Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noteduck (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 25 June 2021 (→User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123

    Would an uninvolved administrator please take a look at the various allegations of improper behaviour (canvassing, personal attacks, gaslighting) made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of an abundance of caution given the canvassing allegations, I've notified every participant at the AfD of this discussion although the allegations are all made by a single editor and concern only me and two others. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting for the record that while I have participated in previous London Buses AfDs, I found them and this one via the main AfD list, which I browse semi-regularly. firefly ( t · c ) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Purely as a point of information (although not really being on either side of the debate), "whingeing" is a spelling accepted as standard by, for example, the Collins Online Dictionary ("If you say that someone is whingeing, you mean that they are complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant.") I'm assuming that your "(sic)" indicates thinking otherwise, and apologise for wasting your time if this was not the case. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Andreas Philopater for pointing that out, I thought it should be spelt "whinging" and so thought it was a typo, but I can see now it can be spelt eitherway (spelling/grammar is not my strength!) Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We do still need that uninvolved view because the allegations are continuing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    univolved nac: From my POV no canvassing occurred everyone from a related afd was pinged who coincidentally all voted the same way it is impossible to ping an opposition that wasn't expressed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, Can you provide diffs for personal attacks and gaslighting? As for canvassing, if all pinged editors were the ones who participated in the prior similar discussion, and nobody was omitted then it seems fine. If only one side was pinged then it would be bad. PS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except WP:CANVAS explicitly states In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. (Note this was not reconsideration of a debate but a very similar debate about a very similar article). Also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification explicitly states notifying a partisan audience is inappropriate. So I cannot see how you reconcile that. Surely if there is no opposition, the right thing to do would be to ping editors from a different AfD or notify editors at a wikiproject etc. Or simply not ping anyone! Nowhere does it say on WP:CANVAS does it say it is OK to notify users from a partisan group simply because no other opinion is expressed - why choose to select users from that discussion when opposing views have been expressed in other discussions? Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: This little exchange relates to the PA and gaslighting. My gaslighting comment refers to being told that someone who was pinged into the conversation to say nothing apart from telling me to stop whingeing somehow found the discussion by their own volition. But none of this warranted ANI. Regarding the "continuing allegations" they are referring to this. Note, the user who pinged participants from the previous AfD has acknowledged it could be interpreted both ways. Any further discussion on the matter is an exercise in frivolous pedantry, and it is really up to the uninvolved closing admin to comment on whether canvassing has any bearing on the discussion! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no gaslighting just editors pointing out that no canvassing occuring and only you disagreeing with them, also telling someone to stop whingeing isn't really a personal attack, it may be considered uncivil but it is not a personal attack. 07:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)
    Where am I complaining it was a PA? I did not bring it to ANI! So I don't consider it serious. But I've explained the gas lighting refers to a user who was pinged into the discussion to make an uncivil commment and then being told they arrived there not because they were pinged. But again, not something I consider important enough to be here at ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lavalizard101: I've just realised I pinged you accidently, which explains the confusion. My ping was meant for @Piotrus: (fixed now). Talk about incompetence! Sorry about that. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The tempers did get heated, but personally, I'd suggest WP:TROUTing people involved in it, then having them dring a cup of WP:Cup of tea and shake hands. There is nothing major going on there and it's best to de-scalate ASAP. Before things really get serious and admin intervention is needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already made my peace with the user and was contemplating an apology on their talk page. I'd rather not have a trout, but a cup of tea would be nice! Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I cannot provide diffs because I do not believe they occurred - I posted here because accusations of those behaviours were being made (diffs of the accusations available on request) and felt that it was better to get outside input as the editor making the accusations showed no apparent interest in doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I request this discussion be closed, since everyone seems to agree there is no requirement for administrator intervention. I went ahead with my apology. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Polyamorph: (I replied on my talk page also), agreed and regarding canvassing I'm happy to drop this if others are too. I do find the guidelines a bit confusing, but I will be more careful and considerate in the future in deletion discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hatted the subthreads for focus. There's probably nothing needing admin attention here IMO, and the issue appears to be resolved amicably.[1][2][3] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t see any serious canvassing so that part can probably be resolved. A little concerned with the accusations of gas lighting. That is a serious complaint and should not be used lightly. Questioning a ping is not gas lighting and I see nothing there that even resembles gas lighting. Making such an accusations without evidence has a chilling effect. Aircorn (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the comment was made, but that doesn't make it true. I wish that people would stop using the term "gaslighting", because it seems to have come to mean something that someone disagrees with rather than anything more specific. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ask this editor to stay off my talk page

    Hello community, I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the opportunity to edit Wikipedia these past 5 months seeing as it has easily become my new favourite pastime. However, I may have made a grave mistake by disclosing on my user page that I was previously blocked for Sockpuppetry as a Newbie editor back in January 2021. I evaded my block and upon realising that it was also an infringement, I made the disclosure to Arbcom, got unblocked and asked to continue with this account. What brings me here is that Celestina007 (talk · contribs) since she first came to my talk page in March has continued to unfairly cast veiled aspersions [4] [5] [6], Outright accused me of paid editing [7] [8] and went on a power trip and tried intimidating me [9]. I have taken it all in stride because I understand that she is passionate about eliminating undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing especially in the Nigeria-related space I however do not appreciate this continual harassment without proof or without reporting to appropriate quarters. More recently, She placed 4 warning messages [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] on my Talkpage because I removed the {{notability}} maintenece template at Siene Allwell-Brown because the AfD closed as no consensus and the sourcing was enough to prove notability. I reverted the warnings [15] placed on my talk page and politely asked that she should not post on my talk page any further. She ignored this and posted 2 more times [16] [17].

    I just want the community to ask this editor to stay off my talk page and stop inhibiting my work as these accusations, assumption of bad faith, snide remarks and witch-hunting/nitpicking (for want of a better word) have severely hampered my enjoyment of editing. Thank you! Princess of Ara(talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the record reflect that I have aided them severally in their endeavors. They have an unusual manner of archiving so digging out diffs are quite arduous. In AFC I have encountered them and accepted/published their submissions, an example is this this, this I have never casted aspersions. I would have proposed a boomerang indefinite block on their account but I can’t do so because I have access to non public information of which I am not to disclose on-wiki, I am however willing to share this information to any sysop or functionary. Everything I have told them is factual hence do not fall under the scope of “casting aspersions” As aforementioned I am willing to share via email why I feel an indef block on them might be the best possible route. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone accusing me of Harassment, they are on my watchlist thus it is not unusual if I run into them every now and again. That isn’t harassment. I left a UPE warning template on their tp because of this: Draft:Uzor Arukwe. I declined the article on June 9 and told them specifically not to resubmit the article any time soon seehere. To my surprise barely 4 days after they resubmitted the article which was reject by Hatchens. This appeared to be COI editing, thus the UPE warning template. I’m incapable of disclosing non public information if not they would have been indef blocked a long time ago. I am willing to point this out if any sysop wants to see for themselves. Yes! Sockpuppetry was what indeed got them in trouble because technical evidence substantiated or showed this, The sockpuppetry case is just one aspect. Infact after Arbcom gave them a new lease they began the same type of editing that got them in trouble in the first place. I feel horrible about this, It is very unfair that editors aren’t sysops or functionaries are restricted from viewing the evidence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing Princess of Ara of having history of running a UPE ring without evidence after they explicitly told them to stay away from their talk page as can be seen here and also accusing them of returning to sockpuppettery without evidence is uncalled for. Casting aspersions and possible civility issues. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007 has been asked politely not to post on Princess of Ara's talk page. We commonly expect editors to respect such requests, except when required to post by policy such as an ANI notification. Celestina007 should avoid posting on Princess of Ara's talk page. If there are violations of Wikipedia policies in Princess of Ara's editing, Celestina007 knows the proper avenues to pursue. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what Schazjmd stated above I wouldn't leave any personal messages on their TP. I respect Schazjmd Having said, let the record reflect that I do infact have proof if they do not want me to post on their talk page I wouldn’t. I can carry still carry out my anti UPE activities, I don’t see how interacting with them impedes my anti UPE work. So there you have it, your wish is granted I wouldn’t be leaving messages for you anymore.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  – Accepting my articles at AfC and being able to inhibit my work by disturbing my peace are not mutually exclusive as is clearly demonstrated here. In our "first" interaction, Celestina007 told me that she had A mountain of evidence [18] [19] that implied that I had been compensated to create an article for FK Abudu and said she was going to submit the evidence to functionaries. It actually beats me how an anti paid editing editor has hard evidence against a rogue editor but lets them run amok for months, putting the integrity of the collabourative project at risk.Princess of Ara(talk) 21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Princess of Ara, could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies? The two diffs you provided above where I mentioned that I had a mountain of evidence, were never targeted at you, but was targeted at FK Abudu. I said I had a mountain of evidence that they were trying all they could to get a biographical article on Wikipedia, it was a statement clearly targeted at them and not you, Anyone can read the diffs and confirm what I’m saying, so if I might ask, why were you being intentionally deceptive to the community? Why did you deem it fit to lie against me or did you think I wouldn't scrutinize the diffs? Lying is really bad faith editing. I wouldn’t be posting on your talk page, rather I’d let templates do the talking. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a mountain of evidence to corroborate what I just stated above, an evidence I would be sharing with functionaries only & my senior colleagues followed by It’s a lot evidence I have but can’t be discussed on wiki as that would definitely constitute OUTING. It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in Outing who? This is simple deductive reasoning. Since Celestina has affirmed she won't be 100% staying off my talk page, I'll like to request a formal ban on interaction between myself and her. Thank you. Princess of Ara(talk) 05:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Princess of Ara, rather than apologize for being intentionally deceptive to not just me, but the community as a whole, you are speaking of “deductive reasoning” meaning you just “guessed” By Outing, I was clearly referring to FK Abudu and not you. The diffs you yourself provided clearly show you weren’t telling the truth, its literally right there and anyone can read it. In any case, A formal iban is ineffective, you have asked me to stay off your page I have agreed to do so, so what’s the bone of contention here? An IBAN wouldn’t help you evade scrutiny, i can still very much template you if/when I observe you violating our TOU so like I said it doesn’t change nothing but you are welcome to try. Celestina007 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in If you were referring to FK Abudu as you claim, pray tell, why was I the one in a Catch-22?
    I'm requesting an interaction ban because I don't want you to template me either. Leave processes to other members of the community. It's that simple. Princess of Ara(talk) 07:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the first time Celestina007 is accusing other editors of bad faith editing without evidence and also displaying civility issues while casting further aspersions. The most recent one is accusing Horizonlove of sockpuppettery without evidence or creating a sockpuppet investigation as can be seen here. Horizonlove archived their talk page after answering them as can be seen here. Unhappy, they reverted Horizonlove brazenly as can be seen here. While all this was going on, they threatened Horizonlove with an indef block even without being an admin I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and But I can assure you that an indefinite block is being arranged for you if you continue down this path, Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing. Liz came to their talk page and warned them about threatening other editors with a block even without yet passing an RfA as can be seen here. It's true that this editor is fighting UPE, but their method is way too wayward. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck, They fight UPE with valiance but the methods are on the aggressive side. At the risk of outing myself, my "actual" first interaction with Celestina was on my account that got blocked. I came to Wikipedia as a die hard fan of Erica Nlewedim and tried to create a page for her because I felt she was deserving of one. I jumped right in without reading the rules because I felt I couldn't be wrong. Little did I know. I edited the preexisting draft article and went to the pages of editors [20] [21] [22] [23] [24][25][26] [27] that !voted in the AfD to kindly review and publish. I didn't know about forumshopping at the time, some of whom offered constructive corrections relating to the promotional tone of the article [28][29] but I inadvertently got bitten [30] [31] by Celestina and got my account blocked. It all happened so fast. The reason I got a check user block by Drmies was because another fan of Nlewedim's gave me her login details after putting out this tweet thinking that having multiple people contribute to the page was going to help with the validity of Nlewedim's page. I created another account after getting blocked because I genuinely enjoyed contributing, any other new user may have gotten discouraged and not come back to the collaborative project.
      I've definitely come across various instances of them ABF, biting new editors, badgering editors to admit COI/UPE and being generally aggressive. See some instances here:
      1. [32][33] They were corrected by Samwalton9 to stop being aggressive.
      2. [34] - ABF
      3. [35]
      4. [36]
      5. [37] - Older users not spared
      6. [38]
      7. [39] corrected again
      8. [40]
      9. [41] - Untrue Assertion
      10. [42] - ABF
      11. [43]
      12. [44] [45]
      13. 2 Consecutive warnings

    Princess of Ara(talk) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Princess of Ara, I'm afraid you kind of undermine your arguments when the first thing I click on -- the "2 consecutive warnings" link -- are for being bitey 4 years ago toward a couple of accounts that turned out to be a sock and a vandal. When you provide diffs, provide your ~3 very best ones and say something like, "I have a dozen others if you want to see." No one is going to read 13 once the first one they click on is a nothingburger. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Veiled ass
    Persians
    • While I understand that a previous block for sockpuppetry is grounds for additional scrutiny, I do not appreciate the still unsubstantiated veiled aspersions. Princess of Ara(talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the diffs Princess of Ara shared, it shows that Celestina007 has been aggressive, uncivil and bitey to both new editors and old editors way back in 2017 and I'm surprised she's still exhibiting such behavior in 2021. In 2017, after Jamie Tubers reverted them on OC Ukeje article because their edit did not conform with the WP:MOS, they approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, accusing the very much older editor of not understanding the English language because they are from Nigeria and offered to teach them because they attended an Ivy League institution. They said can I advice you do a course or two in English Language before proceeding to edit articles, I may be lacking the understanding of some Wikipedia policies, yes, but to not know well enough the English Language is worse still. However if you need tips on the Language i am readily available to offer it to you. I speak Spanish and Italian, and 9 other African Languages also, So please rather than 'try to be in the good books of Jamie' put your time to things more constructive and she continued I am not afraid of you unlike most Nigerian editors, so yes, I am very bold and would continue to be bold if that upsets you, you may as well retire now, and hey, a little spelling mistake does not take away the fact I have an IQ of 132 and speak over ten languages excluding english. In the end let us work together and produce better Wikipedia articles. Thank you sir. In 2020, after M-Mustapha commented on this AfD they nominated, they accused them of operating multiple accounts without evidence. In their words Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to.. They further accused the editor of having a poor command of English language Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. I believe the real reason why all these are still going on till today is because they were given a free hand and they believe that it's okay to harass other editors. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nnadigoodluck, All these diff digging because like Serial Number 54129 stated I busted you here for possible undisclosed paid editing and had two-third of your possible UPE works deleted? You do know nothing is going to stop me from destabilizing UPE rings right? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina007, We're talking about your own issues that has been going on since the very day you joined this project, the aspersions, the personal attacks, the civility issues, the witch hunting, the interminable assumption of bad faith and the intimidation of other editors. So, defend yourself and stop ricocheting. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this report was filed, between them twelve admins have made over 40 edits to this noticeboard... none of them touching this report. There are two reasons for this. One, they have glanced over the evidence provided and see either out-of-date diffs or minor issues that don't, in their view, warrant an ANI filing. Secondly, apart from the filer, the only editor who so far sees any value in the plaint is fully, as far as a non-admin can be, WP:INVOLVED. (To clarify: one who was recently topic banned and released of all permissions—discussion of which included two admins stating they would not have had a problem with the party being indefinitely blocked—as a direct result of a report filed by the editor complained about here: One who may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes... about which they have strong feelings). Both of these things degrade the original report even if they are not intended to. ——Serial 13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. I'm not even an administrator or acting purely in an administrative capacity in this discussion. This is purely an ongoing issue that should be solved so that it doesn't happen again. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely using the context of WP:INV to point out that your pretended neutrality wrt Celestina007 is just that—pretended. Cheers! ——Serial 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to all these + the ANI report they filed here, me and Celestina007 has disagreed and agreed in the past. See here, here and here. So, if I feel they're still doing something that is not really welcoming, especially to Princess of Ara who I believe is a productive user who assumes good faith, I'm free to talk about it in the appropriate boards constructively and inferentially without picking a side. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129, I wouldn’t take him too seriously, it’s a silly attempt to impede my anti UPE work. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnadigoodluck, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. You've said your piece. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Princess of Ara has asked me to keep off their TP good I wouldn’t post to them anymore and that settles that. This is a little bit long, but it’s worth the read to understand what is really going on here. Since they have outed themself here as being one and the same person as Kemmiiii in which they were an spa for Erica Nlewedim, I believe this is no longer non public information. Now, what happened was The Pr manager/hype man/woman of Erica Nlewedim via Twitter tasked all her fans to ensure Erica Nlewedim gets a “Wikipedia Page” as they termed it. It irks me that I can’t access the app to show the community the diverse tweets because unfortunately Twitter has been banned in Nigeria. In any case, after the tweet the user “Kemmmii” (who is one and the same person as Princess of Ara) shows up and clearly were an spa for Erica Nlewedim see here, here, here, Then they proceed to badger over a dozen editors, in-fact see their contributions as it tells the whole tale of how they were an SPA promo account for Erica Nlewedim. In their comment above they claimed to be a NEWBIE in their previous account, but that is very much improbable. Having looked through the edits of Kemmiiii (their former account) you’d notice, their very first edit shows they are very much familiar with our modus operandi, see their first edit here, where they know how to use an edit summary and articulate properly what changes they made, (red flag) but that can definitely be overlooked, but on their 5th edit it invalidates their claim they were a NEWBIE then as the 5th edit was to the TP of a sysop to request undeletion. It is highly improbable that a new editor knows their way around to the point they know to meet the sysop that deleted an article and request for undeletion which means they operated an account prior that of Kemmiiii (possible block evasion). Now fast forward to their new account, they are still attempting to push the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace. See here (trying to push the article into mainspace) & here (Requesting undeletion). There are many other diffs to substantiate that they are predominantly here to promote Erica Nlewedim. I believe this is enough to see that they a boomerang block be evoked. That a major COI between them and Erica Nlewedim exists is crystal clear and their is a possibility of covert upe also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The diff for "they have outed themself here as being the one and the same person as Kemmiiii" doesn't appear to support that claim; perhaps you pasted the wrong diff? Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, it’s the right diff, urgh diff digging whilst using a mobile phone is tough, but if you look for their entry that begins with “I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck” they show all the diffs that point to their former account being that of Kemmiiii. If you count via signatures it’s the 12th entry. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see; it's the diffs in this thread that establish that Kemmiiii is their previous account. The diff you posted to Seraphimblade's talk page is irrelevant. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a topic ban on Nlewedim would be appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, probably, but it was an attempt to substantiate my claims, if it got you confused, sorry about that mate, but yes, topic banning Princess of Ara from creating that very article is the first step into the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is salted. Are we saying Princess is shoehorning Nlewedim into other articles? Sorry if that's been made clear above, can't deal with the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Valereee, I didn't realize Nlewedim had been salted; my topic ban suggestion isn't necessary then. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I found out because I opened it up to see how often it had been AfC'd. :) And a t-ban still might be appropriate, if Princess is wasting other editors' time by trying to get that article created, or if they're trying to insert Nlewedim into other articles.@Celestina007, can you explain (in 100 words or fewer <g>) why you think a t-ban from Nlewedim is necessary? —valereee (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, Surely I can, in their previous incarnation as Kemmiiii, they came into the collaborative project with a premise that is in alignment with what Wikipedia is NOT, precisely; using Wikipedia as a tool for promotion. Their contribution clearly indicate that. They further optimized multiple accounts to achieve that aim and eventually that got them blocked. Now with their new account they are still exhibiting the same behavior. This is them just 1 day ago doing this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Valereee for weighing in but per these here here [46][47] [48][49] I don't think they can give a balanced opinion. Also, I'm surprised that we're not addressing Celestina incivility also. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PoA, again you've shown me six diffs, and I've spent my limited time looking at them, and I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove. —valereee (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina007, you're clawing at straws here; does being someone's fan constitute a conflict of interest? If yes, I will make a declaration without fail. I posted the tweet I made on the same very day I requested review of the draft which you rejected. You have posted the revisionist history but now let me paint a picture. On January 24th 2021, fans of Nlewedim (including myself) were trending #GoogleEricaNlewedim as can be seen in my tweet and the replies therein. Naturally, I googled Nlewedim and noticed that there was no Wikipedia link in her Google knowledge box. I did a local wikipedia search which turned up a red link as expected. I clicked on it and was directed to a similar the page as shown in the image (You may not know this because you edit on mobile). Following the links easily leads to the preexisting draft and the deletion log. Wikipedia is not rocket science if you read.
    • The tweets you refer to were made by Justfrankleen which you assert by yourself here that The multiple SPA you see started from an off wiki twitter canvassing by the fans of the subject of the article to get a biographical article on the subject so you know fully well that you can't bring any tweets here since they've been deleted. A cursory look at Justfrankeen's twitter page tells you that they're another rabid and debased fan (as we in BBnaija twitter refer to ourselves) of Nlewedim and not her management as you assert here. I joined before the tweets you now refer to were made.
    • An edit war and twitter war between Nlewedim's and Nengi's fans ensued based on my addition of Nlewedim's name to the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria article.(I can substantiate this with tweets) You yourself said Every year we face this same Bullshit, Alex vs CC, Mercy vs Tacha & now Nenegi vs Erica. It’s so fucking irritating.
    • Mind you, Nlewedim's fanbase is her PR machine as has been documented in reliable sources [50] [51] [52] [53] Hypeman is about right though.
    • I already explained above that going to all the talk pages of the people involved in the AfD was forum shopping and I know better now. Saying they proceed to badger over a dozen editors is a dishonest exaggeration; except you're saying a dozen is no longer 12 seeing as 8 is barely a dozen. What I posted on the Admins talk page was this; I noted that you deleted the page last year because she did not meet the notability criteria at the time. I have however updated the page and will appreciate a review; it's right there in the diff you provided. How can I request for undeletion of a draft that was existing before I joined the project and even edited before I went to the Admin's talk page. This defies logic.
    • With my new found understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I tried to make a neutral as possible draft that was declined by you again because it was WP:TOOSOON despite the cited sources that were enough to meet WP:GNG. I personally requested for deletion under G7 but requested for an undelete yesterday because I envisaged that this conversation was still going to happen. So why not? I agree that I was an WP:SPA as Kemmiiii however, I returned to Wikipedia with the aim of being a productive user.
    • For some reason (maybe a disdain for Nlewedim herself or BBNaija stars in general), you've gone around to ensure that the article and that of Nengi and Tacha never get accepted as seen in your untrue assertions here here [54][55] [56][57] knowing fully well that the community depends on your opinion and even citing that did not win BBNaija as a reason amongst other things.
    • You have also failed to address the issue of your chronic intractable and unchecked incivility even in this discussion, amongst other things but hey, lets TBAN a rabid and debased BBNaija fan. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be calm and civil, Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very rich. Princess of Ara(talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Irrespective of any proposed T-ban, I am deeply disturbed by Celestina's actions here. It is absolutely unacceptable to make such serious accusations against another editor, based on evidence that is claimed to exist, but that was gathered off-wiki, and that Celestina claims they cannot present. While I accept that sometimes such evidence turns up, there are appropriate places to send such evidence, and making such accusations here meets the definition of casting aspersion, not to mention assuming bad faith (and worse Celestina is encouraging others to trust their "evidence" and assume bad faith about another editor). I am also deeply disturbed by comments that they have posted on other user's talk pages that have been mentioned here, where they explicitly threatened that they would ban another editor even though they lack the ability to do so. This may seem like a thin line, but there is a world of difference between if you continue to violate these rules, you could face consequences that include blocks or bans and saying If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing.

      While I respect Celestina's desire to stop undisclosed paid editors, I believe that their actions are potentially far more disruptive than UPEs themselves, in much the same way that Joseph McCarthy's attempts at outing Soviet spies (and he did catch several real Soviet spies, remember) were much more disruptive and damaging to American democracy than anything that the Soviets could have done on their own. A project based on collaborative volunteer effort cannot allow public accusations backed by "secret" evidence, as well as threats and intimidation from self-appointed vigilantes. And I want to be explicitly clear about this, I do not care whether the people Celestina accuses are actually guilty or not. I do not want an environment where someone can hide behind such odious actions by claiming that it's ok because they were right in the end, in the same way that I do not support denial of due process for criminal defendants even if we later find that they were guilty. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hyperion35, I responded below before seeing this comment you made above, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that. The evidence in question was non public in that time, which was Princess of Ara previous account was “Kemmiiii”. But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what you do is, you send that evidence to SPI. If SPI confirms it, let them deal with it. It is not your place to harass people who are suspected of breaking rules. But even worse, I worry that this looks as though you were threatening PoA with this info if her futute edits were not to your liking. I mean, you said If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true, did you mean that if she made certain edits, then you would take your knowledge of her previous account to SPI? This is the problem with being too "confrontational". Hyperion35 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperion35, no, not at all, my knowledge of them being one and the same person as Kemmiiii was an information I could never have used against them as it was still non public at that time. In the end you are correct, I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Celestina007 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst my methods of nabbing UPE are effective, they have been some time too harsh. Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE, very effective, I did infact not only nab UPE, I took down a whole ring two months ago. I do infact see where I erred and could have indeed done better, this thread has been a learning curve, I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner. Having said Princess of Ara still needs to be topic banned from creating the Erica Nlewedim article. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the actions committed in their previous account that got them check user blocked for sockpuppetry where they tried to move the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace using multiple accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, (and I realize this may be straying into ATA slightly), I have always been impressed by Celestina007's judgement. Celestina strikes me as a careful and punctillious editor who has caught numerous UPEs, and rarely, if ever, makes unsubstantiated charges. I have always had excellent interactions with them, and so was surprised by claims of impropriety on their part. I for one, have the highest confidence in their contributions. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 18:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrxBrx, indeed I’m hardly ever wrong and my body of work speaks for itself, for example see here where I single handedly took that UPE ring. This is me yet again taking down another UPE ring and those are the one I remember there are a plethora of others. My accuracy of nabbing UPE is near perfect. I know how UPE rings operate in Nigeria and I can tell UPE from a mile away, I know the stench of UPE on any given day. Even in instances where the community was skeptical about certain editors I called UPE editors in the long run I always turned out to be correct in the end, there’s an effort to incapacitate my work against UPE but isn’t going to happen. Several attempts have been made to hack my account but my strong password has always frustrated their efforts. There’s no universe in which anyone can stop me from exposing upe. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007: Just my two cents worth, but if you tried to come across as less confrontational and less like you were keeping trophies of groups you had "taken down", you would probably get less push back. All editors of good will appreciate those who are fighting UPE and sock puppets. That said, it is very hard to read all of your many messages here without coming away with a negative impression, despite all the good work you do. Take this as you will. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed t-ban for Princess of Ara from Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed

    @Valereee, Hey Valereee, i say WP:NOTHERE because I believe they are being intentionally deceptive if they are claiming to be merely “die hard fans” Take a look at this conversation I had with them on their sock account & if memory serves me right, they had multiple professional photo shoots of Erica Nlewedim which I could not find anywhere on the Internet which is the M/O of a paid job. Now this would explain a whole lot. See here were Seraphimblade also states they suspect them of UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it, Celestina. I'm just saying she did create S'Nabou. That doesn't seem likely to have a paying client behind it. I'm not arguing there isn't a COI here, or that there isn't a UPE, just that we can't say flat out NOTHERE. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee, I agree. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the images you’re referring to [58] [59]. Uploaded by OrjiNedd. Princess of Ara(talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those say they were the work of EN. Both are nominated for deletion. OrjiNedd seems to have tried to create the EN article, too, and their user page says they're a creative designer/content creator. PoA, honestly, you are hurting your own case. This looks like a UPE sockfarm. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    it is very difficult to distinguish between fan editing and paid coi editing; the manner is almost identical. Neither is encyclopedic. And it is not at all unusual for paid editors to also write a few non-promotional articles. But what I think makes it clear is when one editor involved in promotional editing supports another. I think the evidence of UPE is clear enough for both Princess and Nnadigoodluck. . I think we can start on the basis of the discussion here and previous discussions by banning them both. We'd need a thorough SPI to see who else is involved, DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG & Valereee, The textbook intelligent and very dangerous UPE editor is one who knows how to combine UPE and very decent work at the same time, this is the reason I’m unfazed/unimpressed with the S'Nabou article. @DGG, The fact that Nnadigoodluck is an undisclosed paid editor is crystal clear and that they are a spammer is factual, I mean there is real hard evidence of them spamming and using Wikipedia for promotionalism. The community indeffing them should be the next course of action. They ought to have been indeffed based on the last thread I opened that exposed their UPE. The possibility of both Princess of Ara and Nnadigoodluck being part of a larger UPE sock syndicate is very plausible, I would be opening an official SPI to see what pops up. @Nnadigoodluck, erroneously outed themselves in this very thread & inadvertently has given me on a platter of pure fine gold what I need to know, in order to know where to commence my search. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clearly this is a retaliatory proposal (How a "wall of text" is reason enough to TBAN someone is beyond me). I'm honestly dumbfounded that Celestina007's severe breach of WP:Civil towards PoA and other editors has been callously ignored. This is certainly not helped by the ludicrous hypocrisy exhibited by Celestina007 and i quote: Please be calm and civil, Thank you. 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think it best if we stick to PoA's request for an interaction ban between her and Celestina007. AryaTargaryen 21:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in no way a retaliatory proposal as I didn’t initiate it an UN-INVOLVED did and my alleged breach of civility where from 2016, indeed, I was hot headed as a NEWBIE but that’s moot now. I have agreed to keep off their tp, An IBAN is only wasting our time seeing as I have agreed to keep off their tp as they have requested. Furthermore the proposal wasn’t made because of a “wall of text” it was made because Princess of Ara who admitted to being an spa for Erica Nlewedim and got Checkuser blocked for sock puppetry(trying to push Erica Nlewedim into mainspace under their previous account as Kemmiiii have continued to do so under their new account. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the activities of the previous account. The proposal is very much plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but I see multiple instances of incivility, including aspersions and outright threats, that you made on PoA's talk page in May 2021. I was going to post a diff for each comment, but it's easier to just put them all together here so that we get an idea of what you consider civil. Because I see uncivil behavior, aspersions, a battleground mentality, inappropriate threats, and an assumption of bad faith. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see, I leave a UPE warning template, not against policy, I ask them how they obtain an image, not still against policy, they themselves casted aspersions against me, I refute it, they eventually report me to ANI where they made false allegations that got them blocked and to prove my point they implied that Wikipedia (Its editors) were foolish. So if there’s a particular diff you have in mind pop it up. UPE templating is not considered uncivil. I don’t threaten anyone I tell them to stop a particular kind of behavior that violates our policy and if/when continued would get them blocked. That isn’t a threat I am merely stating a fact. However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  – I decided to stay away from this thread in order for the community decide without me bludgeoning the process but I noted that some facts may be misconstrued. I want to make some things clear and also make clarifications.
    1. Going by this post on her talk page, Celestina007 clearly did not have any evidence as stated above and was only casting aspersions. She only made the deductions/accusations above following my disclosure.
    2. Celestina007 has a longstanding history of incivility even after multiple warnings as can be seen in the diffs provided above and on this thread where she told me could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies?, (and is yet to respond to my counter question) among other accusations above. I believe this has gone unchecked and needs to be dealt with per policy. I'm actually not surprised her incivility has gone unchecked because she has done so well fighting UPE and has also self-styled herself the resident Nigeria 'expert' and gatekeeper. Sockophobia also applies here.
    3. I'll also like to know what is very egregious about submitting Nlewedim's biographical article at AfC on 2 occasions; The first time as a newbie that wrote a promotional article that got rejected by Celestina007, G11'd and me blocked for sockpuppetry.
    4. I understand that a checkuser block brings with it raised eyebrowsand additional scrutiny. Checkusers can however confirm that I only ever logged in to the other Nlewedim's fan account but didn't make an edit from it (This can be confirmed from the edit history from around the time I edited as Kemmiiii). I've read and understood policy and learnt that Wikipedia is not a soapbox hence I rewrote the draft with WP:NPOV in mind and even wrote a notability rationale on the Draft's talk page but it got declined again by Celestina007. I however believe Celestina007 is prejudiced against Nlewedim and BBNaija stars in general and went around poisoning the well as seen here where Drmies notes that BTW it looks like the subject is notable, and it's not a bad idea to clean it up, make it acceptable, and just go live with it, so we won't have to police two drafts and more editors will keep an eye on it to which Celestina007 responded I don’t believe the subject of the article is notable enough for a Wikipedia biographical piece because I honestly cannot see any notability criterion they meet, furthermore the sources discussing subject of the article are all centered on the subject of the article being a contestant on the Big brother Nigeria reality show of which she didn’t emerge successful, in any which way. I believe WP:ONEEVENT comes into play here.. Which is an untrue assertion. WP:DIDNOTWIN is an arguement to avoid
    5. Since our interaction here where (Celestina007 misrepresented the WP:ONEEVENT guideline BTW), I have been submitting all BLPs via AfC as can be seen here.
    6. Per me not being a new editor, Please see WP:NAAC where it says What about those huge, intricate, and exciting looking templates we throw on new user talk pages. The user may actually read that, yes it is possible! There are many ways a user can figure out Wikipedia before editing. and WP:BRANDNEW. Some people just have the aptitude for these things.
    7. Lastly, remember to judge edits and not editors.

    Kind regards. Princess of Ara(talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I had decided to recuse myself from this argument just like you yourself said you would. You have accused me of having casting aspersions and poisoning the well, both of which you just did above by claiming I have a prejudice against Erica Nlewedim, which I clearly do not. I have accepted that I can be acerbic when dealing with possible COI and UPE as I have already stated above and have agreed to tackle with more civility moving forward.
    My problem is, under your previous account, this are your entire contributions of which you were an spa(as confirmed by you) for the sole purpose of creating the Erica Nlewedim article where you optimized more than one account to try to move to mainspace. In here MarioJump83 discovered you were part of a sock farm. You eventually get blocked by Drmies for sockpuppetry, you were given a new lease and even under this account you have continued to try and push the article into mainspace. Right here a portion of Seraphimblade comment had this to say about the article the "Awards and accolades" That's some godawful puff), and stuff like that. I am not by any means guaranteeing that even At the end of the day, it really looks like UPE. That impression is used by what looks to be falsely licensed photos used in the article (there's one licensed as "own work" by an account with the subject's name when it is way too far away to be a "selfie" and appears to be a professional photo, so the licensing looks to be falsely done there and that's a hallmark of UPE).
    The fact that multiple sock farm has been trying to push the article into mainspace has been made clear, the topic ban proposal is because you have continued the same behavior of trying to push that article into mainspace. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the deflection, my abrasive tone towards UPE is one I have accepted and taken responsibility for and moving forward I have agreed to tone down whilst being just as effective talking about it over and again is not proving helpful. You wanted me to keep of your page and I have promised my self and the community to do so, that is settled why have you remained hell bent on trying to recreate the Erica Nlewedim article? Do you not see how you are engaging in the same behavior that got you in trouble the first time is in alignment with conflict of interest editing? I have told you this, Valereee has told you this, do you not see how you err? In the end I have agreed to tackle UPE with less ferocity, agreed not to post on your tp anymore, why have you not agreed to refrain from that very article? Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is not an aspersion when there are diffs [60] to substantiate the claim. You said; About her notability status, she definitely isn’t notable, asides the big brother, there isn’t any other significant thing, the beauty pageant is negligible at best. Her case is very much similar to & mirrors that of Draft:Erica Nlewedim who both have their claim to notability chiefly as having participated in the Big brother reality Tv show and their inconsequential participation in beauty pageants, and winning non notable paid for awards. Tbh, anybody experienced Nigerian editor creating articles on both subjects are engaging in undisclosed paid editing AND Basically what’s happening here is every years there’s a Big brother reality Tv show where 20 contestants participate in, last year she partook in it & became instantaneously famous, but the problem is the Big brother Nigeria is done annually & this years Big Brother is about to commence which would mean she’d soon become irrelevant as the focus would be on the new participants & not on the previous participants anymore. So it’s literally a now or never situation she’s facing. Which is another WP:ATA knowing full well that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Also, introducing the draft to conversations it was uninvolved is classic poisoning the well.
    2. MarioJump is not a CheckUser, Drmies the Checkuser linked Kemmiiii to Ehizodenoria here so quit trying to muddy the water by dwelling on the previous Sockpuppetry block like you want me wallow in it and wear it like a badge of shame. It's old and you know it. I have been nothing but productive since I came back to the encyclopaedia because I learnt from my mistakes. I've been productive and even you have attested to it saying Thanks for your new article creations pertaining to the Nigerian movie industry, I’m passionate about that and it’s good seeing another editor have the same passion. Atonement is ALLOWED as Beeblebrox so aptly put it, We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing...Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing.
    3. Being involved 4 times over At AfD [61] and AfC [62] is also not a good look. Don't you think this further supports the prejudice claim?
    4. I have since declared a COI as suggested by Valereeee and making TWO submissions via AfC [63] [64] which is recommended by WP:COI in any case is hardly tendentious. WP:COI It says you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly which I have not disobeyed at any point.
    5. Submitting via AfC is hardly trying to PUSH anything. PUSHING will be creating directly to main space which I have NOT done
    6. Per your rationale for declining the draft on 30th May 2021, This source used in the article implies WP:TOOSOON and ELOY awards doesn’t meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO Can it also be implied that it is TOOSOON for Sharon Ooja, Idia Aisien, Sophie Alakija,Ini Dima-Okojie and Omowumi Dada to have biographical articles?
    7. So why are you hell bent on Erica Nlewedim not getting a biographical article? Princess of Ara(talk) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Valereee, I'm skipping over all this text here to say that I agree with you, that we should do this, and that we should just block the moment PoA touches anything Nlewedim related. DGG, you seem to have a better understanding than me of who is doing what likely for undeclared pay, and I urge you to act as you see fit--I appreciate it. Now, can we move on? Someone please close this? BTW nice work on [S'Nabou]]--we need more of that. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have accordingly blocked User:Nnadigoodluck indefinitely for sockpupettry and undeclared paid editing. I'm checking for further info about PoA, but if any other admin awants to do a similar block, that's OK with me. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further discussion I'm unclosing to get clearer consensus. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Drmies and my comments above; while PoA is not themselves yet a net-negative, their ability to neutrally edit this topic is fatally—and blatantly—flawed. ——Serial 13:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    786wave tendentious edit warring

    786wave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    mentioned user edit-warring with multiple editors on Van, Turkey article despite warning not to. Edits range between misguided to outright POV-pushing to genocide justication in the talk page. I've lost count of the reverts too. User seems WP:NOTHERE to me, with clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, appropriate administrative action needed. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Said user also feels confortable making rude ethnic-based remarks and generalisations:[reply]

    Agreed, older contrb. Show Armenian genocide denial language as well. WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:NAZI mindset make a good recipe for an indeff block. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I saw this discussion I had already blocked for 3 days for edit-warring. If I had been aware of all the other issues I might have made it longer. It looks to me as though indef may be be a question of when rather than whether. JBW (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, giving the second chance does not work for this case. Wario-Man talk 09:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE by IP 91.114.167.89

    BLOCKED
    IP blocked by El_C for two weeks. Reason given in the block log: "Persistent addition of unsourced content: note: WP:KURDS" (non-admin closure) --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    IP seems to be bent on Kurdifiying articles rather than improving them;

    Changed Turcoman to Kurdish

    Changed Turkmen to Kurdish

    Added Kurdish as origin

    Removed the possibility of the Zands being of Lori origin, insisting that they were Kurdish

    Same here

    Changed Arabic to Kurdish

    Added Kurdish

    Removed the link Albanians in Egypt, replacing it with Kurdish diaspora

    At last but not least in the Kakuyids article, where he occasionally comes and tries to push a Kurdish origin, ignoring WP:UNDUE, WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot;

    [65]

    [66]

    IP also has his fair share of edits where he alters/removes sourced information;

    [67]

    [68]

    [69]

    [70]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE and more than likely WP:SOCK. Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor @RVE865Wiki: has been making repeated changes (see for example this one – and looking at the contribs page, they are all in a similar vein, and have largely been reverted by other editors) related to disambiguation pages, against guidance. This has been mentioned by others on their talk page, together with the possible consequences of disruptive patterns of editing, but they have not responded or acknowledged these messages. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted similar edits and attempted to engage in discussion. I did receive a response at User talk:Certes#Disambiguation links. Certes (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Archon 2488, This is very puzzling. If I'm following, the edit made produces output that renders identically. It appears that the replaced template with the content the template would generate. Of course, while the output looks identical at the moment, the point of using the template is the possibility that the community might decide the wording should be different, and the use of the template means it could be fixed once and automatically changed everywhere, so the current identical rendering misses the concept of using the template. I look at the response to Certes, and it appears that the editor is literally objecting to the use of the word "disambiguation". This is also a potential ownership issue. While many of us might casually talk about our own edits, we all understand that once we click publish they no longer belong to us we have licensed them and they are free to be modified by others. I haven't yet figured out whether it's a general objection to anyone editing any of their edits or the more specific use of the word "disambiguation". The non-sympathetic response is "get over it". A somewhat more sympathetic response might be to drill down and find out whether it literally is that word that bothers them and what it is about the word that troubles them. Disambiguation is a word that almost never pops up outside Wikipedia but it's very, very common here. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seems this editor has a very poor understanding of standard practice here, and what is more of a problem, seems unwilling to learn, as indicated by their failure to engage constructively with editors who have reverted these edits and tried to explain why they were inappropriate. The sole comment that I see in which they engage (with Certes, as mentioned above) is very cryptic. Regardless of the reason, this editor's confused judgement and poor communication skills would lead me to think they are not competent to contribute, at least not at present. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The output in that diff does indeed render identically - but this isn't a matter of aesthetics, that edit introduced a WP:INTDAB error. User:DPL bot finds and reports them; I may fix 5-10 of those a day. The majority are inadvertent; but ones like this where an editor has deliberately introduced such an error when the previous syntax was correct are annoying, to put it mildly. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline is so clear that we even approved a bot to fix simple cases like this. Certes (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see similarities to the recent case of Gexajutyr: persistently bypassing redirects when inappropriate, and now altering the ANI report to their preferred format (RVE865Wiki vs Gexajutyr). Certes (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Hsjalizs

    PROTECTED
    (non-admin closure) Fez (hat) has been fully protected by GorillaWarfare until 24 June 2021. M.Bitton and Hsjalizs strongly encouraged to seek a third opinion on the dispute, and have been warned that further edit warring will most likely result in a block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    From the moment they joined the project, this editor has done nothing but blindly revert my edits on Fez (hat). My explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist was simply ignored and so were my repeated attempts as getting them to explain why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no take on the substance of the question, but I will note that Hsjalizs's edit summaries show a surprisingly strong grasp of Wikijargon for a user who just joined and has only around 20 edits. Not many editors have a revert as their first edit, with the edit summary "RV OR", for example. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    M. BITTON keeps on removing academic sources and pushing his POV and does OR. The reference clearly states that the Fez does not originate in Greece according to historian Erkek Ekinci. Therefore, the removal of this academic statement shows immense bias. M. Bitton clearly comes from a point of view of Orientalist thinkers who can't stand contrary academic perspectives. Rather than accept the fact that a historian disputes the claim of an Ancient Greek origin he does not provide a reason for its removal but focuses on another point on the source which states that Svliya Celebi of the 17th century "wrote about" Algerians wearing the Fez. He does OR inventing the idea that Evliya Celebi never went to Algeria but in reality that does not matter as Erkek Ekinci referred to it in the source and a 17th century historian describing something even if he hasn't been there is still reason to keep it as the issue is not with him being there rather he described it and that is sufficient. M. BITTONS OR cannot be taken seriously. I hope Wikipedia let's go of this Western supremacist bias and allows for scholars like Erkek Ekinci's voice to be heard. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    None of what Hsjalizs says explains why they ignored my explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist or why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag while refusing to answer any of the questions that I asked them.
    Another interesting fact about Hsjalizs's first edit that's also worth mentioning: reverting OR usually entails the removal of some content, but in their case, they added WP:OR (that they falsely attributed to a source), and thus violated the very policy that they cited in their edit summary. When I pointed out that to them and asked to justify it, they ignored my question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    please refrain from such one sided edits. In reality the Daily Sabah is a legitimate source and Erkek Ekinci is a legitimate scholar. He even has his own Wikipedia page. Please stop such cherrypicking. Why do you want to silence Erkek Ekinci's legitimate and scholarly article that states the Fez hat cannot have a Greek origin and that it was wrote about by Evliya Celebi of the 17th century. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They just proved my point. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have a Wikipedia page on Erkek Ekinci. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: They're referring to Ekrem Buğra Ekinci. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: After I left a detailed comment on the talk page asking them to explain their edit, they reverted my edit (again) and left this tangential answer (the ultimate proof that they have no intention in answering any of the questions and all they're interested in is edit warring). GorillaWarfare since you're the last admin who visited this page, would you mind having a look at this case? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not available to look into the behavioral concerns in detail at the moment, but I have briefly protected the page to put an end to the ongoing edit war. @M.Bitton and Hsjalizs: you need to come to a solid consensus before implementing the change to the page. Making an argument and then reverting to your preferred revision, only to have the other person respond and revert to theirs, is not consensus building. If you need help with the content dispute, please avail yourself of dispute resolution options like WP:RSN, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. If any admin wishes to impose any sanctions, etc., please be my guest; otherwise I will try to return to this later when I have more time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: Thank you for the quick response and for protecting the article. I totally agree with you and I tried my best to reason with them, but it's impossible and particularly frustrating to discuss anything with an editor who keeps coming back with the same comment regardless of your explanations and how many questions you asked them. If you look at my last attempt at getting them to explain their edit, you'll notice that I even arranged the questions one per line to make sure they don't miss them, yet, that didn't change a thing. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have returned to this, and have decided to leave it with just the protection for now. However, I would strongly encourage M.Bitton or Hsjalizs to begin a discussion (WP:RSP, WP:3O, or WP:RFC are good options) to get outside input on the content dispute. Continuance of the edit war after page protection expires will most likely result in a block—you need to come to consensus first, then update the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KnowledgeHunter9090 engaging in disruptive poorly-sourced edits/edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism

    Editor blocked indefinitely due to disruption and inability or unwillingness to abide by our reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:KnowledgeHunter9090 is currently edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism. They added a large non-WP:RS section and were reverted by User:Austronesier (who explained the problem with their edit) whom they (KnowledgeHunter909) then reverted without explanation. I reverted them with further explanations and was reverted (also without explanation). This then happened one more time (after I have again tried to explain the issues and asked them not to edit war). I then posted a warning on their Talk page which led to a short discussion, and they did finally begin to engage, though they seem not to understand the issues I tried to explain relating to WP:RS, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and mainstream sources (and they kept insisting on posting on their and my personal Talk pages despite being told that the article's Talk page was the place for discussions). Then, instead of starting a topic open the article's Talk page (as I expected them to do and they led one to believe they intended) they simply again reverted me and reinstated their preferred (and disputed) edit into the article, again without explanation. The disputed edit was reverted by User:TrangaBellam (who asked them to use the talk page) and they/KnowledgeHunter909 then restored it yet again (thus continuing to edit war).

    They then posted on my personal Talk page again (after repeatedly asked not to)

    I then filed a report here, and soon after that, KnowledgeHunter9090 simply deleted my report from this board (see here: [[71]]. And so I filed this one again here.

    They seem to be showing a disregard for wikipedia policies and have seemingly refused to WP:LISTEN. Despite attempts to explain the problems with their edits to them, they do not seem to have engaged with the issues raised and instead persist in accusing me of being one-sided and/or politically biased. I hope something can be done.

    Here is the article's edit history for reference:

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

    Here is their Talk page (where a brief discussion took place):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KnowledgeHunter9090

    And my Talk page (where they repeatedly posted after being asked to use the article's Talk page instead):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skllagyook#Biased_and_one_-sided.

    Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: KnowledgeHunter9090 has continued to edit war since my last edit to this page/topic, again, reverting two additional editors and reinstating their disputed edits two additional times (as before, without explanation).(The edit history of the article, linked above, of course, shows this). KnowledgeHunter9090's problematic/disputed edit has been reverted by five editors so far (including myself) and they have (as of now) repeatedly reinstated it a total of at least six times. Skllagyook (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved the following comments from where they were misplaced at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I have just nested them in this section since they seem to have been left in response to this section being opened.

    == Being biased and edit war. ==

    The user named https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skllagyook

    User:Skllagyook is being political and biased and one sided and causing edit war.i explained and told him to be nautral . This person is pushing their views and opinions and being one sided and biased. Not being neutral as I explained to this person on his talk page. Kindly take action. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    == Potentially biased editor ==

    The editor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skllagyook is being biased and engaging in the edit war. He is one sided and not allowing the others arguments and sources. He is pushing his opinions amdnnit considering the mainstream scholarship and being biased in the page indigenous Aryanism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism

    Kindly take action on him. He is not following the wkkipedia policies and also being rude and promoting vandalism. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I have placed a 24-hour edit warring block on the user, who was continuing the edit war after warnings and this report being opened. However looking at their past editing history, which shows a complete lack of knowledge for our NPOV policies and sourcing requirements at Padmasali (caste), I'm inclined to make this an indefinite block. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: I (for my part) would not object to an indefinite block for them. They seemed unable (or unwilling) to listen as I tried to explain policies to them (and continued to repeat themselves/seemed not to be listening - and later claimed they they had not been the one edit warring despite having made six reverts reinstating the same disputed material against five editors). Skllagyook (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out the user in question has tried to delete this report twice ([72], [73]). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: I agree. The insularity of the user is quite extreme. Any attempt to reason with them would be quite pointless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One doesn't have a second chance to make another first impression, and this new user left a remarkable first impression. People may initially may have wrong ideas about sources and weight (WP:false balance), but this editor right away started calling other editors who politely explain WP policies as "rude and promoting vandalism", picking up internal jargon ("edit war") to just to fire back, and deleting reports about themselves. Everyone should get a chance to prove that they can improve their behavior, but in this case, I agree with an indef block. The second chance then takes the shape of an unblock request. To provide this chance in mainspace editing would create unnecessary strain on the community. –Austronesier (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Sucker for All's "I didn't hear that" attitude

    Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Sucker for All, User:LOVI33 and I (User:Doggy54321) were involved in an edit war-turned-discussion at the end of April at Future Nostalgia#The Moonlight Edition. Sucker for All was removing Tainy as a producer from the Infobox, and LOVI33 and I were restoring it. This turned into a discussion (Talk:Future Nostalgia#Moonlight Edition Producers Not Listed), but the edit war seemed to still be ongoing, as SFA kept removing and LOVI kept restoring. The discussion halted for a week, and it resumed in early May. Since we found that we weren't getting any closer to consensus, LOVI and I agreed to start an RfC, so uninvolved users could comment. That RfC happened at Talk:Future Nostalgia#Rfc - Tainy's producer credit, which ended in User:Buidhe closing the discussion two weeks early with the note There's consensus that Tainy should be credited.

    In the past couple of days, SFA has defied that consensus multiple times ([74] [75] [76] [77]), even after being warned, which crosses into WP:DTS and WP:IDHT territory. SFA knew about this RfC, having commented multiple times after I notified them. They were also made aware of the consensus (if they had not been aware already) by LOVI in this edit summary (We had a unanimous rfc that Tainy should be credited.), and I also let them know in a talk page discussion ("consensus was made ... to include Tainy"). Since they were showing signs that they did not understand the consensus ("The consensus was that he should be credited for 'Un Dia'", which is false), I explained exactly what the consensus was and what page it affected, and yet, they continued to revert.

    Two admin names, Bbb23 and Ponyo, were thrown around by SFA multiple times. SFA has held them and all other admins to an unreasonable standard, saying stuff like Do not revert without an admin or a mods' explicit consent ([78]) and If an admin or mod insists that I not remove his name in that fashion, I will not ([79]). LOVI pinged them both, and Ponyo replied a couple hours ago, saying That being said, edit warring to add or remove content against the consensus established at a recent RfC is a behavioural issue and will likely result in a block for that account. If that's what's happening here then it can be reported at WP:ANI. Since SFA has been edit warring (see diffs above) to add or remove content against the consensus established at a recent RfC (repeatedly removing something that, per an almost-unanimous consensus at an RfC that was closed 23 days ago, should be included), this counts as a behavioural issue and should be reported at ANI, which is what I am doing.

    Long story short: Sucker for All has continued to ignore consensus and edit disruptively, and, since they won't listen to anyone but admins, I am now bringing this issue here. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Doggy54321, it's SPA, not SFA. You probably should have filed at WP:ANEW, not ANI. That being said, Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should probably be facing a 72 hour block given they were warned on their talk page and at ANEW on 12 June (different article). Given they continued as of 21 June and the RFC consensus from 29 May, this is flagrant flouting of consensus and continued edit warring after warnings, mitigated by this being the first prospective block for the user.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eostrix: Sorry for the confusion! When I said "SFA", I was referring to Sucker for All, not a single-purpose account. I thought typing out the entire username over and over would make the thread harder to follow. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doggy's comment "Sucker for All has continued to ignore consensus and edit disruptively" couldn't ring more true. I've encountered SfA on a couple of articles and it looks like they're just here to pick fights and wiki-lawyer around the guidelines, surprising given they're only in the low hundreds of edits. They move the goalposts during articles, bludgeon their way through bad faith BRD interpretation, and absolutely fail to attempt to achieve or respect consensus. The goal-posting moving and sheer lies about the content of the source at The Vanguard Group and then making up an absurd strawman argument (and moving the goalposts repeatedly) about reliable sources at the 2021 New York City mayoral election page and its talk, though those two are older (and the election has a lot more chaff to get through to get to three weeks ago given its a current event). Just here to echo that this is beyond EW and I think the ANI is the correct place to report given it's a broader issue. JesseRafe (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not. In February this editor told Hipal My old account actually had more edits than you so I don't think we can make any assumptions on whether a lack of a block history mitigates anything. SfA, if you've got that level of experience, you should know how to avoid a user talk that looks like yours. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, my edits at Vanguard, virtually identical to my edits at State Street and BCG, were clearly appropriate from the get go. Other editors consistently tried to add "dominant" language that was never supported by the sources. As far as Future Nostalgia, Tainy apparently recruited supporters to bolster his image. Despite appearing as the 2nd producer on "Un Día" and 0 other tracks, they want him listed as a producer for the album in addition to his 5 other appearances in the article for an album in which he didn't even appear. I asked the mod who closed the rfc whether my edits were inappropriate, and he did not tell me that they were appropriate or inappropriate (similar to Ponyo). This ANI's a farce. Sucker for All (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SfA, you seem to be arguing that 1. your edits were good, whether or not the RfC supported them and 2. that the RfC closer didn't tell you they were bad so 3. you're going to go ahead and make them even though consensus was against you? —valereee (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also is this where you think the closer (who btw is female and not an admin) "did not tell me they were appropriate or inappropriate"? Because that's just funny. —valereee (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Sucker for All to make sure they've seen the questions. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man

    I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

    Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case ("[TRM] is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction [80], but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.
    Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. I am also of the opinion that MOS wars are largely pointless and have no opinion on the underlying matter, but repeatedly calling another user a lying son of a bitch (even if you use "SOB") is just not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy-editing as a battleground

    While The Rambling Man was clearly being an ass on Autodidact1's talk page, trying (successfully) to provoke a reaction, Autodidact1 has editing problems of their own, as a skim through their contributions shows:

    According to Autodidact1:

    Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness, Autodidact1, it's a way to clarify communication and presentation of ideas.

    (I know it's not within this noticeboard's remit, but I wish it were possible to ban Autodidact1 from constantly misusing "[sic]".) --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not being an ass
    Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?
    I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it
    It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.
    (good personal attack though!)
    Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Wikipedia, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    proposed: Autodidact1 may not make edits against the MOS

    An accusation too far: PA from Fatlip producer

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) TorporProductions had been indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 prior to this report, and their IP's /64 range has been temporarily blocked for a month by Acroterion for an insulting edit summary that has been revdeled. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I'm in a slow-motion edit war with another user, and I'd appreciate one or more admins to take a look at our behavior.

    At the article Fatlip, a user has been trying since April to add some information regarding the exciting news that Fatlip, a rapper, is rumored to be collaborating with some former colleagues (producers, rappers, whatever). The still nonexistent product is various named Sccit & Doggy Present.. Torpor: Tha Wake Up or Still Sleepin’, depending on the edit/source. The claim was supported at first by one (IMO) unreliable source, then by a different (IMO) unreliable source.

    My first reverts were on the basis of unreliable sourcing, plus the fact that the purported album isn't expected before 2022 (no wonder no RS's have written about it). My 1st, my 2nd, my 3rd reversion. I then made a few other edits, touching on table clean-up, MoS (straight quotes, commas) and tagging missing citations.

    I next received a private e-mail from somebody called TorporProductions, who turns out to be User:TorporProductions and who claims in their mail that, "I am the producer of the new album". At the same time they reverted all of my edits back to their last exciting insertion.

    My response was to post their mail on their talk page, with a lengthy explanation of why I reverted the additions (my 3 edit summaries apparently didn't suffice) as well as the problem with COI editing and how they could move forward.

    I never received a response there, and the one reversion under TorporProductions is their only activity with that account (apart from e-mailing me). Since then, various IP addresses have reinstated their version, and I've reverted to "mine", pointing to the lengthy explanations on the TorporProductions talk page.

    Their last reversion took a nasty turn which is well over the line for me. The edit summary reads, "John is deleting rightfully posted information the same way cops murder innocent black civilians, under the guise of “policing” wikipedia. He’s clearly doing too much." This offends me deeply and I consider it a personal attack.

    I've made essentially the same edit 6 times since 27 May; they've reverted 7 times, but using 6 different accounts (I do not mean to suggest they are deliberately IP hopping.) The accounts involved are listed below, as extracted from the Fatlip revision history. All but two of the IPs resolve to Los Angeles (noted below).

    Neither of us has broken 3RR, but I still assume what we've been doing is edit warring. I'm grateful for any guidance or appropriate admonishments about my behavior. Perhaps somebody besides me could try to interact with the other user, somehow, particularly as regards the issues of NPA and COI. PP at Fatlip might be cool, at least for slowing down the IP variants, but naturally, it's currently at the WRONGVERSION. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked that IP for making an egregious personal attack. That does not just cross the line, it long jumps over it. I have not looked into the edit warring. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While the block against the IP is for 1 week, I am considering the block against the user behind that edit to be indefinite and have told them as much. If they come back please drop a note on my talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, many thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's clearly changing within the /64 range, I've blocked the /64 too. It's usually safe to do that, and for a pretty long time, so I've made it a month. Reviewing their other edits, it's clear that the same person's been editing from that range for a while now, without the egregiously obnoxious edit summaries. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am still a bit unconfident in myself when it comes to judging the scale of ipv6 range blocks. So many numbers! In my day IPs had 4 bytes! </old man rant> HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IPv6 is designed so that individual residential customers can be assigned a static /64 range by ISPs, and many auto-assignment mechanisms by design refuse to accept smaller ranges (I believe to try to prevent ISPs from giving out smaller ranges). Further, many IPv6 privacy extensions enabled by default by most popular OSes will automatically rotate IPs within a /64 range, which can look like deliberate IP-hopping if you don't know that OSes do this. Therefore, I always block a /64 when I need to block an IPv6 address as the individual address will likely be automatically rotated off by the OS within an hour. An IPv6 /64 is the closest analog we have to a single IPv4 address when it comes to residential customers. --Chris (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent information, thank you. The More You Know! HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block Evasion again

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Unregistered sockpuppetry of Tevin21 has been blocked. WP:SPI recommended as a better venue to report sock puppets. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    7 days ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ED00:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for Block Evasion of User:Telvin21, now 7 days later that same person that created User:Tevin21 is using Multiple Ip's to Vandalize these articles - Hell in a Cell (2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell. Warnings are useless because the same person that created User:Tevin21 appears to ignore all warnings and continues to add false information to these Articles - Hell in a Cell (2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell, please see these edits- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_(2021)&oldid=1029805775 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Hell_in_a_Cell&oldid=1029805887. As a result I had to revert the ip's edits 5 times on both Articles (Hell in a Cell 2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell. Ip's Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:3989:A435:CA66:7B74, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:A0D5:DB12:6337:1862 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:58BF:FE40:E178:BED9. these three ip's are still block evasion of User:Tevin21 Chip3004 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, but you should use WP:SPI to report sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine if all this editorial and emotional energy was spent on real encyclopedic topics, not scripted mass-entertainment events. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Br Ibrahim john

    Br Ibrahim john has consistently engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing.

    In contradiction to WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, the user frequently questions the legitimacy of reliable sources. The sources in question are the only available in-depth English-language texts in relation to this subject, but are dismissed outright by the user due to their authors' religion. E.g.

    The user also makes malicious accusations, e.g.

    As per WP:REHASH, the user lauds a single source above all [81], quotes from it extensively, and repeats himself with zero effort in persuading other editors (see Talk:List of maphrians); the user accuses me of disregarding the source despite the fact that I had already referenced the source prior to his editing. Moreover, the user misrepresents the source to support his edits. Most importantly, the user has persisted in establishing his edit as the sole version of the article (List of maphrians) contrary to efforts by myself to compromise. As per WP:DAPE, the user has exhausted my patience despite my being the only editor to contribute meaningfully to this subject, please note I wrote the article, as well as all articles on heads of this church. I am aware I am not irreplaceable and I regret my temporary block for edit warring, but I would like to note that I have exerted significant effort into contributing towards Wikipedia in writing these articles, whereas the user only persists in asserting his own personal interpretation. The user has been frequently warned of his behaviour, either for copyright infringement, copy-paste edits, or for edit-warring. Mugsalot (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Although Br Ibrahim john 's behaviour in this dispute is not commendable, I gave a third opinion at the talk page that mostly supported his version, as did Elizium. The issue with Mugsalot's editing on this topic is that they are citing official Syriac Orthodox Church POV and trying to make it the wikivoice. I don't have an issue with presenting the Syriac Orthodox POV in the article as long as it's distinguished as such but we have to be careful to distinguish between church apologetics and independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mugsalot is continuously reverting back the content which is clearly supported by WP:RS. The user is trying to remove reliable sources and content and is adding his partisan versions. It is done inorder to uphold the Syriac Orthodox claims. Please see Talk:List of maphrians#The Maphrianate of the East is not a successor of the Church of the East for the previous discussion on the topic. My opinion was clearly supported by the other users.
    Mugsalot, If you are portraying the Syriac Orthodox claim, then you should have explicitly mentioned the term 'claim', so that others can differentiate between the neutral content and Syriac Orthodox apologetics.
    • First of all George A. Kiraz, Sebastian P. Brock and Aaron M. Butts are credible historians.
    • Secondly, I have not said that Marutha of Tikrit was called Maphrian. He was recognised as Catholicos of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Sassanid Empire by Emperor Khosrow II. The title Maphrian came into use much later. But the authority had been inaugurated in 628.
    • Thirdly, the interpretations of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I can only be considered claims. They are not independent and neutral in this matter.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, I disagree. I provided caveats such as "according to tradition" and "as recognised by the Syriac Orthodox Church" to ensure it was completely clear that the information provided was the Syriac Orthodox POV. Regardless, this is not an issue of content, but of behaviour, and the user has shown complete disregard for compromise or discussion through tirelessly restoring his version of the article and making baseless accusations against me. Mugsalot (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mugsalot, How can the content that I have added be considered 'my own version' when it is clearly supported by WP:RS! You were hesitant to discuss your compromise (I don't know if you have provided any) in the talk page of the article. You should try to hear the voice of the majority and should have tried to convince the other users. However, you would first revert back to Syriac Orthodox POV and remove the reliable sources and content. Then you might comment about it in the discussion. Not just that, you have not even replied in the talk page for the last three weeks or even more. But in meantime you have reverted the article back to Syriac Orthodox POV version twice, if I may remind you. I do not oppose your adding of Syriac Orthodox POV in the article. However, we cannot consider Syriac Orthodox POV in the same footing and merit of reliable sources like https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Maphrian. Personally, I do not have any problem in your addition of Syriac Orthodox POV. My concern is when these are contradictory to reliable sources available.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Identified pattern of vandalism by User:Tatewftrp

    I just noticed a colossal mess caused by User:Tatewftrp in September 2019 that will probably take over 100 hours to fix. An administrator needs to gets involved by permanently blocking the user and roll back all affected articles back to the last good versions before September 2019.

    If you look at that user's edits, they started off by posting non-notable assertions that this or that company has a subsidiary in this or that tax haven. They then escalated to posting frivolous assertions that a company is incorporated in X jurisdiction, where X is actually the home of their principal place of business (and which is obvious from the face of the SEC filings to which they tend to cite). For example, I just caught this user's vandalism to the article on Chevron Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware but whose principal place of business is in California. The user posted a false assertion that Chevron is incorporated in California.

    It also looks like Wikipedia needs to permanently protect all articles covering all current members of the Fortune 500 from this type of vandalism. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Coolcaesar: Please remember to notify users. I've done this for you.NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 22:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    tgeorgescu's concerns about Cautious

    This is devolving into a content dispute at ANI. I have given a strong warning to Cautious about canvasing and civility. Further disruption in this area will likely result in either a block or a topic ban. If their behavior improves then I don't think any action is needed. I have also asked tgeorgescu to be more careful about making accusations about editor's motives. Both editors are aware of the discretionary sanctions in this area. Unless another administrator feels differently I don't think there is much more to do here at WP:ANI. Talk it out on the article talk page and keep it civil. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Advised against WP:CANVASSING at [82]. They still persist at [83]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was called by tgeorgescu homophobe and it was suggested that wiki will decide not based on merit. I attempted to resolve a dispute on his talk page. No results, but escalation. --Cautious (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence that you have read that: [84]. Afterwards you wrote [85]. You have been alerted of discretionary sanctions at [86]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You learned nothing from this discussion. Evidence: [87] and [88] and [89]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    tgeorgescu they just canvassed other users en masse.. I'm too lazy to add the diffs myself though. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The understand the message to me that merit doesn't matter, there will be no discussion about correctness, but you will label me and this is going to resolution. Is it so? I presented sources and merit points. You don't seem to matter. --Cautious (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment : the issue with the reported editor isn't presented clearly, Cautious is POV-pushing on LGBT rights in Poland and LGBT-free zone trying to censor homophobic practices in Poland. Editor then started canvassing unrelated editors to come and defend his veiws,[90][91][92][93] [94][95] dispite being wanted not to.[96] - Kevo327 (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any proof on your claim? I contributed to LGBT Rights in Hungary, no POV just facts. I am pointing out to the fact that LGBT Free Zones is a metaphor and they do not exist in reality. Moreover, the map is mixing the 3 different levels of administrative division, so it is clearly wrong. Also, the article states that Pride Marches shall be banned in alleged "Zone". They are not, do you want a link? I have merit, you follow your POV wo merit. --Cautious (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quote from the current source (fake “LGBT-free zone” sign outside), Do you know what fake means? --Cautious (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding LGBT Rights in Poland, the current article summary is clearly wrong, because being LGBT or no-LGBT doesn't Impact the fact that you have challenges. It is merit based. What is the answer? It is claimed that the summary is the same in other countries° (The article's first sentence is similar to other articles on LGBT rights in countries that aren't considered to fully protect them, such as LGBT rights in Romania or LGBT rights in Russia. (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)). This is no merit point. --Cautious (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, all sources claim that the zones don't exists, they have no reality, except being a metaphor. Logically, they cannot exist if the resolution is passed on higher than commune level, so the map is misleading. Why shouldn't we correct the map and clearly state that the zones are a metaphor? --Cautious (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LGBT-free_zone#3_points_to_improve_the_article My proposal, what to improve in the article to make it precise and true. --Cautious (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bullied by Walter Görlitz

    I am a new user - shocked and saddened by how I was treated during my first days with you. I have recently made some sourced edits on the page Bethel Church (Redding, California) that were reverted as the editors believed that CHANGED Movement (ex-gay ministry promoting conversion therapy) was not part of Bethel - I found sources describing it as Bethel's ministry. I decided to start a discussion on the talk page and immediately felt unwelcome and attacked. (I am not including other editors who were kind and respectfully pointed me to some guidelines and explained their points of view - I have learned something from them and I hope they have learned something from me too, regarding the sources I found).

    Coming back to how I was bullied by Walter Görlitz:

    1. After just a few edits Walter Görlitz accused me of being a "SPA". 2. He then started interrogating me why I am interested in the topic (which seems a bit unusual) 3. He then proceeded to interrogate me further: "why this topic, and why this particular article, and why now" 4. He then said he and the Wikipedia community are looking at me with suspicion 5. He then started accusing me of not reading the discussion, even though I have read everything before replying 6. He then said I was allegedly surprised that he assumed good faith of another editor which I never did. I said I did not, but he still insisted I somehow implied it which couldn't be further from the truth and my intentions ("While you did not state that you were surprised, you implied it"). 7. He then asked me to let him know when I leave Wikipedia ("Do not mention my name, link my account or ping me to this discussion again except to apologize for your implication that I was acting in bad faith, or to say you're leaving"). 8. He then started attacking my character and, dare I say, my cognitive abilities: "You do not bother to read anything", "I am simply baffled by your iunability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Stop pushing your agenda on Wikipedia. Find a nice blog for yourself and until you learn the ropes, stop editing here. Good bye"

    I am not sure if that's the standard how new users are treated - being berated and bullied, accused of not reading *anything*, being unable to be productive, and having some unspecified agenda (I asked what agenda could that possibly be - never received a reply). I am sad and hope that other new users will not experience similar behaviour from him or other editors. I am not sure if I am in the mental state to continue contributing in that atmosphere but I am thankful to all the other users who made me feel welcome and pointed me in the right direction.

    Sending love and good vibes to all who need them in these difficult times, Rayknee (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry you're feeling bullied. I have no intention of bullying. I am tired of your poor approach of editing and clearly overreacted. I tried to discuss but you questioned the points and ignored the links I provided. I got tired of seeing your pings and links to my account that throw alerts on nearly every refresh of my watchlist this afternoon. Clearly, this is a learning opportunity for you not to generate alerts.
    Please accept my apology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken a look, and FWIW:
      • Walter Görlitz is closer than perhaps he might think to a page block from that article and it's talk page. I suppose any apology is better than no apology, but the "here once again is a list of all your faults btw I apologize" apology above is underwhelming.
      • @Rayknee:, One small issue that a new editor probably doesn't know: it actually is a valid concern that you kept pinging WG (i.e. actually linking to his user page) several times after he asked you to stop. That's one of the many social mores that you'll gradually learn as you edit here; we generally try to comply with requests not to ping people, not to post to their talk page, etc., within reason. As someone else on that talk page did, you can type "@Walter Görlitz:" in plain text if you want to make it clear who you're talking to, but linking it like so: {{re|Walter Görlitz}} sends him a notification that he's said he doesn't want. Rest assured that the number of people making this demand is relatively small, so it isn't that difficult to keep track. Other than that, I don't think you've really done anything to deserve the treatment you received, and from Cullen's note on the talk page, I think it's clear that it will stop one way or the other.
    • --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or the recipient can mute the sender without making a big hissy-stink about it. Especially where the sender is new and probably doesn't understand, this might be the better approach. EEng 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @EEng: Would you mind pointing me to that and how it works? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Never mind. I see in now on the notifications at Special:Preferences. Thanks. I had probably seen that before, but had completely forgotten about that. Somewhat moot since the editor has forgotten their password and had to create a new account, but has not pinged me since filing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I have given Walter Görlitz a very firm warning and I will give them a long block if they ever harass a newbie like this again. The misconduct was quite egregious, in my assessment. I do not relish this type of conflict with a highly experienced long term editor like Walter Görlitz. On the other hand, I will not shy away from it. Perhaps Walter thought that the article was low profile enough that they could get away with it. Well, Redding, California is a city I love and have visited many times, and I pay attention to articles pertaining to Redding that are subject to disruption. It is deeply disappointing to see the disruption coming from such an experienced editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, I recognize that I was very harsh on the new editor. The editor's behaviour contributed to my poor behaviour, but still, I should have not reacted in the way I did. I apologize for any actions on my part t hat may have been perceived as bullying. I did not intend to bully. I find bullying unacceptable and so I am truly sorry if I crossed that line. I was short on time and was trying to be firm, but not a bully. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Opakoooooo

    Indeffed for NOTHERE (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 06:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Opakoooooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Got a new editor using their talk page for promotional content. I've already tried removing the content, but the editor keeps restoring it. Basically, Opakoooooo is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That is an entirely accurate assessment, Jerm. I have indefinitely blocked this editor on that basis. This person is free to blog and conspiracy theorize elsewhere, but not on this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article section ban?

    Thelonggoneblues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had issues maintaining neutrality in their handling of contentious material on Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The subject's conservatorship is a high-profile enduring event, and I've had concerns about whether the user's personal bias inhibits them from selecting appropriate material to include.

    In this edit, Thelonggoneblues summarized their changes as balancing a bias between TMZ tipped sources vs non-corporate media tipped sources without adding any new citations on top of the (reliable) sources already cited. Here, they introduced undue content (and included statements that fail the BLP policy) per a New York Times article. In this discussion, the user said they support the notability of highlighting a grassroots movement that advocates for disability rights. No one is doing that. We're all supposed to document what is in reliable sources in a way that adheres to guidelines.

    I was wondering whether there is a way to keep the user from editing the specific section where the conservatorship is discussed since their contributions in other sections seem to be constructive. If not, I would love advice on how to navigate this situation. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 04:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never heard of a section ban. I know, however, that there are site bans, section bans and page bans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure there isn't any policy that allows section bans. The logistics would be pretty difficult; the software doesn't set in stone sections, as they can be added, deleted or changed in a single edit, so defining it would be difficult. Better just to page ban if it comes down to it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your input. While I think a page ban would be a tad harsh, some of the user's statements suggest that their understanding of policies may be off. In the archived discussion linked above, they said: It was later identified by the Wikipedia as an malpractice evaluation, so this is not per Original research at all. It insinuated that anything that has been included at some point in time should be free from scrutiny. The subject's conservatorship is too contentious of a topic to be managed in this manner. KyleJoantalk 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking strictly about community-imposed editing restrictions in general: editors can be banned from editing about a topic, which can cover related sections in articles while still permitting edits to the rest of the article. isaacl (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a topic ban for editing "Britney Spears conservatorship" would work? Not sure why @Thelonggoneblues is ignoring this, they've edited since. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RandomCanadian and Peter Daszak

    Hello, I'd like to bring to the admin's atention the behaviour of RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the article Peter Daszak.

    For a quick summary, Peter Dazsak is the only US member of the WHO's investigation team into the origins of COVID-19. There's an extremely well-sourced link between Daszak and the Wuhan lab [98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109] (I can provide a plethora of more sources like this, but I think you get the picture)

    While I applaud RandomCanadian's effort into fighting misinformation, he reverted my WP:GOODFAITH addition including these aspects into Peter Daszak's article. When asked why, he reverted my addition to his talk page. When I tried reinstating my content, he reverted me again, and further reverted my second addition to his talk page without adressing my remarks. He cites WP:BLP [110]. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years, I know what WP:BLP entails. All my additions were properly sourced, none were contentious (never accusing him of anything in Wikipedia's voice) and quotes were properly attributed. In any case, most of the content I added stemmed from Dazsak's The Lancet letter which didn't disclose his association with the Wuhan lab. This was noted in extensive WP:RS as indicated above and as sourced in my edit, and led The Lancet to issue an addendum asking him to disclose this. Some of this content was already in the article but was missing a lot of recent coverage (and some not so recent). Daszcak right now is almost EXCLUSIVELY known for this potential conflict of interest in WP:RS, a fact that is missing in his article.

    In my opinion RandomCanadian is showing signs of WP:OWN, with a grave potential of WP:BITE, in a battleground-like approach in what would otherwise be a noble intention of fighting misinformation. I don't bring this as an edit warring issue because I see this behaviour towards other editors, and similar content in other articles for example this weird wording without atribution that was deleted but reverted in an unpolite form by him, this unpolite behaviour is explicit in his User page, where he says "To those intent on complaining about how Wikipedia isn't presenting your favourite conspiracy theory in a favourable light: Fuck off." At the center of this issue, it seems RandomCanadian considers the so-called lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory, just as Peter Daszak, contradicting what the WHO and extensive WP:RS say, that it is at least possible (although unlikely). In this fashion, he has reverted edits in the talk page suggesting these changes [111], this edit, while not properly sourced, brings the same arguments covered in most WP:RS now, and reverted and accused newbie editors of sockpuppets without any proof [112] then unilaterally "decided" that "the controversy and misinformation about the lab leak is UNDUE and off-topic" in the Peter Daszak article [113], linking to a weird essay which could be misunderstood as policy, an essay which accuses anyone signaling these topics as meatpuppets.

    I'm compltely uninvolved in COVID related articles, barely editing the Sputnik V article a year ago and maybe other minor edits. I'm certain well sourced assertions and properly attributed criticism is not and has never been WP:BLP. The bulk of this criticism has been discussed in the Talk Page (The entire talk page is about this issue, by multiple editors), despite the multiple reverts of WP:GOODFAITH additions by RandomCanadian. I have noted this behaviour is not exclusive to COVID articles. His misuse of the ROLLBACK tool is constant, with WP:ROLLBACKUSE saying Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.. One has to be aware of good faith edits, not reverting when additions could be worked on per H:RV (Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?) and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT

    Thanks for you time and I apologize for potential grammar mistakes, English is not my native language. Loganmac (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like you made a bold edit and were reverted with an explanation. You have since created a talk page discussion, though no one has responded. Things seem to be proceeding per WP:BRD. No one owes you a detailed explanation of their reasoning, and everyone has the right to remove posts on their own talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said this is less about the edit war and more about the general behaviour showcased which has potential ramifications for several users. My edit wasn't as WP:BOLD as it seems, I was already aware of the contents of the Talk Page, which like I said almost all mention what I added Loganmac (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the strength of the sources, reverting on BLP grounds is not correct. RandomCanadian tends to exhibit a bit of ownership on content relating to the lab leak theory, and should probably engage more in consensus building rather than imposition. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a WP:Consensus required discretionary sanction would be appropriate for the Daszak article, as he is not only embroiled in the lab leak saga (WP:ARBCOVID) but is also a BLP.
    Regarding the behavioral concerns, here is the timeline of events here, because I think it is illustrative:
    1. 2:36–2:43: Loganmac introduces the content
    2. 2:47: RandomCanadian reverts
    3. 3:10: Loganmac leaves a message on RandomCanadian's talk page, asking them to not revert good faith edits or potentially be blocked, and suggesting WP:ONLYREVERT is required behavior
    4. 3:15 RandomCanadian removes the talk page message, asking RandomCanadian to read a few P&Gs and discuss on the article talk page
    5. 3:16: Loganmac reverts Peter Daszak to restore their content
    6. 3:17: RandomCanadian reverts
    7. 3:30: Loganmac leaves another message on RC's talk page
    8. 3:46: RandomCanadian removes the talk page message, informing Loganmac that it's acceptable to remove comments from one's own talk page and again asking Loganmac to discuss at the article talk page
    9. 4:51: Loganmac begins a talk page disussion at Talk:Peter Daszak
    10. 5:31: Loganmac begins this ANI discussion, without waiting for RandomCanadian to contribute to the talk page message
    RandomCanadian reverted Loganmac's edit with an explanation, and the next step should have been to begin a discussion on the article talk page, not re-revert to insert the contested content (and only after being reverted a second time, begin a talk page section). This whole issue could have been avoided if Loganmac had gone from step 4 to step 9, and waited for RC's input at the article talk page section. The immediate threat that RC might be blocked for reverting (with apparent misunderstandings of WP:ONLYREVERT) and the opening of this ANI discussion without waiting for RC to discuss on the talk page appears quite WP:BATTLEGROUNDy to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that RC's revert (which I agree with in principle, apart from not using WP:CIVIL language in the edit notes) appears to have been more about using non-neutral language to describe what was described in some otherwise good sources (along with a few non-neutral sources that I don't feel fit WP:BLPSTYLE, even with attribution, including a National Review opinion piece titled "China Apologist Peter Daszak Has Some Explaining to Do"), and possible WP:COATRACK additions which were purely about the origin investigations rather than Daszak's involvement. I think the revert matches policy of WP:BRD and WP:BLPBALANCE (The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.. Final policy point, I'm a bit surprised Loganmac cited WP:ROLLBACKUSE, as it explicitly states The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. RC added comments to his rollbacks (and I've found him to be consistent in doing so), so I'm uncertain what to make of this apparent misuse of policy by the submitter.
    On the content dispute, I was pinged, and subsequently [ made suggestions] for how to improve the edits for NPOV and BLP, eventually adding these edits once there were talk comments exhibiting some loose consensus. Submitter replied once to my initial suggestions, but not yet to my response (there was also no mention made of this ANI request on the talk page, which I have since added). I suspect the content dispute can be resolved easily (and most of the comments on the talk page and edits to the article have been productive since), but I have not found Loganmac to be as engaged in building consensus or justifying edits from WP:PAG concerns as I'd like. They appear to be insistent their proposed edits were flawless and anyone who disagrees for whatever reason is "whitewashing" the article, which I feel is much more concerning behavior than the original complaint that an R in a WP:BRD is somehow unacceptable. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a basic content dispute that has been brought to ANI in lieu of actually waiting for discussion on the talk page to develop. If anyone here is WP:BATTLEGROUNDing or edit warring, I would argue that it is Loganmac. RandomCanadian should have been more civil, and criticism is fair for that. But I don't believe he's actually broken any WP:PAGs here. Loganmac, on the other hand, has repeatedly controverted the spirit of WP:BRD and brought a content dispute to ANI. Could be a WP:BOOMERANG situation. But the editor also seems inexperienced, so perhaps a simple warning is all that's necessary here.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not so inexperienced. I was thinking the name seemed familiar and finally looked to see why: it's because they were sanctioned in the 2014–15 GamerGate arbitration case for battleground conduct: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... I find their statement at the time to be interesting. Both for the similarities ('reverting good faith edits') and for what appears to be different (the perspective around neutral tone for topic on which there is criticism). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: I don't know who it is exactly who debunked this here, but the dubious claims about rollback abuse are not unprecedented - see [114] (from a wee bit ago). As I said, I'm feeling suspicious, and yes, harassed, but there's nothing I can prove at this point so I'll just bear this out, hoping it eventually stops: whether that's likelier to come first because it stops being in the news cycle when COVID becomes irrelevant, or because of enforcement actions against tendentious editors here, I don't know. Anyway, I'm fed up with this and I probably should take a Wikibreak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff @RandomCanadian: left is one of my contributions, but I wasn't notified that my name was being brought up here at AN/I, in a vague sense that I'm somehow up to no good. That's not cool, RC. You owe me either evidence of actual wrongdoing, or an apology. Otherwise, it's casting aspersions. Geogene (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is at the AE thread, where I've given a clear account of your BATTLEGROUND attitude (which also includes casting of aspersions), behaviour which extends even beyond the COVID area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have filed an AR/E request regarding a potential violation of Loganmac's gender controversy topic ban above. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Loganmac. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A COI about a COI

    Firefangledfeathers, since this noticeboard is for editor conduct issues and since you are an editor with POV on the subject of Loganmac edits [115], it would be better for you to leave this to an WP:UNINVOLVED admin. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CutePeach, there is nothing wrong with Firefangledfeathers or anyone else commenting here. It might be different if FFF was an admin, and if they were to take administrative action in a dispute with which they were involved, but for better or worse, there is no prohibition on making a comment in response to an editor with whom you have previously disagreed. Girth Summit (blether) 10:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Girth Summit. I didn't mean to imply that Firefangledfeathers can't comment here and I apologise to them if they took it that way. I was retorting to their comment that the OP is not owed an explanation for a two time revert on a WP:DUE submission which met WP:BURDEN. I don’t agree with everything in OP's edit, but I wouldn’t have reverted them without explaining it, while citing WP:ONUS. There is a very close parallel to this case [116], which RandomCanadian already started cropping [117]. Note that RandomCanadian below accuses OP of harassment for reaching out on their talk page.. CutePeach (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CutePeach, I think most of what you've said here is wrong.
    • I don't have any COI here, and you shouldn't be baseless accusing me of having one
    • the "POV" diff you posted was related to a dispute between two completely different editors
    • RandomCanadian did explain their reverts of the article
    I don't want to bog this section down with more conduct dispute unrelated to RC, so I ask you to start a user talk page discussion, post a new thread here, or strike your comments about me and drop it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Only revert is an essay. WP:ONUS and more importantly WP:BLP are policy. Your edits have been reverted, and the reason why I reverted your posts on my talk page is because its the wrong venue to discuss article content. Now please, since you absolutely overreacted to this and went straight to the dramaboard, I'm asking both of you (CP and the OP) not come back to my talk page. I have smarter things to do than deal with PROFRINGE harassement and disruption (which involves mostly other editors). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't is it better to have a COI about a COI than to be coy about a COI?--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Note also CP's canvassing (via ping and talk page messages), notably on Talk:Peter Daszak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that together with a well informed villager from Sumatra, Indonesia [118] [119], RandomCanadian shares credit for bringing COVID-19 under Discretionary Sanctions [120], so this noticeboard may not be the right venue for further complaints of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Note also that the editors I pinged on Talk:Peter Daszak have widely varying POVs and have edited the article recently. The only two outside editors I pinged were Forich and Bakkster Man who are recognized for improving Wikipedia’s neutrality in this contentious topic area. CutePeach (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CutePeach, apologies, but this could be read as some sort of accusation that something nefarious is going on here: Note that together with a well informed villager from Sumatra, Indonesia, RandomCanadian shares credit for bringing COVID-19 under Discretionary Sanctions. Can you clarify? —valereee (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since this appears to be now moving towards a content dispute (and appears to be resolving on its own), could we perhaps consider closing this? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 18:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no concerns with RandomCanadian's behavior, but I would like to continue the discussion above this subsection. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have no concerns with RandomCanadian calling me PROFRINGE and accusing me of harassing him? Accusing people left and right of suckpuppets? Of his clear as daylight misuse of the revert/rollback tool reverting completely good faith and sourced additions? And that he called the venue you're writing on a "dramaboard"? This is the behaviour Wikipedia upholds? Loganmac (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Anyone who pays attention to this place thinks it is a "dramaboard". Doesn't mean it isn't useful, but it generates a lot of drama, or is at least a place where a lot of drama collects. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dramaboard? Is that a redirect yet? :) HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes it is :D — kashmīrī TALK 14:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) I'm not sure RC was actually referring to you, given they said "(which involves mostly other editors)", but I might feel harassed too after multiple talk page messages after being asked to discuss at the article talk, and then being dragged right to ANI. I don't see evidence of RC "accusing people left and right of [being] sockpuppets"—they did refer to Keepingitabuck as a "likely sock", but given the user's first edit was to show up and apparently continue some other conversation, that seems pretty obvious, and the user has since been NOTHERE blocked. Regarding rollback, please read the policy more closely and note the caveat The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Regarding "dramaboard", that is an extremely common name for ANI, to the point that WP:Dramaboard directs here. So in sum, no, I am not concerned, and the rollback and "dramaboard" complaints makes it appear that you are now attempting to fling spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was also referring to linking an essay that accuses editors of being meatpuppets. So now leaving "multiple" (aka two messages) on Talk pages can be harasssment, okay then. I see the utility of this board and what it is for now. Loganmac (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Loganmac, everyone calls ANI and other behavioral noticeboards "dramaboards." As in, "I strongly advise editors to avoid the dramaboards unless involuntarily dragged there by someone else." —valereee (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Dramaboard" is rather gentle (@HighInBC: Yes, it is a redirect -I think there's both a normal case and an all caps version of it, too). There's also WP:CESSPIT, and a fair few others listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25 (blame Softlavender). As for "harassment", yes, when politely asked to take it to the proper venue, which was the article talk page, repeating a very similar post on my talk page and then going right here (while most editors usually avoid ANI as much as possible) is suspicious. More on that later. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, @CutePeach: you're walking a very fine line after the latest incident at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - I also find it bizarre that you immediately jumped here to pile-on, despite having no previous involvement in the article in question.
            • Re. "suspicious" - I'm not one to parrot conspiracies (doing all my best to prevent them - while we're speaking of that, YES, even the mundane "accidental lab-leak", by the way it is being treated in the media, is described by some sources as a conspiracy - see Gorski, Science-Based Medicine: [speaking of the "respectable" variant] "Unfortunately, now the lab leak hypothesis has become, in essence, a conspiracy theory. It is weaponized uncertainty designed to frighten people for political purposes."). At least not usually, but this edit is hard to explain, given that none of these users seem to have any kind of significant on-wiki interaction together (Toolforge lists only a few pages. Both editors )Publius, Logan) added substantial sections about the controversy... What is the "suggestion" being referred to? If Loganmac is only referring to the existing talk page discussion (which he should have been aware of after I pointed him to discuss the subject on the talk page), Talk:Peter_Daszak#A_new_addition:_Controversies contains no "suggestions" from Publius. So I must ask: is there something going on behind the scenes here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Firefangledfeathers. No flagrant violation of WP:Ownership, in my opinion. BLP does require editors to go conservative, that is, tone down accusations as much as possible, so perhaps the possible tendentious (POV being a Dazsak defender) editing of RC with his edits and reverts is just him exerting WP:BLP. Forich (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment on Publius' talk page was referring to his suggestion here [121]. I don't know what you're getting at. Loganmac (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely UPE on Forest Trail

    A new SPA editor, Rūta Rulle, has recently created this article: Forest Trail. A quick search of their name suggests that they are likely employed by an associated organisation. I have placed a COI query on the user's talk page, but there has been no disclosure or other response. Granted, it has only been a few days, but they have meanwhile been active on the site so should have seen the message.

    IMHO, the article shouldn't exist in the first place, as it's quite promotional in nature, and probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead. It's also only supported by references to the organisation's own website, baltictrails.eu. I've tagged the article accordingly, but to little effect.

    I don't want to hound the editor, and I don't necessarily want to take the article to AfD, but neither do I think things should be just left like that; at least the UPE question needs resolving. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) I have no opinion on the UPE issue; that is outside my expertise. However, I do question whether Forest Trail has the notability to support an article independent of E11 European long distance path, the last paragraph of whose lede reads "This article presents an encyclopedic overview of the trail. Detailed information about the routing is found in WikiVoyage. Links to detailed information about the townships along E11 are found in a special group of references at the bottom of this article." Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is a brochure for the trail. It is promotional, surgery is about to happen. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, surgery indeed. Roughly the equivalent of amputating the body and leaving just a foot. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead Embassy note before people start talking about transwikis at the AfD: Wikivoyage does not accept articles for individual tourist destinations. (This might be in scope as an itinerary, but as currently formatted it's as useless there as here.) Vaticidalprophet 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, noted well; didn't realise that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kakubhai Shergill

    Kakubhai Shergill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Despite being told not to add unreferenced content, the user still continued.

    • Special:Diff/1029825989 changed the year of birth without RS. It was reverted and an RS was subsequently added by another editor.
    • Special:Diff/1029652782 changed the place of birth to present-day semantics. I have notified the user in the past about using the place names at-birth. No RS for citizenship and nationality that the user has added.
    • Special:Diff/1029983047, Special:Diff/1029810937 MOS: Occupation to have only the first letter capitalized. I have notified, in the past, the user of the template documentation about it.
    • Special:Diff/1029142846 Did a bold move for the page despite there being a discussion present on the talk page. The user's preferred new name does not seem to be used anymore, as said in the discussion. The user could have left a comment. (I've opened an RM later.)
    • User added [five] copyvio images in Commons and added them to articles here. All images are reported and deleted on Commons.

    The user never acknowledged any messages on the talk page. I'd like to hear it and some sort of commitment for the WP guidelines. (Update: The user commented on my talk page in the past related to another edit. I've clarified why I reverted the edit. I forgot about this edit.) -- DaxServer (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "The user never acknowledged any messages on the talk page"—perhaps this is because they edit using a phone? Kleinpecan (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now unfortunate. Any remedies? -- DaxServer (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They made this revert just earlier, so they seem to be aware of revision histories and edit summaries. If you have to revert one of their edits again, you can try using the edit summary to direct them to a section on their user talk page where you explain to them the problem with their edit, and how to communicate with other editors. – Rummskartoffel 10:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While clarifying another edit, the user did leave a message on the nom's talk page, and this was via mobile phone. The one talk page edit among 364 edits. Jay (Talk) 11:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I totally forgot about it. I stand corrected. Thanks Jay. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheMetalPedia and undisclosed automated spelling edits

    User:TheMetalPedia has been copy-editing a wide variety of articles at a rate of one diff per minute, far above an unassisted human's ability. Either they are using a bot or they are assisted by some kind of tool, neither of which is acceptable without discussion. Many of their changesets have already been reverted for various reasons, such as not following wp:engvar: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] etc. etc. They have also been warned on their talk page three times, without triggering any reply. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) The '013 edit (2nd in the list above) altered the spelling in a direct quote - not good. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I'm not convinced that this is automated, all of the diffs are on articles which are tagged for needing copyediting, it's conceivable that they could have found the articles that way. Is one diff a minute really that abnormal if one is just looking at articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and quickly scanning them to fix anything obvious? Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do copyediting, mainly for clichés, by doing a search for a target phrase, opening each result in a separate tab, then editing in sequence. But I leave an edit summary behind me, so fellow editors can tell what I’m doing. This editor is doing nothing wrong that couldn’t be ameliorated by leaving an edit summary each time. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit summary won't mitigate or reverse the damage they're doing. - Sumanuil (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if this is some attempt to cover up the creation of Draft:Phenomy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charan311

    User:Charan311 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This user has been "adding his POV" for months on various articles especially Lakshmi and Rukmini. Months ago, he started a baseless edit war on Lakshmi, where I reported him and admin EdJohnston warned him and asked me to report again if he continues. I have tried to explain Wikipedia policies on his talk page "multiple times", but each time he gives unacceptable reasons. You may check his POV on his talk page, especially the recent warnings. In short, he is violating WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:Edit warring, despite multiple warnings. Regards, .245CMR.•👥📜 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    245CMR, diffs please. Sandstein 20:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sandstein: I am giving diff of recent discussions, but the user is violating npov for months and had been warned multiple times by different users.

    Warning by EdJohnston after the edit war on Lakshmi (this occured in Feb 21)

    Rest of Charan's replies are his OR POV.

    Recent unsourced changes by Charan on the article Rukmini:

    [128]

    [129]

    [130]

    Sourced content removed from other articles:

    After his recent vandalism, I and another user have tried to explain Wikipedia policies, but he is not listening. The following are his replies; he is accusing us that we hate Rukmini for reverting his edits and looks like that he is here to promote his POV rather than encyclopaedic development. After his latest reply, I have told him whate exactly is his problem.

    Regards,.245CMR.•👥📜 04:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RBut

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

    Relevant pages:

    I regret it has come to this, but the user in question appears to be a WP:SPA who has now decided that WP:OWN is the way to go on his preferred page. The account was apparently started to "rebut" a source on the page but now has turned into one that seems to engage almost entirely in WP:POVPUSHing. This is a shame because he does occasionally provide some sources that can help improve the article, but after some promising maneuvers today, the edit war recommenced.

    I don't see how collaboration is possible given the insistent and acrimonious back-and-forth. At this point, the user has basically declared that they will not collaborate with myself or the other editor active at that page: [134]. It's tiring and so third-party intervention would be nice.

    jps (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    p-blocked 24 hours from article to get their attention. Ping me if that doesn't work. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would just like to point out that those are accusations. This person "ජපස" is the one acting like he owns the article. My edit has been fair, he does not think so so he reverts it. I do the same and suddenly I'm in violation while getting reported? Childish behavior.

    There have been minimal issues in collaboration with editors and that is exactly what I continue doing. These are simply more accusations. If you review the talk page it will be evident that it is exactly what I have been doing and continue to do so. Doing so I have gathering information and made edits that I believe are fair. RBut (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RBut, the point is to discuss on talk and reach consensus before trying to re-add the disputed content. Your edit summary when re-adding the disputed content is that Sure, but it can stay up while we debate as there is no POV. is not how we do things here. We don't leave disputed information in articles while we discuss; that could leave disputed information in articles for literally years in some places. The onus is on the person wanting to add the information to persuade their fellow editors, per policy you can find at WP:ONUS. —valereee (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted RBut (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption at Love Jihad talk page

    The Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is indefinitely restricted to extended confirmed editors due to disruptive editing in the WP:ARBIPA area. However this just results in non-stop complaints at the article's talk page making the same tired points that have been refuted time and again. Today has seen numerous posts by an editor with a constantly changing IP, for example claiming they "found similar peer reviewed article", when all they found was this garbage which I refuted here. Could something be done about the flood of non-constructive posts on this talk page please? FDW777 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to make a suggestion at the talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I have left a suggestion there that is very similar to what was done at Talk:Muhammad to deal with the constant requests for image removal. It worked very well there and I think it could work here too. I hope this turns out to be helpful. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Looking at what was done on Talk:Muhammad, would something similar benefit Adam's Bridge? A FAQ has already been written on why it's not going to be re-titled Rama Setu, but the talk page is constantly getting edit requests demands to change it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, but I have not looked at that talk page as deeply as I have Talk:Love Jihad. First step is to get consensus for the idea, second step is to get an admin who feels it is worth a discretionary sanction. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just took a look over there. Yes that is a great candidate for that sort of thing. In fact it can probably be done without a sanction there, be bold and just try it and see what happens. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rhino83166 -- Plagiarism and Copyright issues

    User:Rhino83166 has multiple instances of violating WP:PLAG and uploading non-free images to commons.

    Two examples of WP:PLAG violations:

    • Special:Diff/1011216263 "A member of the Three Rivers Conference since the league's inception in 1975, Fulton is poised to make the move to the Northwest Upstate Illini Conference for the 2021-22 school year.", copied directly from the source referenced right after it
    • Special:Diff/891624174 "Built in 1939 as part of the Works Progress Administration project which also resulted in the construction of West, the basic design of both buildings was by Willis Hubbard, the exterior facade, however, was designed by Jesse Barloga in the Art Modeme style. West exterior façade, on the other hand, was designed by Gilbert Johnson. East was also considered an excellent example of Art Modeme architecture, and a focal point from the community from its beginning.", copied from a City of Rockford document without any attribution at all.

    Alongside the copy & pastes, their talk page contains a ton of warnings (too many to list here) from other users about plagiarism, non-free image uploading, and not citing sources dating as far back as 2010, yet they continue to do it:

    Thanks!

    Mase268 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fhshs12

    Blocked indef, and TP revoked as well. They can use UTRS. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fhshs12 edited several other users' comments on their talk page here. I warned them here that this is unacceptable per WP:TPO. They immediately did so again here and I left a final warning here. You'll never guess what happened next.

    In addition to this, a high proportion of their edits have been reverted for being unconstructive, e.g. here and here just in the last day. I do not believe this user is here to build an encyclopedia. Rublov (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Fhshs12 Just tried to delete this conversation. Definitely WP:NOTHERE, and warrants an indefinite block given this and the egregious personal attacks. — Czello 18:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Yemenii disruptively adding unsourced material and WP:OR to Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)

    User:Yemenii, which seems to be an WP:SPA with very few edits, is disruptively adding WP:OR and unsourced material to the Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) page. On that page they have removed sourced material regarding the origins (and distributions) of certain DNA haplogroup branches and added in its place a large amount of material including multiple claims (regarding haplogroup origins etc.) that are not at all stated in the sources they have added (which consist of bare links) along with adding other unsourced claims elsewhere in the article. I reverted two unsourced edits of theirs, each time with edit summaries explaining the problems with their edits and the Wikipedia policies of WP:RS and WP:NOR (and warned them that unsourced edits are against policies and that if they continued they would be repirted), but they (Yemenii) then simply reverted me and reinstated their unsourced edits with no explanation.

    Since they have ignored my explanations and restored unsourced edits (despite being told that this viokates Wikipedia policies), attempts at discussion with them seem unlikely to help. Any attention is appreciated.

    Here is the article's edit history:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)


    Skllagyook (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Skllagyook, I see no warnings on the user's page? Edit summaries alone often don't cut it and the user may not have even seen them. In addition to this, within your edit summaries I see a lot of opaque acronyms, which often don't help new users all that much. In fact, I would be willing to posit that even templated warnings would be more useful than purely using opaque acronyms in edit summaries, as they, at the very least, signpost users to the appropriate policies using relatively simple and basic language. Patient Zerotalk 21:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence this new user was appropriately informed and warned about policies. Thinking ANI might be a bit overly aggressive at this point. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur - Skllagyook, I note that you've said attempts at discussion with them seem unlikely to help, but you have yet to try... the worst that could happen is maybe they do not respond as well as we'd have hoped, and then perhaps we can escalate to, say, warnings (on the user's talk page). But communication is seldom unimportant or unuseful. Patient Zerotalk 21:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamStrongTalks: and @Patient Zero: I did warn them in an edit summary in my second reversion here [[135]] where I wrote "Making unsourced edits is against Wikipedia policy. Reliable sources are required (which explicitly say what you want to add, see WP:RS and WPOR). Please stop making unsourced edits or you will be reported."
    In my previous edit summary, before that one, I had written "Restoring sourced material(from Trombetta) re haplogroup origins deleted in recent edit, and removing material not supported by newly added source (see WP:NOR)"
    I'm not sure I would say that the acronyms were opaque, since in both edit summaries I gave Yemenii links to the policies they were in violation of and led them to read them (directing them to "see" the links I supplied) along with explanations stating that their edits were against Wikipedia policies and why. Since Yemenii most recently reverted my edit and reinstated theirs (presumably using the "Undo" button) they would have had to see the page's edit history and (I would think) would have easily seen my edit edits and edit summaries. Is seems likely that they ignored them. They have added a signifiant amount of unsourced material, in some cases changing and adding information, seemingly according to personal preference, as here [[136]] and here [[137]]. At this stage, would you perhaps recommend posting a warning/notification to their talk page (about making unsourced edits) using one of the appropriate templates (such as these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-unsourced3)? What should I do if they do not respond?
    Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skllagyook: Generally speaking, you are far more likely to get a response with talk page messages rather than edit summaries. And it creates a more easily followed paper trail for other people trying to fight potential vandalism and coming in after the fact to look at things. SamStrongTalks (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Skllagyook, I'd say dial it back even further and use unsourced-1, not 3, as it's a little more comprehensive (not to mention you have yet to even warn them at all, so jumping straight to 3 is unadvisable). SamStrongTalks is also spot on with their comment - communication ought to be on talk pages. Patient Zerotalk 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamStrongTalks: I understand. I will leave an alert on their Talk page then. Hopefully that will help resolve the issue. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, putting "user" in your pings stops them from working - just a heads-up! I wasn't notified of your mentioning of me. Best, Patient Zerotalk 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamStrongTalks: and @Patient Zero: Understood. I will use unsourced-1 on their Talk page. I will also revert their edit for now, since the text of unsourced-1 (apparently) says that the unsourced edit has been "removed and archived in the page history" (I hope this is appropriate). In case they were to reinstate their edit again and/or not respond, what would be the best course of action? Skllagyook (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Skllagyook, I'd say you could probably skip to 3, then 4, then report to WP:AIV as they deal with users who repeatedly add unsourced content after a final warning (and chances are your report there will be seen quicker by an admin). My response only applies to the incident at hand though; most of the time you should really go through all of the warning stages. Patient Zerotalk 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamStrongTalks: and @Patient Zero: I see. Thank you. I wasn't really familiar with the different numbered warning stages/levels and how they differed. Is there by any chance a Wikipedia page that would explain that in more detail? Skllagyook (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly would be! Whilst this quote taken from WP:V relates to vandalism, it does ring true to most commonly spotted violations made by inexperienced users: warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually block only when multiple warnings have been issued). The "escalation procedure" for violations can be found here - you'll find all the templates you need right here, although I'd recommend getting Twinkle so you don't have to manually issue them. Best, Patient Zerotalk 23:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to ping you, sorry! Patient Zerotalk 23:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skllagyook: Most of my experience is with recent change patrol and other anti-vandalism tasks. It can take a while to internalize all the various aspects of it, especially if it isn't what you focus on. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed with a user please

    No administrative action required. Let us all try to get along. If there are further inappropriate edits then we can respond but right now it looks like a new user making a mistake. Nothing wrong with the initial warning, but an explanation has been given. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_Great_Shaker#Ann-Margret

    Please review my comment above on his talk page in response to user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:No_Great_Shaker

    ...I was attempting to upload a replacement image for my client (the copyright holder) and noticed that the info said "deceased" so innocently thought I would be helping when I noticed it said "is" instead of "was" regards the person and changed it citing that they were deceased. On being picked up on this, I consulted the article and realise it was Ann-Margret's spouse who was deceased. I had made a genuine error. This user is having noe of it and accusing me of defamation and "you seriously breached WP:BLP" which I find extremely insulting as it is simply untrue. He also accuses me of having another account (and threaten to report me?!) as apparently theres no way i could know how to upload photos as a newbie, which i am. there is a way, i simply researched how to do it. I'm just very saddened that such bullying can take place when new contributors are encouraged by wikipedia. I donate yearly and use wiki every day. How dare he. So I just wanted to let you know about it. He doesnt shine a particularly positive light on the wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelphotofix (talk • contribs)

    @Joelphotofix: Please note that you're obligated to inform subjects of reports made here; I've done that for you now. Also please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). — Czello 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I do think No Great Shaker has failed to assume good faith here, and has chosen to bite the newbie. OP's edits do not appear to be deliberately destructive, and I think reporting him to the vandalism noticeboard was unwarranted. Saying his edits "indicate a vandalism-only account" is needlessly harsh. — Czello 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I agree. What happens now? sorry about the missing tildes and not informing which i didnt know. Joelphotofix (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Best case scenario we talk about it a bit, you two make up, and we carry on editing Wikipedia. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Sigh, so rarely is it the best case scenario... HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned, there has been a blatant breach of WP:BLP and it has been followed up by breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at my talk page and again above. The accusations of bullying are frankly ridiculous – I spotted a particularly bad BLP breach, issued a warning and reported it to AIV. Can a genuine WP:NEWBIE immediately upload and replace infobox images as was done at Jeanne Moreau, Anthony Quinn and Hank Aaron? Perhaps, but personally I doubt it. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @No Great Shaker: It seems like a genuine error by OP; his explanation makes sense to me. Again, I don't think it was malice on his part. As for uploading images... well, it's not especially difficult to do -- there is an "images and media" button at the top of the editor, and from there there's a big "upload" button. It's pretty intuitive, and doesn't indicate a sock to me. — Czello 22:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't in the position of seeing the breach of BLP when it happened. You are using hindsight based on the protestations of the person responsible. Perhaps you need to assume good faith yourself and accept that I acted in good faith by protecting the integrity of the site. I'm taking no further part in this pointless discussion. What a waste of time. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax, dude. It’s good that you’re keen to protect BLP articles but I just think it’s useful to take a step back and ask yourself if OP was vandalising or if he just made an error. He explained himself, it seemed reasonable, so the best thing would’ve been to just accept it and move on. — Czello 22:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I didn't really find it that hard to upload. Seriously though, why would I go to such efforts to defend myself if I was some sort of malicous vandal? An even if i was surely I could do worse than (mistakenly) changing an IS to a WAS. (Although I suppose a page reporting someone as dead when they're not isn't nice at all.) But anyway, my error, hands held up. It's awful when you genuinely think you are improving something to be accused of purposeful maliciousness instead. But there you go, it seems he's convinced.

    In the spirit of moving on I'd like some help and guidance in uploading my client's copyrighted photographs (wshich is what I joined to do in the first place before editing the dreaeded "is"!). Is the general rule as I assume that the replacement should be a better "answer" relevancy and context wise to the existing? That being the case, what are the rules for adding photos to be additional to those already there (again, assuming they add to the page's usefulness of course). Is that ok? If so how does one go about it? Do you for example also need to add relevant paragraph of text to give the photo context and purpose? Thanks, Joel. Joelphotofix (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:FIFIphilippe

    (non-admin closure) Indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for being WP:NOTHERE SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    The edits I have described above constitute their entire (brief) Wikipedia editing history. I believe that the above, especially through the violations of WP:NPA, shows that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I am respectfully requesting that they be blocked as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Date-changing vandalism from Long Island

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) 47.20.253.163 blocked for one year by Johnuniq. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone from Long Island is changing to wrong dates in music articles. For instance, this song was changed to May 2, but the cite source says May 20. Similarly, this date was changed to something wrong despite the cited source listing another date entirely. In another case, the person just picked a random date in the article references and changed it disruptively. They have been blocked twice before. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Date-changing vandalism from Albania – possible rangeblock?

    Someone from Albania has been using multiple IPs to change to wrong dates in music articles. The most recent seven IPs might be stopped by a rangeblock.

    The disruption has been going on for a long time. In 2019, Special:Contributions/46.99.114.179, Special:Contributions/46.99.98.209, Special:Contributions/46.99.91.33 and Special:Contributions/46.99.116.157 were active, for example. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New block evasion! Now it's IP Special:Contributions/46.99.72.61. Previous activity on the /21 occurred earlier this month with Special:Contributions/46.99.72.136 and Special:Contributions/46.99.73.243. Looks like another rangeblock could help. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The assigned CIDR block (and the range that would cover everything mentioned here) is 46.99.64.0/18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). --Blablubbs|talk 15:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Owouwuowouwuowo, again

    INDEFFED
    Owouwuowouwuowo has been indefinitely blocked by Daniel (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As a result of an ANI thread that closed June 22, I pageblocked this editor from Old Alton Bridge and Talk:Old Alton Bridge, for adding unreferenced content and disruptive editing. Since then, this editor has gone to two articles that I have edited recently. They vandalized a quotation at Ramón Mercader, and also removed content from the lead of Shay locomotive that I added, which summarized referenced content I had added to the body of the article. I can only conclude that this was retaliatory editing. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would look at this editor's contributions and determine whether or not they are here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, this is a perfect example of NOTHERE. Indeffed. Daniel (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sirens, Sam, and Suzanne

    Before you ask why I am here despite apparently retiring, please note that I will leave soon as soon as the SPIs are done.

    I was looking into some siren-related articles (one of which is Federal Signal Corporation) and I discovered someone called Suzanne at Federal Signal adding some potentially promotional content (example: Special:Diff/913870901) which was later removed (Special:Diff/937693677). I have two questions about Suzanne and the siren pages in general:

    1. Would it be prudent to block Suzanne based on her promotional username and her contributions to the FSC page? The edits in question is around 1 or 2 years old.
    2. I believe that the FSC page and that of one of its products, the 3T22, are marred by sock puppets - see my SPIs (one running, another ended) at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SamBo198. User:SamBo198 was accused as being a paid editor (as seen on their block reasoning field), and they used to edit - to quote my own archived SPI - "American Signal Corporation and related articles, with a focus on the role of Biersach and Niedermeyer". Is it likely that there are more paid editing than previously thought, seeing that Sam and Suzanne, though most likely unrelated, are both likely to be paid editors for their respective corporations?

    Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect link on Main Page

    FIXED
    (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth has fixed the link. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Please see Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Today's FA. DuncanHill (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mztourist's concerns about User:Jamesallain85

    User:Jamesallain85 who has been inactive since 4 June 2020 returned to WP yesterday making a series of edits which I can only regard as WP:REVENGE attacks on me: reverting my deletion yesterday of non-notable former members of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines [138]; AfDing George Jacobson [139] and starting to AfD Leroy V. Grosshuesch [140]. I believe this is being done as revenge for me AfDing several pages Jamesallain85 created. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So multiple edits aimed solely at me following a 1 year absence don't amount to revenge? Interesting perspective. WRT the "notable" members of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, I apply the WP policies of what makes someone notable i.e. WP:BASIC, so if they don't have a page or SIGCOV they aren't notable just because one User adds them to a list. You omitted the rest of my edit summary which stated: "if pages are written about them they can be added back. Take it to Talk Page and don't edit war them." I have no interest in baseball but presumably WP:NSPORT applies and so if there are people listed on Atlanta Braves minor league players who don't meet those criteria they should be purged. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: The edit summary part is due to a now-edited comment of mine, Special:Diff/prev/1030141903. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read WP:NSPORT#Baseball it clearly states: "Some active minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP." Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thank you. Let's leave it aside lest it turn into a discussion of baseball articles (I turned an RfD into that once, thanks to an argument). --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend that both you and Allain to consult each other (or a noticeboard) before taking "provocative" actions such as reversion and AfDs - not a sanction of any type, but a gentle(wo)men's agreement. I am convinced that both you and Allain look at the pages' own merit rather than each other, that is, neither of you are vengeful of the other. An interaction ban would do, too, if necessary. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I felt that my pages were being considered on their merits I wouldn't have come here. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for proving me wrong about the "I am convinced" part above. I am looking at taking this to the ArbCom, to be honest, as I trust that they will examine the behaviours involved (including mine) more fairly. I have already written a draft for a potential case. As an involved party, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 15:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The REVENGE continues: [141] Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am seeing you trying to delete his stuff and him trying to delete your stuff. How about we let the deletion debates sort this out? I don't see evidence of revenge. Just as you had innocent motives in finding 4 of his things to delete, why could not his motives be just as innocent? It is often the case that if someone writes something worthy of deletion that the other stuff is too. If this becomes a more clear pattern in the future it might be more actionable. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Because as I noted above he has been inactive for a year and then returned to WP yesterday only targeting my edits and pages I created. Nothing innocent about it. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So? I was inactive for over a year. Is the first thing I do automatically suspect? Better question, have you tried asking why he nominated those articles? I am not seeing any conversation on their talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If all your edits on your first day back targetted one User, then yes. Re your "better question", given the multiple different pages hit conversation didn't seem worthwhile, particularly as he claimed on the dePROD "Unsure of why it was listed for deletion and deleted, I was at the time unaware of the discussion" when a PROD notice had been duly posted on his Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am only attempting to hold Mztourist to the same standard he is holding me. He placed three of my pages up for discussion of deletion in January, all having received the Navy Cross on multiple occasions. When I looked at his pages he created, I felt multiple pages had notability below that of the pages he started deletion discussions about and he should be held to the same standard. The matter of fact is there should be a more clear and concise definition of notability concerning military biographical pages. Since January WP:Soldier is no longer used as a standard, and I feel WP:BIO is too vague when it comes to military biographical pages. Some editors run around and enjoy nominating pages for deletion or mass deletion edits while they don't hold themselves to the same standard. If you would look at the edits I made concerning the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines I undid an edit which was simply deleting more information, there were however a few instances in which I agreed that they were less notable and deleted them in agreement. However, again my edits were simply reverted, I hope an admin will look into the issue and edit the article correctly. There needs to be a clear definition as what is and isn't notable. In the case of edits on the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines page, I felt they were notable enough to be listed and many their own page. However, Mztourist deleted them saying if they didn't have their own page they weren't notable, period. My point, if you read my comment in the edits, was that just because they didn't have their own page didn't mean they weren't notable enough to have one, and listing a person as notable member with a citation supporting their notability should be sufficient. I hope this will again start a discussion concerning the notability of military biographical pages in general, because I am tired of having my work thrown in the trash because of opinions concerning notability. There needs to be a clear standard. Jamesallain85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallain85 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I guess I was wrong. I will leave this to another admin. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamesallain85 I agree with you. Mztourist seems to have the mistaken belief that either things should be notable enough to get the own page or they should not be here at all. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 15:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This does seem a little revenge-y, @Jamesallain85. You're saying you decided to go look at their work because they'd nom'd some of yours for deletion. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone simply explain how Alan B. Banister or Alexander K. Tyree are not notable and the same person that nominated them for deletion believe John B. Selby is? Banister was a Rear Admiral with two Navy Crosses and Tyree a Naval Captain with two Navy Crosses, both of whom were successful sub captains in WWII. Selby is an Ace with only five kills. Mztourist argues Selby is notable simply by his Ace status, actually I believe none of these pages should be deleted, but I cannot understand Mztourist's motive in nominating pages for deletion while not holding the same standard for himself/herself. If Selby is considered notable then I would also like my page on Albert H. Clark to be undeleted. I am in general unsatisfied, not only with Mztourist, but also with this subjective standard where pages are arbitrarily deleted when they have historical importance and value just because someone has the opinion they lack notability. There needs to be a clear standard to follow so people do not waste time creating pages with the belief they are notable only to have question time and time again. Jamesallain85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallain85 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamesallain85 Please, date your signatures. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 14:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow this is a good example of how ANI can make a mess of things. Mz's original complaint has been admitted-to by James, above. Revenge editing is a serious problem in my view; it's a form of harassment that neither Mz nor any other editor should have to face (not to mention a pointy disruption of mainspace); that needs resolution.
      Separately, list entries don't need to be notable. The standard for inclusion of content in an article is significance, not notability. So we shouldn't be removing list items just because they're not blue-linked unless notability is the explicit list criteria (which it is for some lists, but not minor league team rosters for example. I'm not sure what the list criteria was for the lists at issue here). Anyway, whether a list item should be included is a content dispute and we have processes like BRD and RFC for that if needed (not ANI).
      Finally, NRS should heed the advice in the next section below. Levivich 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban suggestion

    Owing to the fact that Mztourist has rejected my suggestion at peace (Special:Diff/1030152638), and their attitude at me and Allain, I think that the necessary course of action is to either:

    • Let the proverbial boomerang hit Mztourist by banning him from AfDing Allain's article, unless Mztourist went to his talk page first to ascertain their concerns.
    • If needed, extend a blanket interaction ban between the two users, with the special exception that they are allowed to comment on each other's articles to ascertain any concerns, such as those related to notability.

    Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 14:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think both of those suggestions are completely unnecessary. Mztourist has given detailed reasoning for their nominations, while Jamesallain has admitted that their actions are in revenge for Mztourist's nominations. I also think your proposed ArbCom case is a terribly bad idea that will be dismissed at a mere glance. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, ArbCom handles incidents that the community are unable to resolve. – 2.O.Boxing 18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Squared.Circle.Boxing: Thank you for your reply, and I knew that the ArbCom thing is a last resort the moment I started drafting the case. However, from where did you get the impression that Allain admitted his vengeful motives? I only see his frustration with what he claimed as double and subjective standards. As for "Mztourist has given detailed reasoning for their nominations", their rationale for the Bannister and Tyree nominations has just 2 sentences each. While Allain's rationale was even shorter, I cannot see why 2 sentences could be seen as "detailed". --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamesallain's first comment is what gives me the impression that their actions are vengeful. They literally said that the only reason they looked at Mztourist's created articles and nominated them is because one of Mztourist's nominations resulted in deletion. I can understand the frustration, but it's revenge all the same. JA could have simply requested restoration then made their case in the subsequent AfD discussion, but instead, as they stated, they wanted to hold Mztourist to the same standard he is holding me. As for your second query, Mztourist gave more than a few words in their initial nomination and expanded upon their concerns in their later comments. – 2.O.Boxing 19:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamesallain just told us he is acting out of revenge. The ideas you are putting forth (an IBAN, an ARBCOM case) are neither appropriate nor productive. Grandpallama (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @NotReallySoroka: can you please explain why "the proverbial boomerang" would hit Mztourist? versacespaceleave a message! 22:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mztourist made it look like as if it was all Allain's fault. Without denying the possibility that he is vengeful, I think that Mztourist's behaviour must be examined as well. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NotReallySoroka I really think that you should withdraw from this discussion. Jamesallain's comment above confirms these are REVENGE actions. Admin User:HighInBC confirms the same in their comments above. Mztourist (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go further and suggest that NotReallySoroka withdraws from all administrative discussions for a long while. Their contributions in this thread are clearly unhelpful (with the ArbCom draft as icing on the cake), and their other admin-related actions recently are rather dubious as well, starting an SPI for editors who haven't edited in years, or another ANI section for edits from a year or more ago. Basically, you are creating more work and are confusing things instead of helping, and are acting offended when this is pointed out. The start of this section, where you want to have sanctions against Mztourist because of their perfectly understandable attitude towards you, is just laughable. Just leave this to others please. Fram (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, NRS. ANI isn't really a good place to hang out for editors at your experience level. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User now blocked for 24 hours by Canterbury Tail with a warning that they will be blocked again if they return to vandalism after their block expires. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Has vandalized various metro-related articles (see e.g. [142], [143], [144], [145]). Several of their edits involve changing references to light metro to rapid transit and vice versa, and have removed various systems from list of metro systems with little explanation. Their edits have been repeatedly reverted by other editors (including myself) and they've made no attempt to respond to other editors despite multiple warnings on their talk page. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm, has a slight odour of User:UrbanNerd aka User:PhilthyBear. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them for 24 hours anyway for clear disruptive and unsourced editing and refusal to engage. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block review

    Per WP:INVOLVED, DrKay has been told to get another admin to perform the block next time. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have just blocked NoelveNoelve (talk · contribs) for a breach of 3RR on a page which I have edited heavily and with which I am involved.[146] I am therefore posting here for independent review. I think the breach of 3RR is clear and therefore the block would count as a block that any administrator would reasonably perform. However, for transparency, I am involved in the article and so review is needed. Any administrator may undo the block without further reference to me. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appropriate block, but you probably want to get another administrator to perform the block next time. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Any administrator would have reasonably done that block. You're kinda involved a bit there, but the block was coming no matter who did it which is the differentiating factor. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only echo what has been said by the prior two admins. When I am involved in a content dispute I find it best to go to the appropriate noticeboard and state that I cannot act as I am involved. It is frustrating but I do it to protect myself as well as meet the letter of the admin policy. Good move seeking a review afterwards. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Username006 and Dominicana DC-9 air disaster

    PROTECTED
    (non-admin closure) Mjroots has indefinitely move protected the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Editors involved other than myself

    Username006 (talk · contribs) MilborneOne (talk · contribs) Mjroots (talk · contribs)

    The article in question involves a 1970 plane crash. Between 2016 and 2018 this article was twice moved to Dominicana Flight 603. A discussion or two took place and the page was moved back because there isn't a reliable source for the Flight number.

    On June 1st, User came along and moved the page again. His reason for the move- The television show Mayday had tweeted[here: https://twitter.com/aircrashmayday/status/831850589642485760?lang=en ] Mayday isn't considered a reliable source by the Aviation accident accident WikiProject[147] I moved it back and Administrator Mjroots protected the page against further moves. A lengthy discussion followed.[148]

    The move request was closed because there was no consensus to move it. Near the end of the discussion, Username raised a blogspot page for the second time as possible proof for the flight number. I told him to drop the stick, as he had been told once already that particular source was not reliable and on two other occasions was told blogspot blogs were not reliable. I warned[149] User that After that nothing more was heard and the discussion was closed 4 days later.

    On June 22nd, Username wrote[150] on his User page- "Can anyone help me find some sources or I should say 'reliable sources' to prove that the flight number was indeed 603? I've tried my best and I'm not going to give up so easily.

    Username came back to Dominicana's talk page today[151]. His latest try at proof for a 1970 plane crash is a 1967 timetable[152]. How does a 1967 timetable prove something for 1970? He's been asked that not once[153] but twice[154] by me and hasn't given an answer. Username also claims things can be downloaded from this page, but they can't.

    I think its time to block this User from further posts to Dominicana DC-9 air disaster....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm not sure that a block from the article's talk page is the best way forward here. It just may be that 006 can find a source that meets RS. If the "disruption" is kept to the talk page, it's not doing that much harm. A better approach may be for WilliamJE to disengage and it to be made clear to 006 that he needs to find a contemporary (i.e. 1970) RS. As has been made clear, find the RS, and the article will be moved to the preferred title. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Collecting arguments on the talk page seems a reasonable pursuit, even if they are insufficient arguments. Requirement for consensus has been made clear; if they move the page again w/o consensus after protection has expired, I'm sure Mjroots can be relied upon to do further necessaries. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is indefinitely move protected. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mjroots: The edit summary here[155] says the page can't be moved only till June 30. Also pinging @El C:
    This editor is clearly committing WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. They had to be asked the same question 3 times before answering. They also raised a blogspot post as a source for a second time even though they were told it was unacceptable. Plus two other times being told blogspot wasn't a reliable source. This is a timesink. How many more times are they going to be able to raise something again that has been discussed before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is protected from editing until June 30th, but it is protected from being moved indefinitely, re: "[Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)". Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I was aware of the page's move history (I certainly am not now) at the time I applied the temp semi. Not sure there's much more I'm able to add, at a glance. El_C 14:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have misread. Please accept my apology....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Team of promotional refspammers

    ZaniraM and AceUofT exclusively add refspam by Shafique N. Virani. AceUofT was warned about citing himself but he ignored it and added his cites to at least 10 more articles after that. I have reverted a great deal of them but this has been going on since at least mid-2020. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notfrompedro, while I share your concerns over AceUofT's edits bordering on citation spam (I tried to engage with them about this yesterday [156], [157]), I believe that all three edits you reverted and gave out warnings for ([158], [159], [160]) did add something more or less valuable to the articles concerned (they do seem to be good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia). I have no experience at all with this, and I find it hard to decide what to think about it: there's clearly some problem with the fact that they exclusively add information based on one and the same author, but if the information is helpful, maybe it really isn't so problematic after all. I would at least like to hear what they have to say about it first. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think AceUofT is going to respond. They haven't so far. I also don't think changing a reference to his own is helpful as opposed to outright spamming. There is also Ahmed Omair who created Shafique Virani and then duplicated the article on their userpage and then never edited again. I also just found AreebaQ whose only edits have been to add Virani references to articles. There appears to be a good handful of SPAs who only promote Shafique N. Virani and make no other edits. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I keep finding more SPAs adding these references I opened a sock report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AreebaQ. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that outright replacing of a ref you cite clearly is a violation. The Shafique Virani article also has some serious problems, including being largely based on the man's website, which itself is over-the-top promotional for an academic. I'm still hoping AceUofT will respond, but we clearly have a promotional issue here. Thanks for the work you did on this, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I just deleted about half of the Shafique Virani article because it was blatant copyright violations lifted from the U of T page, added by an IP user that traces back to the U of T. Canterbury Tail talk 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure) Indefinitely blocked. JBchrch talk 17:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GaryHalfton (talk · contribs · count) is using their talk page to threaten editors with a lawsuit as retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yr. Robert Lalkovits – Axone.

    They are mostly here to promote artists affiliated with their record label (We don’t know anyone here, but we’re working at the record label and we noticed that the article was deleted and debated by someone without any prior notice) and, if anyone is interested in a small bribe, they are also ready to discuss the financial implications of things.

    All the relevant policies have been calmly explained to them by C.Fred and I, and they have been properly warned about the consequences of legal threats. JBchrch talk 17:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • They made the first legal threat in a now-deleted edit. When they made the second one on their talk page, I blocked them indefinitely for legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bad-faith accusations by Dawit S Gondaria

    Dawit S Gondaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Two days ago, Dawit S Gondaria posted a very long reply to a question I asked at Talk:Amhara people#Removal of nature of Amhara ethnicity section, a compilation/synthesis WP:OR contains and push fringe theory WP:Fringe that is outright offensive, supported by misquotes and misattributions adding to WP:RSP and WP:NPOV concerns.

    Before I had time to read this or to reply, they opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Amhara people, accusing me of POV-pushing and misattributing quotes to the wrong sources. Despite me explaining that I wasn't responsible for adding some of the material concerned (I'd merely restored it pending discussion after it was removed without consensus) and demonstrating that the quotes hadn't been misattributed, the editor continues to make bad-faith accusations (e.g. here: The Nature of Amhara ethnicity section(and social stratification section) definitely negatively affect the NPOV of this article, it looks like Nature of Amhara ethnicity it might have been deliberatly created to sneak in fringe statements some unknown so-called scholar made with political connotation rather than based on research publications. (NB that, as Landroving Linguist has pointed out, "unknown so-called scholar" is a reference to a peer-reviewed article by an established scholar).

    Dawit S Gondaria has also edited comments after I've replied to them to point out that they contain mistaken accusations against me.

    Could another admin look into this and warn the editor against continuing these bad-faith accusations against me, if that is deemed appropriate? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I called out @Cordless Larry for reverting fringe and then adding a statement from Gideon P.E Cohen [1] based on Takelle Tadesse view, but altering in text in such a way(leaving out Takkele Tadesse, leaving out words, and adding According to) made it look like the view is from Gideon P.E Cohen [[161]], I openend the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Amhara people to have the fringe sections scrutinized, and the edits made. Takkele Tadesse fringe statements is what lead me to open the discussion.
    I made some policy errors for being relatively new and i apologized for it: [[162]] But fundamentally, it doesn't change what i saw from diffs, and source that Cordless Larry altered text in such a fashion it gave the appearance of broader support for the fringe views of Takkele Tadesse as is being discussed @the Noticeboard. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I added "According to" to attribute the quote to its author, Cohen. Anyone wanting to check can see the diff and source (I can supply a copy if necessary). Disagreeing with use of sources or suggesting new ones is fine and can happen on the article talk page, but the issue here is repeated bad-faith accusations and misrepresentations of my actions and intentions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff [[163]] says: According to Gideon P. E. Cohen, there is some debate about "whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group...given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds".[2] The source says: The question of whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group has also been raised, given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds (see Takkele 1994; Tegegne 1998)[3] He removed: Has also been raised(which raises the question who?), and he removed Takelle(who Gideon drew his quote from, and is now the subject of scrutiny at the noticeboard), and he added: According to first time readers would think that it's Gideon P.E Cohen view, which is not, this is what i highlighted among others.

    Takelle Tadesse meanwhile made WP:FRINGE statement belonging to a insignificant minority namely, statement: Amharas don't exist and made politically motivated statement about elite belonging to the Amhara people adhering to Herrenvolk nazi ideology. I called on the Noticeboard and invited other Noticeboard to bring more scrutiny at what happend at the Amhara people article. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=985671660&oldid=985581696
    2. ^ Cohen, Gideon P. E. (2000). "Language and Ethnic Boundaries: Perceptions of Identity Expressed through Attitudes towards the Use of Language Education in Southern Ethiopia". Northeast African Studies. 7 (3): 189–206. JSTOR 41931261.
    3. ^ Cohen, Gideon P. E. (2000). "Language and Ethnic Boundaries: Perceptions of Identity Expressed through Attitudes towards the Use of Language Education in Southern Ethiopia". Northeast African Studies. 7 (3): 191–192. JSTOR 41931261.
    We've been over all this on the NPOVN - Cohen doesn't quote Takelle, just cites him as an example. But that's all beside the point here, which is your bad-faith accusations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cordless Larry Don't try to sow confusion, i just said above and he removed Takelle(who Gideon drew his quote from, and is now the subject of scrutiny at the noticeboard) Gideon drew his(Gideon own) quote based on Takelle, can't you read that? My bad faith towards you is justified. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who observed (and sometimes participated in) this discussion, I want to affirm that Dawit S Gondaria's accusations against Cordless Larry are indeed unfounded. Reading through Cordless Larry's edits it becomes very clear that he has no personal interest in the actual subject matter of the dispute. He came into editing the page Amhara people being called in as an administrator, after there was already some significant edit warring by other editors. He reinstated some previously deleted material and looked for better sources. All this he explained patiently to Dawit S Gondaria, who continued to write long statements with bizarre accusations that are not born out by the facts. When it was shown to him that the accusations are based on faulty understanding of how sources are used in Wikipedia and in academia, and that sources he characterized as "extremist fringe" POV pushing are indeed peer-reviewed articles, he did nothing to tone down his rhetoric. Even his most recent edits (as seen above) leave little doubt that he sees Cordless Larry as personally guilty of maliciously pushing POV in this matter, which is rather bizarre in the given circumstances. LandLing 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LandLing is not a neutral observer and tries to maintain Takelle Tadesse credibility and his fringe statements. WP:FRINGE i challenged @LandLing & Cordless Larry to support Takelle's fringe statement that Amharas don't exist, prove it that it doesn't belong to a insignificant minority i called on other the wider Wikipedia community to scrutinize what happend on the Amhara people article, the edits made & the editors over the past months, and years. I rightly showed above what Cordless Larry left out from Gideon P.E Cohen quote, he left the question raising has also been raised he left out that it was based on Takelle view, he added According to, anyone with good faith reading that without checking the sources would assume that it's Gideon P.E Cohen's view is not, your good faith turns to bad faith after reading the source and seeing what Cordless Larry removed. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dawit S Gondaria stop immediately accusing anyone of bad faith or otherwise questioning their motives. We don't care whether you think it's true or not; discuss edits instead of attributing motives to other editors. This is important. If you don't stop, you're quite likely to get blocked until we believe you understand this and will stop. Please tell me that you understand this. Please also stop using typographics such as bold to emphasize, which is considered shouting. You were asked this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard also, and you've continued to do it.
    @Cordless Larry, I haven't read all the walls of text, here or at NPOVN or at the talk, but in general it sounds like you're wanting to keep something in the article that DSG is disputing? They may be incorrect, but is there evidence of past consensus other than the fact it had been previously included? —valereee (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mew2king impersonation

    SOFT BLOCK
    User blocked for impersonation (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user Mew2king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making vandalism edits of Hungrybox over the past few days. I reached out to the real Mew2King on Twitter in his DMs and he said that it is not him. I advised him to email to info-en@wikimedia.org per WP:IMPERSONATE but he said he was too busy and asked if anything else could be done in the meantime. I can post screenshots of the DMs if necessary. Please advise the best way to resolve this issue. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked for impersonation. They can change their name to something else, however not if they continue to vandalize. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tag team of SPAs at Henley Business School

    There is a sudden rash of "updating" happening at Henley Business School, apparently by a tag-team of "disposable" SPAs. The editing activity includes removal of properly sourced history and replacing it with unsourced or self-sourced unencyclopedic promotional content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Siremeowington obviously has a financial COI, and responding with "please don't talk to me" when asked to follow WP:COI and WP:PAID is troubling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still going on! When these users are confronted to declare their COI they "retire" instead and (I suspect) simply continue under a different username. The subject of the article is in fact a highly reputable business school, I wonder if the bosses would actually be embarrassed by the level of shenanigans going on in the article, possibly even at their behest. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I saw this on my talk page so thought I'd come to say that since the changes Siremeowington made, I've tried to improve the page with adding to the reputation section. I didn't agree with JBchrch undoing my changes as I had researched but added even more sources now so I hope that satisfies. I agree Dodger67 that it's a shame since a reputable school has this going on. Since Girth Summit made changes too, so much was removed which I didn't think was useful in the slightest. Hence me adding in more to the reputation as they do deserve this information on the page. Teeside42 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit reverted and IP range now blocked for 72 hours by The Blade of the Northern Lights. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. Admins please review legal threat at Talk:Bhumihar and take necessary action. Melmann 20:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed by another editor. See Special:PermanentLink/1030248077 Melmann 20:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    /64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban for Footwiks

    Footwiks (talk · contribs) has been around a long time, and they make some good edits - but competency remains an issue and today I noticed a serious issue involving copying & pasting categories, rather than moving them to a new name - see histories (now merged) of this and this amongst others. This is not a new issue - I raised the exact same thing with them back in December 2020, see this discussion - so there has been no change in disruptive editing pattern over the past 6 months.

    There are also issues with them removing valid categories from articles, see e.g. this and this.

    They have also been warned about moving pages without discussion - see this discussion from December 2020, yet today they moved a page which was under AFD discussion, see this.

    So, in summary while some edits are good, there is a serious issue with category and page moves which cause a headache to clean up, and concerns about edits involving categories more generally.

    I therefore propose the following topic bans:

    1. Footwiks is indefinitely topic banned from moving any mainspace page, including articles, categories and templates (broadly construed) without first starting a discussion at the relevant venue; and
    2. Footwiks is indefinitely topic banned from adding, removing, or changing the categories present on any mainspace page (broadly construed).

    Thoughts? GiantSnowman 21:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I really apolozise for moving category without WP:CFDS and moving page on discussion.

    But There has been a misunderstanding about the removing valid categories. Please check out my contriubtions.

    Before editing
    Saigon FC
    Category:Football clubs in Vietnam
    Category:Football clubs in Ho Chi Minh City
    Category:2016 establishments in Vietnam
    Category:Works association football clubs in Vietnam
    =>
    After editing
    (1)

    Saigon FC
    Category:Saigon FC
    => Creating Category:Saigon FC then reclassified as belows
    (2)

    Category:Saigon FC
    Category:Football clubs in Vietnam
    Category:Football clubs in Ho Chi Minh City
    Category:2016 establishments in Vietnam
    Category:Works association football clubs in Vietnam

    In my defense,
    Firstly
    I just forgot the GS's instructions gave six months ago. I'm so forgetful these days. Sometimes I forgot my boss's instructions gave just one month ago.

    Because of this, I think GS is very angry with me. I have absolutely no intention of ignoring it. Don get me wrong.


    Secondly,
    About this issue Notice said that Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice.

    I thought maybe title changing was included in article improving. That's all.


    Finally, I didn't edit that in a malign way. I moved category and pages just in order to clean up and arrange for wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you will take good care of it.

    As you know, Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. Because everybody don't receive money from wikipedia. Not full time job, Volunteer work.

    I hope that administrators are generous to a faults and mistakes for ordinary wikipedia users.

    I am confident that My 99% contributions about category and title changing was beneficial to wikipedia, 1% contributions are faults and mistakes.

    Indefinitely - I thik it was too much for my unintentional faults and mistakes.

    Anyway, Once more, I apologize for having caused trouble and espcially GiantSnowman I will be more cautious in the future. Footwiks (talk)

    I don't mean to be a pain or rude in anyway, but all of this seems unnecessary, GiantSnowman, the way I see it, you making a big deal out of a small issue which can easily be sorted out between the two of you. I hardly see an issue that requires an ANI response! Govvy (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an editor with a long history of disruptive edits, which he knows and admits are wrong (even if made in good faith), but which he "forgets" not to do?! No. It definitely needs wider views & comments. GiantSnowman 11:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see some bad edits at times from Footwiks, but that's why we have talk pages, to discuss these issues. I don't see how a topic ban will accomplish anything. Footwiks has clearly show above he is willing to chat and compromise. Clearly starting a proper conversation on his talk page would be far more beneficial than template it. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He said that in December 2020 after I raise it with him then - and yet here we are, 6 months later, discussing the same problems, with no change in editing... GiantSnowman 11:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see this as something requiring sanctions. Perhaps if it continues, but it seems to me as if this is a relatively minor mistake followed up by the same mistake several months later. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gree11

    User Gree11 (talk · contribs) was blocked today in the Spanish Wikipedia for removing referenced content and edit warring ([164]) after being warned at the very least five times in their talk page and not offering any explanation. After the block, moments afterwards Gree11 has now proceeded to repeat the same behavior in the same article in English, including but not limited to Carolina Herrera and Popular Will. Without admin intervention, this is only bound to continue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:HighInBC is on the case, saying what I would have said. Gree11, you need to stop. We're way too busy to spend a lot of time on an editor who keeps removing verified content without explaining what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an editor who seems to be nothing but removing material, without edit summaries, from a mobile device, first on the Spanish Wikipedia and now on the English Wikipedia. It is hard to assume good faith to the point of trying to warn them. The most obvious explanation is the most negative, which is that this is a form of cross-wiki vandalism. I suggest a partial block from the pages that they have been subtracting from. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have given a warning, I don't object to another admin taking action. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious behavior

    User now indef blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Apart from the username, Bleeding monkey brains 69420 is gaming the autoconfirmed system by making obviously pointless edits on their userpage. See their edits. When combined with the username, it looks rather suspicious and should raise the sock alarm. aeschylus (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also poop vandalism. Blocked as not here to contribute constructively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong, but I do not think that any editor with "69420" as part of their username has ever proven to be a productive Wikipedia editor. The other part is just disgusting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Press TV has been deprecated. I'm requesting an edit filter/warning for users who attempt to newly use it in articles.

    Moved to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Press TV has been deprecated. I'm requesting an edit filter/warning for users who attempt to newly use it in articles.

    — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Disruptive edits on Nubia (character) article by Benicio2020

    Over a period of the last 3-4 weeks, Benicio2020 and I have been involved in a conflict that is starting to know no end. Beginning on 31 May 2021, I have made 14 edits to the Nubia (character) article, most or all in the Nubia (character)#Long-term publication absence which is the particular area where Benicio2020 and I have have been having a conflict.

    Benicio2020’s first edit on 19:38, 31 May 2021 was a simple revert, that deleted all of multiple interconnected points, in which he/she 1) claimed that it was all original research 2) neglected to contribute any discussion beforehand 3) did not attempt at salvaging anything or 4) did not attempt to add any references (which were already in the article or related articles that were wikilinked-to) that were relevant.

    After a simple un-reversion by me, my very next edit on 03:55, 3 June 2021 showed improvements on my part with the addition of 3 references for a medium-sized paragraph with less than 100 words. This was followed up by Benicio2020 the very same day (3 June) in a series of 6 edits over a period of 4 minutes, beginning at 13:57 going to 14:01. Some of these edits included what I would call rather petty quibbles over language choice, including an objection to my using the word “full” in a quote “a full twenty years” in reference to a publication gap for the subject’s publishing history (actually, 19 years and 11 months), although I later did make this more technically correct by further qualifying the statement. It was also in this series of 6 edits in one edit on 13:59, 3 June 2021, when Benicio2020 1) started a series of contentions of his/hers over a particular item of material by calling into question the reliability of the cited source for that material and 2) deleted additional material without any explanation whatsoever.

    In the next edit I made, on 18:05 4 June 2021, I changed the source from the one Benicio2020 objected to, to the primary source which, for this intent and purpose, was the best possible source. Benicio’s next edit on 20:15, 4 June 2021 was 1) a simple reversion 2) with the rationale that I was introducing opinions into the article and sourcing them to the new (primary) source, taking contention with the exact same material 3) in which he/she continued to delete accompanying material without any rationale, whatsoever.

    Since that time, Benicio has undone that work a total of 5 more times (including 3 simple reversions) without once ever having demonstrated at all that he/she has done any fact-checking on the particular item of contention, despite on 22:06, 4 June 2021 on the article’s talk page, my calling to his/her attention on 22:06, among other things “Not even an hour-and-a-half went by between my making that edit and you 1) deleting some material for no stated reason, whatsoever, and 2) making a deletion without any demonstration of consulting a source to determine its relevancy” (something that he/she has continually repeated to do). I reminded him/her again on the article’s talk page on 19 June 2021 that an editor must fact-check, linking to Wikipedia’s fact-checking policy and citing that she/he “h[ave] the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content” before he/she can start to make a contention about the applicability and relevance of a reference to the material it supports in the article.

    Benicio2020 has made repeated claims that I am injecting opinions, but how can somebody claim material in an article supported by a reference is an opinion if they have repeatedly and consistently refused to demonstrate that they have consulted that reference, themselves?

    Also, after my 18:05 4 June 2021 edit, and after I made the explanation that I mentioned on the article’s talk page on 22:06, Benicio2020 made 3 more reversions over the next 24 hours (curiously enough, stopping just one edit short of the 3-revert rule), all the while completely neglecting to engage with my discussion on the article’s talk page.

    Throughout all 5 of his/her reversions/edits since my edit on the main article on 18:05 4 June 2021, not only has Benicio2020 refused to demonstrate, every single time, that he/she has consulted the source to be able to argue the relevancy and applicability of the source to the corresponding material in the article, he/she has also, in all 5 edits, deleted other material for which he/she has failed to articulate any reason for deleting.

    Can I please have an administrator’s oversight on this?

    ETA: Sorry. Forgot to sign. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits, apparent personal attack

    Charli 250: Does some live updates in 2021 Copa América Group A ([165] and earlier edits), then harasses my talk page after I reverted those changes [166]. Does not respond to a related message in his/her talk page [167]. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has had plenty of warnings and their responses don't seem to be particularly constructive. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...not to mention two previous blocks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the German WP he is currently blocked for a month for similar reasons, so this has a pettern.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Alarming edits by User Wyk1ng

    I am very alarmed by these edits by Wyk1ng, as they strongly suggest that this person is editing from a White Nationalist / Supremacist POV. The first is is explicitly phrased using terminology characteristic of Holocaust denialists (on an article directly related to the Holocaust, he talks about "Jewish victim propaganda"). I have not engaged with this user directly, as prior experience suggests to me that this is unlikely to help, and will just expose me to abuse. Moreover, this talk-page message does not fill me with confidence. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    115 edits in 9 years and I am seeing multiple warnings for spamming on multiple occasions, racist comments, and a rant about how they are superior and don't like how people disagree and that admins are dumb. I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. If another admin thinks that I have overreacted I am happy to listen, but I am not seeing a net benefit to the project here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

    Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[168]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

    HOUNDING:hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

    Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity.

    • Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[169]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[170]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[171]].
    • Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[172]].
    • Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[173]], [[174]], [[175]], [[176]], [[177]].
    • Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
      • Odal rune RfC [[178]]
      • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[179]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[180]].
      • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[181]]
      • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[182]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions
    • Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
      • Earlier today [[183]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[184]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[185]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"
    • Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[186]] 2nd [[187]]
    • Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
      • [[188]], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
      • [[189]], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

    I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[190]], Noteduck's page [[191]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I'll provide diffs in the morning as the middle of the night where I am (Australia). I absolutely reject Springee's contention that I have predominantly focused on their edits. Just this year I have created pages like Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman and added extensively to Texas Revolution. I share interests in politics with Springee so it's not surprising I have added to pages Springee has contributed to like the Andy Ngo and Douglas Murray pages. I do maintain my contention that Springee is a repeat violator of editorial policy and a civil-POV pusher on pages related to conservative politics, invariably working to whitewash critical material. Springee has recently appeared before WP:ANI for adding deprecated sources, resulting in a logged warning. It's true that I have gone out of my way to correct what I see as some of Springee's tendentious editing practices. It's true I was preparing a WP:ANI complaint against them in my sandbox, just as Springee prepared a complaint against me in their sandbox in February 2021. Springee is quite litigious against other editors, and I can't help but see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee's fixation with challenging my edits is far more severe and they have 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that the challenge to a very short sentence I added to the Andy Ngo is a total WP:FILIBUSTER, which Springee is still maintaining, although I've comprehensively rebutted the criticisms.[192] Springee misrepresents the discussion of the 1RR as Springee is currently ENQUIRING with another editor about whether it should be considered a revert and still hasn't received an answer.[193] I've reverted it anyway,[194] though I think it should be restored in the future. Springee knows that I am sensitive and afflicted by bipolar disorder type 2 and prone to being angry and frustrated when I'm in manic phases. Most of the diffs Springee has provided have been taken completely out of context by Springee. It's the middle of the night where I am (Australia) so I'll add diffs in the morning Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1030373476"