uzbekistan, the name is also given in two alphabets, if you give an example with the Romanian language for the second time. Ilnur efende (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And in the article Tashkent all three alphabets of the Uzbek language are used. Our dear user RedBull1984, as I understand it, does not know the Arabic alphabet either, can he go through all the articles where it is used and request sources in a language he understands? Ilnur efende (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say the Uzbek Latin and Arabic should not be there, read WP:MOS. Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Which provision in MOS? MOS:LEADLANG specifies that should be pertinent to the lead, but makes no mention of script variations in the same language. Or do you have a specific objection about the non-Cyrillic orthographies of the Uzbek language? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is veering into a content discussion, which we may well need to have but nevertheless belongs somewhere else. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If you look here you would probably conclude that this is not just content dispute. Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that there isn't disruption to be addressed here, but this specific subthread about your reasoning regarding MOS guidance on this issue is a tangent that should be resolved elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. What I see in the episode however is a group of users making mass edits in the articles without any sign of consensus, edit-warring when these edits get reverted, and behaving such as if consensus has been established a long time ago and has never been challenged. Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Uzbek is actually written in Latin since 1993 I believe, whereas Arabic Uzbek is used in Afghanistan, and Uzbek Cyrillic is still somewhat in use in Uzbekistan (though not official). I do not see why we need to keep all possible variations of the script, including inofficial ones. MOS in fact discourages using Tatar in almost all situations. Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you give more specific rules that prohibit all this? Earlier, you also said that we were blocked for such actions, but could not say where and when. And now you claim that the Tatar Latin alphabet is prohibited by the rules, but you also cannot specify any specific rules. I suppose all this is your speculation or the opponent's defense? Because they could not prove your case in any way. Ilnur efende (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And on what grounds do you think that Latin and Arabic writing will be superfluous there? In Uzbekistan, the Latin alphabet is officially used. Ilnur efende (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Cyrillic and Arabic. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Even in articles about Uzbek personalities (Shavkat Mirziyoyev), the names are listed in two alphabets. Our friend RedBull1984 does not know the Uzbek transliteration either. Maybe he will also go through the articles about the personalities of Uzbekistan and delete the Cyrillic alphabet or put down a source request, since he does not know the Uzbek language, and what if he is being deceived there? He had such claims. And I hope you will tell him the rule to which he should refer. Ilnur efende (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear friends. Before you will observe the problem with Tatar latin alphabet, you have to know, who is RedBull1984. The participant's common contributions are just removing useful information with edit-warring from articles which related with history of Tatarstan Republic and tatar people. He uses the Wikipedia as an area for promotion questionable goals. He did the same in the Russian Wikipedia, but major part of his contributin has been canceled. As for the Latin alphabet: many tatars in the world use it in their life. And it's not fake alphabet, because it has rules by [Institute of Tatar Language, Literature and Art http://www.antat.ru]. I think the promblem requires for a neutral mediator who knows languages topic. And I noticed that Ymblanter is not neutral participant who supports removing Tatar latin without strong arguments. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If you focus on edits, you might get somewhere. The moment you focus on editors, and especially when you try to speculate on what their motives are, you’re on a hiding to nothing on this page. — Trey Maturin™ 19:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I just think that the participant has ideological goals. And I'm suprised that nobody uses the rule about consensus. The articles contain tatar latin alphabet for a long time. And he has removed it recently. I'm not sure that this is according to the rules of the community. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked both Bolgarhistory and Ilnur efende, as they appear to be engaged in sock- or meat-puppetry with each other in their attempts to revert and/or sanction RedBull1984, as well as engaging solely in battleground edits around Tatar topics since their inception a decade ago, with the edit warring across multiple articles identified in this thread as just the icing on the cake. @RedBull1984:, I'm cautioning you against the extent to which you edit-warred back against Bolgarhistory--it would have been better to file a case here sooner, and to provide links that demonstrate clearly that there have been attempts at discussion that have been ignored in favor of the edit warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• I got it. You are right, I should have raised this issue here much earlier. RedBull1984 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Translation or transliteration do not require a source. WP:NOTOR. Sennalen (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (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:Footballrelated, again

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

---

Footballrelated (talk · contribs) - previously at ANI in September 2022 (see here) for adding unsourced content to BLPs, resulting in a 3-week block by @DatGuy:. Well he's still adding unsourced content to BLPs... GiantSnowman 19:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support a forever block. The editor should not add unsourced content to BLPs. Maine 🦞 16:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Still doing it. GiantSnowman 11:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced content to articles. GiantSnowman 14:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for three months for addition of unsourced content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 19:32, 27 February 2023 (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.

FloridaArmy, CIR in AFC, and incivility

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.

---

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

FloridaArmy (FA) has been a high-volume article creator for five years now, covering topics relating to African Americans, women, and locations often unfairly neglected by both Wikipedia and historiography more generally. However, their capacity to produce cohesive, complete articles has repeatedly proven deficient and their significant number of contributions soon became a burden on AFD. Since 2018, FA has been subject to several community sanctions, resulting in their prohibition from creating new articles outside of AFC (May 2018 ANI) and their restriction to no more than 20 AFCs at a time (June 2020 ANI). FA also has a sustained pattern of battleground and uncivil behavior (October 2020, July 2021, and January 2023 ANIs).

Despite all these prior warnings, sanctions, and community-provided words of advice, FA repeats the same patterns. They were blocked last month for a week for egregiously overrunning their submission limit–to which FA responded I'm not perfect. While other editors encouraged FA to slow down or pause their article creation to reflect on the persisting CIR issues and sanction violations, FA instead opted to continue laying the groundwork for additional drafts. FA continued even as other editors advised against their choice of sources.

The last couple days have seen FA return to the same bad form. When I informed FA that I was declining a draft they created due to significant prose and sourcing issues, FA appropriately asked for additional detail on the issues. However, after I provided FA these details, FA responded to the effect that they were fine with very poor-quality articles and pushed the responsibility of making the corrections to me (the same WP:BUILDER behavior addressed in the June 2020 ANI). They repeated this buck-passing even after I offered to help and demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what is encyclopedic detail (maintaining that "She was photographed in front of her Santa Barabara home in 1935" should be included while material from numerous reliable sources was left untouched) and misconstruing a 1996 source as providing current detail.

I declined another FA draft for essentially the same issues (this time a 104-year-old source was described as though it was current and new unsourced claims). FA again passed off responsibility for their work and, when I reminded FA that this was something they were already confronted about, first replied I am human before launching into a series of off topic personal attacks, justifying their actions by saying none of us are perfect.

Typically, I (and I think the community in general) have a higher tolerance for this kind of behavior, especially from new editors. FA is not a new editor. They have been warned, sanctioned, given chance after chance, and yet still continues to justify their constant poor work and mistreatment of other editors. No editor is perfect, but some editors are worse than imperfect. I don't wish for an outright block, but an escalation of current sanctions, including a 1-strike on incivility and a time-based limit on AFC submissions FA can make. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Your declination rationale for Anne Ellis is completely flawed. You stated it was notable, yet declined it because it was incomplete? That is not a valid rationale for declination. You then follow up with another poor decline at Oneonta High School, where you didn't even explain the errors you state you saw in the draft, and then leave comments like this; of course FloridaArmy would lash back when you keep poking them. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for self-revving the initial false claim you made about me. I declined the article because it was not suitable for the mainspace due to significant errors–which is perfectly acceptable rationale for a temporary declination (if that wasn't the case, most draftification procedures wouldn't sense). Your other point is "look what you made FA do!" FA has been told repeatedly not to engage in this behavior over many years and I reminded them of this. Unfortunately, some editors have justified this misbehavior from FA and enabled it to persist for far too long. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand you've been a reviewer for 5 days, so I get that you may not know some of the nuances of it; that said, there are some parts of the gig that should be self-explanatory. Nowhere at Anne Ellis did you mention significant errors, besides being "too short" (it was Oneonta High School which you stated had significant issues). As I stated with Oneonta High School, you declined based on your interpretation of significant errors but did not explain what you believed those significant errors to be. My point with the latter case specifically is that FA asks what issues led you to decline so they can fix or clarify them [173] (fairly respectfully, if a bit snippy), to which you directly respond by threatening to haul them to ANI... And to my point about poking the bear: if you smack a hornets nest with a baseball bat, don't be surprised when you get stung; if anything, FA's "attack" is pretty tame considering you out-of-the-blue threatened to haul them here for simply asking for clarification. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I explained in detail what needed to be fixed, even going as far as to make some corrections myself even before declining the first draft. My "interpretation" of significant errors is exactly why we have AFC: if someone with experience can effectively identify a draft that failed to meet the basic criteria for a Wikipedia article, then it should be declined until such time as it is fixed. Also, to your "poking" comment: I avoided raising the issues from prior ANIs in multiple comments, offering to help but subtly requesting FA not pass the buck. Only when they repeated the problems a third time did I mention prior guidance in a civil fashion. All this to say that you play down that FA engaged in prohibited personal attacks. It is this blind eye to FA's incredibly frequent misbehavior that has meant the problems have all survived 5 years of community intervention. No more excuses. I should also note that "too short" was not the rationale given on either decline I made. I highly encourage you be careful with your claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

FloridaArmy is incapable of behaving reasonably to basically any AfC reviewer who "thwarts" them. Turning this back on Pbritti for pointing this out is pretty rich, because it's painfully obvious which party is the one who has issues editing Wikipedia. I think the AfC submissions could probably use more actionable detail, but FloridaArmy is incompetent at editing, and more verbose AfC declines aren't going to solve that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not denying that FA has engaged in sanctionable offenses as there are clear and fundamental issues and I don't want to excuse that sort of stuff, I am just stating that Pbritti's behavior in this case has not been uncriticizable either. That's just my two-cents as a longtime reviewer. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've generally been unimpressed with FA's attention to detail when editing. My personal feeling is that they rush through creating as many articles, at the cost of quality. For instance, I've spent the better part of today cleaning up the mess at La Unión Martí-Maceo, which when moved to the mainspace included a number of errors as noted by an editor who seems to be the scholar Susan Greenbaum (and even if they aren't I can confirm that her book disproves the errors). It also omitted the accents that are part of the name, which should have been an easy thing to catch. The article itself contained almost no content establishing what the club actually was. While I think they are genuine good faith mistakes, when considering that there were four errors in a 280 word article, we have to ask whether that is really a benefit to the encyclopedia. And when combined with chronic (if sporadic) incivility issues, penchant for lashing out at people who disagree with them, and FA's seeming inability to learn from their mistakes, I think that there is only so much rope that can be extended... How many times will we end up here, discussing this? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support for the AfC limit for reasons per topic - this user has so so many drafts that need serious work and likely are taking up reviewer time- but strong oppose any sort of one strike for incivility - I don't think this editor was uncivil in the present case, and previous claims of incivility relate to some guy named Jimbo's talk page which seems to be a whole different discussion and pretty niche to that editor. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• oppose sanction I have rescued a draft that was created by FloridaArmy and I believe "the article wasn't good" isn't a good decline, per Curbon7. Andre🚐 01:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Andrevan: You comment is irrelevant—no draft discussed here was declined because "the article wasn't good". There were repeated factual errors in the two drafts I reviewed, and other editors have similarly complained of factual inaccuracies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you believe the factual inaccuracies were intentional, or were they simply well-meaning efforts that could be improved? The question is really is Anne Ellis deserving of an article in mainspace? I'd say she is. Is AFC cleanup? Would Anne Ellis survive AFD? Andre🚐 01:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: the inaccuracies seem to be earnest mistakes—but constantly inserting inaccuracies is a major problem that already saw this user sanctioned. You are arguing irrelevant points: this is a user whose behavior is so incompetent that that it is a burden and when told that a draft isn't in acceptable condition for approval, the editor passes responsibility off and ignores advice they've received many times. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Both can be true: there can be issues with the draft, and it could still be the case that the response to said flawed draft were unhelpful. It can also be the case that Anne Ellis should be created. If you knew enough to know there were factual flaws, the article should have been created with those flaws repaired. That would be a constructive action that gets us a new article about a notable individual. I'm not seeing anything egregious here that's new since the last ANI. Andre🚐 01:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem is not that the factual errors were intentional (nobody thinks they were), but that they seem to be part of a pattern of consistently rushing through things. here's another one. There is some degree of competence required to be writing, particularly when creating thousands of articles, and if a user is consistently making similar mistakes over and over, it does start to feel like somewhat of a problem. It's nice when users take the time to clean up after them, but we cannot expect that this will always happen. The errors I flagged in La Union were present for over a year. While I greatly value the topics that FA identifies, I don't feel they have demonstrated that degree of competence, despite many opportunities to do so. I would urge them to slow down, just a bit. But I'm not sure there is any indication that they would listen. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"Slow down" is good advice but also, here's a user constructively creating a nonzero number of drafts that should end up being articles. They should be more careful but they don't need a public flogging for earnest mistakes. t's nice when users take the time to clean up after them, but we cannot expect that this will always happen In my day, that was anti-wiki, and WP:SOFIXIT and eventualism were reasonable responses to that. We actually DO hope and expect that someone else should clean up after everyone else - and here's a user creating meaningful content and being dragged for it? Andre🚐 01:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I second Eddie891's point here and want to add something: I think we desperately need FA to not be blocked from AFC outright because they are editing in a topic area sorely in need of someone capable of finding obscured history. Danville Massacre is the best example of this in the recent past. Wikipedia isn't the same as it was 15-20 years ago: we now have hundreds of AFCs a day and many more new articles produced outside the AFC process; we don't have time to fix everything for an editor who keeps making new broken articles. The suggested sanctions will force FA to slow down. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between cleanup of articles and fixing of bigger things like factual errors, or just mistakes. I, too, don't think that FA should be stopped, just that the current system is not working. What if we had a separate place for FA to submit drafts, and interested users could clean them up before mainspacing? I think that all their drafts could use someone cleaning up and then moving to mainspace when ready, which not all AFC reviewers are interested in/capable of doing... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

To add to my point above, I don't think that AFC fits FA particularly well, because they don't seem to struggle as much with identifying topics for articles, but with the actual article writing. A number of users have shown willingness to clean up/pick up where FA leaves off, we just need a way to ensure that level of double-check is actually happening. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a good solution. It could even be formalized as a special team under WPAFC, allowing both oversight and accountability to new, interested reviewers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction. In the previous ANI discussion regarding this user, I said that it should be considered a "final warning" on incivility, and my position has not changed. But I do not believe a violation has taken place here so much as a procedural dispute that was handled poorly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and disclosure, I have worked with FA to bring a number of their drafts to mainspace. Their edits aren't without problem, but there are many of us willing to edit their articles as the subject matters are important and generally underrepresented on en wiki. If the OP doesn't want to action FA's drafts, they don't have to as there are literally thousands of other articles. But this was a poor decline and unnecessary escalation to ANI. No trouts or boomerang needed, but definitely no sanctions. Star Mississippi 19:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. I didn't see the value to limiting the number of drafts that FA is allowed to have in review, and I still don't see the value to that limit. Any reviewer who doesn't want to review their drafts can leave them pending review in draft space. I will restate that if a draft satisfies notability and verifiability but is flawed, the best place for the correction of those flaws is normally article space. I would suggest that User:Pbritti not review drafts by FloridaArmy. It appears that they have the appearance of non-neutrality, if they actually are neutral. What is a 1-strike rule on incivility, anyway? I thought that civility was the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To repeat a point you may have missed in the comments from multiple editors above, there are verifiability issues with evidence—unlike your assertion I was non-neutral. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• This editor has been editing this way for six years, after multiple ANI discussions. The talk of "why don't we try something else?" which will magically change their style is rather amusing. I've made my opinions on what I think should happen in previous ANIs enough times, but let me just say it's a fool's errand to think this editor is going to suddenly acquire new skills that will solve the stated issues or that some new process will fix things. Either ban them from article creations, simply ignore their drafts, or concede that basic spelling, citation, and factual errors and the insertion of meaningless trivia are not a problem and should be the price Wikipedia is willing to pay as long as the editor responsible says they're doing it for CSB reasons. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  As an AfC reviewer, I largely agree with @Indy beetle's statement above. Obviously we cannot simply ignore @FloridaArmy's drafts nor do I think we should. The best way I can describe it is "good ideas poorly executed" and I do not see that getting any better. I don't think the answer is a special carve-out for just for them as that is not fair or in-line with AfC or NPP processes. They already are under an AfC restriction believing that would "force" them to spend more time on their drafts to flesh them out at least somewhat better but that has not worked (please anyone correct me if I am wrong here) so an official oppose for anything further in that regard.

  We have an editor who is passionate, is certainly most often proposing notable and neglected topics, is in good faith trying improve the encyclopedia, yet struggles to pull that off and has not shown they can improve. I know many do help, including myself, but that has not proven to be enough to overcome the issues, both from FA's perspective given their complaints at Jimbo's talk page, nor many in the community given the ANI complaints. A conundrum and the "right" answer is elusive to me.S0091 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think the problem is a philosophical problem with AFC review and with the forgetting of the wiki "work in progress" philosophy. Years ago, it was expected that bad articles would exist in in mainspace. AFC reviewers now seem to reject articles for quality reasons but there's no reason why the main space articles shouldn't exist in terms of notability. So the answer is simple that either AFC review should explicitly add high quality to the list of reasons, or they should not reject notable articles with quality issues. Andre🚐 22:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is off topic: FA is, as mentioned by most everyone, working in good-faith on articles but despite numerous interventions has failed to rectify fundamental issues that impose an undue burden on the Wiki and AFC. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, your proposal has universal opposition so you may as well withdraw it or start a new one. Andre🚐 23:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan if you believe the issue is AfC then you can make a proposal to lift the restriction entirely so FA can make articles directly in mainspace and go through NPP. S0091 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine I would be successful in that. Andre🚐 00:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Then may I ask that you stop bashing so hard on AfC as if that process is the issue? No process is perfect and two of the opposes and one comment thus far state there are issues with FA's work. Also, while this ANI is not perfect @Pbritti has been amenable to other solutions so not bad as far as the typical ANI complaint. S0091 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if you took offense, and I meant none. My point is that at least in one case discussed above, Anne Ellis, FloridaArmy had created an article draft for a notable person that didn't have one. I am not disputing there were issues with the draft. But the dispute between Pbritti and FloridaArmy seems to hinge on the fact that AFC doesn't explicitly say there is a quality gate to an article being created. So there's some confusion there that could be clarified. Perhaps placing a quality not a quantity restriction would be more useful. Andre🚐 00:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No personal offense taken but it does get old every time issues are brought up by or about FA, the finger starts pointing at AfC. That's not to say there aren't valid criticisms, though. I also struggle with the quantity restriction mostly because AfC is chronically backlogged which is not FA's fault but on the flip-side if their drafts were easy to review (i.e. no issues, quick accepts) they would likely not sit as long. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of going in circles, WP:AFC does establish it's own minimum for quality—Articles should reflect only what reliable sources have said about the topic—and also directs editors to other minimum-standard guidelines. The issues here relate to FA frequently inserting inaccuracies, misrepresenting sources, and leaving out crucial details; these are problems that are identified as issues in the various pages an experienced AFC contributor should be familiar with. FA has also personally received guidance on these standards from both fellow editors and community discussions. The idea that FA is a victim of a flawed system targeting imperfect editors is one FA has repeatedly asserted despite constantly mounting evidence that FA is simply unwilling to improve their AFCs and hopes to offload that responsibility in order to maintain a constant high output. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What inaccuracies, misrepresenting sources, and leaving out crucial details were there in the Anne Ellis draft at Special:Permalink/1141008368? Because your edits to it were adjusting a citation with snarky edit summary, adj cite, adj cite, remove trivia, adj cite, add cn, decline with rationale This is a notable person but the article as it is written is improperly written. Please rewrite, properly citing claims and focus on encyclopedia content. I would not know what to do in response to that decline rationale; looking at the article now, I still don't understand why it wasn't a mainspace-ready stub in the revision you found (or in the revision you declined). Certainly it wasn't because of using {{cite web}} instead of {{cite book}}, or because of one line of trivia, or one {{cn}}. Levivich (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Those factors and others, which I discussed elsewhere in this thread, on FA's talk, and the then-draft's talk (that was responding to another editor). Additionally, I reviewed another poor FA draft (feel free to read my rationale there, too) and I also welcome you to read the various other comments in this thread and elsewhere discussing this long-running problem. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, you did not discuss the issues with the Anna Ellis draft above. In your own words on FA's tp, you declined it because it was notable but incomplete, yet here you are saying there were significant issues. Which is it? Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I declined the Ellis draft after removing some issues and figured that FA would be capable of rectifying them up further inspection of their sources. You'll even note that I added there were other issues that need to be addressed beyond the broad coverage. It is not the obligation of a reviewer to correct ever mistake another editor makes and provide explicit, personalized guidance on how to improve. I offered additional detail beyond what most experienced editors should expect to need from a reviewer and was told to make the changes myself.

Let's look at an example of an accepted FA article: Clement Richardson. The third sentence contains grammatical errors, the second paragraph lacks a page number citation, the citations we do have include bare URLs, and we have a non-sequitur about the subject missing an event in the final paragraph. All this to mention that there is almost no independent, significant coverage of the subject referenced. This is the type of fundamentally flawed article that led to FA's existing sanctions. If we're supposed to just push them to the mainspace in the same sorry state, then why was the sanction enacted? ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think noting his involvement in a state Negro Teacher organization and issues with coal shortages he faced as a college president are a "non sequitur". I find them relevant and interesting, but different editors have different views. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If the the subject was a regular active member in the Negro Teacher group or had to manage an institutional heating crisis caused by a coal shortage, that would be interesting to note. But saying one time he couldn't attend some meeting because of a statewide coal shortage doesn't really speak to the significant of either. It would be as trivial as noting on the Joe Biden article "Biden once cancelled a campaign event in Iowa due to a diplomatic incident with Russia." Biden's campaign activities, broadly speaking, are worthy of some note on his article, as would major developments in his foreign policy, but taking the most mundane intersections from either and pretending like that adequately covers both is silly. This is like the time you noted a high school once fired a football coach, pure WP:ROUTINE trivia.-Indy beetle (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• We're talking about a user who's first move, after Draft:Carole W. Troxler was declined less than 24 hours ago (article at that time), was not to correct the spelling of the third word in the four-sentence article—the first word after the name of the subject (to exhaust the point, the word was "is", which FA had mispelled as "os")—but to run to WiR and ask for help, like they usually do. They had to be advised by another editor to proofread the first sentence. This is something most Wikipedia editors do not need six years to learn. The FA article production loop seems to be: find things they think are interesting, write really small drafts on those with fingers crossed that they might pass some notability guidelines (proper citations to RS and spelling mechanics be damned), draft gets rejected, then go ask other editors to tell them how to write a Wikipedia article (which I concede is better than the previous strategy, which was to march over to Jimbo and scream about white supremacy). WiR talk archives 103, 120, 123 are instructive. In 120, a WiR member informs FloridaArmy after they asked for help with a rejected draft last November, "your intro spelled her name incorrectly, so I corrected that". -Indy beetle (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is reasonable to believe that instead of devoting the requisite amount of care these subjects deserve (and is encouraged by the sanctions thus far imposed), FA is attempting to game an interpretation of the GNG standards by maximizing total sources at the expense of our policies for verifiability, MOS, and coverage. We can see further evidence to this effect in their most recently rejected draft, where the notoriously bad Appletons' was used. FA draws upon similarly questionable and aged cyclopedias (such as the The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography) in other submissions–yet another problem addressed in previous personal advisement. In another recent and similarly declined draft, the maximization of sources at the expense of WP:NOR and SIGCOV is again painfully evident (as are yet more bare URLs). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of system-gaming per se, I think that these drafts show a lot of pretty solid time invested to try to cover these topics. I agree that some of these drafts are much more borderline and may not reach SIGCOV, but it's relatively close based on the author's publications and receptions - it can be hard to find the sources from 1874. I don't see the evidence that we should be adding special sanctions and exceptions for a user for sloppiness. Sloppiness is a good faith contribution. That's why we have other editors who are more gnomish. I haven't seen evidence presented that this user is intentionally or maliciously disrupting the project. All I see are deaths by thousands of cuts. I did not assert that all of their drafts were fine, nor can you say all are bad. But plenty of rejected drafts are just a non-notable hip hop artist from the modern day trying to promote their Soundcloud, or the like. This user is digging in old sources to find notable people from the 1800s. I don't know if Carole Troxler or Henry Kernot can demonstrate non-trivial SIGCOV but they certainly have publications, reviews of their publications, and a decent claim at coverage in news. Wiki is not paper, and these drafts can languish for months, but I still think there is a legitimate grievance for the "broken windows" style of rejection of drafts (i.e. 1 reference is bad, spelling error, inclusion of trivia) Andre🚐 17:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This is beyond sloppiness and a difficult in finding old material. The recently accepted Joe M. Richardson on a professor who passed in 2015 features one reference that is simply "Southwest Missouri State University"–no link, no article title, no date, nothing, just "Southwest Missouri State University". That article does not pass the WP:GNG, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside of an obituary and university website profiles (and, if I weren't involved, I'd immediately proposed an AfD). The twice-declined Draft:Post-Newsweek Productions features a citation in a section header; the unbelievably accepted Randolph W. Washington references three texts that only list his name. These are fundamental issues and appear in almost everything FA makes. This is willful incompetence, not sloppiness. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In my view, you have an overly-strict idea of what kind of AFC drafts should be accepted. You seem to be imposing a minimum quality standard that only exists in your mind. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A cursory search of Richardson's books found several professional reviews, indicating a likely WP:NAUTHOR pass. Randolph W. Washington is a state legislator, so is presumed notable via WP:NPOL. I can understand the issues with the Richardson article, as it doesn't make his claim to notability too explicitly clear, but there would be no excuse for declining the Washington article. Curbon7 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: If that's the case, I encourage you to read WP:FIRST and WP:AFC, where I'm getting the minimum standards from. I have cited additional policies and guidelines in essentially every comment I've made, standards so central to today's Wikipedia that a six-year veteran page-creator like FA should know them. If you think that we should accept AFCs that stand no chance of surviving an AfD or egregiously violate other policies, you have an overly broad understanding of what should be accepted. @Curbon7: like FA, you miss the forest for the trees, identifying one subjective evaluation of a criticism to engage with without regard for the cumulative effect multiple issues have.Also, there is a reason to decline: WP:NPOL doesn't apply in Washington's case as he wasn't in a statewide office and doesn't have significant coverage. Please read the policies you cite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Striking, apologies to Curbon7, I was looking at another draft and conflated it with the Washington article in the last comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I guess we're even now lol Curbon7 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the standards. You're wrong about those drafts having no chance to survive AFD, which is why you're wrong about rejecting them. Washington meets NPOL. Richardson is NPROF/NAUTHOR notable for being the editor of The National Cyclopedia of the Colored Race. Anne Ellis is notable -- go ahead, take it to AFD if you disagree, there is no "involved" prohibition on doing that. Troxler (mentioned above) is also NPROF/NAUTHOR notable based on her published works; Scopus is a terrible way to test that; and if I had more time I'd pull it out of draft myself. I agree Post-Newsweek probably doesn't meet NCORP and I don't bother looking at high schools. But I'm looking at your hit/miss rate, and FA's hit/miss rate (in terms of identifying notable topics) and I grade both of you at about 50%. It's hard to pick a side. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

To cite the underlining guideline, articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The Washington article is a perfect example of this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So for this one, I give you an F as an AFC reviewer. Yeah, Washington could get merged; Richardson could also get merged; but the fact that an article is a merge candidate does not mean it should be declined at AFC! Please do not decline drafts because you think they are merge candidates.( Also, please mind systemic bias when you're evaluating articles about women and people of color, especially Americans, especially historical. Their notability will not be as obvious as white American men.) Levivich (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

IP edit-warring in violation of MOS

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

---

Hi. I'd like to report an IP editor who for the past two weeks has been editing-warring in violation of MOS:SLASH and MOS:OVERLINK at Jules Koundé and Marcos Alonso (footballer, born 1990). During this time, they've been using a bunch of different IP addresses:

• 2804:14C:7F80:81FA:9482:6254:2F9A:7A6C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:14C:7F80:81FA:B1FD:5C1C:A85A:C891 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:14C:7F80:81FA:88DF:4EF0:5A1D:93E3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:14C:7F80:81FA:498F:8923:B89:FDA3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:14C:7F80:81FA:E036:8994:10BF:E5A8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 5.142.46.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 179.233.199.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:F40:300:D201:F49E:91DD:947D:F29D (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:14C:7F80:82BC:459E:8ADF:A54E:B654 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2804:14C:7F80:82BC:A8C0:D590:44AA:E9F4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Full disclosure: I violated WP:3RR today.

Pinging involved editors @Spike 'em: and @LilianaUwU:. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've created section on one of their talk page and the article one, but they show no sign of stopping. Do articles need protecting for a while? Spike 'em (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the range of 2804:14C:7F80:82BC:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for a week by Deepfriedokra and it contains the last two of the IPs you're reporting. Jules Koundé has also been protected for a week. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of edit warring. I range blocked them all for six months but left account creation on. It'll stop them from editing as an IP editor but put no barrier at all to creating accounts. Most IP editor warriors don't create accounts, though. If they start creating accounts, I can disable account creation. There will probably be more IPs, too, so I guess you might as well let me know if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Deepfriedokra, Hey man im josh, NinjaRobotPirate and everybody else who helped. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2023 (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.

Aagbthav pushing their own agenda

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

---

Aagbthav hates a particular religion and is only engaged in their own POV edits to push the religion they likes. They are replacing longstanding infobox images according to their own interest, especially controversial ones, without any discussion at the talk page. The user is also not responding to any warnings on their talk page. I'll provide few diffs. [174],[175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182]. Many of these edits are still left unnoticed. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Less than half of those diffs show anything objectionable, and even than its barely concerning. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:BC6F:265C:C696:3D1E (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Aagbthav is now involved in what's essentially edit warring over at Delhi. Check their recent edit [183]. The current infobox images on the page were arrived at after multiple discussions to build concensus [184]. They reverted my revert over at Kerala [185] instead of responding to my Talk page discussion inviting them to adhere to BRD [186]. - Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed this when I reverted them at Delhi a while ago, but they do appear to be replacing secular and religious but not Hindu images with images of Hindu temples. While the new images themselves are not objectionable, the pattern is concerning. As also is their refusal to engage on talk pages. Failing a reasonable (or any) response from Aagbthav, I suggest a WP:NOTHERE block. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've indeffed per NOTHERE. The user has never made an attempt at communication, responded to any warnings, or used an edit summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

IP editor using abusive language (in Hindi) after being reverted

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, an IP editor (45.115.179.161) used abusive language against user Utcursch when the latter reverted their unconstructive edits, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahluwalia_(caste)&oldid=1139789357

He said (quote): "UTCURSCHTERIMAAKICHOOT" in his edit summary. The words "teri maki choot" is an offensive insult in Hindi (please see: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Teri%20Ma%20Ki%20Chut). I wanted to report him for this abusive language as I do not think it should be acceptable on Wikipedia for users to behave in this manner.ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (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.

Addition of renderings of objects to moon 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.

---

125.164.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A user editing from Java is adding non-encyclopedic images generated in the astronomical rendering program Celestia, in contradiction to WP:ASTROART guidelines, to articles about moons and dwarf planets. All but one of these edits had the meaningless edit summary Nothing, so good faith is questionable. Despite the likelihood that many people use this range, most other recent edits are vandalism.

• Ceres (dwarf planet): [187]
• Ganymede (moon): [188]
• Laomedeia: [189], [190]
• Psamathe (moon): [191]
• Sao (moon): [192]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Why does this need intervention here? ValarianB (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Page move mess

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 new article from a new editor's user space (User:Santhini14) has been move to draft space (Draft:V V College of Engineering) and then article space (V V College of Engineering). It falls short of being ready for mainspace and I can't userfy it for the editor. Dawnseeker2000 08:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've draftified "article" and nominated resulting redirect per R2. a!rado🔫🦈 (C✙T) 09:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is not a new editor but a sock of the blocked UPE Santhini R. They have made many attempts to push the article into mainspace, from both accounts. I've deleted and salted both article and draft versions of VV College of Engineering and V V College of Engineering (note the spelling difference), which have been repeatedly recreated after being repeatedly deleted as unambiguous advertising, and blocked the sock. Probably not the last we hear of them. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC).

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

Please revoke TPA for MilesLogic

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.

---

MilesLogic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a blocked sockpuppet who is now altering the block appeal results and adding images to talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Perhaps they can find a new hobby now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2023 (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.

Obvious NOTHERE, admin claims they were insufficiently warned

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

---

So, Eagle Catholic's only edits, besides a factual error to Sanctity of life, are to whine about how Wikipedia is woke propaganda. While this would be grounds for a WP:NOTHERE block, Ad Orientem thought that the user was insufficiently warned, and I very much disagree with this. I've seen users be indeffed for less than that with no warnings, and a user whining about woke propaganda on the talk page of an article for a far-right website should be indeffed because it's obvious they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is different, and even admins make mistakes. On that note, I'm frankly disappointed that you posted here first rather than reaching out to Ad Orientem on his talk page. Remember, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. and this is likely not a very urgent issue, nor (as it appears) a chronic behavioral problem. The Night Watch (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

...right. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. And regarding the edit to Sanctity of life, that appears to be correcting a factual error (for reference, see CCC paragraph 2261). I agree with The Night Watch, this didn't need to be here. We don't indef a new editor based one one misguided attempt to seek change in an article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at this and stand by my response to your report. This does not rise to the level of a no warning block. See WP:ZT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above replies. Two crappy edits is not enough for me to indef block for NOTHERE. Though I personally find their views repugnant, they do not appear to be acting in malicious bad faith. Warnings are cheap. I would rather give them WP:ROPE then block them prematurely and give more ammunition to their "Wikipedia is leftist" nonsense. And you should have talked to Ad Orientem first. Also, what an apropos name Ad Orientem is in this instant EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not enough—for now. Give them a chance to learn the ropes and read the warnings but these are some pretty typically NOTHERE edits right out the gate. Again, the only reason I see again a temp block (an indef may be overkill) is that they're three edits in with an arguably ok good-faith edit and two lazily POV talk edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, fair enough. I may have acted too fast on going to ANI, and I apologize for that. But to me, two successive edits that say This page contains slander against lifesitenews. Please correct. Lifesitenews has never spread misinformation. This page contains woke propaganda! seem like very much indeffable to me per WP:NOTHERE, especially considering the touchy subject. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Look. The suggestion to have Liliana go to ANI was mine because I didn't want to no warn block with an admin already having denied it once. I do think it needed to be discussed, I suggested ANI cause it was the first place I knew there would be guaranteed eyes on it. Don't chew her out. She's still a new person here and I made the suggestion. Mitch32^{(won't you be my neighbor?)} 02:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No reason to chew out, either. It was a judgement made under advisement regarding one of the most delicate subjects and a certainly problematic editor. LilianaUwU posting this to ANI is actually laudable, imo, I just disagree about the next step. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mitchazenia Thank you for the above note. I generally am a big fan of cutting new users slack wherever possible and have no reason to believe this report was anything other than a good faith expression of concern about a decision they didn't agree with. When I first started out here I made a lot of rookie mistakes and got frustrated with rules I did not understand. I don't even want to think about the annoyance I caused when I discovered NPP (this being before it was restricted to experienced editors). We all learn from experience. Some people have baggage when they show up here. Those who are able check their ideological baggage at the door are welcome. Those who make it clear, over a reasonable period and after appropriate warnings, that they can't or won't, will eventually be shown the door. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason I blunted my response (to an otherwise good-faith report) was to get the point across that a notification to ANI should only be given after careful deliberation. A too-hasty reporter can cause trauma and embarrassment for not just themselves, but the reported individual as well. Although the subject of this discussion is an experienced sysop, how hurtful would it be for the average editor to be dragged into a large discussion when you weren't even contacted beforehand about the issue? I thought that a strong remark, although not the most civil response, would convey this information effectively. The Night Watch (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we can all agree it might have been better handled, but no harm has been done and we all learn as we go along. Now I am going to gently suggest that the OP might want to think about self-closing this discussion, unless they believe there are some issues unresolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say issues are resolved. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by IP

176.220.122.84 (talk · contribs) has been editing bilateral articles in a very similar style to blocked IPs 176.220.98.210 (talk · contribs) and 88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs) LibStar (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

also 176.220.123.103 (talk · contribs) has surfaced with a similar style. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• I bit the bullet and range blocked 176.220.0.0/16. There's likely to be some collateral damage, but the cleanup from this one troll has been too much to handle. Let us know here if they continue outside of that range. If you go through this you should probably find all of the things that need to be rolled back. I'm going to be otherwise busy for a little while, so if anyone wants to help with that, thanks!--Jayron32 13:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Jelasa Eding repeatedly creating unsourced or poorly sourced articles

Jelasa Eding (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly created articles, most of them WP:BLP articles, which were either unsourced or had only one source and have been of questionable notability. By their talk page, nine articles they have created were either draftified or speedily deleted with only Kaushik Kantibhai Vekariya still in article space. This editor has stopped responding to messages on their talk page and either seems not to understand why their articles are problematic, or is ignoring the issues. I had warned the user that they could be reported here. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive declared-COI editing by Changaco at Liberapay

Requesting permanent block of

• User:Changaco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

from editing

• Liberapay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• See the edit history and talk pages.
• Of 78 main space edits since 2008, 38 (49%) are at Liberapay.[193]
• Bbb23 declined to get involved, but agreed Changaco should not edit the article directly: Special:Diff/1140623685 where I tried to "skip the drama".
• User:Changaco has declared a COI: Special:Diff/1140103224 and said they are the founder of Liberapay: Special:Diff/1140103796
• Another editor, Bensin at Talk:Liberapay said Changaco should not edit directly, but rather propose changes at the Talk:Special:Diff/1140161442. I concurred.
• Responses have been argumentative when I warned about COI editing at User talk:Changaco: Special:Diff/1139493799. Warned about edit warring, similar response: Special:Diff/1140518092.
• Changaco continues editing the article to present the service in a desired way Special:Diff/1140491536, and apparently feels it is necessary to convince them to accept changes:Special:Diff/1140500776 And they have a right to control wording:Special:Diff/1140501496
• I can understand some frustration due to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liberapay, but
• Note: Similar belligerent interactions is not new in their 103 total edits: Special:Diff/499014880, and see 2012 Apprendre2.0 AFD discussion history: [194]

-- Yae4 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As a first reply, I am copy-pasting my previous response:

I have not violated the COI rules. Direct editing is strongly discouraged, but not forbidden. I have done my best to keep the Liberapay article as neutral as possible, and I seem to have succeeded, since no pro-Liberapay bias in my changes has been reported.

This request to block me from editing the Liberapay article is, from my point of view, groundless.

Changaco (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• An example of bias from Liberapay versus reality: Pepper&Carrot "support" page lists Patreon with top, larger billing, and Liberapay, Tipeee and Paypal in a second tier.[195] A reader of the current article is misled to think Revoy/Pepper&Carrot prefers and supports Liberapay.
• I don't say every edit is completely biased to present Liberapay in the best possible light. I do say many edits do seem to bias the presentation. Also, Changaco seems to think it is OK to self-publish a blog post, then add the content or excerpt to Wikipedia citing only the blog post, particularly for advertisement-like info (more currencies! more languages! Auto-translation!!). The "wisebread" and "snowdrift" citations seem to have a major problem for Changaco because they delete it every time it sneaks back in; I don't know why. Problematic edits IMO include:
• Special:Diff/800095702: Added "notable" customers to list based on Mastodon post (Twitter-like), and based on self-published Pepper&Carrot website (which now is 404 and not in archive.org?).
• Special:Diff/832329831: Changed from basic statement of "similar" projects with one (wisebread) citation, to a different, more detailed platform comparison, but with only Patreon; replacing the citation with Patreon self-published help-desk article, and Liberapay Tweet WP:RSPTWITTER. An exception for primary Twitter could be possible; however, the new statement is a preferred synthesis: WP:OR instead of using statements from the comparison in the deleted (wisebread) citation. Edit summary: "expand paragraph comparing to Patreon" is misleading IMO.
• Special:Diff/832332858: Significant rewrite of a paragraph, removal of two founders' names, with trivialized edit summary: "improve the first paragraph and split it in two"
• Special:Diff/832351658: Cites self-published primary WP:MEDIUM blog post to (arguably) advertise availability of US$ transactions.
• Special:Diff/869412898: Removes another editor's statement, which was based on a citation already in the article. Misleading edit summary: "revert addition of overly short paragraph concerning the technical infrastructure of Liberapay"
• Special:Diff/943020897: Another advertisement-like addition: 31 more currencies now available! Based only on another self-published primary WP:MEDIUM blog post. Edit summary: "complete the paragraph about currencies"
• Special:Diff/943024502: More addition citing only self-published primary WP:MEDIUM blog posts. Edit summary: "add a paragraph about the Mangopay crisis"
• Special:Diff/943027496: Edit summary "clean up the list of notable projects using Liberapay: reorder alphabetically, avoid linking to Liberapay profiles, add GIMP, drop link to Reddit thread". Dropping Reddit is good, but Changaco has an issue with "linking to Liberapay profiles". Why?
• Special:Diff/1005177190: Deletes previously cited info' with only Edit summary: "remove Mastodon from the list of notable projects on Liberapay since that account isn't active anymore". Deleting cited info' based only on insider information?
• Special:Diff/1116184610: Restores the platform comparison synthesis WP:OR listed above, based on the same citations. Edit summary: "bring back and reword the paragraph about rewards and taxes (undoes revision 1116154898 by ZimZalaBim"
• Special:Diff/1116188185: Presents platform and organization in particularly worded way, without adding citations. ES: "distinguish the platform and the non-profit organization"
• Special:Diff/1116190268: Removed specific details on amount of time an account was suspended, substituting "briefly" ES: "small rewordings"
• Special:Diff/1116193457: Adds another advertisement, of translations, citing another self-published primary WP:MEDIUM blog post. ES: "update the number of available languages and mention the use of machine translations"
• Special:Diff/1139307033: Removes snowdrift citation again, substituting Liberapay homepage (primary). Removes numerous wiki-links added by two editors. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  In my biased opinion these accusations are mostly nonsense. I will respond to a couple of them:

  • The article does not claim that the listed notable users are primarily funded on Liberapay. However, I concede that some readers might interpret it that way and that I don't remember this occurring to me before. Obviously I am not opposed to modifying the article to clarify this.
  • I have no problem citing Snowdrift's list of crowdfunding platforms. In fact there's a link to that list in Liberapay's FAQ.

  Changaco (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Firstly, this is a WP:COIN matter, but whatever. Changaco made some mistakes and has been somewhat disputatious overall. However, when we look at the merits of the underlying content dispute, they are of such incredibly marginal significance that the whole situation begins to look like elevated drama over basically nothing. I especially have difficulty understanding the thought process behind starting the dead-in-the-water AfD by the reporter in the middle of this dispute. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. I also understand that Changaco may be frustrated by that AfD (worth noting that they haven't commented in the AfD or on the AfD, which is good), but I myself, while not exactly being frustrated, am at least befuddled. Changaco understands that, in spite of being a paid editor, he can make uncontroversial changes without seeking approval on the talk page, and he has shown a certain degree of boldness over the years which I would characterize as being within the bounds of reason. The Liberapay article has not become terrible as a consequence; it's pretty much an average article. While doing routine recent changes patrolling, I rebuked Changaco when he reverted changes that he believed are uncontroversial, but which were disputed by others (diff). It was his mistake to do so. He didn't quite get the memo and figured he can restore his desired version in gradual steps so that he isn't reverted wholesale. He has finally resorted to discussing before editing (Talk:Liberapay#Sources for the list of notable users). I propose that Changaco only be warned and not blocked, or if he is blocked that it be for a limited duration so that he is given some time to rethink and recalibrate his approach. —Alalch E. 17:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that we should be careful not to be too harsh or negative regarding declared COI editors and instead employ positive firm redirection when needed. We want people to declare. I just weighed in as "weak keep" at the AFD. Looking at the article, while anything blatantly promotional or non-neutral is not in the article, this article is very weak on independent sourcing and the kind of coverage that would be of interest to readers. Instead it is full of stuff that Liberapay would like to say about itself. I'm assuming that a part of the cause of this problem is over-involvement by Changaco. Changaco should be warned to reduce their direct editing and lobbying at this article. What this article needs is to find 1 or 2 more substantial coverages of this topic by independent sources and start summarizing what those sources say. As a redirection, if Changaco want to improve the article finding more such sources would be a good start.North8000 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 - content deleting without any prior notice

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To cite @Plumbago Capensis: "I have seen this user [Onel5969] often deleting articles that were definitely well written and sufficiently sourced, without any prior notice. I do not believe this behavior is very aligned with the collaborative nature of the project, and risks to disincentivize contributions." (User talk:Onel5969#Notability of old buildings)

Here are some examples from the recent time, probably just a tip of iceberg:

• A historical building in Syracuse, New York
• A South African actor
• A really huge dam (has interwikis, had In use template)
• An International Athletics competition (has interwikis)
• A Faculty tracing its history back into 1600s (and with a beautiful Spanish interwiki with many sources)

I tried to persuade Onel5969 to be more moderate in deletions, but without visible success. They should at least warn authors before deletion of their content and give them some time to add sources or whatever, if there is real possibility that the content is notable.--Jan Spousta (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, first off, those are not "deletions." Those are redirects, and there is a distinct difference; no one's work has actually been eliminated. Secondly, those articles were either poorly or unsourced, and in the case of the last one certainly a case of WP:UNDUE; they were good candidates for redirection at the least. For a third, whether an article is "well written" or not is irrelevant; there've been many well-written articles about non-notable subjects which have run afoul of AfDs, prods or redirects.

The key here is sourcing -- the size of a dam or the longevity of a department's faculty do not matter at all -- and while three of your diffs are relatively recent creations, one is a year and a half old, and one is sixteen years old. There is no damn excuse in the world for them to be unsourced, and the article creators should not need extra prompting to do the work they should have put in at the start. I am a good bit less concerned with whether redirects "risk disincentivizing contributions" than with editors who feel that WP:V is somehow optional, or that it's acceptable to create articles without bothering with sourcing. Those article creators ought to be quite able to go themselves to those "beautiful interwikis" if such sourcing exists there. As to that -- what stops you from doing that sourcing work? Ravenswing 13:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These are excellent policy-based actions by Onel5969 that I fully endorse. Editors who want these subjects to have separate articles should overcome the identified problems, such as by finding a good source; then they could restore the article with a new reference. The important element here is that the problem be clearly identified in the edit summary, and Onel5969 did that. This common practice is called WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT—Alalch E. 14:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These are not content deletions. You can always restore them by reverting the edits. But by reverting, you are now the one responsible for the unsourced/unverified content and should introduce sources to back the notability of the subject up. Otherwise, these subjects may end up being at WP:AfD and be deleted if there is a consensus to do so. – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many possibilities listed in WP:FAILN. But creating a redirect without warning the author is not listed.Jan Spousta (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBURO for why that's not a great argument. Most redirections are performed without notifying the author(s), because it's a non-destructive and easily-reversed action. Although if really want to get bureaucratic about it (I don't advise it), consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context says nothing about notification. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Blank and redirect is common practice in dealing with articles that might lack notability or are otherwise problematic. If you disagree with the blanking, you can undo it and start a discussion at the article's talk page. I will say, though, that Onel5969 should avoid blanking an article multiple times within a short period, as was done at Ntokozo Dlamini. Striking part of my reply since I misread the years. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In that article the reverter did not include a summary and did not address the problem in any other way (making a relevant edit to the article, leaving a comment somewhere), and Onel5969 re-redirected once. —Alalch E. 15:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While this conversation is ongoing, I had nosed around at the Dlamini article. Might meet GNG now after a rewrite. Then again, I am not sure about the general reliability of South African sources. I use what I can find online. If the new sources need to be removed/replaced, go ahead. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DEL-REASON (policy) in conjuction with WP:ATD-R (policy). When there is a reason to delete the article a blank-and-redirect is a possible alternative. The reason why Onel5969 did these BLARs is that, in each individual case, he identified a problem with the article that could be a reason to delete it. It doesn't mean that it's the definitive reason, he is not the ultimate arbiter of what gets deleted, but he can take this alternative course of action, under a belief that there is a at least a strong potential reason to delete – as a non-final remedy. Editors who think otherwise should then demonstrate that the problem is not of such magnitude or they should simply fix the problem. Again, this is policy. —Alalch E. 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jan Spouta, this is a very easily resolved situation: if you think that reliable sources providing the significant coverage to those subjects that the GNG requires actually do exist, then do the work to source the articles, and all will be well. If -- by contrast -- you don't believe those sources exist, or you don't want to go to the trouble of doing that work, what's the problem here? Ravenswing 15:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Editors should not scare off new people. @Onel5969: Please be careful. Maine 🦞 16:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I would greatly encourage Onel5969 to communicate in a consistent manner when carrying out this sort of work. The original poster is correct that it can be very demotivating. I wrote a draft on Lothar Abel translating from the German Wikipedia; he was an Austrian architect who died in 1896 and left a number of nationally important works, and books that are still available today; I included the referencing at the German article. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I think the sequence of events was that Onel5969 initially passed the article, I think as a new page patroller (I got fed up after 4 months' wait-time at AfC and moved it myself, I think??), but then a week later kicked it back into draft space without any explanation of why a week's thought had converted it from adequate to inadequate. I am a delicate soul; I haven't felt motivated to translate anything since. I would have appreciated consistency, or explanation. But please don't take this as any more than the mildest of requests for improved feedback; I do appreciate that the work of a new-page patroller or AfC person is difficult, and that opinions will always differ on notability. I do consider that Onel5969's work for Wikipedia is of extraordinary value. Elemimele (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Might just be me, but if I were going to tell a story like this, I would want to refresh my memory first and provide relevant links so that others could assess my statements. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, I tried, but since I chose to have the draftified article deleted (I hadn't the heart to work on it further), the history and time-line are gone for ever. My fault, sorry! Elemimele (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele Looking at your deleted contributions, I think it's probably Draft:Lothar Abel. The history and timeline are not "gone forever", and it can easily be restored. Let me know if you want it restored, either temporarily for purposes of this discussion or because you want to work on it. As something deleted under G7, the rules are that it can be restored on request for no other reason than that you requested it.

Regarding the timeline; you submitted it to AFC on 8/27/2022. No one reviewed it. You moved it to mainspace on 12/31/2022. Onel5969 tagged it with {{more footnotes}} and {{refimprove}} on 12/31/2022. Onel5969 moved it to draft space on 1/7/2023. There were 2 edits in between tagging the issues and moving it to draftspace, but neither substantively addressed the issues.

I see several failures of process here.

1. I'm sorry you had to wait 4 months for someone to review this only to give up and move it yourself, only to then have it shunted back to draft. That is less than ideal.
2. I see you left comments on the talk page beginning in August when you submitted it to AFC, which were never responded to or addressed. New page reviewers should be checking the talk page, even though 90% of the time there's nothing of interest there. It is less than ideal that your talk page comments went unresponded to.
3. Onel5969 saw issues with the article, and applied maintenance tags to let interested parties (such as yourself), know what issues were spotted. Onel5969 waited a week, and those maintenance tags went unaddressed. It is less than ideal that articles with maintenance tags that sit around unaddressed for years at a time.
4. When the tags went unaddressed for a week, Onel5969 returned the article to draft. Was this the ideal response? It's debatable. Like I said, it's a real problem that we have articles sitting around for years with unaddressed maintenance tags. On the other hand, every article in this encyclopedia is a work in progress, and we should not be demanding perfection from a new article.
5. Your response to having the article tagged and moved back to draft - basically, to being told, "Hey, this needs a little more work," was to become discouraged and ask for it to be deleted. That is not a desirable outcome of this process. A desirable outcome would be to have the article fixed and moved back into mainspace.
6. You may not be aware of this, but one aspect of the draftification process is that if you object to the article being moved to draft, you are welcome to move it back to mainspace, and then it's not supposed to be draftified again. If the person who moved it to draft still thinks it's not ready for mainspace, they can take it to WP:AFD. Looking at the text and sources of the now-deleted draft, I think it would have survived an AFD, but the AFD process can be acrimonious and I can see why you would not want to deal with that.

In short, I'm sorry this happened to you. It is an excellent example of the flaws inherent in the system we have built here. That said, that deleted content looks promising. Let me know if you want me to restore it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind response. I'll reply properly on your talk-page. In the context of this ANI thread, you are right: this was an example of what can go wrong, given the system we have, not any fundamental failing in Onel5969; I am greatly in favour of good communication, but also appreciative of the efforts of Onel and others prepared to tackle contentious issues with new articles. Elemimele (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reason why we don't require notifications for redirections of existing articles? Yeah, yeah, I know it's not currently in the policy requirements. But why isn't it? I understand that this is very much a soft deletion, as the history is still accessible and revertable, but you're still making an edit to try and remove an entire article. That seems like something you should be notifying the creator about, along with your reasoning on why you're doing it. At minimum, this would help to prevent any edit wars resulting from such things if you get a discussion going in the first place. Silverseren^C 22:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well the edit will appear in the creator's watchlist so you can guarantee that, unless they've decided they are no longer interested in the page and deliberately remove it from their watchlist, it will show up there. It's not like other actions where it may be more of an issue, we're talking solely about article creators here who will see the Watchlist item for something that's just ultimately an edit and not a delete. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Last week I used Twinkle to move an old article to comply with MOS:SENTENCECASE and an alert got automatically sent to the long-ago creator. Dang, random unannounced inconsistencies like this are why I will never stand for WP:RFA. Who can ever know all this? Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is automated notification, it's more a matter of collaborative discussion. Notifications tell you something happened, but not why. The templated explanations are standardised: "the sources do not justify...", and don't invite discussion (about why particular sourcing isn't adequate). BLAR is a very high-risk activity. It might not be deletion in a technical sense, but from a reader's point of view it is fundamentally deletion, and it's the only mechanism of deletion that depends on a single editor. PROD and AfD both have sanity-checks. PROD has an easy, well-documented way to oppose, and AfD gives you a week to work on the existing inadequate article. BLAR is instant and hard to undo, because you must either revert it piecemeal finding sources for each paragraph as they're brought back (it's like having a draft in "history-space", it's a very weird way to work), or revert the whole BLAR even though you know that you can't immediately reference the whole caboodle. I would strongly encourage use of AfD instead of BLAR. Likewise, stuff shouldn't be dumped back into draft-space if it's been accepted out of draft-space; it should be sent to AfD (and if appropriate draftified from there). There is no harm in going to AfD with any deletion that has even the faintest whiff of contendibility. Elemimele (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BLAR is instant and hard to undo, because you must either revert it piecemeal finding sources for each paragraph as they're brought back BLAR is easy to undo if you have sources, and if you don't have sources the content shouldn't be in mainspace. I don't see an issue with this and endorse Onel's actions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal and Alalch E.: Do you also endorse the case when someone has started to write an article, placed the template "In use" there to indicate continuing work and his unfinished article was immediately reverted to nil - because it was unfinished (the 3rd bullet above)?Jan Spousta (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jan Spousta:. In this concrete case, the editor really started to write an article and left said template, but then they stopped and quite afew hours had passed before the title was re-redirected. That template should only be present while an editor is physically working on the article, and when they have taken a break, such as went to sleep, the template should be removed beforehand. That template should be removed minutes after you've physically stopped editing. If it's left up, it doesn't mean anything as it doesn't reflect reality, and can't prevent anyone from doing anything that is otherwise appropriate. —Alalch E. 12:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If the page was being actively edited that would have been inappropriate, but the last edit was 12 hours before Onel redirected it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

12 hours is unusually long time, I agree, but still I feel it inapropriate to remove the unfinished work without warning the author. Or at least inform him how to revert and continue in case he does not know.Jan Spousta (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Previous discussions about Onel5969's BLARing: September 2022, February 2022, May 2021, April 2021. In my opnion these complaints are of varying merit, but they do provide some context.

Per a 2021 RFC, AFD should be used for potentially controversial cases. The pages linked here, as written, definitely have problems but are not obviously uncontroversial candidates for immediate deletion. I do not see a strong argument for the use of BLAR over the use of AFD or PROD in these cases. Both of the latter methods allow other editors to give input and potentially even improve the article so that it can meet our standards, which is ultimately what we should be shooting for here. Pinguinn 🐧 13:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The point of BLAR is to avoid potentially time-wasting AFDs when the issue could have been resolved by a single editor. We can't know that something is controversial before it is contested. Your comment looks like a general disagreement with BLAR as it is currently practiced. BLAR is an action taken by an individual and an individual can't base himself reliably on something being an "obviously uncontroversial candidate for immediate deletion" because one person can't be sure that what seems obvious to them (an objective category) is obvious to everyone and they can't predict the future – what they think should not be contested may well be contested and thus end up being controversial. When bold actions are concerned there is a subjective element that can't be negated. —Alalch E. 13:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

We actually do have just such a system where an individual must base themselves on whether a page is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion—PRODs. In fact they are equivalent in many other ways as well, as both can be contested and sent to AFD. The difference is that PRODs are not immediate and place the article in a tracking category, inviting other users to either contest the PROD if they disagree or let it stand. PRODs and AFDs take time, yes, but they are not "time-wasting". The time they take is intentional for greater community scrutiny and oversight, whereas "soft deletion" by redirecting can go unnoticed. Therefore, my strong suggestion for Onel is to use the traditional deletion processes more. Pinguinn 🐧 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You're just litigating the merits of BLAR as a process envisioned under policy. Those arguments are for the policy talk page. I didn't say all AfDs are time-wasting. They are time-wasting when they are not necessary, and BLAR, as an alternative described in the policy, serves to preclude some of those unnecessary ones. BLAR is also traditional. Maybe we can imagine a technical way to make such decisions more easily reviewable by the wider community, like PROD is, but this is not a conduct matter. To add: BLAR handles redirection in the same go while PROD leads to deletion leaving no redirect. Why would he prod if he thinks the title is a fine redirect?—Alalch E. 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• I must say there have been a quite a few times where I was annoyed at his BLAR actions – for example, in the past I believe I've seen him redirect current NFL players, college football teams, D-I college football/basketball seasons, each of which are controversial and 99% of the time notable – and I've also seen him redirect a bunch of soccer player articles to the team – I'm not saying those soccer players were notable, its just that we almost never do that and AFD would have been a better option in many of the cases. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not the only WP:DEL-REASON. For example, an unsourced bio is WP:DEL9, and that is not about notability. Did you observe in any of the examples that you listed that they had a lasting negative effect on the development of WP:PAG-compliant encyclopedia content about respective subjects (content such as a separate article that doesn't have any deletion-related issues attached)? —Alalch E. 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• The use of WP:BLAR is a well-established an accepted practice. If an editor wishes to contest a BLAR, they can simply revert the edit. WP:ATD-R notes that [i]f the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. In other words, discussion should take place should the BLARing editor wish to re-BLAR the page, and the community has endorsed the use of AfD to settle contested BLARs. I am personally a little more apt to just take certain sorts of articles to AfD than to BLAR them if I expect that the blanking-and-redirecting will be contentious, but I don't think that taking these articles straight to AfD is mandated by WP:PAG. Onel5969 seems to be perfectly fine here (I don't see anything where they're BLARing obviously notable articles that had salvageable content), though I would encourage the initiator of the discussion (and others) to simply revert Onel and begin a discussion if they believe that individual BLARs were not appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I did. But not everybody has the guts and/or the knowledge how to revert. I bet that he loses us at least one editor a month. Is it a good price when we weight against it the work he does otherwise? I do not know. But I feel that there is a huge room for improvement here.Jan Spousta (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Two things:

1. While a WP:BOLD redirect is an entirely valid approach to dealing with pervasive problems in an article, when that redirect is contested, nobody should be edit warring to restore it, as Onel appeared to do in a couple of the cases mentioned.
2. I agree with two views above: these redirects (other than the edit warring) were not egregious, but also that doing so is demotivating and sometimes confusing. Newer editors don't know that they can simply undo the edit. Experienced users are perceived as having special authority, and when presenting things in such a matter-of-fact and acronym-heavy way as Onel does, it requires a steep learning curve to figure out what to do. To that end, I think a lot of what's discussed here could be sorted out in conversation. Onel, what about just creating a talk page template which says that you've taken an action on an article someone created (or has been working on), and what their options are (restore and improve, restore and go through AfD, userfy, draftify, merge, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Rhododendrites: I've created {{uw-blar}} after reading this comment again. I'm not tied to the specific text of the template, but I think that something like this template would be easily workable going forward. Please let me know what you think of it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

   Thank you for making this. I think this template is still too opaque for new, confused, and/or discouraged editors. I understand why you've gone with the vague "may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines" language, but I don't think that's helpful to someone who just had their work "deleted" and might be feeling overwhelmed or defensive, especially since new editors might not understand that this is a template and not something specifically written to them. Something like "the most common reason for this is (blah blah)" might help there. I also don't think "you may restore the page" means anything to most newbies. It's probably most helpful to directly use the word "revert" in there, possibly even with a link to an explanation. -- asilvering (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

   Thank you for the feedback! I can try to workshop something in the template's sandbox if you'd like. Feel free to also make suggestions on the template's talk page; it's a live template, but I'm not strongly tied to most of the phrasing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems to me that this and similar 'incidents' that appear here regularly could be largely avoided by editors reading, understanding and following the advice given at Help:Your first article. In my view the issue is not how these problematic articles are dealt with, but the number of articles created that don't meet the minimum standards required by the core policies. --John B123 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @John B123:, many would, but not all. The blanked version of Ntokozo Dlamini did have referencing and was at the very least debateable. @BilledMammal:, Rhodedendrites has put my point better than I did: even with all the sourcing ready on the table, it is psychologically difficult to undo a BLAR by an extremely experienced editor, and it requires a complex edit to add all the references in one go to an article only available in the page history (many beginners will prefer to work step-by-step). It's often not obvious what to do: for example, with my Lothar Abel draft, I should have reverted Onel and instantly nominated my own article to AfD to seek a second opinion on whether its sourcing was adequate. Instead I got negative and tagged it for speedy deletion as author-no-longer-wants-it. Not a great outcome, but it's not obvious to a novice why sending your own article to AfD can be a good thing to do. I'd emphasise that the problem is not Onel, it's the complexity of negotiating WP's procedures and acronyms and a general lack of friendliness outside the teahouse! Elemimele (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @John B123: And moreover, you are true in an ideal world. In reality few of us learn things by memorizing a manual first. We try, wait, expect help in case something goes wrong. The people are volunteers who wish to help Wikipedia and have fun. Not employees who can be said "read the book in the next two days and then go and work".Jan Spousta (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot see the content of the Lothar Abel draft but I assume it was unsourced. In that circumstance, the correct response is to find sources and when they have been found restore the article to mainspace - nominating an article for deletion when you believe it should be kept would be considered disruptive behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Elemimele: Looking at the references that were present at Ntokozo Dlamini (the first 8 or 9 anyway, I got bored after that), none of them would meet WP:SIGCOV: Rehashes of interviews, Instagram posts etc. @Jan Spousta: Help:Your first article is nowhere near being the manual for Wikipedia, it's just a guide to the basics that are mandatory for articles. A bit like the brief introduction to the basics that a driving instructor would give you before attempting to drive a car for the first time. --John B123 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Antagonistic/disruptive user

An IP address 46.208.125.66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.208.125.66) has been editing the article Sons of the Desert some might say excessively. He has not been receptive to criticism, reverting changes and later adding them in as his own, to save face. None of this is that big a deal, but when I get homophobic messages on my talk board (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYouCanDoBetter&diff=1140258198&oldid=1138892340), I'd appreciate it if he was dealt with, at least from contacting me, if not from editing the page altogether. Thank you. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the chance the IP editor thinks you're not a man? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is what I think, very much so. 46.208.125.66 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYouCanDoBetter&diff=1140260177&oldid=1140258780

The use of the term "Mary" is generally associated with gay men. And I am a man. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is childlike behaviour from a self-styled editor who took umbrage because I rejected his advice on formatting the Plot section in Sons of The Desert.

"I'd appreciate it if he was dealt with, at least from contacting me..." shows the level of his ability to phrase. His worthless advice was ignored by me and I continued to edit the section at my own pace, and to the standard of a Ph.D. English holder. 46.208.125.66 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are also many odd, bot-like changes like this that he later reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_the_Desert&diff=next&oldid=1140256440

And (deceitful) insults like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_the_Desert&diff=next&oldid=1140259121 YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is another important point: denying an actual reversion, documented in a link in this very post, along with the "Mary" slur - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.208.125.66&diff=next&oldid=1140262869

Between that and grammatical errors in this the Ph.D. comment, I think we're being trolled. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

wikt:Mary#English (meaning 5) confirms that Mary is gay slang for a male homosexual. Given diff1 + diff2 + diff3 it is clear that the IP is attempting to be offensive and I have blocked them for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

👍 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter, if the harassment continues, we can block IPs from posting to your talk. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that (and it's much appreciated), this is what I got this morning, on his own talk page: "F*** off F*****t", directed at me, which seems a bit extreme for any talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.208.125.66&diff=next&oldid=1140269705 YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, you did kind of bait them, and on their user talk. :) I think stay off their page, and let us know if they don't stay off yours. Valereee (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I prodded them slightly, but are you saying I baited the word "f****t"? Serious question, I'm not trying to pursue talking with them. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, potato potahto, but to me leaving on their page "Just a heads-up. I don't know who you are anon, and if you have any of the credentials you refer to, I'm guessing not. All I can say is thank you for giving in on the paragraph breaks, I know it was a touch subject and you didn't like being called out on it, but that much is appreciated" was kind of inviting a snappy retort. Which IMO F**k off f*****t wasn't lol. Valereee (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That's all I was trying to establish, that the word isn't a snappy retort. A lot of people think it is these days, I just hope it isn't here. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not, but when you go to someone's user talk and "prod" them, I'm personally not all that interested in following up with a trout when they respond with something unwitty. Stay off their user talk, let us know if we need to make sure they stay off yours. Valereee (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, not interested in any "follow-up" beyond what was already done (thanks to that other editor). Nor have I expressed any interest in going back on their talk page. And don't worry about them coming on to my page, that has not been the issue. Just know that when you refer to that word as "unwitty", I totally get it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to Valeree not withstanding, there's nothing remotely acceptable about those slurs, regardless of context or even outright provocation. Now, Valereee might be correct to call you out at least insofar as saying you weren't blameless in the overall escalation at the end, but we need to be precise in pointing out that neither that nor anything else obviates any user from meeting minimum standards vis-a-vis community expectations on hate speech. And for that matter, several of the previous comments by that user that were raised here (or even taking place here) were clearly excessively WP:battleground, with some actual liberal use of WP:PA's mixed in. Which is why they were blocked, presumably. And for WP:BEANS reasons, let's avoid the conversation about what the nature of that block is likely to be and why: suffice it to say, I think the right approach has been chosen here: tactical/limited use of the tools combined with robbing the...situation of attention/oxygen. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and if they IP hop to harass or just edit war against local consensus or policy, consider requesting short-to-medium-term pending changes protection at WP:RFP. PC is the one backlog we seem to manage to keep to almost nothing most days, so it won't interfere with most legitimate contributions from IPs, but will filter out this kind of nonsense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

IPs getting away with block evasion and no one is doing anything about it

2A02:587:1E4C:9600:5974:C67A:B31B:B8E8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2A02:1388:208A:47BD:0:0:A741:FE04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
62.74.59.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I reported the first IP at AIV yesterday but no admin reviewed it. These IPs are being used by a block evader:

The first IP: this edit by the IP, replacing "British" with "English" matches this edit by another IP around a month ago (which appears to be block evasion according to the reverting editor). See also User talk:Binksternet#Block evasion by Dealer07, so there's clear indication of block evasion. See also this edit to Vasilissa (album). Other IP's are edit warring on that same page. Block evasion is clear and obvious. Read below.

The second IP: this edit to Vasilissa (album).

The third IP: this edit to Vasilissa (album).

Please block these IPs. They are evading a block and edit warring. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 03:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Declined? By Materialscientist? I'm not sure when they were declined. Tails Wx 03:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I know. I'm a bit confused. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 03:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's apparently Dealer07. The /40 of the IP I reverted was blocked for block evasion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Johark786 - POV 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.

---

Johark786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The editor is WP:NOTHERE and is only engaging in contentious POV editing. See these diffs - [196], [197], [198], [199] (BLP vio), [200], [201] and the user's talk page. Requesting a NOTHERE block — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Block and keep an eye on the affected pages, in cause he opens the drawers. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. Editors who are here to push an agenda should be banned from pushing an agenda. Maine 🦞 16:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:13, 28 February 2023 (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.

Chhota Shakeel

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 had provided references and cited sources which prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject on whom the article is based in indeed deceased,however it was overturned because of a personal opintion which stated "That it was not constructive"-Well,in my personal opinion it constructs the entire narrative the way it should be.Admins please check history. Edwardblakes (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC){{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ Edwardblakes (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to resolve this on the article talk page - Talk:Chhota Shakeel - and not on this page which is not for content disputes. PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You haven't provided diffs, but I presume you're referring to Materialscientist' revert here. You haven't attempted to answer their question in reply to your posting on their talk page, nor have you provided the mandatory ANI notice (you have not used it properly here; one, you accidentally copied the syntax highlight code, and in any case, this notice should be provided to Materialscientist (talk · contribs)'s talk page, not here). I have done so this time. As an alternative, you can choose to instead discuss this on the article talk page linked above; but you are not going to get anywhere here on ANI, as this page is not intended to resolve content disputes. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:40, 28 February 2023 (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.

Transphobia from Scapulus

Blocked per WP:NOTHERE and talkpage access revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Special:Diff/1142140948 – misgendering a BLP subject Special:Diff/1142144916 – calls redaction of said misgendering dystopian censorship Special:Diff/1142145179 – transphobic attack in response to CT alert and warning not to misgender Special:Diff/1142147088 – accusations of censoring facts and spreading misinformation plus some more transphobic "humor" ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Looks like the guy overdosed on Ben Shapiro... Ostalgia (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Scapulus, what does "San-they-drin" refer to in this edit? Zaathras (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Scratch that. It is a mocking reference to the Sanhedrin, I should've seen that. Yea, this is some pretty problematic stuff. Zaathras (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Indeffed. Salvio giuliano 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Gross. Thanks for blocking. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I'm not ready to see this closed. Given there was a CT-alert and associated warnings, and a block for then continuing that same behavior in that topic-area, should this be tagged and logged as a CT block and a ANI-approved action rather than a one-off admin block? DMacks (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Also noting they doubled-down in their unblock request; User:RickinBaltimore declined it and turned off talk-page access. I think we really might be done here now, despite what turned out to be a premature discussion closure. DMacks (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I've undone the overly-hasty close, which was done just 10 minutes after Another Believer's comment. -- Ponyobons mots 21:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Good block, seems to be a WP:NOTHERE case. — Czello 21:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Good block; I think we can close this. DFlhb (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Good block, looks like they were only interested in throwing wrenches. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Wow, wow, wow. Spewed lots of awful stuff. Is there any way to make this indef permanent?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Sometimes indefinite does mean infinite. Levivich (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Ngobtefoundation 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.

---

The user clearly has a COI, username of a business, and their edits are trying to promote their business. Can an admin block if they also find this problematic? Illusion Flame (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Already blocked by Jimfbleak about 40 minutes ago. In the future, WP:AIV is the board designed for handling quick and easy blocks like this. --Jayron32 12:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention the username could have gone to WP:UAA for rapid attention, as well. Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2023 (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.

Beyoncé

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 am posting this complaint here because an administrator needs to investigate why ALL of Beyoncé's Destiny's Child and The Carters awards have been deleted and her awards total has decreased by at least 100 awards in the last month. There has not been any response from the editors regarding the 2 complaints that were posted to the talk page which I have copied below. I was wondering if an administrator or editor would take these concerns seriously and find out why the Beyoncé Wiki page is losing content and stop then reverse the omission of these valid and verified awards earned with Destiny's Child and The Carters musical groups/duos. I am not an editor but, someone with privileges made some major deletions from the Beyoncé Awards wikipedia pages. Please investigate this massive problem and correct this incorrect awards total of 486 awards because it is wrong. She has earned over 580 awards and these awards have been getting maliciously removed from the wiki page. I am reaching out because the TALK page is not being answered by any editors regarding this valid problem.

Is there a reason all of the awards are now missing?[edit source] I was on the page yesterday and the awards were all there, and now they are missing. The edit appears to have been made earlier this AM by a user that no longer exists... Isisg2008 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

[subscribe]Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023[edit source] This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. reply ] [subscribe]Destiny's Child awards removed[edit source] Why were the awards Beyoncé won with Destiny's Child removed from this page? She still won the awards herself. She became the most awarded artist in Grammy history a week ago, with 32 awards, and that number is used in this page - yet that number includes the two awards she won with Destiny's Child. Same goes for her status at the BET and MTV Video Music Awards. All official sources count her wins with Destiny's Child as her wins as well, why should Wikipedia be any different?

Sounds like a pressed stan did some editing work, tbh. Iantuition (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]

The Grammy Award she won as a member of The Carters for Everyrthing is Love has been removed as well, though it too is counted as a win for Beyoncé on the Grammy Awards' website: https://www.grammy.com/artists/beyonce-knowles/12474 Iantuition (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numba1Fashionisto (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you want to quote other's comments, please do it properly either with template, or linking to it. Since you didn't do it properly, it's hard to comprehend the context of your complaint.

I'm quoting these for you to make it readable:

I was on the page yesterday and the awards were all there, and now they are missing. The edit appears to have been made earlier this AM by a user that no longer exists...
— User:Isisg2008 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why were the awards Beyoncé won with Destiny's Child removed from this page? She still won the awards herself. She became the most awarded artist in Grammy history a week ago, with 32 awards, and that number is used in this page - yet that number includes the two awards she won with Destiny's Child. Same goes for her status at the BET and MTV Video Music Awards. All official sources count her wins with Destiny's Child as her wins as well, why should Wikipedia be any different?
Sounds like a pressed stan did some editing work, tbh.
— User:Iantuition 00:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Grammy Award she won as a member of The Carters for Everyrthing is Love has been removed as well, though it too is counted as a win for Beyoncé on the Grammy Awards' website: https://www.grammy.com/artists/beyonce-knowles/12474
— User:Iantuition 00:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In addition, it appears you used {{subst:ANI-notice}} improperly, which you then failed to notify the users. I've notified users you quoted because they may be involved in your complaint. --Stylez995 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• The above, from what I can read, appears to be a garden variety content dispute, and should be patiently discussed at Talk:Beyoncé. I see nothing that requires admin intervention. --Jayron32 14:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  What? You don't think getting Beyonce's award count is an URGENT INCIDENT??? Have you no decency? EEng 15:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Also, does anyone know what a pressed stan is?

  “Stan”: https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/stan-2/ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Some people can't seem to understand that there exists even the slightest possibility that people outside the categories of "obsessed with Beyoncé" and "actively hates Beyoncé at every opportunity" exist. (Replace Beyoncé with literally anything else and it's still true.) casualdejekyll 22:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Notating here that I've commented out the malformed ANInotice template at the beginning of this section. I also agree with Jayron2 and EEng above that this seems to be better suited for the talkpage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:45, 27 February 2023 (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.

Continuing block evasion for IP

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

---

This relates to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion_by_IP. Another IP 88.230.106.111 (talk · contribs) has popped up with very similar editing style only in bilateral articles, despite warnings, the IP never engages nor leaves an edit summary. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@LibStarAIVED -Lemonaka‎ 07:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

331dot has blocked the IP address for a week for disruptive editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of material on Australian premier lists that goes against consensus.

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

---

Over the past few months, a series of IPs has been re-adding material that goes against the consensus established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 45#Request for comment on the contents of lists of officeholders on the list pages of Australian premiers. These pages are Premier of Western Australia, Premier of South Australia, Premier of Queensland, Premier of New South Wales, Premier of Victoria and Premier of Tasmania. The IPs are User:1.145.93.0, User:49.186.58.51, User:1.145.130.222, User:1.145.31.10, User:203.160.8.226, User:1.145.162.157, User:1.145.119.171, User:1.145.15.198, User:49.181.104.178, User:1.145.253.161, User:1.145.37.53 and User:1.145.119.171. They have been warned before at User talk:1.145.93.0, User talk:1.145.162.157 and User talk:1.145.253.161. What can be done about these edits? Steelkamp (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the premier list articles for a month each. I'm not taking a position in the content issues, but this is the tool available to encourage an IP hopping individual to use the talk pages and not engage in a slow moving edit war across six pages. Courcelles (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2023 (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.

Thenewright22

Thenewright22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See the revision history to Creation Ministries International. Edit warring, first as an IP, and then signed in, to promote pseudoscience. Note this misleading edit summaries used with the signed-in posts. If this was simple edit-warring, I'd report it on the edit-warring board, but this is a clear contravention of WP:LOUTSOCK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that's Thenewright22. The article is probably just being targeted by POV pushers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

POV pushers all trying to make exactly the same change. An IP, Thenewright22, and then another IP... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Returning user that was previously blocked

82.36.38.56 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person as 77.97.74.107 (talk · contribs), a stable IP that was blocked several times for disruptive editing and failure to heed advice about what he or she was doing wrong, and is making the same sorts of edits that got the former IP blocked, some of which I've just spent a goodish amount of time cleaning up at Ernest Bramah. I consider myself semi-involved, since I've griped about 77.97.74.107 here, on his/her talk page, and at the Teahouse and have been one of the admins who blocked him/her. (I'm also rather exasperated with the guy at the moment.) Could someone else take a look at the situation and decide if there's any action that needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Aboutnick

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

Repeated addition of unsourced and poorly sourced information to Trisha Paytas, see edit history. Multiple warnings (up to level 4) regarding the issue at the user talk page. Never engages in discussion, instead reverts outright and marks those as minor. When the user does react, they are dismissive and rude or selectively delete warning messages. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space to see if we can convince them to start communicating. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• User responded at UTRS appeal #69876. Instructed to respond here or on their talk.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  🦗 Crickets so far. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass edits to TV pages changing the distributor in infobox

User:Vidpro23 has been mass changing TV distributors on TV show pages for months and has been repeatedly warned on their talk page and in edit summaries. They ignore the warnings. They use edit summaries after being reverted by saying "original distributor" and includes a source. The sources they are using list the companies he is adding as the international distributor, not original as it states it should be here. Literally this consists of all of their edits. Mike Allen 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In the Infobox television template, the "distributor" parameter should contain the series' original distributor. MikeAllen and 86.15.93.32 keep reverting pages whenever I try to add a series' original distributor to them, even when I source it. Vidpro23 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vidpro23, this extra topic isn't needed and should have been added in a reply to the original topic. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Notating here that the two editors above created separate threads about the same incident. They are now combined, and the section title edited to reflect that it is about the incident as a whole. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Simply reverting back (for both parties) isn't the right way to handle it. But other than that, this seems to be more of a content disagreement/discussion than a user behavior issue, and really shouldn't be an AN/I report. As someone who edits a lot in the television project (with a lot of those being in Template:Infobox television, I see a lot of the distributor values to be wrong, poorly sourced, or incorrectly used per the template docs. Yes, it's supposed to be the "original distributor" - but one of the changes @Vidpro23 made and was reverted was on The Rifleman ([202]) reverting back to Peter Rodgers Organization. Peter Rodgers didn't even come into existence until the 70s, so how can that be the original distributor of a show from the 1950s? Work out the content issues the way it's supposed to be - through WP:BRD. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at the user's talk will show years of warnings and no response from Vidpro23. At this point, I believe it's beyond a content problem. The Riffleman source he added just shows that Four Star bought the syndication rights. The distributor parameter shouldn't even be used on that article, since it aired on ABC which is in the network parameter. They aren't improving anything when they are still adding false content (while misreading the sources they introduce). I already tried BRD (through their talk page and edit summaries) to no avail. Mike Allen 19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay so I'm trying to find out what the issue with User:Vidpro23's edit are as they do appear to be correct. Lets take the Hogan's Heroes articles as a recent one randomly. The Infobox television clearly states that the Distributor is for the original distribution company or companies, I think we can all agree on that. So why @MikeAllen: did you revert Vidpro23's changes and revert to a company that didn't exist in any form until 2006 at the earliest? 35 years after Hogan's Heroes finished? As far as I can tell, Vidpro23 is making the correct (or at least correctish) changes and people are reverting them back to modern distribution companies that is directly against the instructions of the infobox. Can I ask why that it is people are insisting on inserting and maintaining clearly incorrect values for the distributor field? It's not about who owns the rights now, it's who owned the rights then. There is actually a serious problem with a lot of TV and movie articles with people "updating" the infoboxes to modern companies which are not correct. And I see an IP reached out to User:AdamDeanHall who is one of the culprits behind such updating. Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

86.15.93.32 is not happy that I'm giving television programs their proper original distributors. Vidpro23 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it seems that 86.15.93.32 is another major editor behind this incorrect "updating" of distributors. I'd like to hear back from MikeAllen and 93.32 on why they think reverting to A) unsourced and B) clearly not the original distributors is acceptable behaviour. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Vidpro23 it's not just me, it's also other users. There are also not happy about that too. 86.15.93.32 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So you admit you're trying to push an "updating" of distributors so they're incorrect? Additionally this edit and summary are very telling. Note despite your continuous claims otherwise, Vidpro23 has never attacked you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Like I stated in the previous summary, the 1965 source they are adding they are the international distributor (see here). CBS Television Distribution was added a year ago. The distributor field probably shouldn't be used at all since it aired on CBS (under network), it all seems redundant. Also an easy fix to all of this, don't add any distributors at all in the infobox, especially if no source backs it up in the article. Mike Allen 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

an easy fix to all of this, don't add any distributors at all in the infobox, especially if no source backs it up in the article - Yes, you nailed it. I definitely see where some of this could require discussion at the article level, as there are certainly (many?) instances were what's there now is not right, but what's being added may not be exact either. Vidpro23 needs to be open to that, if they have not already. @Vidpro23: and @MikeAllen: I have opened a discussion on the infobox template to discuss clarity of definition for the parameter and/or to suggest its removal if not useful (which we have done with other parameters in that template). You're both welcome (and encouraged) to give useful input there if you have some and so desire. Vidpro23, are you willing to hold off on further mass changes until everyone is on the same page pending outcome of discussion at the infobox talk page? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could hold myself back for a while. Vidpro23 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

IP 4.7.132.22 nothere

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

---

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

This IP has made numerous edits to Carnival Eats, not a single one of which has held up to scrutiny. Every single edit was reverted. This is the only page they are editing (targeting) [203]. They have been warned 4 times on their talk page about disruptive editing. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• NOTHERE really applies only to accounts, and next time please report such quotidian disruption on AIV. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2023 (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:Dlimali

Dlimali (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is continously trying to promote Vitaliy Khomutynnik and is removing sourced information. They haven't stopped their disruptive work despite numerous warnings ([204], [205]) and clearly have a COI as there almost all of their edits are related this biography. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. 176.108.106.49 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be a discussion at Vitaliy Khomutynnik about this content dispute. This should be discussed there before escalating this further. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It does look like the editor is attempting to promote this particular Ukrainian politician and cleaning up his page. Considering we have had cases of Ukrainian paid editors in the past, that it is a very sensitive area (and it already was before the war) + a BLP, and that the "accused" seems to be focused almost exclusively on this article, I think this is not so much a content dispute as a legitimate concern about paid, promotional editing in a touchy subject, and thus worthy of a visit to ANI. I see a couple of users, including an admin, have already reverted him and warned him, but a block might be warranted if he persists. Ostalgia (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• He is persistently trying to clean up the article, relying on policies that have nothing to do with his changes. Sounds like a paid editor trying to promote the name of the article. I think it's a paid editor trying to promote the name of the article.--Bexaendos (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to promote neutrality per WP:BLP. Dlimali (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge chasm between neutrality and... whatever it is you're doing. Neutrality doesn't mean not reporting criticism, and it certainly doesn't mean promotional editing. Given that you persist with your behaviour I struggle to see an outcome that doesn't involve a block for you. Ostalgia (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Dlimali continues to blank content despite being warned and directed to find consensus. I have no idea if they're paid, but they're certainly not willing to work with the community. Time for an temporary block until the editor decides to follow guidelines. Nemov (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)