Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1082

Constant unruly reversions at multiple pages regarding alternative names in lead

Inclusion of frequently used, common and historically relevant foreign names in multiple pages, in accordance with WP:NCGN are systematically being prevented by two editors, Khirurg and Therealscorp1an who ignore calls for discussion at the talk page, refuse to abide by the guidelines and instead revert with invalid reasons or none in Lesbos, Chios and Samos:

[1], [2], [3]

[4], [5], [6]

[7]

Talk on Lesbos

Talk on Chios

Talk on Samos

WP:NCGN states: ″The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1). Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name.″

It should be noted that the Turkish names that were being added are both historically relevant and are the sole contemporary names for the locations used by the "group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place".

While the alternative names are briefly and singularly mentioned in the bodies, the prevension of the inclusion of the alternative names in the lead contradict the rest of the guideline, which states:

″Alternatively, all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Where there is such a section, the article's first line should have only a link to the section, phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two."

DriedGrape (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This user is edit-warring pretty intensely across these articles [8] [9], having already reached 3 reverts at two of them. He is trying to ram through by brute force the Turkish name in the first line of the lede. I've explained my reasoning at the respective talkpages. Any help dealing with this would be appreciated. As an aside, he is already topic banned from anything related to WP:ARBAA2, doubtless for this kind of behavior. Khirurg (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have actually not reached 3 reverts in any of the articles. We both attain the same amount, two for each. You have not responded to one talk page, which you were pinged in, and instead kept reverting with no proper explanation. In the only two talk pages you have contributed in, you have given the exact same invalid excuse and accused me of edit warring and forcing POV instead. I do not see how my topic ban is related to this subject but please refrain from WP:PA DriedGrape (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg's reasoning includes the fact that it is a Greek island, this is the English Wikipedia (and no one in English uses the Turkish name i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) and there is no significant Turkish population on the island. And please do not say that we are refusing to contribute on talk pages because that is completely untrue and you can see our contributions. Quite frankly, I only reverted one round of DriedGrape's edits and to try and report me immediately for it seems a bit unfair. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times, common and frequently used relevant foreign names are included in the lead in many cases. There doesn't need to be any current significant Turkish population on the island. The names being the sole contemporary ones used by a population that has inhabited that region in the recent past suffices. DriedGrape (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@DriedGrape: This isn't the first time someone tried to add the Turkish names to the ledes of these articles, so technically even your first addition is a revert. So yes, 3 reverts on both. Khirurg (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not how 3RR works. Refer to WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule DriedGrape (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator(s): it seems that one of the users reported, Therealscorp1an, has been autoblocked just now. User_talk:Therealscorp1an#Block_2 DriedGrape (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef ban for DriedGrape

This isn't the first time DriedGrape edit-wars with different users. They've been already topic banned from AA (broadly construed) for the same reasons and more [10]. FYI, DriedGrape, the ONUS is on you to reach consensus as you're the one introducing content to the article [11], [12] (not even with any sources). Yet you didn't shy away from edit-warring (again like in AA previously) with 2 different editors without having consensus for your additions [13], [14]. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate here, given also the fact that DriedGrape breached their AA broadly tban multiple times in the span of 24hrs:

• Removing Armenian highlands from the lead of Turkish Van [15]. This may constitute as a re-revert (of me) as a new account also tried to do practically the same yesterday [16]. Keep in mind, this is the first edit of DriedGrape in that page.
• Reverting me again, now in an article that directly falls under AA area, [17], [18].
• Editing in another article that falls under AA, [19], [20].

Considering their recent edit-wars with multiple editors and repeated breaches of their broadly tban, per WP:BOOMERANG, I propose an indef ban on DriedGrape. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and per above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of these edits are breachments of my topic ban. We have had this conversation with another admin on a separate report who also supported the notion that one can contribute to articles falling under arbitration without touching the topic they were sanctioned from. And again, if you were to check my actual edits, making a better specification of the origins on a cat species, just re-adding the Eastern Anatolia Region back to the lead in Lake Van and re-ordering alternative languages in the lead of Mount Ararat in accordance with WP:NCGN, it's absurd to classify these as breachments of sanctions. Also are you accusing me of meat puppeteering with the new account stuff? Also, the reason for my report in the first place was the other participants unwillingness to attain consensus. DriedGrape (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

For someone with 183 edits, you know alot about guidelines and policies. You should also know what WP:BROADLY means, and you aren't just "editing" in AA, you're reverting and re-reverting. Just like you do with other editors, but only now, jumping in Turkey/Turks related articles (surprise). That's the definition of a WP:BROADLY breach. Summing up, not only you're reverting and re-reverting in AA where you're tbanned from, you're now doing the same in related topic area of Turkey/Turks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait on the administrators decisions. I'd rather not keep arguing the same points. DriedGrape (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep re-reverting in Lake Van with absolutely no valid reason. Not only reverting a revert with inadequate reason constitutes as an edit-war, but the article directly falls under WikiProject Armenia, which I btw showed above already. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello? My edit was the re-insertion of relevant information I have achieved consensus on much earlier [21], not even arguable to be within AA, that you have removed with zero explanation just recently. Are you WP:GAMING to create the appearance of disruption? Edit: this is getting ridiculous. You are actually mass reverting my edits without proper explanations now? Without even trying to discuss? Getting in to an edit war, ironic.DriedGrape (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you're new here? This isn't the first time editors noticed the strange knowledge of guidelines by a below 200edit account. "Reinstating an edit" isn't a valid reason for re-reverting and edit-warring, you gotta be kidding me, right? Conesnsuses do change and if you have a problem with my edit(s), show how exactly instead of edit-warring. But again, you are in fact tbanned from AA area, broadly construed, and the article falls under your tban. Why on god's earth you're doing the same old edit-wars again and breaching your tban? Is your WP:COI so high that you can't abstain from editing reverting and re-reverting in AA articles with no valid reason?

Edit: this is getting ridiculous. You are actually mass reverting my edits without proper explanations now? – Lol, are you being serious? All the articles I reverted you are articles that I previously edited [22], [23], [24]. Keep in mind, that in Mount Ararat and Turkish Van, you didn't even have any prior edits, only your reverts of today of ... me. If someone is WP:HOUNDING here, it's you. And I did in fact explain my edits. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to accuse me of anything without any proof, go ahead. "wlink" is a valid reason to disrupt a stable lead? The burden of attaining consensus on removing stable information from the first sentence of a stable article is on you. Can you actually not see, or even taste the irony here? DriedGrape (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

oh, so you're aware of WP:BURDEN as well. And btw, please read what WP:BURDEN is. I didn't add anything to the article, and I explained my edit reason both in talk and in edit descriptions [25], [26]. You on the other hand, can't abstain from AA area, which you're broadly tbanned from. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see a double WP:BOOMERANG, accusing one of it but then being effected themselves. You have shown the attempt at discussion only just now, after I created a section specifically pinging you. Your attitude here is quite undesirable and unproductive, as such I won't be continuing this. DriedGrape (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have shown the attempt at discussion only just now, after I created a section specifically pinging you. – are you sure you understand how talk pages work? For someone that knowledge about guidelines, you surely have to. I'm engaging with you currently and replying to your every comment, not just "after you pinged me" lol. And what does that even mean, what do you think pings are for?

Your attitude here is quite undesirable and unproductive, as such I won't be continuing this. – classic withdrawal from a discussion, and some personal commentary on top. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support : I think the topic ban violations are enough to warrant a long term block by themselves, with tendentious edit warring on multiple article added to it I'm sure he needs a indeff vacation, he feels like a possible SP throwaway account as well. The editor has too much knowledge to be a true new editor and thus I'm sure they know how BROAD the sanction is - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging El C as original sanctioning admin. 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've imposed a 48-hour AE block on DriedGrape (direct link), mystery editor. El_C 09:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Czello canvassing

Czello explicitly canvassed Erzan to 'take his place' in the on-going edit war. After I initiated a dispute resolution to finally settle an issue, he then conveniently "conceded" the dispute which led to the dispute being closed and no decision actually reached (Then began editing the page again afterwards, clearly showing his "concession" was not genuine). This seems like fairly clear WP:GAMING.

Secondly, Czello then filed a dishonest ANI, grossly misrepresented the situation. Unfortunately, the admin just took them at their word without looking into it, and immediately blocked just minutes after the request was made (As an aside, I seriously hope this was just an honest mistake from an admin rather than evidence of a systemic "first-one-to-submit-an-ANI-wins" problem). I had made 2 of the same edits (removing a word), followed by significant discussion on the talk page, leading to a proposed brand new edit that added additional explanation complete with a source which I believed was balanced and reached an appropriate middle-ground. The second edit to this new proposal was made after the other user appeared to accept the revision, but apparently was just confused by what the edit was to begin with and did not actually mean to accept it. This seemed perfectly reasonable and it doesn't appear to violate any Wiki rules. Czello filed a blatantly incorrect ANI shortly after I admonished his behaviour and insisted that they stick to the subject and merits of the actual edit rather than engage in WP:LAWYERING. Perhaps they took this personally.

I thought about whether the optics of filing this ANI could be viewed as petty retribution, but Czello seems to be active in the community and this toxic behaviour shouldn't simply be swept under the rug. And at the end of the day, motivation doesn't really seem to matter. --Twozerooz (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz sure looks like an SPA only here to edit-war for their own idiosyncratic opinions on what social democracy is. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz really needs to stop beating a dead horse with this, as it's gone nowhere in the past and now I feel they're forum shopping. This is a retaliatory report, despite what they say (which is why they waited almost two months to make it, and only did so after they were blocked for a second time - perhaps they took this personally).

To be clear, after Twozerooz was blocked the first time (for canvassing and WP:GAMING, no less![27]) they returned to the social democracy page with a deceptive edit summary, labelling something as vandalism when it was not. Consequently I reverted them and pinged an editor who was also involved in the content dispute, believing this was a deliberate act of disruptiveness on Twozerooz's part. As I mentioned at the DRN, I believed this was in line with WP:APPNOTE. However, when it was pointed out to me that I might have misread APPNOTE, I unreseverdly apologised[28]. Once again, if I have misunderstood it, I apologise. However, given that the user I pinged, Erzan, was close to the content dispute and clearly monitors the page, I really don't think there's much of an issue here: realistically, if I didn't revert Twozerooz then he would have. It's rather tenuous to suggest I "explicitly canvased him to take my place". However, while we're on this, I agree with 力 above -- Twozerooz is a SPA who has been blocked twice for edit warring on the same page. They clearly have an agenda or an axe to grind: forcing a certain political view into the lead of that article. They also misread the last EWN that was filed: they clearly violated 3RR, as they have done several times in their wikicareer; I wouldn't mention this, but they brought it up. — Czello 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. But yes, I was blocked for canvassing - despite being a new user and being completely oblivious to the rule. It is difficult to imagine someone being active here for more than a decade having the same excuse. --Twozerooz (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM is about unblock requests (as you were directed to it lately, I assumed you knew this?), it doesn't mean that you can't be called into question. It would also apply if I hadn't addressed your accusation, which I did. — Czello 15:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

IP user continually failing to use talk page when their edits have been contested

Could someone please intervene with this issue. The new user, 86.185.171.71, has made a series of edits, with the best source being a primary source, at All You Need Is Love. I've reverted them several times, as has another editor – Zmbro – and I've referred them to WP:BRD twice in my reverts. I've warned them on their talk page. I'm not hiding the fact that in my reverts each time, I'm also edit warring, possibly 3R-ing. The user seems unfamiliar with requirements for sourcing, especially regarding OR and synth, but there's no way to communicate the problem when they won't engage in a discussion away from comments with their edits. JG66 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring by this address has indeed been going on although they only have been warned about it today it seems. Then they finally posted at the talk page yet to immediately restore the content again without consensus (I see multiple editors object there)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reflexa9

Basically, the problem is that Reflexa9 is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to promote and defend terrorism.

• They've made repeated attempts to remove the word criminal from the Mumtaz Qadri article, on this attempt with a long summary.
• They're also attempting to defend another terrorist, Aafia Siddiqui (edit).

PepperBeast (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflexa9 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the conduct, but @Reflexa9:, please be more careful with your replies. You added your reply within Pepperbeast's statement above. Also, don't forget to indent your replies and sign your posts. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To state the facts that are “actually true” is called encyclopedia. I do not write with biased views of media or unjust laws. I write with the right to write for what’s correct. You are the one who supports terrorism if you call innocent people Terrorist for false charges. I repeat “false charges” Wikipedia needs to uphold their free to edit and have “true views”not media based views. and what’s the difference between Wikipedia and a paid news biased channel? State the “truth” Looking forward for a sensible reply and action

Reflexa9 ^{User talk:Reflexa9}/

What reliable sources do you have that demonstrates that the laws in question are "unjust", the media is "biased" and that the individual in question was "innocent" and that they were a victim of "false charges"? You can't make controversial edits like that without having reliable sources to back it up. Your justifications sound very much like a campaign... Alssa1 (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Reflexa9! You may have missed some of our most important rules for editing our encyclopedia. The main one, that applies to all of us here, is that we seek verifiability, not The Truth. We know you know The Truth, as you see it, but we're not interested in your view as to what The Truth is, any more than we're interested in anybody else's view when they're editing here. It's not what we're for. We report what others have said in reliable sources. Those are the only thing we can go on if this isn't to be a battleground. I'm sorry if you misunderstood what we're trying to achieve here. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reflexa9, I get that you don't want the articles on these subjects to be biased. But your edits aren't trying to remove existing bias, you're attempting to add bias in the other direction. For instance, when you edited Aafia Siddiqui you added the word "unjustly". This adds bias to a sentence that didn't have it before; the sentence was only a statement of fact. If you want to productively edit, you can add information on the opposing point of view with good referencing. For instance, you tried to add information that there is a movement seeking to free Aafia Siddiqui. Here is a reliable source on that movement: [29] If you want, you can add neutrally worded information about that movement and their goals in the "reactions" section. You can also change the lede to mention that the Pakistani government continues to actively push for Siddiqui's release and possibly include information on domestic American reactions to Siddiqui's case.

The goal of this website isn't to tell readers what to believe, it's to give readers the information that they need and allow them to make the determination for themselves. This is how we deal with almost all disputes over who's right and who isn't; we simply do not take a position as an encyclopedia. That's what WP:NPOV means. Refusing to accept that is going to result in you getting banned from the subject area. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TREY MATURIN & Alssa1 Let me try to keep it simple. I’m sure most of you will be in favor- 1. Yes! I do have reliable sources.

I’m sure you will ask for a news channel that states so!

• https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2010/10/17/injustice-in-the-age-of-obama

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/21/us-pakistan-protests-release-neuroscientist-aafia-siddiqui

This is by well known “al-jazeera”

• also search for “Aafia siddiqi case on YouTube” and visit the TRT case study for more clear information

I want each one of you to read the case study about her case. And ask your heart and do research about it. You’ll find that media lies. We all know it.

Also to mention it’s not “my views” If would be if I were the only one who said it. It’s been said by millions over the world. And should be well heard. The points you mention as to what can be done to keep what I said please do make the edits accordingly. Well also we do not tell the readers what to believe but rather we tell them facts and they decide what’s correct. For example- Australia is a continent. Yes. But it’s also a country. Having stated both the “correct statements” now people can decide for what they believe. Similarly- with the Aafia’s case. Only one part is written which is biased! Worst it’s wrong! We need to state the truth no matter what the world says. And after the truth is stated. Then let the people decide who they stand for or believe

Reflexa9 ^{User talk:Reflexa9}/

That first Al-Jazeera link is an opinion piece. The second one reports that there were protests in Pakistan, which is already in the article. You still don't seem to have absorbed the idea of WP:NPOV PepperBeast (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! We're starting to get somewhere by working together rather than against each other. Those sources are useful and important, so your next job is to take them to the talk page of the article you want to change. Suggest some wording that reflects accurately what the source says (we can't draw conclusions from our sources, we can only report exactly what they said), provide the sources and see what your other editors think. If any of them are biased, it will show up there and will be seen, and then we'll all know about it and can act accordingly. There will be some too-and-fro as other editors try to improve on your wording, but that's fine too: all writing is improved with the input from others, even as it really hurts to see our own words being smashed about! Then, when it's all settled, the new wording can go in and an improved article will be the result. It still won't reflect the truth as you see it, because there are 8 billion people on this planet with 8 billion different opinions of what the truth is, but you'll get something that's better than what's there now. Keep on talking, keep calm, keep compromising: if you really have the truth on your side, it will come out in the end (we've got no deadline here). You can make a big difference! — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

In their reply above, pepperbeast rightly reveals something else, Reflexa9, that you're not going to like but I'm afraid is just part of how things work here: we can't fit everything into the lede (opening paragraph) of our articles. We need to give our readers a very quick overview of each subject of an article in the first paragraph. After that we can expand on the subject and include a very wide range of views. But the first paragraph has to sum things up quickly and simply. Why is this person/event notable? After that, there's more to be said. But that first paragraph can't be used to argue or debate or reflect all points of view. It need to state the facts and answer the simple question "why is this notable?". You may need to compromise on having the truth as you see it being mentioned further down the article. This hurts - it's really annoying! - but we have to think of our readers first, and they want a simple introductory paragraph. Sorry. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Concerning is that the very first edit in 2020 suggested a mission that seems consistent with the more recent edits. Yes, inappropriate information in WP:BLP articles, including that unsupported by WP:BLPRS may be removed. This must be done in accordance with policy, however (others have already commented about WP:V). The suggestion that mainstream news must necessarily be paid advocacy against some people is also strange (if I interpret "paid news" correctly). —PaleoNeonate – 22:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed. I think the odds of this user reforming and contributing in a neutral, non-partisan manner, are not good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:OccasionalEditor30

OccasionalEditor30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bizarre vandalism edits that are reverted by the user or by others. On White Men Can't Jump, Changing the infobox title to "White Flowers Smell Great" and article title to "Peeing on the Floor". In Super Monkey Ball Banana Mania, Adding "It's a game so difficult it makes your body temperature rise extremely high and makes your blood pressure spike to high heavens. Therefore, unless someone gives me $100 in tips, I'm not appreciating you or listening to any of your dumb requests while playing this game!" In Richardson Island, adding "and the fact that it was named for disgraced Jeopardy executive producer Mike Richards"—The article has nothing to do with Mike Richards (television personality). In Grundy County, Tennessee, adding WP:OPINION about "perceived radical beliefs". AldezD (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked that editor for all that nonsense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Destructive sock

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

---

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

This is likely a sock of User:Dragonrap2...AKA:

• User:104.243.160.113
• User:WXA53
• User:Futurewiki
• User:104.243.169.127
• User:104.243.167.109
• User:Futuristic21
• User:Futurewiki2
• User:Mega256
• User:Futurewiki The Third
• User:Mega257
• User:Mega258
• User:Futurew
• User:104.243.166.108
• User:104.243.170.125
• User:Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues
• User:104.243.163.15

Past cleanups have been large. Is a rangeblock possible? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

104.243.160.0/20 covers those listed and has been blocked before, most recently in January. I've gone ahead and blocked the range again. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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

External channels

What does external channels mean in the following:

But if you two don't respond after many days or the discussion fails, then I will have to take this issue to further external channels. Kind regards. Nvtuil (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Report intimidation and bullying from User:Tgeorgescu

The User:Tgeorgescu has made it very clear that they don't like my edits. But instead of discussing it civilly on the article's talk page.

He instead resorts to sending me a large wall of strawman arguments to my personal Talk page. That is trolling and why I had deleted it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051654658

I never once claimed evolution was fake or the other large number of strawman arguments thrown at me. So I deleted it as I won't tolerate any trolling of this nature and magnitude. He owes me an apology for the aggressive trolling via a large wall of strawman attacks. I warned him yet he aggressively says he doesn't care if I report him, and that I am the one trolling him by accusing him of being a troll.

Then he escalates the issue by going to this noticeboard and trying to cherrypick and twist my words by questioning what I meant by "external channels" TO ANOTHER EDITOR (that doesn't even concern him).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051658364

Except it means precisely only that - if talk page discussion fails then I will go to external routes like (third opinion), (noticeboards), etc That is normal that when editors are unable to reach any kind of agreement on the content issue in question on the Talk page - a user can request outside input on-wiki by following the advice at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help.

I honestly wasn't even planning to report him at first. Except his later rude replies on my talk page and his obvious motives in trying to get me kicked out because he doesn't like my edits. I see a repeating pattern of what will likely happen if I continue to "displease" and that is just classic bullying. And I do not wish to tolerate that.

.....

P. S - For context - below are some of my earlier edits on the article in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051642037

I added in a 2012 systematic review that showed solid evidence that on treatment of pain conditions, research shows it is more than a Placebo effect. My Edit is backed by many sources.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146

I also updated an outdated systematic review from 2005 and replaced it with a newer systematic review from 2012.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051647473

Both edits were reverted quickly without decent reasoning. Instead of edit warring, I went to Talk and made a new discussion on Why systematic reviews should have more weight than a cherrypicked individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acupuncture#Bias_towards_David_Gorski Nvtuil (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Explaining your WP:RULES like WP:QUACKS and WP:GOODBIAS is not trolling. Spurious accusations of trolling are trolling, as I had already told you upon your own talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Those are not external channels !!! -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you two even allowed to comment here? If we are allowed to talk here then I will give a reply.

• Reply @Roxy the sceptical dog.You should refrain from seeing other editors in bad faith. Especially when you don't know the facts. I wrote it with politeness and bid the user kind regards and was referring to outside routes of Talk Page to resolve the issue. The external accepted routes to resolve a dispute, was obviously what I was referring to. What else could I had meant, without you two clutching to weak and excessively wild speculating? Did I say that I was going to do something illegal? Or did you just assume that based on very little??https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help You two are trying so hard to get rid of me that now you cherrypick innocent words and exploit its moderate ambiguousness. That is bullying..Also @tgeorgescu, You can explain that without resorting to giving me so many fallacious strawman arguments on my talk page. If you have issues with my edits on Talk page - instead of threatening me of kicking me out for voicing my take or sending me a large wall of fallacious strawman arguments to me. Just address my arguments on the article talk page directly without using ANY strawman arguments. My issue was specifically your use of so many strawman arguments thrown at me. And a Large wall of them is practically trolling. Nvtuil (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:GOODBIAS is an essay in good standing, and highly valued by experienced editors. The Wikipedia Community does not regard it as trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Next time, give an essay that isn't composed of a wall of soapboxing and heavily 99% strawman arguments. I never disagreed with any of them except one argument. And all those strawman arguments are unnecessary to send to me and incredibly patronising too.Nvtuil (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't claim that Gorski is infallible, but he is certainly one of our luminaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The opening of this thread by tgeorgescu makes no sense as an ANI report; if he wanted to know what Nvtuil meant, tgeorgescu should have asked Nvtuil. The subsection by Nvtuil seems to be related to discussions at Talk:Acupuncture. Tgeorgescu posted the entirety of User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. on Nvtuil's talk page; a brief summary and link would have sufficed. @Nvtuil:, you are permitted to request that tgeorgescu not post on your talk page except for mandated notices. Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Schazjmd. I would request it if he continues. Nvtuil (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd and Roxy the dog: The therein recommended action is to copy/paste the essay upon talk pages of users who push WP:PROFRINGE POVs. But Nvtuil's particular manner of pushing such POV does remind me of a banned user, so I have opened a WP:SPI. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Did I watchlist ANI admin actions?

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

---

Did I enable Admin logs of others on my Watchlist, or is this a fluke? I am getting a log of admin deletions that are not mine. It's just two or three different admins when it shows up. The most recent from 09.57 shows me a link to deletion logs of @Kusma, Favonian, and Blablubbs:. Right below that, is my watchlist of this ANI page. And by the next day, those logs magically disappear, with new logs at the bottom of the next day's watchlist. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You have WP:ANI on your watchlist, no doubt. If you also have the "Logged actions" filter checked on your watchlist, then any logged actions on that page - including revdel's - will show up on your watchlist. If this is new, you probably ticked that box by mistake. You can prevent it by unchecking the "logged actions" box. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Where would this option be? I don't have the "logged actions" box on either my watch page, or my preferences that mentions that. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's under "active filters" on the watchlist. You may have to show that section to see the button. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope. No such option exists on mine. All expanding the section does for me, if I click on the arrow to the left of it, is which admin did what. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it does, but my instructions may not have been complete. You need to check on the three horizontal lines to the left of the words "filter changes" after showing the active filters to see the menu item. Otherwise I think we would need to see a screenshot to understand what is going on. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm telling you that the words "filter changes" do not show up for me at all. And for that matter, all of this seems to be tied in these specific edits by other admins on ANI:

09:57, October 29, 2021 Kusma talk contribs block changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard: content hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material) (diff | more...) (thank)

09:57, October 29, 2021 Favonian talk contribs block changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard: edit summary hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material) (diff | more...) (thank)

09:57, October 29, 2021 Favonian talk contribs block changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:41.237.45.224: edit summary hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material) (diff | more...) (thank)

Whatever happened on those logged edits, placed it on my watchlist when it shouldn't be. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: the options to set the active filter settings may not be visible if Maille66 has the "Use non-JavaScript interface" option turned on in preferences. @Maile66: In that case I'm not sure what happened. FWIW my watchlist has always shown admin actions on watchlisted pages, even before the JavaScript interface, so I don't know what changed, or why you didn't see them before. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was it. I unchecked the JavaScript interface, and everything cleared up. Thanks for your time, all of youi. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive reversions

Hello, I don't know if this belongs here (I'm not familiar with the exact process here), but the article Vasili III of Russia is currently subject to an edit war that reeks (to me) of vandalism, as my attempt to delete a statement from the article lede that has no basis in historical research and that seems to originate from jokey articles on some random websites is constantly reverted. The user has made no attempt to provide better sources, and at this point, I don't know what to do.

Perhaps someone could look into that. Thank you. 2003:C0:8F28:2E00:4180:E06D:AF55:81E5 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

IP, what do you mean Still no source? The source is right there, and it says "Vasili the Adequate" (I checked). El_C 13:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, now I see. Sorry about that. El_C 13:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Kingoflettuce

I would like to request ANI for User:Kingoflettuce. I have pointed out that edits made by this user are undue weight for opinions, non-independent sources, and are bordering on advocacy, but my edits - including NPOV article and section tags were all reverted on the basis of "vandalism" [30] and no attempt was made to reply to these, even when an uninvolved editor explained that edits from IP address can be in good faith and are not necessarily vandalism. User:Kingoflettuce then proceeded to launch personal attacks on my talk page [31] and the WikiProject Singapore talk page [32], instead of discussing the topic at hand. While we may have our differences in opinions in editing articles, I believe it's obvious who the disruptive editor launching personal attacks and uninterested in Wikipedia policies and discussion is. Edit: Now, most recently, User:Kingoflettuce has breached the three revert rule with this latest edit too. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act was fully protected by Clpo13, and the version before the IP's edits was restored because the article at the time was a DYK on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Utopyada

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

---

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

1. Changed "Iranian" into "Azerbaijani" on the Bahmanyar article and removed the existing WP:RS. No edit summary/explanation.[33]
2. Changed "Persia" into "Azerbaijan" at the Kars article in spite of the given source. No edit summary/explanation.[34]
3. Removed a massive amount of WP:RS content from the Safavid Iran article that mentioned a Kurdish origin, and changed it into "Turkic origin". No edit summary/explanation.[35]
4. Removed heaps of sourced content from the Lavash article that mentioned Armenia and Iran, and swapped it with unsourced pro-Azerbaijani content. No edit summary/explanation.[36]
5. Swapped "Armenian and Azeri" into "Azerbaijani an Armenian" at the Shusha article. No edit summary/explanation.[37]
6. Removed the Persian etymology at Joshpara. No edit summary/explanation.[38]
7. Removed the Armenian origins at Karabakh carpet. No edit summary/explanation.[39]
8. Removed sourced information at 2020 Ganja missile attacks, edit summary: "False information!". [40]
9. Added "Safavids" to the list of Turkic dynasties listed at Persian vocabulary. No edit summary, source, or explanation.[41]
10. Has received numerous warnings, to which he never replied.[42]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Usual ethno-national fare. El_C 13:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Incivility, disruptive editing and constant neglection of advise by other editor from user Çerçok

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

---

Hello, the user Çerçok has been aggressive since the beginning of the discussion in the Greek war of Independence making inappropriate comments for the ethnicity of other editors, using aggressive language [43] and ignoring the advise of 3 editors regarding the way to talk in WP. I have tried to help him and explain the code of conduct for WP however, he seems that he does not really want to learn from his latest comment here [44]. Can anyone have a look at this case? Othon I (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week for egregious personal attacks (diff) coupled with a bizarre unawareness that that is what they are (diff). El_C 12:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

disruptive editing

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

---

71.11.52.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits articles related to actors and films, always using the edit summary "added content", or occasionally "fixed typo". There TP is filled with warnings about adding unsourced content. Many/most of their edits have been reverted - a lot of it is trivia that even if sourced would likely be removed. I went through all their edits in 2021 and don't see any that are vandalism, but it is still not desirable behavior. All the edits are tagged mobile, so they probably haven't seen the TP messages. They might be a helpful editor with some coaching. A block to get their attention? MB 04:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 09:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive re-insertion of archived material

Tempes1 has been causing disruption on the saturated fat talk-page and the water fluoridation ‎talk-page. This user in one of their earlier comments on the saturated fat talk-page said they do not want any of their material archived but finished conservations over 90 days old can be manually archived or a bot can do it so it is not against policy to do it. Old discussions from over 100 days were archived but this user has since restored this content quite a few times. Tempes1 who has no consensus for any of their edits has reverted archived material twice on the water fluoridation article example [45] and 3 times on the saturated fat talk-page [46] but these old conversations had ended back in July and the consensus was that their suggested edits were not supported by policy. The discussions were not active. Now to re-activate the discussions this user is leaving trollish comments [47] claiming to have won a Nobel prize and claiming that a single feeding trial [48] is a "high quality study" that should be put onto the article even though this goes against WP:MEDRS. This user has been told many times already by four different users why primary sources are not used for controversial biomedical claims but they ignore such advice.

The same user also has a history of adding dispute templates to articles where no dispute exists such as on the water fluoridation [49] which was reverted several times and on the saturated fat article [50] without any consensus. User Hipal has warned this user about some of their edits [51] on their talk-page but in response Tempes1 added [52] the courtesy notice template to their talk-page. That may not be the worst thing and maybe you could put it down to just being angry but from what I have seen this user is not acting in good-faith they are causing trouble. In conclusion I believe this account which has no productive edits in the main-space and ignores consensus and any advice from other users is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. To be going on with, I have blocked the user for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC).

Range block requested

• 2603:9000:F402:19EC:55A1:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person behind this IP range is the same person who was mentioned in this ANI report about a month ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#"Happy Tree Friends" LTA (as well as older ANI threads in March 2021 and April 2021).

They're currently evading several blocks, including Special:Contributions/173.168.252.137, Special:Contributions/2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50, Special:Contributions/144.178.6.34, etc., etc.

Usual nonsensical edits from this IP range about Happy Tree Friends and the band Nirvana: [53], [54], [55].

Can someone please block the /64 range? Special:Contributions/2603:9000:F402:19EC:55A1:0:0:0/64.

Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Why wouldn't you just semi-protect the relevant page(s)? That's a pretty wide range, and I see two unrelated IPv4 addresses in your list of block evasions. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

How on earth is a /64 a wide range for IPv6? It's almost the equivalent of a single IPv4 address. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to Special:Contributions/2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50 there seem to be a lot of different pages involved but I'd note a /50 is not necessarily a wide range for IPv6 anyway. E.g. a /48 is commonly the minimum assigned to a site which means even a small business or in some cases a home user may receive a /48. This seem to be reflected in the lack of any edits from that range until the sock got involved. Nil Einne (talk)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Nil Einne. AlexEng, I apologize if I wasn't clear as I moved this report hastily from AIV. The only IP range I am requesting to be blocked is 2603:9000:f402:19ec::/64. The other IPs I listed are already blocked and I only noted them to demonstrate active block evasion (they were referenced in the last ANI report I linked above). The list of contributions under 2603:9000:f402:19ec::/64 does not show any obvious collateral damage—all thirty edits over the last couple of months are by the LTA. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@AlexEng - IPv6 can be somewhat confusing for those only used to IPv4. I'd recommend this little guide to how IPv6 blocks should be handled. firefly ( t · c ) 14:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: – thank you for blocking. This thread can be closed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hehpillt28 making highly abusive comments

Hehpillt28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting blatantly transphobic (here) and homophobic (here) abuse to talk and user talk pages. I am not sure what is going on with this user because they have made some other contributions that seem much more like normal constructive editing in the past. Maybe there are two people operating this account or maybe it is one person prone to vicious outbursts on certain topics or occasions. Also they explicitly request being banned here. Given that they call for a named living person to be hanged in that edit, I see very little reason to deny this, admittedly rather bizarre, request and indefinitely block, if maybe not actually ban, them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for their attacks. I didn't go for indefinite immediately only because they've made positive contributions in the past. I'm open to extending it, however. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've extended the block to indefinite. Like I said, past contributions seem mostly positive, but this outburst may suggest a compromised account. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Uhhh, wow. This is among the most "not here-ist" cases of "not here" I have seen in a while. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• That crap they wrote is absolutely horrible and should be oversighted into oblivion, let’s get that out of the way. Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comparing these recent edits to much earlier ones and this screams "compromised account" almost as loudly as other vivid slurs. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've revdel'd the edits. I was going to say the same thing as Reyk here, this is clearly a compromised account it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems plausible to me and I'd far rather believe it than the alternative, that a previously constructive editor has been "redpilled" to the point of posting those screeds. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? Because at a glance at their contribs, it doesn't seem all that out of character. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it really matter if they’ve been indefinitely blocked? I feel like this is just arguing semantics, especially considering this was an sporadically active editor with less than 500 contributions under their (or as they/their hijacker would probably prefer “his/her”) belt. Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If they decide to make a new account and disclose their connection to the previous account or otherwise appeal this block; the interpretation of this ANI thread is probably what'll decide whether or not they will be able to edit Wikipedia. Someone who was obviously compromised is going to get more room than someone who wasn't. So it is relevant to discuss this and establish the purpose of this block. Keep in mind that the purported consensus on why 8chan wasn't linked was because they had issues (to put it mildly) with child pornography; not because of a consensus that 8chan hosted "hate speech". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

‎Repeated wrong edits in page

There are repeated edits to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_states_and_union_territories_by_GDP&action=history with wrong info (The GSDP of West Bengal is 13.54 lakh crore at current prices acc. to multiple official sources, but it is being reverted to an imaginary number of 16.5 lakh crore). How do I stop this?

• This source would appear to indicate that you are correct, but since this is the current state of the article, regardless I have protected the article so that it can be discussed. I will watchlist it so that I will see any requests for edits. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour problem of User:Orbit Wharf

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

---

Orbit Wharf (talk · contribs) has behaviour and other problem. I think we should address those, hence i am reporting.

Month ago the user got blocked because of copyright violation, where i tried to add an helpful advice but the user reverted my comment with edit summary "Go away!". Even before that, the user did similar thing on bnwiki, where the user removed my comment with edit summary "muri kha" (English equivalent would be go eat some popcorn). Yesterday i give the user a standard afd notice but but the user reverted my notice with edit summary "Crazy humans!". These aren't constructive edit summary. It looks like the user intentionally disrespecting. No just with me, with other wikipedian too. E.g. User:Joseph2302 and User:Lugnuts banned the user from their talk page because they felt the user harassing them.[56][57]

The user also has other problem. They selectively remove comment to hide their past. E.g. [58], [59], [60] etc. I know editors are allowed to remove most notices from their talk page, but the user selectively remove notices they don't like/negative while keeps other and don't even bother to archive those removed notices. The user even tried to removed comment from other's user page too.[61][62] The user also published some personal info of other user (If i remember correctly).[63]

The user probably has anger issue. When a school article created by the user got deleted, the user nominated bunch of school article without doing WP:before. Later User:Worldbruce warned the user. See also this. It also seems the user only contributing to get advanced permission. See [64], [65]. We should address these behaviour problem of User:Orbit Wharf.

(courtesy ping User:Joseph2302, User:Lugnuts, User:Worldbruce, User:Moneytrees, User:Rosguill) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've been keeping an eye on their contributions for a week or so now after I grew concerned about hat-collecting, poor communication skills, a lack of awareness of their own shortcomings, and what appeared to be a global rename request to avoid scrutiny of a block they received under their previous username, User:Tajwar.thesuperman. Admittedly, in this time I didn't come across any smoking gun behavior that would have moved me to block unilaterally or start a thread here myself, but my perspective is nevertheless that they're one straw away from breaking the camel's back of wasting other editors' time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I echo what Rosguill has posted. OW made this nonsensical post on my talkpage. I wasn't aware of their username prior to this, but a bit of digging found they'd changed their username recently. However, they had a block-log under the old name, which I flagged up with the blocking admin incase anything was amiss. Which OW throws back as harrassment.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw that Lugnuts had banned them from their talkpage, and yet they still continued to post there. As they'd clearly being annoying towards Lugnuts, I banned from my talkpage because I didn't want to get involved in whatever the drama was, but apparently they can't follow simple instructions. And their talkpage/talkpage archive seems to just be a block, lots of deletion/moved to draft notices about articles they created, some complaints that they've moved other people's articles to draftspace, and whatever they've deleted from talkpage (which seems to be more complaints about their conduct). All of this means that I have serious questions about their competency to edit/engage in a positive manner. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a very odd mix of WP:CIR issues, coupled with edits that I'd expect from a more experienced user, as they've only been here since July. A recent scan of their contributions shows they seem to know their way around Twinkle, reporting usernames for admin attention, work on speedy deletions, article/draft creation and so on. Two complete opposites of the (editing) spectrum. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the two possibilities are a) young and overeager or b) sleeper account for future UPE/black hat editing that does not have the skills to pull it off. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I first encountered this user while assessing a CCI request, which was opened as Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210925. I then partially blocked them for six months to prevent further copyright violations. The resulting discussion can be seen at User talk:Orbit Wharf#September 2021, blocked. I unblocked them from draftspace after some discussion, and after a discussion on my talk, I decided to unblock them from mainsapce, although I added that "I recommend being very careful in making edits to article space, and sticking to article creations in Draft space, so other editors can review your work [...]". A several points other than these, I have advised this user on what to do and giving them advice, which can be seen at User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 21#Unblocking and User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 21#Request for unblocking. They've continued disruptive behavior despite my advice, and that behavior resulted in this discussion on my talk; they've not edited since I gave the advice I gave there. I recognize I might be acting too lenient here, but I would like to see a response before deciding on possible sanctions/ a block. I don't think they changed their username to evade scrutiny, although I could be wrong on that. @Rosguill I am convinced this user is the first example. I believe they are here in good faith, the problem is that they are rushing to create articles and they have been selective in what advice they listen to, although I know there's a bit of a language barrier here. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Instead of explaining/addressing above issue, (after observing some of user's conversation) i am quite sure the user will pull out "i'm new here" card. It seems the user don't listen others. Another example: on user's bnwiki talk page, a wikipedian warned the user not to use any other account. But recently the user created User:Orbit a Different Wharf. Yes you can create another account if you have valid reason but i don't see any valid reason anywhere. The user also have another account called user:তাজোয়ার রহমান without any alternative account tag. If the user have language barrier, why can't they try to contribute on their native language wiki! --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please, I've so wikistress. So I can't control me. Please give me one more chance. I need some break. After break, if I do again then block me. Please. _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 03:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. My previous name was 'Tajwar.thesuperman'. The word, Tajwar, is my name. So I changed my username to hide my name.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 03:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

After listening the warning of Moneytrees, I understood about what is harrasment. Again please give me one more chance! After a short break, I'll correct me. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbit a Different Wharf (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not a proper answer. It would be great if you explains/addresses all of above issue/concern first. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

First, the issue of Lugnuts and Joseph2302, Lugnuts and me have a fight. So I want to clear it and tell him sorry. I did. But he reverting it again and again. Then Joseph2302 warned me. Then I told him to his talkpage why I was telling lugnuts sorry. Then they again revert this and warned me. Then I did nothing else. And the issue of Rossguill, I've told see above. Yes, I'm very young. But I can't tell how much older I'm. I read in a school. And I'm working in speedy deletion, AfD, move to draft, requesting user for block by admin. Did I doing any wrong thing? And in speedy deletion, about all of my nominated articles are deleting. Thank you @Moneytrees: for your excellent behaviour. A kind and true admin! If a chance be given, I hope that I'll correct me. Yeah. I know that I'm not very expert at English. But I don't want to improve Bengali Wikipedia because of my personal wish. And I want to be expert at English and contribute to Wikipedia. And @আফতাবুজ্জামান:, I've told 'crazy humans!' in a edit summary because I'm surviving a wikistress. Yeah I've so angry issue. And now I'm contributing with my alternative account. Thanks. Hope I could answer.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 04:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I asked you nicely not to post on my talkpage, or contact me in any form, but you continued to do so. And now you have "wikistress" which for some reason means creating a second account to use in this very thread! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No. I didn't make the second account to use in this very thread. I made the second account very earlier than the thread. You can see the contributions of the account. And Please give proof why you're thinking so. And I've made a mistake that I thought that I can contact you for any help or any question about Wikipedia. I asked you a question. But I didn't understand that you're telling not to contact in any form! Sorry for the mistake. But after you gave another warning then I didn't contact you in any form.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 08:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And, really! I've wikistress. I'm feeling very stress!  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 08:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orbit Wharf: I think the big issue here is that you're trying to do everything at once, you're trying to "run before you can walk" as they say. You have less than 5,000 edits, and in that time you've tried to learn how to write articles, how to do new page patrolling, how to start deletion discussions, how to do vandal fighting, how to draftify articles, how to use speedy deletion, how to do copyright clean-up, how to do username patrolling, etc etc etc, and you're trying to do all of them at the same time. I think that you're not really 100% understanding all these things, and so you're ending up in trouble because you keep making mistakes. Because you're doing so many things you're running into a lot of admins and editors in different areas, each one of which sees you turn up, have a go at doing something (often not 100% correctly) then disappear to do something else - this isn't a good look. In my opinion you should focus on doing one thing at a time - get really good at writing articles, make sure you understand notability guidelines and get to the point where basically no-one is trying to send your articles for deletion, then look for something else to get involved with.

You've had a decent go at writing some articles, but why have you left them in a half-finished state? looking at one of your recent articles, Lost (2022 film), shows it has an empty section and multiple sections containing only a single sentence, and a clean-up tag that you added to it. You shouldn't be leaving new articles in a state where you know they have issues.

No one here wants to see you banned and no one wants to see you in trouble, but you need to start listening to the feedback people leave you on your talk page rather than just deleting it. When people criticise your work respond to their concerns instead of deleting it and insulting the people messaging you. People are going to send your articles to AFD and people are going to undo your edits, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or try to get revenge, listen to why they're doing these things and treat them as an opportunity to learn. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you need to temper it a bit and slow down. I would recommend uninstalling Twinkle, redwawn, your copyright fighting scripts as I don't think you have the experience to be using them, and focusing exclusively on writing articles for the foreseeable future. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

More nonsense from this editor. Is this "wikistress" too? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Why this is nonsense? After doing this I would add the runs. But you edit it before. Is this is prohibited? Can anyone tell me?  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 12:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You didn't update the score, which would have been the only useful reason to make an update. No need to do half an update, and then another one straight after with the score. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

At best, this user is displaying good-faith incompetence, which is still disruptive, and in my view worthy of a WP:CIR block. At worst, they're deliberately trying to see how much they can annoy people, though I don't think this is the case. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Four requests to change username in five days fits the mould of good-faith incompetence. It also shows WP:IDHT for the final two requests. Making 1084 (>21%) of your 5048 edits to your own user page doesn't seem productive. When did Wikipedia become a child-minding service? A block wouldn't be a loss to the community. Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

When did Wikipedia become a child-minding service? Maybe we need to add that to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ;) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read through the responses here, I think that a medium-long term CIR block (1 or 2 years) is what is needed here. Without denying OW's genuine enthusiasm or distress, their responses show that they will continue to be a drain on editor time for the foreseeable future, and even appear to be treating enWiki as an English learning exercise, which is not what we are here for (. But I don't want to improve Bengali Wikipedia because of my personal wish. And I want to be expert at English and contribute to Wikipedia). A long but time-limited block will give them an opportunity to mature and improve their English skills elsewhere, without creating the mutual time sink of an indefinite block that will be appealed and revisited. The number one cure for wikistress is time spent not editing Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, insted of indefinite block, a medium-long term CIR block (1 or 2 years) is fine with me. Here is another example of disrupt editing, a message i received from the user 6 hours ago, a message without any content(!). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Please, I'm again wanting a chance! There is night in my country. Please give me one more day. I'll make good edits to Wikipedia and I'll improve.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 15:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orbit Wharf, No matter what, you can't insult people. You did two days ago, you did one month ago. I think that's intentional. Making couple of good edit won't take away how did you behaved in the past. It is not like you will violate copyright rule, then insult people, disrupt Wikipedia and nothing will happen and you will get free pass every time. You have to realise we are also volunteering. You didn't answer why you selectively removed comment/standard notice/warning from your talk page (e.g. to hide?) and even didn't bother to archive. You also didn't answer why you created another account without any valid reason (even after someone warned you not to do that). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I want to delete the second account, আফতাবুজ্জামান. _regards, Orbit Wharf  ^{💬  |  📝} 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This thread is probably moot now that OW's account has been blocked for socking. For full transparency, I logged the SPI report several hours before this ANI thread. Thanks to all those who replied here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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

BilledMammal blocked — could I have a block review?

I have blocked BilledMammal for 48 hours for abuse of process. The reason is that Nableezy has been dragged to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with vexatious complaints about minor matters twice in the past couple of weeks, first by Free1Soul and then by BilledMammal, who was clearly aware of the first occasion. Such attempts to take out a perceived opponent from a contentious area are unacceptable IMO. A (comparatively) minor problem is that it wastes admins' time; the major problem is that it's bound to deplete the targeted user's time, energy, and enthusiasm. For the readers' convenience, here are links to both the complaints: Nableezy I, Nableezy II. For quick summaries, see the uninvolved admins' sections called "Result concerning Nableezy", which come right at the end of each report. See also my block notice here. I wanted to do something stronger than the milk-and-water warning by Euryalus here, but wasn't sure what, as it's a bit unusual to sanction for abuse of process. Taking BilledMammal himself to WP:AE? Opening a thread about it here on ANI? Placing a block myself? I went with the third, but I'd like to know what other people think about it, and will abide by any consensus that forms here. Thank you. PS, I considered sanctioning User:Free1Soul as well, as their report was in some ways worse, but it seemed a bit late for that. Bishonen | tålk 06:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

Fine by me. Could probably have done without the "milk-and-water" insult for having a different approach, but whatever. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought you'd take that an insult, Euryalus - mainly, I suppose, because I thought of us as on friendly terms with banter allowed. I'm so sorry it bombed. Bishonen | tålk 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

No worries, chalk it up to me not grasping the tone (hard to do in text). Anyway, its a good block. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I had similar thoughts about Free1Soul, especially given their, ahem, "interesting" edit history. Anything that makes editors think twice about trying to weaponise AE against their ideological opponents, especially when they have little or no convincing rationale, is a good start on fixing that prticular problem. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the block, as could be predicted from my grumpy comment at the second AE report. It is unusual, but simple actions like this (a short block without debating for a month first) are needed if a reasonable standard is to be maintained at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I was on the fence about giving a similar block. AE is not for removing people from a dispute that are inconvenient. I only stayed my hand because they withdrew, however this withdrawal only came after it was clear it would not succeed. It has always been important from day one that AE not be allowed to be used in this way, we are representing arbcom there and we need to hold the place to a high standard. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised Free1Soul is still editing given the loud quacking emanating from their account. Filing vexatious AE requests against Nableezy is a red flag that should probably draw more attention to certain other accounts too, given recent events. Number 57 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be probably in minority but I think its important to say that block should be WP:PREVENTIVE what does 48h block will prevent?The user understood his mistake and withdrew the complaint and I don't think they will file any WP:AE complaint soon. Also it was user first complaint so he may not fully understood what he is doing we usually warn at first offence. Also if anything the more reasonable approach would be a short topic ban from WP:AE if someone think that disruption may continue Shrike (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike - Considering the misuse history of AE board in general, I believe the approach veteran administrators ultimately have chosen is appropriate. Their action is aimed at preventing further abuse of the board. In these unique circumstances, blocks not topic bans deliver a more powerful message. I'm %100 behind their action. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont really think this was all that necessary, and though I appreciate that people dont want to see some sort of toll from repeated vexatious complaints, but it isnt repeated by this user, and I think for a user's first time ever filing an AE one can forgive them for not quite knowing what is and what isnt appropriate to complain about. AGF and all that jazz. If this is the user's first account, and again AGF unless and until an SPI is filed, then I really dont think more than a logged warning to not file low quality complaints against others is necessary. Ive filed AE complaints that resulted in no action before, never been blocked for it. No they werent vexatious, but still its their first rodeo. nableezy - 12:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy - I disagree, sorry. I believe these added measures were required due to the most recent events. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Im not going to assume every single person who doesnt like me is Icewhiz and act on that basis. I dont see how the recent drama has anything to do with this. nableezy - 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I view this as a message to everyone not this particular editor. I would even suggest adding topic bans from AE to blocks if this continue. Sorry if my view sounds radical but I truly think these steps are necessary. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal received a warning ("BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions.") at the close of the AE, and then a short while later received a block. Was there behavior between the warning and the block, or is this block intended to supersede the AE warning? It seems a bit unfair to get blocked for something you just got warned for if you didn't do anything after the warning. I doubt many admins will second guess Bishonen, but on process grounds this seems to be a modification to the AE close, which I didn't think admins could do unilaterally. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And the more I look at this, the more I think the block was the abuse of process. AE closes with no action but an admin unilaterally blocks anyways - does anyone remember WP:ARBAE? It centered around that exact same scenario and contains the following principle: "Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action." Bishonen, please undo your block as out of process. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. To think that I even linked Euryalus's warning to BilledMammal, the warning BilledMammal actually did receive, on their page, in my block notice and also in my original post above. Perhaps I'd better quote it, too, since Mr Ernie quotes Euryalus's AE close. That warning was couched as a thankyou: "Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones." That's what they received. Thank you for the tendentious commenting, Mr Ernie. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

I know you saw the warning, which is why I thought it was out of process to ignore it and issue your own block. ArbCom made it perfectly clear that closures, regardless of the outcomes, are enforcement actions. Can you address that aspect instead of attacking me? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It very much was not an abuse of process, and that argument is just silly. BM was a. never brought to AE, b. this was not an AE block, and c. no action was overturned. Not blocking the filer of an AE report is not an AE action. nableezy - 15:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The close was a warning to BM, who happened to be the filer. The warning of the filer is thus the AE action. The principle I quoted says that the closures of AE requests are enforcement actions, even if they are not blocks or topic bans. The AE was closed with a warning, and Bishonen unilaterally upgraded it to a block. This goes against the principles outlined by ArbCom. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And moot anyway since the closer agrees. And no, the warning of the filer is not an AE action cus AE actions are logged in the enforcement log. So no x3 or x4 or x5 or however many wrong things youve written here. nableezy - 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Are dismissals of requests logged in the enforcement log? No, and that's why ArbCom thought it was important enough to create a principle saying that a closure of an AE is an enforcement action. Admins are not allowed to unilaterally alter AE actions, regardless who agrees. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that dismissal of a complaint is the same as not sanctioning the complainant is, as I said earlier, silly. And, again, moot since the closing admin has already agreed. nableezy - 16:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's not something that I just made up. It was a principle that came out of a very contentious arb case. You can read it for yourself right here. Bishonen blocked before she had gotten the consent of the closing admin, so that's not a moot point either, but a key one. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The dismissal of an AE complaint against me is not an enforcement action against the complainant. And yes, moot. As in right now not applicable. Jfc. nableezy - 17:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely is an enforcement action against the complainant. Complaints boomerang all the time and the filing instructions explicitly warn filers they can be sanctioned as well. The request closed with a very clear warning to the filer - "BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions." A few hours after Euryalus closed the request and informed BM, Bishonen unilaterally blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a general consensus against that position. And the case you keep linking to is about blocking the complainee after a complaint is closed. You keep doing this, arguing about the process as though thats the part that matters. Which I guess would be ok if you were right more often than you are, but it just makes people dismiss the actually important part (should this user be blocked) by focusing on the truly unimportant part (did Euralys agree to this before or after Bishonen made the block if that even matters, but it somehow to the people arguing about this isnt moot because Euralys has in fact agreed to it anyway). nableezy - 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. Vexatious AE complaints are a real problem, and all they do is drive away editors. We need to keep all the high quality editors we can. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block I haven't been following the underlying issue but, on looking at the AE report against Nableezy (not BM!), I see that several admins have commented on the need for action against frivolous AE complaints of this sort. Blocking, with an ask for a review, was absolutely the right thing to do. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Nableezy. While your point is cogent, (a) BM's report came after a blitz of AE filings against several editors, in which socking was prominent (b)after this reality emerged , was verified and was dealt with summarily, with at least 2 reports thrown out as frivolous (c) BM, who followed these proceedings, failed to grasp the point and indeed put their own status at risk by, well not 'indulging in' but repeating what disreputable socking did. (d) it showed a remarkable failure to grasp the context, and looked somewhat (unlike the editor's usual tone) belligerent. Indeed,(e) The report came immediately after a huge thread found BM in a minority of 1 against 3 arguing without any visible policy basis against the force of 13 mainstream academic sources (i.e. reargard POV pushing against the evidence. If anyone can grasp what policy-based reasoning lies behind BM's insistent argufying here I'll hand out a barnstar. That thread was the first time I'd observed BM adopting a wildly subjective ultramontane rejection to solid sourcing). I commended the move because, as a long term serial abuser who has racked up (until I woke up several years ago) a notable number of serious sanctions (from perma to 3 months), two days was amenably light, fair, and not really punitive but measured to the fact this was a first time offense. Even practiced oldtimers still need wake up calls, and if I for one am whacked for loose language out of the blue by an admin watching an I/P page, with a day or two's suspension, it would be to the good. No argument, not lengthy threads, just pull the finger out while briefly in porridge, and, lesson learnt, back to work. It would solve admins and ourselves a lot of time if this were done. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• BM asked for my advice on Oct 4 and I said, "... your options, in my opinion, are: ... take it to AE where there is a strong risk of boomerang". I thought a block would be the outcome of an AE report, so I'm hard pressed to say "bad block" now. However, when Bish wrote ... nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours..., that's pretty much an admission that Bish found the AE result inadequate and thus decided to impose a different result. That's out of process; I agree with Ernie that Arbcom was pretty clear that no single admin can overrule consensus of admins at AE. We can't have a situation where an AE is closed and then afterwards an admin comes along and decides to impose a stronger sanction than the one imposed (or not imposed) at AE because they don't agree with the AE result (and dismissal, unlogged milk-and-water warnings, logged fire-and-brimstone warnings, sanctions, etc., are all examples of results/dispositions/adjudications/actions/resolutions/outcome/whatever-word-you-want-to-use, they all "count", as it were). If we're going to do that, let's just mark AE historical, because what is the point of having the very formal process and discussion if the result can be ignored by any admin acting unilaterally after the close? Also, I don't think blocking someone from editing the encyclopedia for 48 hours will prevent the filing of vexatious AE reports. Finally, like Nab, I just don't agree with blocking someone for making one bad report. A warning is sufficient for a first offense; block for the second one, if needed. I very much appreciate Bish bringing this up for review, but I think the block should be undone. Levivich 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the question of "what should I have done?" Changing a warning to a block is a modification of a sanction. So, you should have first either got explicit permission from the admin who imposed the warning to change it to a block. Or you could take it to AE, AN, or ARCA. In this case the first option would have probably worked best. To make it simple, if an admin has made a decision regarding some actions, then any further admin actions/decisions regarding those actions has to go through AC/DS sanction modification process. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• AE procedure aside, personally, I've had just about enough of the recent influx of vexatious AE filings (with or without Iced Cream). Time for lessons (real or imagined) to be learned the hard way. Also, Got milk? El_C 16:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am looking at the page MrErnie linked and it discusses sanctions (or lack thereof) against the reported user being modified. Here, it is the case of a boomerang. The filer was warned in the closing summary but, whether it was an AE close warning, or an FYI for the filer, I guess the closer will have to clarify. If it counts as the result of the report, there seems to be precedent saying Bishonen should not have blocked without asking the closer. If it was just an FYI, the closer can say so and it gets out of AE-land, I think. The closer also says that sockpuppet claims are best raised at SPI. I am pretty sure that is not AE action. So, I don't think everything AE closers write become AE actions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing re clarifying. The close of the thread was an AE action: The OP had withdrawn it and there was zero support for the complaint from responding admins. The warning could have been an AE action because the AE instructions in the box at the top make specific mention of vexatious or groundless complaints, but I decided just to leave it as a regular boomerang rather than anything formally logged. The reasoning: it remains in the record along with every other edit and will be pretty evident if BilledMammal does it again soon. The suggestion re SPI is just a suggestion and not an enforcement action.

In my view Bishonen's block of the editor is a regular admin action under something like WP:DAPE and not an AE outcome. This is because the AE complaint was already closed with a different result. It does change my previous regular admin action (the warning) so perhaps it might have been discussed with me first: but meh, I trust Bishonen to make a good call even if it's different to the one I made. I considered a tougher sanction in closing the thread, but am more soft-hearted I guess. :)

Either way, the real issue isn't so much this minutiae but stopping AE being used as an ARBPIA weapon to drive away opposing editors. There's been a spate of groundless complaints in ARBPIA, partly (but not only) driven by Icewhiz socks. Many of these complaints get dismissed pretty fast, but their point is clearly just to weary people into stopping editing in this area. That can't all be laid at BilledMammal's door, but they and others do need to understand that AE filings need to be done properly or not at all-- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. This kind of behaviour has to be sanctioned.--Berig (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Really? Levivich 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Eh - not great, not terrible. My view generally aligns with that of Levivich above. It's not great to have admins second-guessing decisions of ARBCOM and deciding a particular result was not harsh enough. Would we consider it okay for an admin to say, "I think that decision was too harsh", and unilaterally unblock? I suspect not. Under the circumstances, shortening it to 24 hours might be a good balance between, "I felt I needed to act" and "ARBCOM have already acted". I dunno. I think the blocking admin meant well, but overstepped slightly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have to give a dissenting opinion here. AE is to decide if action is to be taken as arbitration enforcement. Arbitration enforcement has its own standards and a lack of action under those standards is not binding to the lesser standards of regular admin actions. The rules of arbitration enforcement were setup to avoid admins unilaterally preventing arbcom decisions from being enforced. They were not setup so that so that a lack of arbitration enforcement could prevent regular admin actions under regular admin rules.

The key point here is that as a regular admin block any admin could just undo it and that would stick unless there was a consensus that it should be reinstated, per the way our wheel warring policy favors the second actor. This is in contrast to an AE action which gives favor to the first actor requiring a consensus to reverse. If this block was really that problematic another admin would have reversed it and we would be having a different conversation here with a different standard to the outcome. It would be required that there be a consensus that the unblock was wrong to reinstate the block, vs needing a consensus that the block was wrong to reverse it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You expect during a block review that some admin will undo the block unilaterally if it was a bad block? Without waiting for the block review to come to that conclusion first? I don't think that's logical. That doesn't mean this was a bad block but I don't think we can argue that if this block was really that problematic another admin would have reversed it, not when there's a self-requested block review going on. Levivich 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the difference in standards between regular admin actions and arbitration enforcement actions. To answer your question no I don't expect that, though I have seen just that done on many occasions when admins feel strongly about blocks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this agrees with WP: AC/DS Sanctions.fresh, and dismissing an arbitration request at WP: ARBAE. Once something is resolved at AE it follows AE procedure. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A guy is speeding and gets pulled over. The officer says since it's a first offense she's going to let him off with a warning. Five minutes later the guy, who isn't speeding anymore, gets pulled over again by a second officer, who says the warning was inadequate, and writes out a ticket. Five minutes after that, the guy--still not speeding anymore--gets pulled over by a third officer who says neither the warning nor the ticket was enough because we really need to crack down on speeding, and promptly arrests the driver. In court, the judge upholds the arrest, telling the driver that if the arrest were really that problematic, some officer would have come by and released him from jail by now. :-) I know this is not a court, but this is how the logic of your comment reads to me. Levivich 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I do get your point, but Bishonen explicitly said they didn't find the AE result "adequate." This is all moot now as the block has expired, but it would have been great if Bishonen had been more active in this thread they started, and addressed the concerns about modifying an AE result. But here we are, just another block and time served in the books. Regarding "They were not setup so that so that a lack of arbitration enforcement could prevent regular admin actions under regular admin rules" - how can you separate the 2 in this case? Like in the ARB case I linked earlier, the "regular admin action" here was directly related to the AE close, and an uninvolved admin didn't agree with the AE close. It would be different if BM had been edit warring at another article and was blocked for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I would love to hear what arbcom thinks regarding the taking of a regular admin action when it was not found that an AE action was called for, if they think that is going against the system they setup. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If the only concern here is procedural, then it would be best to ask ArbCom directly at ARCA (if people feel strongly enough about it) because they’re the only ones who can definitively answer whether such blocks are meant to be precluded under DS rules. But it was a 48 hour block which I imagine is now expired, so this discussion is all now largely academic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Substantively, I do think the comment by Billed on his talk is reasonable, and IIRC it is true that he defended Nableezy in the first AE referred to, so I don’t think this is a case of an editor using AE as a weapon against perceived opponents. I think the editor genuinely felt offended, and my concern is that such blocks may well - inadvertently - create a chilling effect on AE reporting. Boomerang is a valid concept and all, but same as its use at ANI, there are times when the complainant is just wrong and it’s best to just leave it at that, especially if they stop digging their hole quickly (as Billed did in this case by quickly withdrawing). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Novelty/Single Purpose Account in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon

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

---

User:Lesco_Brandon Their only edit: [66] MarshallKe (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sure the close of that AfD will take that into account. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but, like, shouldn't this account be blocked for WP:SPA? MarshallKe (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a username violation, at least in my book. And even so, WP:NOTHERE would apply too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:BWRAEFWC

History of unsourced/disruptive changes (see talk page warnings) and personal attacks, see 1, 2. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The username suggests a throw-away muppet. @BWRAEFWC: humor aside, what does the name stand for? —PaleoNeonate – 06:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

For a minute, I thought "no it doesn't, that's BFAWFPDR". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Jan12shamil and WP:CIR

Jan12shamil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From practically blanking a talk page, conducting disruptive page moves at Andronikos V Palaiologos, blanking the AfD for this bizarre article they created, removing BLP source tags, removing the infobox on Harold Godwinson, and whatever this is; this is a clear case of a user with a lack of competence who is almost exclusively disruptively editing. Curbon7 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, I know this is serious stuff, but the sheer bizarreness of some of those edits made me laugh. Needs to end, obviously. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The fact is these edits, idiosyncratic as they may be, are indistinguishable from defacement outright. El_C 09:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe also block the other accounts Jan12shamil claims to have:

• Sammy0112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samuel0112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shamil's club 112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and this one, that Jan12shamil created:

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

I do wonder what bizarre autotranslate error resulted in "dinner of pages", at User:Jan12shamil and User:Shamil's club 112. --bonadea contributions talk 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely all. Hey Pages need to have dinner, too. El_C 13:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

2600:387:1:811::/64

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2600:387:1:811::/64

It seems that most edits from that /64 IPv6 block are reverted, including some BLP violations. Some warnings were previously received like at User talk:2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:2D. The range was previously blocked three times, the last time for a year on 14:20, 14 October 2020 but it expired. I would like an admin to determine if it should be blocked again. Since this noticeboard requires a notification I left at message at User talk:2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:3B. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of their edits since the block expired have been reverted. I just skimmed through them, reverted a few more, and did a bit of rev deletion as well. It's a mixed bag of blatant vandalism, BLP violations, unsourced and improbable assertions... I'm going to reblock the range for another year. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Problems with User:Vice regent not accepting the result of a closed dispute

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

---

I believe we might have a series of problems with the Sexual slavery in Islam page and its POVFORK. More than one year ago an editor, Vice regent, who did not like the “sexual slavery” label in the page title, attempted to rename the page without consensus, but the the issue was solved and the previous title was restored. However, as of today, they still claim that “the title dispute was never resolved”, and in the name of this belief they keep restoring the {{POV}} template that they had inserted long ago during the title dispute (#1, #2, #3, #4 – I am not sure if this list covers all the reverts). Furthermore, in the meanwhile they have also WP:POVFORKED the page and created a duplicate, Islamic views on concubinage, basically as a way for bypassing the closed dispute. I was not aware of the WP:POVFORK, and after becoming aware I have requested a page move (please see Talk:Islamic views on concubinage § Requested move 14 October 2021). The issue should be considered long solved by now, and I find it challenging to discuss: on the one hand, for defending the separate existence Islamic views on concubinage, they claim that sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam speak about different phenomena, while on the other hand they also claim that the they are the same thing and the Sexual slavery in Islam page should be renamed to “Concubinage in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits on 11 different articles. At one point I counted their edits and found that Grufo spent 90% of their edits on wikipedia getting into disputes with me (all of which Grufo followed me to, not the other way around). Grufo was warned against edit-warring by an admin, and then eventually blocked. If you look at Grufo's latest proposal, every single user has opposed it[67], but that's not an ANI matter. This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior.[68]VR _talk 21:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

“Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits”

Vice regent, you cannot link an old failed attempt of yours to bring me to ANI for WP:HOUNDING you as a proof that one year ago I was hounding you.

“Every single user has opposed it”

Being minority would not be sin. WP:POVFORKING after being minority instead would be. You, Mhhossein (who once accused me of being uncivil for defending two atheist bloggers who opposed a bloody dictator), Baamiyaan2 (who you keep accusing of being a sockpuppet), Jushyosaha604 (who was involved in the previous discussion on the minority's side) want to keep your WP:POVFORK as it is, while Anachronist, Wiqi55 and I are open to a change. Your side also uses opposite arguments (some say that it's because “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” are two different things, while you say that it is just one thing). There are not many users currently involved in the new discussion.

“This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior”

WP:POVFORKING a page and not accepting that a dispute ended after more than one year is not “a content dispute”, it is a natural case for WP:ANI.

Could you please explain to the admins here, do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why have you created Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why do you want to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

--Grufo (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re POVFORK, see this discussion.VR _talk 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics, broadly construed. They are practically a WP:SPA when it comes to this topic area, and seem keen to push an anti-Islam agenda. I encountered them last year when they were pushing Nonie Darwish, a noted counter-jihad personality, as a reliable source for Ruhollah Khoemini's views on sex with underage children. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:

• Yeah, I remember you too. I remember that you called me “a civil POV pusher” one of the first times we met (or you met me), commenting about a discussion of mine related to the Planck units (in which you were not involved and I am not completely sure you understood), in the WP:HOUNDING discussion that Vice regent had raised (which had nothing to do with physics).
• Fortunately we don't need your memory, as my contributions are public
• How can someone be “a WP:SPA [only] when it comes to [a specific] area”? If I have many interests, how can I be WP:SPA? You do you realize that this is an oxymoron, right?
• As it seems, you were not happy with my contributions even when they were about physics, so maybe I should be banned from physics-related topics too?
• I was not pushing Nonie Darwish (who I certainly did not know), I only fought to make sure that the reliability of a source is always discussed first. Thanks to me we discussed the topic, and my opinion is still that despite her political views are disgusting (according to me) she can be reliable when she tells the story of her life. Opinion-wise, I consider Nonie Darwish utterly garbage (sorry, I am far left politically – so I also can hardly have a “counter-jihad personality”).
• “A topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics”: Specifically, what edits of mine are you referring to? I would say that your attacks are purely personal, I am not the one who lost a dispute and WP:POVFORKED a page, and I also haven't edited many Islam-related pages lately.
• I had expressed in more than one occasion that I sincerely believe that Vice regent is in many ways a WP:SPA: his edits tend to be Islam-related and with the intent of pushing the same point of view (in this case that of using an apologetic alternative to “sexual slavery”) independently of the consensus – but we also don't need my memory, as his edits are public too. And yet we are not even here to discuss the WP:SPA nature of Vice regent's account, we are here to discuss two very specific facts:
  1. The fact that Vice regent has WP:POVFORKED a page after loosing a dispute more than one year ago
  2. The fact that Vice regent keeps pushing the {{POV}} template that he inserted in Sexual slavery in Islam during that dispute one year ago, despite the dispute has ended, and despite several editors have attempted to remove it
• Do you have any actual opinion on what we are discussing here? Feel free to contribute.

--Grufo (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with you on the Plank Units discussion either. Vice Regent is a competent editor who mostly focused on Islam and Iran related topics. This does not make him a SPA. My SPA accusation came from your very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles. Which you returned to after a year hiatus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• As I thought. Obviously you haven't read the Plank units discussion. It was a very long discussion with only three editors involved (me included). The trio became a duo almost immediately. And yet you commented about that lonely duo that I seemed to “have issues finding consensus with other users”. On the other hand, the discussion about Vice regent's proposal of using an apologetic alternative for “sexual slavery” has been a rather participated discussion, with many editors involved, about which he still struggles to make peace with the fact that the dispute ended.
• “This does not make him a SPA”: this is literally what makes one WP:SPA. He literally is a WP:SPA – whether good or bad, we are not here for that (my personal opinion based on the nature of his edits is that he is on an apologetic mission even at the cost of the truth – but again, we are not here for that).
• My “very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles”? Excuse me? What exactly are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The RM you linked to was closed as non-consensus so you can't say it was resolved. This doesn't mean it's acceptable to simply ignore the previous RM since when there's no consensus we preserve the status quo ante, but since we operate by consensus working towards consensus is generally a good thing. Also while this wasn't mentioned by the closer, it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam. So VR's actions don't seem inherently even against even the no consensus RM. Clearly we don't want duplicate articles, but what each article should cover or even whether we should have two can only be resolved by further discussion, again aiming towards consensus. You are free to link to the previous RM help guide the discussion but you can't claim it establishes something it clearly doesn't. Frankly although it's probably too late to close, the new RM you started seems a disaster as it's missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two things are mysterious for me in this discussion. The first is the passion for discussing about unimportant things, the second is the passion for discussing about what I do, although I haven't done much in the last year. Unless people are really interested only in me – and I will be happy to have conversations in my talk page – I still believe that the question here is: do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

It is a stale mate created on purpose by a specific user. You say “it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam”. Yes, some (few) editors supported that (not me). The result? Vice regent created a clone and uses that clone (which shouldn't exist) as an argument for pushing the {{POV}} template in the original article, despite a dispute was closed (you like it or not). Do you sincerely believe at this point that Vice regent wanted to treat a different topic when he povforked the page, or instead he deliberately wanted to bypass the ended dispute and treat exactly the same topic under a different name? --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of Grufo's WP:IDHT. They asked this exact question earlier in this section, and I pointed them to the answer. Yet they continue to WP:BLUDGEON with the same question. Per WP:BOOMERANG, examining Grufo's conduct is appropriate.VR _talk 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I hadn't replied to your previous non-answer for politeness, but now I will: you have not answered my question yet (no, your link is not an answer to my question). --Grufo (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed

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

---

• Islamic views on concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sexual slavery in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Both Grufo and Vice regent have dug in their heels at Talk:Islamic views on concubinage and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. Grufo seems to have vowed not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery" instead (coming here after their move request was receiving much opposition). Vice regent appears to have vowed the exact opposite, and will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles (as it is entirely absent from Islamic views on concubinage, a POV-fork which they wrote, also after a failed move request last year). It seems that Grufo wants to turn these articles into attack pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam was a special, institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage), while Vice regent would rather like them to be apologetic 'defense' pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam should ever be called or treated like a form of sexual slavery at all). Neither of them seem particularly interested to work towards a solid summary style- and NPOV-compliant article, and instead they (ab)use these pages as a battleground for (anti-)Islamic apologetics. This has become time-consuming and disruptive. I therefore propose to topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed.

Pinging editors recently active at both articles' talk pages: Toddy1, Wiqi55, Baamiyaan2, Assem Khidhr, Srnec, Mhhossein, Anachronist, Aciram, Slywriter, Jushyosaha604, Sirdog, FormalDude, Wikiedit01995, Bookku, Mcphurphy.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If both are topic banned, what is to become of the POV-forkiness? Vice Regent proposed a reasonable split, one article being about the history of sexual slavery/concubinage (I don't care what it's called), and the other being about Islamic views (theology, legal issues) toward it. Right now there's too big of an overlap for the two articles to exist, but a case can be made for two independently notable topics. Vice Regent is a major contributor to one of the articles and would be the best person to get them both into shape, as long as the arguments over titles stop. That can be handled in a RM discussion covering both articles simultaneously, and both editors could be banned from that discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist do you see anything problematic with my participation in the RM discussion? I have consistently cited loads of RS[69][70]. In fact, Apaugasma referred to my research as "impressive"[71] so this topic ban proposal comes as a surprise to me. What have I done wrong here? I'm happy to listen to feedback and use it improve my conduct during discussions.VR _talk 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We would not be here if you had not created a POV fork. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I believe that in this instance, the POV fork was necessary, if only to create some semblance of a normative article, in the form of Islamic views on concubinage. The Sexual slavery in Islam article has REAL problems - not least that it is the only article on this theme singling out a major world religion - which I would call WP:BIAS. As I have pointed out on the talk pages, I could easily write a POV history of the abuse of female captives during the crusades through to the rape of slaves on plantations in North America entitled Sexual slavery in Christianity. Should I? No. Slavery is not practiced by religions; it is practiced by people and societies. More generally, examples of slavery (which often involves sex) in the Islamic world are also already well covered in a dedicated page on the Islamic world, as well as an even more specific page on the Ottoman empire, including an expansive section on sexual slavery. These might readily be expanded. As it stands, the standalone page Sexual slavery in Islam reads more like an attack page on a major world religion. Mcphurphy in particular seems to have lost the WP:PLOT when he says: "Any instance of Muslims practising sexual slavery belongs in this article". At best, the article is confused. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: just to clarify, I don't believe I created a POV fork. As you mentioned, the article I created was intended to be (and still is) narrowly focused on theology and law. This idea emerged after a discussion here.VR _talk 14:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link Vice Regent. That discussion is certaintly enlightening. Karaeng Matoaya was spot on in clearly articulating why the current hodgepodge of theology and history, spanning continents, is utterly unencyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: (sorry, wrong ping) @Iskandar323: Slavery is not practiced by religions; it is practiced by people and societies. Thus I have to assume that you are proposing that we remove Christian views on slavery, Islamic views on slavery and Jewish views on slavery too from Wikipedia, is that correct? There is neither Christian views on sexual slavery, nor Jewish views on sexual slavery, true, but they could theoretically exist, because religions (both theologically and historically) can form opinions and influence practices concerning sexual slavery (or many other topics). It is also possible that Christianity forbidding any form of sex outside marriage constitutes the main reason why nobody has created a similar page, and if I am not wrong sexual slavery is briefly discussed in Jewish views on slavery. And finally, if according to you it is deontologically incorrect to state that a religion can form opinions concerning sexual slavery, how on earth does it become correct to think that a religion can form opinions on the same thing called with an apologetic name (“Islamic views on concubinage”)? --Grufo (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The article in question at the moment is not "Islamic views" on anything; it has a far more POV title. So no, I'm not proposing anything of the slightest. You can't presume based on a name the article doesn't actually have. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean that Sexual slavery in Islam is POV but Islamic views on sexual slavery would not be? --Grufo (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be less so, yes, because the first makes a presumption whereas the latter defines a specific scope. They are both still fairly broad and generally terrible, however, and not clearly necessary outside of Islamic views on slavery. The article as it stands is a loads of borderline racist nonsense. For instance, take the start of the section Sexual slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia and early Islam. It starts: "The pre-Islamic Arabs used to practice female infanticide. They would bury their daughters alive upon birth." I mean, what on earth am I reading? How is this relevant? Answer: It's not. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We could discuss whether changing the title to Islamic views on sexual slavery (I am not prejudiced against it, although I don't see so much difference like you do). I think you just expect racism, and then you see it. “How this is relevant” is explained: “The pre-Islamic Arabs used to practice female infanticide. They would bury their daughters alive upon birth. One of the motivations for fathers burying their daughters alive was the fear that when they grew up an enemy tribe could take them captive and dishonour them.”. If you want a competition on this, Romans too often (illegally) killed babies simply because they were born girls (hence they were not suitable for labor). I definitely don't think that reporting Roman infanticides is racist, and I definitely don't believe any topic should receive any special treatment on the basis of how sensitive it is. --Grufo (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If you can justify that crap, I think I surrender. You are the bigger sealion. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course, as usually… I don't think it's particularly well written, I am not even sure it is well supported, but I definitely don't think it is racist to state that people who lived millennia ago practiced female infanticide. If you want to discuss whether it makes sense or not to calculate how widespread sexual slavery was in a period about which we cannot guess much only by counting the number of female infanticides, do that. If you want to discuss about the tone, do that. But don't say that a sentence is not relevant when it is, and don't assume anything about other editors' motivations. --Grufo (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where this proposal comes from, or why. With the idea that discussing openly and reaching consensus is always the right approach, the only thing I have edited after being pinged in a talk page by a user on 13th October have been talk pages. “Receiving opposition” for a request is not a bad thing as you present it, I consider it rather good. The bad thing would be ignoring the will of a community and proceed with an agenda anyway. I can proudly say that I never did or attempted anything close to that. --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The disagreements between them are not restricted to those two pages, and lots of stuff seems related to sexual slavery - for example Grufo moved Contubernium to Contubernium (Roman army unit) and then wrote a new article on sex with slaves on top of the redirect created by the move, which Vice regent disagreed with (see Talk:Contubernium (Roman army unit) and Talk:Contubernium). The thing that comes out of looking at some of these disagreements is how reasonable Vice regent seems to have been.

• Interaction analyser (undated)
• Interaction analyser (2021 edits)
• Interaction analyser (2020 edits)

It does not make sense taking any action against Vice regent.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Excuse me, is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The "accusation" is that Vice regent behaves reasonably in disputes with you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That is rather subjective. It might be that I have just different opinions than you. And if your accusation was that of not being responsible in disputes, don't you think that started with the wrong foot? --Grufo (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, I commented on him. I did not comment on you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's even weirder. So your accusation against me is that he behaves reasonably? --Grufo (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I "accused" him of behaving reasonably in disputes with you. I did not comment on your behaviour.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are making things worse, Toddy1. You were answering to “is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article?”. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any "accusation" against Grufo. I looked at some of the many disputes between Grufo and Vice regent. I gave the Contubernium one as an example. It seems to me that Vice regent generally behaves reasonably, and a topic ban against Vice regent is not justified.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Grufo (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The Contubernium example is a nice example. Basically, after I created the page, Vice regent appeared out of the blue and started to POV-push the idea that “concubinatus” could be used as a synonym for it, oddily using a source about Middle Age in support, despite “concubinatus” and “contubernium” were separate institutions in the Roman Law, on which the amount of specialized sources is uncountable (you can read the short discussion at Talk:Contubernium). That was also the time when Vice regent was trying to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam” – it looks like it had become a passion for him to push the word “concubinage” into Wikipedia articles. Was this particular behavior what you consider a “reasonable behavior”, or are there other reasons why you found it useful to present my Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma's proposed topic ban was limited to "sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed". So it was useful to show that the sex-and-slavery disputes between Grufo and Vice regent have been more wide-ranging than that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I was quoted here. I am interested in the articles in question. However, I have not followed the conflict and discussion between the two editors mentioned here, so I can't really comment on them. But I will say this; these articles are sensitive. They present a subject which is sensitive in the eyes of people with religious bias. For a long time, I have obsered through the edit history of these articles, particlularly Sexual slavery in Islam, that they are almost routinely vandalized by IPs, and the reason seem to be that Muslims regard the subject shameful to Islam. Because of this, I asked for the article Sexual Slavery to be protected. It resulted in the article being accused of racism and all sorts of things, which did not give me a better impression. Because of all this, I have more or less stayed out of getting involved in these articles. I was strenghtened in this decision, when the User Vice regent aggressively attacked me out of nowhere because I asked for citations for one or two sentences in the article which did not have citations - I was not aware of this user beforehand, but they appear to have felt personally attacked, and I did not wish to become further involved with them.

To summarize my opinion: these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it. It is my impression. But the subject are important and should not be censured because of religious bias. If these two users can't edit in neutrally, they should be banned from the article. Due to the sensitive issue of the article, and my experience by observation of its edit history, I am afraid that this would not be suprising, and perhaps not the last time such a ban would be necessary. We should not bend to religious pressure, but present the sensitive subject neutrally.

Without being closely informed about the article renaming and split; Islam had special rules around sexual slavery and these warrant its own article. It isn an important subject. All concubines in the Muslim world were by definition slaves. Hence an article about concubines in Islam is the same thing as an article about sexual slaves in Islam. However; not all sexual slaves in Islam were concubines. Therefore, Sexual slavery in Islam and Concubinage in Islam is not the same thing, and therefore separate articles about sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam is justified. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma pinged me and some others above. I feel that if Vice regent keeps inserting a {{POV}} tag and creating forks for Islam related articles, he should be blocked or topic banned from Islam related articles, essentially because he's a biased Islamophilic.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: Thank you for intervening despite the tension that the topic brings. Without going into content-related topics here, I would like just to emphasize that my only edit in Sexual slavery in Islam in more than one year has been my attempt to remove the {{POV}} template, which was immediately reverted by Vice regent – and that led me here. After all, the dispute was over, I thought, and they had even povforked the page, all problems seemed solved there. Before that, my last contribution was from more than one year ago, dated 23 September 2020, which was also reverted by Toddy1. If I am guilty, my crime has been that of reporting a problem that originates from a compact group of users. The same problem was probably felt by who created the page, Mcphurphy, who has slowly loosened their involvement in the article. One month ago Vice regent was “warned against a battleground mentality” and Mhhossein (another editor involved in these topics and in this discussion too) was “warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility” and “topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed”. I will not report older events – I do support the principle of Non bis in idem and I am not really eager to recall them – one month though is too short for making this a “bis”. --Grufo (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not "aggressively attack" Aciram. It is an WP:ASPERSION for Aciram to accuse me without diffs. Last month Aciram repeatedly put cn tags on sentences, where the very next sentence had the citation along with a quote. I told Aciram about this politely here. And Aciram's comment "these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it" is unhelpful.

Baamiyaan2 might be upset that I reported them for sockpuppetry here (where two other users agree with my assessment). And Grufo is connecting this to a completely unrelated arbitration case here.VR _talk 21:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your warning “against a battleground mentality” together with the very same people that keep POV-pushing apologetic content is unrelated? Are you not making confusion with your WP:CANVASS attempt to involve editors from a discussion about Planck units in a discussion about sexual slavery and Islam only because they were the only people you had found in the entire Wikipedia that were arguing with me? That indeed might sound unrelated. Or maybe that time when you asked an admin whether you could contact an Iranian about a controversial Farsi translation concerning Khomeini, and the admin answered that you could, as long as the involvement was due only to their language skills (“I think it would be OK, provided you're asking them because of their language skills rather than because you think they are likely to agree with your position”); except that the day after the Iranian (with whom I barely had any interaction) was already polarized against me and had asked for the intervention of another admin because of my critical opinions about Khomeini (I know it sounds absurd, but apparently the bloody Khomeini has still supporters around). The “uninvolved” Iranian was no less than Mhhossein by the way. So no, your warning “against a battleground mentality” does not look so unrelated. Or should we discuss about how you have literally bombed Mcphurphy's talk page? – no mystery that that editor does not want to get involved in these topics anymore. I was really making you a favor, Vice regent, I sincerely support the principle of Non bis in idem – although for most of these things you have not been really judged yet, so non bis in idem would not even apply. --Grufo (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, I have merely made an unprejudiced observation. Your sock puppet investigation will surely fail because I am not the person you are accusing me of being, I have edited only 5% of the articles he/she edited and thanks to the analysis of Toddy1 which listed out the articles edited by that user, I am even avoiding those articles - nobody has blocked or banned me probably because they believe that I am not who you claim I am.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read through my comment since posting it, I realised I forgot to write something I thought I already wrote in my first comment but did not, so I will add it as a Postscript to my last comment. If the situation is as described (and I will simply trust the description given here) then in that case, what the user Vice regent is doing ("will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles") is more incorrect and destructive than what is described about user Grufo ("not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery"). Concubinage in Islam was indeed sexual slavery, regardless if this form of sexual slavery is a "institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage" or not. Slavery is slavery regardless in what form it is performed; Wikipedia must have a Global view on this phenomena and not, for example, assume that the form of slavery taking place in the US is the only form of slavery which should be defined as slavery. I don't think the fact that Islamic concubinage is synonymous with sexual slavery need necessarily be included in the title of each article, but it was indeed sexual slavery, and that should be made clear in the article text, not hidden. If user Vice regent is indeed making edits of an apologetic kind designed to hide the fact that Islamic concubinage is slavery, then this user does indeed give a biased impression, and are in that case not suitable to edit these pages. There is a problem I have observed in several articles about women in Islam, and that is that they are tagged as non-neutral, vandalized by people who think that they blacken the name of Islam, called racist and even hate pages and so forth, merely because of their subject, and despite having plenty of scholarly references. This does not give a good impression of the intent of the users's and anonymous IPs who perform these acts. It does give the impression of religious bias. I am fully aware of how deeply sensitive this subject is - that is why I prefer to stay away from discussions were users of this kind participate - but Wikipedia as a project must be religiously neutral and give a neutral, non-biased and non-apologetic description of subjects, even when the subject is sensitive to people with religious bias. Apologetics can not be tolerated. Now: I realise that the conflict between these two users may be very infected, and it seems it is. But when it comes to the subject at hand, I feel it is my duty to strongly point out the importance of the principle of religious neutrality, regardless of the sensitivity of the subject, since my observations in this context have sometimes given me concern. --Aciram (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Oddities

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

---

There is something funny about this discussion. I go to someone for a question – let's say “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with another question concerning me, something like “What color is you hair?”. I answer the question, then I ask again “Do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with a another question, “Where have you been yesterday?”. I answer also that question. After going on like this with me answering all the questions, I still ask “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. But then the person screams at me, and says “Stop asking that question! Don't you see that we have moved forward, you stupid WP:IDHT! You are just a WP:BLUDGEON with your wish to manipulate the discussion about the time! You know what? I think you are a WP:SPA.”

I am perfectly fine with all you asking me all the questions you want to ask, and look at my contributions as much as you want, and I love the WP:BOOMERANG idea, but I would still like to know: Do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

Thanks to all of you who want to give their time to answer. --Grufo (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss whether Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is the only possible place when a dispute goes on for more than one year despite formally closed, and a user keeps forbidding other editors to remove the {{POV}} template that they had placed in Sexual slavery in Islam in the name of that dispute, in spite of the fact that they have even povforked the page in the meanwhile. Where else should it be asked? Thanks for not answering – at least you didn't scream. --Grufo (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is for discussing users' behaviour. The article talk page is for discussing the article. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies. You could use the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process. If you think that one article is redundant, you could propose it for deletion at WP:AFD. But be careful not to engage in forum shopping-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As explained in the introduction, a behavior (#1, #2, #3, #4) is what brought me here. --Grufo (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent's behaviour in the diffs, Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template (again) seem entirely reasonable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

100% agree- ANI is the wrong place to discuss content- stick to behavior here. If you want a moderated discussion of content- your options are WP:RFC, WP:3O or WP:DRN, please head to one of those venues. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I go to WP:RFC or WP:3O and ask what? “Hey guys, there is an editor that keeps pushing the {{POV}} template in a page in the name of a dispute that ended more than one year ago. It is not like anyone forbids them to improve the page, and indeed they often make contributions, they just like to keep the {{POV}} template anyway. Can you make them stop? They have even povforked the page in the meanwhile.” Do you think that could work? WP:DRN might not be a bad idea though. WP:DRN is for solving disputes. There are currently no disputes in that page. --Grufo (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you go to 3o and write a neutral request for a 3rd opinion- you don't put your POV in there. Beware flying boomerangs my friend- I think one is seeking you out. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask them directly. @Vice regent: Why do you think it is better for Wikipedia that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic? Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself? Are there sources that you would like to insert but you are forbidden to insert? Any concrete example? --Grufo (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, please stop trying to discuss content at ANI!-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Things are getting out of ANI scope. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: What is the sense of coming into a place full of admins and trying to convince them that behavior-related questions are not behavior-related? A Wikipedia admin tends to be familiar with rhetoric fallacies, and WP:BOOMERANG applies to everyone after all. These are both behavior-related questions:

• “Why do you think it is better for Wikipedia that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic?”
• “Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself?”

The very fact that a single user “maintains” a {{POV}} template in a page for more than one year without trying to address it is a behavior problem. There are two sections in the discussion – § Neutrality template and § Neutrality template (again) – that were created by editors who attempted to remove the template, not by who keeps pushing the {{POV}} template. --Grufo (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This behaviour by Grufo is called sealioning. As you can see, he/she has been doing quite a bit of it on this page. It is very annoying. Can I suggest a 2 week block for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Abusive IPs from Malaysia

Hi, let's start with this more recent diff. And then look at the history of Nikon Z-mount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You can see they routinely insert WP:CRYSTALBALL material, and apparently don't like having it removed (and have escalated to personal attacks). The three most recent IPs seem to be:

Checking the WHOIS results indicates these all originate from "Telekom Malaysia Berhad". I don't know if any useful contributions come from these IPs, but thinking some rangeblocks might be wise or at least some edit summary removal. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the worst edit summaries (all from 175.141.34.38). Someone smarter than me will have to look into a rangeblock. Hog Farm _Talk 18:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it Hog Farm. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Doing range blocks on that ISP is possible, but it's a pain and will likely cause collateral damage. If it gets bad enough, I can do some range blocks, but I'd prefer page protection or the standard Whac-A-Mole approach. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks, yeah I just had a chance to start going through the contribs from those CIDR's and there would be a lot of collateral damage if a block was employed. Thanks for looking at it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Cause-of-death-vandal is active again

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

---

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal
• 2A00:23C4:2519:8B01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:4C8:C22:9C8D:C163:39A7:5F:4CB4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.174.160.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.157.83.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can we get a block on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:2519:8B01:0:0:0:0/64? The activity at that range represents block evasion and long-term abuse from the Cause of death vandal.[72][73]

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Acroterion has now blocked that range. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 01:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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

83.25.77.2 edit warring and using unconstructive edit summaries

Look, I'm just trying to do my usual work here on Wikipedia, and this IP editor, 83.25.77.2 (T|C) keeps disrupting it by emptying categories that I created via discussions and ignoring all the signs to stop. They seem to seriously stand their ground about whether Category:Cars introduced in 2022 is valid since it refers to a time in the future, however it was accepted that unrevealed cars go into that category. I need them to just stop already. This category is going to become the next Star Trek Into Darkness conflict. It's just a category I created for the future car model articles I created and I want this to stop. Not to mention their inappropriate edit summaries such as "2022 hasn't started yet, nothing can be called as 'introduced', dear kid, grow up and learn wiki rules". I really would support a automotive or Wikipedia category T-ban here. Just to get them to stop disrupting everything that was flowing just fine before. It's driving me insane because everyone's making a big deal out of a category title and it's disrupting me from my regular work on Wikipedia. I'm already going through enough personally and writing about cars is one of the places I go to when I just want to forget everything, but even trying to be productive won't work because of having to deal with these IP editors reverting me constantly because of false guidelines on car introductions. I need this to stop. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Where is the project consensus or whatever that established that we can have categories for cars that were introduced in some year when that year hasn't happened yet? And I guess I feel bad that you are having to stop and come here to discuss, but Wikipedia is not therapy. Plus I don't see any serious attempt on your part to discuss this with the IP editor before you came here. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: The idea to just merge the categories for upcoming vehicles was here. Not incredibly thorough as other consensuses, just a short CFD where I forfeited the categories I created and merged them with the "Cars introduced in yyyy" categories. I've discussed it with another user who believes that the category shouldn't exist per WP:CATVER since you cannot verify that a car's been introduced in 2022 yet as it's still two months from now, and that the articles should've been in those categories that were deleted. However, I just go on the basis with that there's sources that verify when the car will be released. Then a third party IP user (who I believe has edited under more IPs since all of them are from the same city in Poland and keep doing the same thing, I can reveal them if needed), rather than discussing, goes ahead and empties this category after being told to stop by me then warned by someone else for edit warring. Apologies if this sounded like I was looking for therapy, I'm just really stressed out and need someone to help bring this IP editor chaos to an end so everyone involved can handle this smoothly without disruption. Warning them hasn't stopped. If I should open an SPI, I can do that, but it doesn't seem like they're evading blocks, just editing on multiple accounts. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see how the user is supposed to have done anything wrong. There is no consensus for creating that category, Category:Cars introduced in 2022; you cannot derive such consent from that CfD. And their edits aren't vandalism either. You can accuse them of edit warring, but of course it takes two to tango. As for an SPI, if they're not disruptive, and if they're IP-editing, there is no justification for an SPI. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: Apparently now they've broken the three revert rule by here and here and left a rude message on my talk page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
        • There is a strong pushback against predicting the future, see WP:CRYSTAL. I have no idea whether there is precedent to make a future category but that CfD discussion is not a suitable basis for its existence. Please try to get involvement from a suitable car wikiproject and wait for a consensus there. Link to the discussion at some central category-related page to get input from category regulars. The tone at User talk:83.25.77.2 is not really conducive for a productive discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Christianity Side-boxes

‎Softwarestatistik is making signficant edits to Christianity sidebars. Some other editors consider these less than progress and have attempted to discuss at [[74]] and [[75]]. This user has reverted the roll back agreed by conensus twice. I make no comment on the edits themselves but the lack of communication, rejection of consensus and the near edit warring isn't moving this forward. Probably time for an administrator to mitigate this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been involved at Template:Christianity sidebar as well, and at their talk page, trying to get their attention. Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs) is a new user coming up on their one-month anniversary. Last I looked, they have zero edits to any Talk space despite repeated requests to respond. I'm conscious of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and wondering if that may be part of what's going on. I don't doubt Softwarestatistik's good faith, but WP:COMMUNICATION is required, and their activity at the sidebar is WP:DISRUPTIVE, as is their pattern of not responding to anything. I'm open to other solutions, but if a block is the only way to wake them up and get them to discuss, then I'm for it. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As a note, as far as I can see their contributions are not tagged with one of the mobile tags, which suggests they edit via the desktop (and therefore get the orange bar of doom) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

He's ignoring everyone? Block'em for 24 hrs & see if that gets his attention. GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning for ‎Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs). I'm planning an indefinite block (until they respond) if they continue. If I miss any future problems, please let me know (a ping from here would be fine). Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick update for the record: since the 24-hour block was applied (@08:25, 25 Oct.), there has been no further activity from Softwarestatistik. Maybe that spooked them, or maybe they just never noticed: they have had a couple of 2-day hiatuses and a couple of 2-week and 2-month absences. So we'll see what happens going forward. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This 103.144.225.75 have been editing and disruptive edits

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

---

• User:103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions)

This IP address have been disruptive edits like on the page on Myanmar National Airlines. I already reverted their edits but still continue to edit an unsourced. I'm still concerning of this IP address user even tho I give a warning. I hope you can check it and plan any block. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Cornerstone2.0, your sig on User talk:103.144.225.75 is nuts! El_C 20:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nuts? As in, invisible? All I see is a blue bar. – ².O.^Boxing 21:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I can still see it faintly, but I'm using f.lux so maybe that's why. El_C 21:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor continues posting copyright violations after warning

A few days agoI warned User talk:Carpx3 not to post copyvio in contravention of the rules WP:CWW. They have been posting (bad) translations of articles from other language wikis, without crediting the source. After I posted the warning, they created another article Alexander Planinski which is another uncredited, poor translation from Bulgarian Wikipedia. Since the licensing restrictions are not complied with, it is a copyright violation. (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the problem that the translations are "bad"? That they are "machine translations"? Or is it just about attribution? Because if so, that isn't what you told this user. You told them that they needed permission from the copyright holder. Please clarify. El_C 12:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The most serious issue is that they are copying within wikipedia without following the licensing agreement, which is a copyright violation. I guess I should have linked WP:CWW in the comment on their talk page, but I did try to explain the issue there in the comment I left. As far as I know there is no template message for failures to follow WP:CWW, which is why I used the generic copyvio warning. So far, User:Carpx3 hasn't responded on their talk page or to this discussion. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, sometime it's better to just explain something plainly rather than use a template. Obviously, if the template is imprecise wrt whatever, it could end up distorting or diluting the intended message. Anyway, I've given the user a final warning (direct link). Please report back if it didn't produce the desired effect. El_C 13:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

{{uw-copying}} I believe. We don't have anything for machine translations unfortunately. Did you find over 5 violations?Sennecaster (Chat) 10:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Oh well. I guess we'll see if they're able to provide the necessary assurances against WP:COPYVIO. Which ought to be easy enough — it's just WP:TFOLWP attribution. El_C 16:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

gaming of EC status by User:Petruccio Salema

This seems extra obvious, but nearly all of Petruccio Salema (talk · contribs) first 500 edits were the removal of a blank space (eg [76], [77]) and all the edits since then have been in an extended confirmed protected topic area. Should EC status be revoked (at least), and can we have some sort of process for dealing with this. I dont think the 500 edits/30 day rule was meant to have people making bs pretend edits just to gain admission to the topic they clearly want to edit in. I havent yet had any reason to take issue with the user's edits, but this just seems to be particularly blatant gaming. nableezy - 17:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal. I filed several WP:AE about that in the past. The more general question is to ARCA IMO. Shrike (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also support revoking the status and there needs to be a process for dealing with this.VR _talk 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, extra obvious. What sort of process other than this one (post at ANI for admin to revoke/whatever)? Maybe an edit filter for this kind of thing, that would automatically alert someone if these types of edits are being made? Levivich 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• EC flag has been revoked, without judging the motives of the editor. Will let Petruccio Salema know on their talk that it is simply due to "trivial" edits, and that they are welcome to ask at WP:PERM after they have made 500 new non-cosmetic edits from now. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like User:Girth Summit already handled it, so deferring to them; however I suggest the restoration process I was outlining above be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe restore autoconfirmed though? nableezy - 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: their autoconfirmed was not revoked. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ok ty, just saw permissions changed to (none) in the log. nableezy - 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Auto/confirmed rights are the clunkiest. You often can't tell what's happening with em, and even when you can, it does not display right. El_C 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of comms - I was in the middle of dealing with this when the phone rang. Agree that the edits are either gaming or, at the very least, inadequate to gain the necessary experience to work in that topic area; I've told them they can ask for it to be restored at WP:PERM. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Only one apology per day, Girth, please! ←New favourite angrily emoticon, btw. El_C 21:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologise early, apologise often! Girth Summit _(blether) 10:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This account needs an indef as an obvious sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון. Behaviourally it's an exact match, 500 useless edits removing blank lines from articles to game extendedconfirmed, followed by jumping straight into the Israel/Palestine topic area. @Girth Summit: perhaps you'd like to take a look using those fancy new checkuser tools? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And who you might be? Shrike (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: I'm just a very long term IP editor, I've been here for years. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it will be possible to get a CU hit, but it is indeed an exact behavioural match. Blocked and tagged. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Can you block user:Span Calari, another obvious sock who was gaming to start editing in the Arab–Israeli conflict? Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Girth Summit _(blether) 00:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

MoonlightVector, Competence issues and disruptive editing

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

---

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

I've run across this editor in a number of areas in the encyclopaedia, and am concerned that we may have a serious competence/maturity issue on our hands. I think this editor needs some kind of mentoring or a prod in the right direction, because as things stand they are being disruptive in a number of areas. This editor's contributions are plagued by jumping into behind the scenes areas that I don't think they fully understand, and seeming to want to spend most of their time playing admin.

This editor recently hit my radar again after a discussion about their editing at articles for creation WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Reviews by newish editor where they had made a number of problematic acceptances of articles that had ended up at AFD, while simultaneously rejecting articles for all kinds of spurious reasons with no basis in policy. Looking further than that there are a whole range of problematic behaviours that this editor has been involved in.

By far the most persistently recurring is tagging pages for speedy deletion under criteria that either do not apply or do not exist. They have been warned at least six times about this [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

They seem to fundamentally misunderstand verifiability policy, and especially the section on WP:BURDEN. The first time I came across this editor was them reverting an IP to reinsert an unsourced and obviously incorrect birthdate into an article [84]. Today on their talk page another IP is complaining about them reinserting an incorrect TV program into a schedule under the pretence of "reverting vandalism" where yet again they are insisting that the IP needs to provide a source showing that the TV program does not air on the channel. [85] How on earth are you supposed to source a negative?

There are also a multitude of smaller issues that demonstrate that this editor is in over their head and doesn't really understand what they're doing. Some examples:

• Removing an addition to a plot summary [86] then insisting that it needs to be sourced [87]. The source is the film itself and plot sections are not sourced.
• Reverting an edit that was enforcing the manual of style with no rationale whatsoever [88] then claiming that it was to make the article "neutral" (???) and to avoid Wikipedia being age restricted [89].
• Moving a completely valid stub article into draftspace 3 minutes after creation with a nonsense edit summary rationale [90] then refusing to explain themselves to the creator on the talk page Talk:Maria_Ceres_Doyo
• This disruptive AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Christians in North Korea. Nominated for deletion with a 5 word rationale, withdrawn with claims they "caught" the creator then tagged for speedy deletion under two criteria that did not apply. Someone else had to re-nominate the same article the same day.
• Making legal threats against another editor [91]
• Creating essentially a vandalism level redirect because an admin made a typo [92]
• Disruptive attempts at clerking at RFPP User_talk:MoonlightVector/Archive_2#WP:RFPP
• Creating a hoax draft [93]

By far the most concerning issue is this users response to criticism and people pointing out flaws in their editing. Generally it falls into 3 camps 1) some variant on "I'm doing something else now so I don't care" [94] [95] 2) some variant on "Well I was actually right because of X" [96] or 3) some variant of "You can't tell me what to do" [97] (see also the instructions for administrators in this header [98])

I also think there is a language competence issue that needs to be addressed. Many of this users contributions are written in such poor English that they are near incomprehensible. examples: "I am not fully capiable of personal yet, im mostly just doing community, you can read the guidelines to request one." [99] "1-day Decline, Final time until proper review by multiple" [100] and the text of this draft essay that they wrote Draft:Wikipedia:Dont Push in Different Directions

I'm not sure what should be done here, but the current state of affairs of them moving from area to area and disrupting each one is clearly not sustainable. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also noticed some of these kind of problems. Two that I was just able to find by ctrl.F'ing their username in my contribs: on Oct 15, they revert an IP with an automated edit summary, despite the IP having explained their reasoning. I revert due to that. Also on Oct 15, they preempt me with a block template (!). I undo this and add my own, which took me 2 minutes longer as I actually had text in mine. El_C 20:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Their reverting of an IP on CBC Kids is also troublesome. An IP removed an uncited entry from upcoming programs, and after the IP posted on their talk page said the IP had to provide sourcing that CBC Kids was not going to carry that program. I'm not sure where one finds a source to prove that a television channel isn't carrying a particular show. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @El C: Not the first time they've done that. They were told to stop handing out block templates by Praxidicae way back in May [101] 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, IP. I've never seen a non-admin issue a block template to a blocked user seemingly on behalf of the blocking admin. But to do so again after warning, that's... beyond strange. El_C 20:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef. See User talk:MoonlightVector#Indefinite block. El_C 20:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunate but necessary block. Not everyone who wants to contribute is capable, and there is real harm done when incompetence leads to blatantly incorrect warnings and restoration of vandalism. This was a very comprehensive and compelling report, IP 192.76.8.77. Well done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ponyo: I think the real damage that was done here is that the editor who wrote Maria Ceres Doyo seems to have been so upset by MoonlightVector draftifying it for no reason that they quit Wikipedia. Loosing productive contributors for no real reason is one of the worst things that can happen to the project. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Their interaction with MoonlightVector was probably not the only thing that drove them away from the project. I won't say more because that would require a bunch of ANI notices and create more drama. JBchrch talk 21:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @JBchrch: I think I know what you're talking about, the other stuff was related to the article getting draftified though. They had a really rough experience getting started here. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I had to restrain myself from adding the blocked template to his page when your block popped up on my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You know, I used to think I basically understood people. Didn't always like them, didn't always sympathize, but generally understood them. Then I started on Wikipedia and I realized, to paraphrase Socrates, that I only know that I know nothing. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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

172.58.160.57 disruptive edits on Gabbie Hanna

The IP has repeatedly removed sourced information on Gabbie Hanna here and here, apparently because they disagree with the information. I have reverted their edit alerting them that the information removed is in fact verifiable, upon which the user removed the information again. I have informed them about Wikipedia's verifiability policy on their talk page, though I'm not sure whether IPs even get notified about talk page messages. I've come here in hopes of restoring the content removed. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC) I have just noticed that the IP has been reverted by another editor, then deleted the information again here, one revert short of making this a 3RR issue. Something needs to be done about this IP. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources for that paragraph are unreliable, and certainly not fit for a BLP. Before restoring you should make sure there is some sort of reasonable sourcing. BLP reverts are also exempt from 3rr, and they have made it clear they have BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The content extracted from these sources is not contentious, at parts simply citing Hanna's own words. There is no consensus deeming these sources unreliable. Editors are discouraged from breaking 3RR on contentious BLP issues because whether material is contentious often has to be discussed before being flat out removed. The IP is taking particular issue with information in the infobox and one sentence in the body but keeps deleting the entire paragraph. I don't see how this is justified. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP violations should be removed immediately, and discussed before being restored. Look at the sources. They are patently unreliable just based on their about pages. One is user generated and the others specify that they're about telling interesting stories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP edits seem at a minimum clearly defensible, and de facto proof that the assertion the paragraph is "not contentious" is false. --JBL (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Simply "citing Hanna's own words" does not make a source reliable or suitable for a BLP. If the source is not reliable then perhaps you can rely on WP:SELFPUB if you can find where those "own words" were published but that can only be done in limited circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the sources are Hollywood Mask: At Hollywood Mask, we don't want to report the news; we wwant to tell stories. written by "Isha," A cold case aficionado and gossip connoisseur, I'm updated with just about anything and everything that's full of drama.

The Tab: We livestream from protests, expose bullshit and discrimination and tell you which kebab shops are worth your money. Our London office is run by 23-year-olds, who write seriously hot takes, sickeningly accurate guides to life, and chat to Jeremy Corbyn about Love Island. It allows article submissions through a form on their website.

Distractify: Distractify powers culturally relevant conversations by creating, covering, and curating what’s trending on the Internet. We tell stories with passion and purpose in a relatable and familiar voice, and believe distractions can be insightful and inspiring.

None of these are acceptable for contentious claims about a BLP. To claim that Amidst mounting public backlash over past controversies and citing mental health issues are not contentious claims, I think, shows a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:RicardoRon21 Is Not here to contribute

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

---

RicardoRon21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be doing a combination of test edits and vandal-like edits. They have been warned several times in the past four days that they have been here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The editor should just be blocked. Either they're trolling, a vandal, or failing WP:CIR. Either way; it's just wasting our time. Also, what is up with their user page? -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Flotushistory on Talk:List of presidents of the United States

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

---

Hello. Flotushistory (talk · contribs) is persistently editing others' talk page comments (and messing with archiving) on Talk:List of presidents of the United States after a final warning. This appears to be an attempt to game the system to get autoconfirmed rights (see Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Came here for the same reason after seeing my watchlist blow up with their nonsense edits. - wolf 00:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Chipmunkdavis

Sock doing sock things. Nothing to see here. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user named Chipmunkdavis is constantly removing this edit on Mass racial violence in the United States, which included the Chinese massacre of 1871 as well as the Rock Springs massacre. This kind of erasure of history is just...something else. Their articles are literally aptly named "massacres".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.102.32 (talk • contribs) I have protected the page so that you can not continue edit-warring. The text was added by a sock of Ineedtostopforgetting and you are likely another one of their socks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC) I also blocked the IP. El_C 10:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros

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

---

Nyxaros keeps reverting edits on Eternals (film), and Dune (novel), using expletives to justify reverts, using insults and an aggressive tone with other editors and insulting myself. I'm not the best at english but that was a low blow and it's starting to make me feel a little unwelcome here. deity 14:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I've already agreed that my wording was a bit harsh in a sentence or two because you kept reverting and didn't provide a valid reason and annoyed me, and I apologize, but removing multiple sources, and adding generalizing / summarizing sentence to the lead without various references and gaining a consensus is not okay. Writing implausible edit summaries is a plus. This editor is clearly disruptive editing and is now trying to hide their actions and misrepresent the situation. ภץאคгöร 14:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, sure--yes, sure harsh language; Nyxaros, it's not helpful. But Triosdeity, the command of English set aside, there is no good justification for this--you're cutting The Atlantic and Time but you're letting Metacritic stand? Come on now. Masem, thanks for your continued work on that article. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they initially removed Metacritic too and said that I did "unexplained revert" as a reason, they seem to make similar contributions to other articles including Eternals (film). ภץאคгöร 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies Its the Wikipedia guidelines? deity 23:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently this user also got into an argument with another user today because of their edits. ภץאคгöร 11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You can stop stalking now. deity 11:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Stalking? Admins would eventually bring your edits and bad attitude here anyway. It isn't called stalking. It is called, as pointed out by @Adolphus79:, a discussion showing "final warning". How long will you continue with your baseless accusations and try to hide your actions? Aren't you the one who looked at my contributions page and followed my edits on the Dune (novel) page after the incident on Eternals (film)? Anyone can see who is the "stalker" here. ภץאคгöร 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow. A sock of User:Nyxaros2? Creepy... ภץאคгöร 12:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP address editing fascism-related articles

69.121.9.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been editing articles with controversial changes that are not aligned with what mainstream sources say, such as at Fascist symbolism. After I reverted their change with an explanation asking them to discuss on the article's talkpage, they accused me of edit warring. They've also edited in a non-neutral manner at other articles, such as this edit on Jack Ciattarelli. This editor is also uncivil, including reverting a message from Drmies with the edit summary You can go f*ck yourself. They recently edit-warred on a user's talkpage archives here. The IP was previously blocked for a month for disruptive editing, but the block expired on September 26 2021. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that, in the meantime, I've partially blocked the IP from editing this page. No comment on any wider issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The combination of aggressive incivility, hairsplitting about different flavors of fascism, and compulsion to label anything to the left of the Rotary Club as "far leftist" is familiar trope in this subject area. Blocked again, this time for three months. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat by Dorierosie

Dorierosie (talk · contribs) has been editing the article about herself for nearly a decade. She was cautioned in Feb 2020 & has continued to edit it despite the conflict of interest. I imposed a partial block to ensure future compliance and pointed her to the WP:ERW (ticket:2021102510012533 email #2). She has responded with legal threats (email #3 & Special:Diff/1051963924) & has not been willing to retract them despite repeated requests to do so. I request a WP:NLT block. Cabayi (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I gotta say, I have no conflict of interest with myself [102] is peak irony. clpo13_(talk) 16:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Their latest email to ticket:2021102510012533 seems to suggest they are willing to remove the legal threat? ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They have now said that they are going to get their publicist and entertainment lawyer to edit the article: [103]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither of whom will have any WP:COI, obvs... Narky Blert (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This person is clearly upset and unfamiliar with Wikipedia PAGs. Maybe some of their concerns are legitimate; maybe some aren't. Either way, I think kindness and patience is the right approach here. See also WP:DOLT. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They're not unfamiliar with the PAG they were told about WP:COI in February last year and decided to ignore it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Them being told about it and them (a) reading it and (b) understanding it are different things. We need to proceed with caution and understanding when it comes to the subjects of our articles, even if they are completely in the wrong. We're a human-edited encyclopedia, emphasis on the human. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, blocking for the blatant attempt at chilling discussion with legal threats. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I respect our admins and the community but this seems extremely punitive, especially since she never made a direct threat. She didn't chill any discussion because there never was a discussion on the article talk page because she didn't even know how to get there. We are human beings after all. She made a comment on her own talk page out of frustration. She is clearly not a Wikipedian and I don't know if she has a desire to be one but, in my opinion, this action has chilled discussion more than anything she has said so far. --ARoseWolf 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 "Legal threat" blocks (for things which often aren't anything like a legal threat) are a very popular opportunity for people to play sheriff. (Not speaking of this particular case when I say that, BTW.) EEng 21:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

She revealed private information about a VRT contributor on her talk page, after being asked not to. Her talk page history is full of oversight strikes - to be honest, I'm surprised she still has the ability to edit that talk page, let alone anywhere else. I'm all for showing respect and compassion to the subjects of our articles when they have issues, but we also need to consider the well-being of our contributors. She is not free to impugne them as she has been doing, or to reveal private information about them when they have the good grace to respond to her emails. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I never understood why blocking for legal threats wasn't a job for WMF Legal. If there's a legal reason to block for legal threats (like a liability reason or because the law requires it) then let the paid lawyers deal with it instead of us volunteers. For us volunteers, we should just process "legal threats" under our ordinary civility policies. I don't understand why we treat legal threats the same way we treat things like hate speech or outing (that is: with extreme prejudice). That said, in this particular case, there appears to me to be ample reason to block, not for NLT, but for other policy violations (detailed by GS above). Levivich 21:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is due to the chilling effect that legal threats have. No one would edit here if they feared that they would be sued. It's no different than hate speech in that it creates a poor editing environment. We don't need to be lawyers to protect the editing environment. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There’s no “legal” reason to block legal threats. It’s not particularly a WMF issue. It’s just the “chilling” effect - a subset of WP:CIVIL in many ways. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• And now they're spamming their talk with what are basically requests for proxy edits ("THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD READ EVEN THOUGH IM BLOCKED"); which also brings concern about them being able to understand the issues with their edits, which is as much, if usually less urgent of a problem, than the legal threats they've now been blocked for. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah I removed the spam the first time saying it was unneeded and got a reply which some could suggest was a bit uncivil (asking if i was Paid and worked for Wikipedia) and have removed it a second time and said it comes across as spam and possibly nothere, we shall see how they respond. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from their talk page that they have retracted their legal threat. As such I believe the legal threat block should be lifted, or replaced with a block referring to her other behavior. I think the block from her article should stand if they are unblocked and she should be encouraged to post on the article talk page. I also think without mentoring they are unlikely to remain unblocked. Clearly their anger level is high and I am concerned that they may make it impossible to work with the productively.

The issues they are complaining about should be looked into. It appears their concern about the wrong middle name has already been addressed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll let another admin handle it, but I'd also want an assurance that this user will refrain from posting personal information on Wikipedia, given that's been a recurring problem. The refusal to get the point and read basic instructions isn't helping her case, her talkpage is making my eyes bleed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but unblocking (while leaving the block from their article, with the already explained issue) at this time might be a valid use of WP:ROPE, and is likely to look better (i.e. make them less angry) than if we arbitrarily "re-block" them now for a different issue. If they continue despite further instructions, WP:NOTHERE and CIR are both valid reasons. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't volunteer to officially mentor, but also think a little rope would be good considering it was the first block (there are two log entries but the same day, one to update the other)... I left a message about the importance of using the article's talk page. A NOTHERE block is indeed close, but why not a second chance... —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back here. Dorierosie has only signed up to Wikipedia because she's fed up of reading things about her that are untrue, possibly libellous, and actively harming their career. It's what I'd call a "distress purchase editor" who is only here to clear their name, with no interest whatsoever in learning policies and guidelines that are irrelevant to their goals. "I’m a 52-year-old woman and a working actress - I don’t have time for this." says everything you need to know. It's kind of like lecturing me on pipework and plumbing after I've got a leak which is flooding the kitchen - I don't care about specifics, I just want the damn thing fixed. Furthermore, as it hasn't been mentioned here, Dorierosie is using the mobile editor, which is well-known to have a poor and ineffective user interface, making a block appeal even harder (paging Suffusion of Yellow). Can you type in {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on a mobile app, even when you know exactly what you're doing - without looking up the template documentation? (After all, the odds that Dorierosie knows or even cares about that are approximately zero).

The only sane thing to do here is ensure that anything not compliant with WP:BLPSOURCES gets expunged from the article. I can see that Dorierosie wants her role in The Trial of the Chicago 7 documented, but it's not in that article and that's a reasonably well-written one, so I'm slightly curious as to how her role stacks up to, say Sacha Baron Cohen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I was looking at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects, and its the usual overstuffed instructionbloat offering too much information and too many options. It starts with there are several avenues for you to discuss the issue with Wikipedia's editorial community, which is fatal right there -- we should just be giving one or two clear and simple paths to follow. I'm going to tinker with it a bit right now, but that will only be a start. Also, I'm wondering how to get more of the people who need to see it directed to it; I actually think an editnotice and/or talk page banner might actually work, since newbies are probably more likely to actually read editnotices and talk page banners. You know what else? All those banners about DYK and Wikiprojects and being the most-read article one day should be banished to the bottom of talk pages. EEng 15:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, fuck it, it's full protected. If I sandbox it, will you move it over for me when I'm done? EEng 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. I don't think that page is helpful; I'm sure the most common reason a notable person comes onto Wikipedia is because they want to correct something about themselves or are otherwise stressed about something. WP:BLPN is the place where complaints about living people get handled the best, with the widest audience. Asking them to use the talk page and avoid COI is kind of missing the entire point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've cut it severely, leaving a link to Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects, which I've also taken a preliminary stab at. Your BLPN idea might fit in there somewhere. EEng 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a passing thought: Are we sure that there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources out there to sustain an article that complies with WP:BLP? The sources currently in there are an announcement, a brief mention in the blurb of a PR video, a credits listing, a tweet, a self-published blog post and a brief interview; I didn't find all that much in a quick google search either. I didn't spend much time on it though, and pop culture articles are pretty far away from my editing comfort zone, so that's not to say that there isn't any good sourcing out there, but I think it's important to ascertain whether that's the case. If the sourcing doesn't exist, it will be pretty much impossible to write an article that both complies with Wikipedia sourcing standards, and does the subject justice. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't help that trying to find sources brings back more false positives for Kate Miller-Heidke. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm just for trying to have a little compassion. She obviously doesn't intend to continue to edit here and she doesn't really care about policy because she doesn't intend to edit multiple articles. She seems to be okay with the block of her from editing the article on her. She just wants someone to help her. I'm kind of leaning the direction I see Ritchie going in. Is there even enough sourcing in the article to have an article in the first place? Having nothing might be better than having the wrong information. That may be a discussion for AfD but not here. She has already expressed the desire to have this article removed from her feed because it has apparently injured herself in some way or another. That's something we can't know the chilling affect from but we can try to understand and relate to as much as we can. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

An AfD would likely draw more attention to the article and the subject of the article, right in the middle of her feeling hurt and angry and confused by us. What we need is a rouge admin willing to speedy it out of process, then take the flak at DR, which is a much less public and painful forum for the subject, but hell on Earth for the heroic admin who volunteers to take one for the team. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is now at AfD, ho hum. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 09:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Where are the things in the article or in the history that are "untrue, possibly libellous, and actively harming their career"? I looked but can't find them. And the article is indeed problematic, as problematic as John DiMaggio and so many others--because they are BLPs of people who barely pass the GNG, if at all, but get enormous resume-style lists of all their voice work and what not, where huge-ass resumes are sourced to "sources" like this one. Is playing a "Restaurant owner" or "Blind Date #3" worth noting here? Even aside from notability, we have created for ourselves the opportunity to become a version of LinkedIn, maintained by the subjects themselves, where even the COI policy can be made to bend because merely listing more jobs or whatever isn't really promotional editing if our own editors do it in this off-hand way. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Webbe & Socialist Campaign Group & User:Alssa1

There are several claims made about membership of the Socialist Campaign Group, there is no known reliable source for membership, none has been provided only the self-nomination of members. Given the lack of proper citation, I have qualified some of the claims only to have these reverted with no improved citation.Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC) The User who keeps reinstating these uncited claims is User:Alssa1 and continues to reinstate despite lack of valid citation and incorrectly cites Wikiepdia policy to justify their bullying. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I see we've both made an ANI for each other. I do find it odd that you're accusing me of "bullying" you. Alssa1 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential WP:BOOMERANG candidate. Check Talk:Claudia_Webbe#Socialist Campaign Group for context. I did not notice any conduct violations on the part of Alssa1 except for three reverts in a row on the Claudia Webbe page.

Bad faith by Kitchen Knife: [104]

Alssa1 reminds Kitchen Knife on talk page of BRD and AGF, Kitchen Knife reverts calling Alssa1 a "bully": [105]

Kitchen Knife "talk page banning": [106]

MarshallKe (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Resinsating unsourced claims is a violation of Wikipedia standards. Doing so on the bio of a Living person is also a no no. They were asked multiple times to cite a reliable source and did not do so, if they had cited a reliable source then it could stay but they did not. This is fundamental to Wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There was a discussion going on elsewhere there was no need for him to come onto my talk page. I did not call his reverts bullying I called his preemptive citing of Wikipedia rules and claims that not behaving he wanted could lead to banning. The claims he reinstated were and are unsubstantiated. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As best I can tell, you are the one making unsourced statements. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by stating that on the article talk page instead of here, but now that you've decided to bring that here and misrepresent your sourcing disagreement with Alssa1, here we are. You were having a sourcing disagreement, which is a natural part of Wikipedia and it doesn't belong on this page. MarshallKe (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting my position at all, you are the one doing that. What evidence there is, which is the full title of the group, is that the group is reserved for Labour MPs, she is no longer a Labour MP there going by the one thing the group have published about membership criteria it is unclear if she remains a member. Alssa1 has also claimed the someone who is no longer an MP is also a member. While it would not be the first time a groups name has not reflected the membership of a group, the change in status of the subject is well known and verified. I do not think that OR covers this as effectly it is starting what is already known that the MPs status has changed and this makes her status within Labour affiliated groups at best ambiguous.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kitchen Knife: since you posted the above before I responded below I'm not sure if you're still confused but in case you are, do note as I said below that you're mistaken. What you're describing classic WP:Synthesis. If you're going to continue to edit BLPs then please better familiarise yourself with our OR policy rather than just "thinking" what it covers. If you believe information is outdated for some reason, it is up to you to find reliable sources which provide this new information. You cannot decide based on your own analysis what the situation is like now and update the article. At best, if you cannot find sources, perhaps the outdated but sourced information could be removed. But this is rarely the solution so needs to be done with care. If you cannot find sources perhaps it's because no one has noticed, perhaps it's because no one really cares about the change or perhaps it's because your OR is wrong. If it's the case no one cares, then generally we don't either. Depending on the specifics it's often perfectly possible to provide info on the older situation without making it sound like the situation must be still the same or mentioning some change which may be true but no one thinks matters so no one has mentioned. If your OR is wrong and so you're providing misleading information that's one reason OR is so harmful. As I said below, it's very difficult for you to make the claim the sources are simply outdated anyway since we have a source from after her suspension still mentioning her membership. It's in the early days I don't know what the situation is like now, again ultimately we need sources not editor's speculations. P.S. To be clear, my comment is direct exclusively at what you did in the Claudia Webbe article. How to handle the list is more complicated and not something I want to touch on. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife

Kitchen Knife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kitchen Knife and I are having a discussion about the the MP Claudia Webbe and her affiliation to the Socialist Campaign Group (referred to as SCG from now on); particularly given her suspension from the Labour party. Kitchen Knife appears convinced that membership of the SCG is dependent entirely upon membership of the Labour Party, he is yet to provide a source that demonstrates this claim.

To summarise the situation.

This discussion has taken more or less civilly on the talkpage. However today the discussion took a very different turn. It began with this edit which though I can accept 'robust language' without difficulty, I do on reflection find it somewhat of a precursor to later interactions. I responded to that particular edit with: this edit. In the next edit I added some sources that would at least demonstrate that she is widely reported to be a member of the SCG despite her suspension.

After a continuing to disagree robustly, Kitchen Knife makes this edit which I think is in breach of WP:AGF.

He then makes an edit which I then revert and leave a message on his page highlighting the need to build consensus, think about WP:BRD and engage in good faith. I also make a similar remark on the article talkpage.

He then reverts my message on his talkpage and calls me "a bully", a confusing statement and also in breach of WP:AGF.

He also leaves a message on my talkpage titled "DO not comment on my page again" and calling "very rude and pompous".

He reinstates his edit again (with a bit of WP:AGF), which I then revert and leave a disruptive editing notice on his page. Which he then reverts.

Now I'm sure neither side of our disagreement has behaved perfectly, but I do find the way he's behaved to be somewhat unnecessary. Alssa1 (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT, in addition to the above there seems to a bit of pattern with his behaviour when challenged; as you can see from his archive. When challenged he does seem to go on the full-attack mode for some reason. Despite the archived instance being from almost 10 years ago, I do think it's relevant given his recent behaviour. Alssa1 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT2, further to my previous comment, the pattern is reflected again here on relatively recent disagreement Kitchen Knife had with Mark83. It's the same thing, Kitchen Knife has an editing dispute with someone and as a result he engages in abusive behaviour (calling people "pompous" among other things), and then engaging in talk page banning. What is the best method of dealing with someone who has a long pattern of unpleasant behaviour of this nature? Alssa1 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Alssa1 had already been reported by myself, for reinstment of unsupported claims. THis is an example of this user malicous nature.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you reported someone first doesn't automatically mean you're right and doesn't serve as an example of this user malicous nature.. Even on ANI, you should remain CIVIL and avoid casting ASPERSIONS. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed it did make me right but well done on making stuff up.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To summarise the situation accurately this user has been asked multiple times to provide citations that back up the entries on the Claudia Webbe Page as no citation was forthcoming that met the Wikipedia standard the claims were qualified to indicate they were claims made by the subject. The membership list used is that of a Twitter group and the full title of the group would exclude non-members. Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also my edit said " she is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs, it is unclear if this remains true whilst she is suspended from the PLP." stating quite clearly that the situation with the suspension made the membership status unclear.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's weird you're complaining about another editor not providing citations when you seem to be engaging in WP:OR yourself. The source [107] says "She is one of 34 members of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs alongside Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell.". No where does it say "She has stated" let alone "it is unclear if this remains true whilst she is suspended from the PLP". And it's a source from after (albeit very early) in the suspension so it's not even the case that it's a severely outdate source not that this would excuse adding OR. I don't know if this really needs to be here at ANI, probably WP:BLP/N would be better unless you really keep at it despite multiple editors telling you to stop. However it does seem to be that you have made a BLP violation by introducing something not mentioned by the citation provided. Indeed doing so in a way that may mislead editors into thinking it was supported. So please don't do that again, Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We had two largely overlapping threads. Seems this thread was created before Alssa1 noticed the other one, unfortunate but happens. Best solution now is to merge this as a subthread of the other which I have done. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t got into the detail of the dispute itself, but this user is far too quick to pull the ANI trigger and accuse people of bullying etc. The ANI thread here against me didn’t go their way so they completely ignored the advice given by others: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070. Seems they are refreshed after a Wikipedia break and ready to cause more disruption that could be avoided by a bit of self awareness. If you’re continually in disputes, at some point you have to reflect on your own approach. Mark83 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

To be clear my complaint is more down to Kitchen Knife's pattern of abusive behaviour when he encounters another editor he disagrees with, rather than a specific editing issue. I didn't appreciate the accusations of "bullying", being "very rude and pompous", among other things. It just seems to be totally unwarranted and not conducive to building a consensus with people; if the first thing an editor does when they're having a discussion is engaging in insults, I don't they (and Wikipedia generally) can progress as an online cooperative encyclopedia. Alssa1 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Rrmmll22 is edit-warring in violation of WP:BLP policy

See this article history: [108] A clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Parkjenmin

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

The user is engaging an edit/move war at Sudra Kingdom and has moved the article thrice this week against consensus [109] @SpacemanSpiff notified of DS/ipa sanctions [110] The user's latest post [111] (Hindi in English) is just a hatred post (first sentence: Why do you all people have so much hate against Yadavas?) The last sentence reads that he won't be back in WP which is full of hatred. The user is clearly here for a POV push and a "cleansing". Requesting ARBIPA enforcement and moving on, even if the user self-proclaims no-return. — DaxServer (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark move protected the page. Might as well see if the user returns before taking further action. El_C 00:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:S0cksonmyfeet

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

---

S0cksonmyfeet (talk · contribs) is busy socking away and making a general nuisance of themselves. I've blocked multiple socks, but I'm now going to step away for a bit. I suspect this is a frequent offender making a return, but can't spot the pattern. If other admins can keep tracking them, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- The Anome (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat. The usernames and vandalism related to chaos magic are dead giveaways. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Gadariya Sarkar

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

---

Gadariya Sarkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Based on the latest post at a talk page [112] and posts on the user's own talk page and own user page, the user is clearly here for promoting [their own] caste. I don't think any encyclopaedic would ever come out from the user. — DaxServer (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that I had already reported as a promotion-only account to AIV. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And the posts are also hoaxes, or otherwise not credible. I endorse an indef for NOTHERE. JavaHurricane 16:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Sucker for All

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

---

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

This has gone on long enough. No one could be this obtuse. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a lot to go on there :) We're not all familiar with the user, we're going to need a bit of background. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the specific accusation. Since blocked from namespace, I have argued that Carley Shimkus and Draft:Ashley Strohmier should be wikipedia articles. All of my other edits have involved carefully reinstating relations with every user with whom I have disagreed with in the past. Sucker for All (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) your claiming that editors are misconstruing policy and that you know policy better than more experienced editors and are displaying WP:IDHT when told otherwise. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I literally cannot even figure out where to begin to explain. We have Draft:Ashley Strohmier, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus, the circle jerk incident, Drmies fun times, previous unblock requests that show no understanding, ongoing arguments that leads should never have zero citations, you name it, it's there. I suspect we're being trolled, because no one could be this obtuse and still be able to spell. —valereee (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree I think the best thing to do is to look at the recent contributions history. This editor is in need of guidance on the concept of Wikipedia:Notability coupled with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources but appears to be unwilling or unable to accept that guidance when given with care Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor has had guidance on all of those things but still is arguing that press releases are evidence of notability. —valereee (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee Indeed they have. I fear it may be time to offer that guidance with a more persuasive approach. Normal dialogue appears to fail at this point. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing I know SfA from is History of the Jews in Antwerp and its associated talk page, where I was less than impressed. I had reverted this edit based on not-good sourcing (after they and Drmies had been engaged over similar edits to that article. The talk page discussion wasn't ideal--the edits were pretty much textbook SYNTH, and using some very idiosyncratic interpretations of the text of the source to support it. It's not the sort of thing I would consider block-worthy on its own, especially since they're not still pursuing it, but as part of a pattern, it's not a good data point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This is obvious trolling in my view; I agree no one is that obtuse. They're just pretending not to understand these policy issues. Indef and revoke tpa as an ordinary admin action to prevent further wasting of editor time. It's an WP:RBI situation IMO. Levivich 22:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Speaking as someone who isn't quite on the autism spectrum, but who has known a couple of people who said that they were, and who has followed some lengthy ANI threads, it is perfectly possible for someone to be apparently obtuse yet completely sincere. Trolling requires deliberate intent. Disruption, however, is disruption, and a timesink whatever the motive. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert, how do we help someone who is problematic become a net positive? —valereee (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I wish I knew; I agree that it's the best outcome. Carrot and stick? but I'm no psychologist. A very senior and highly-respected mod on another site admitted that he'd started out as a troll, but got bored with that and decided to become a productive user instead. I could (but will not) name a WP editor who I suspect is on the spectrum who was given a helluva shock within recent memory, and now seems to be doing useful work. Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that partial blocking has not worked and they are just being a timesink. They should be indef blocked site-wide until they can come up with a convincing unblock request. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• No one could be this obtuse. Um, have you fuckin' met me? Erm, blocked indef. See User_talk:Sucker_for_All#Indefinite_sitewide_block. El_C 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, we think you're rather acute. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Word overuse alert! El_C 23:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we should be calling them cute. ;) —valereee (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think El_C is right. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

He's Shawshank'd us for the last time! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C 10:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

They were already indeffed from a userpage per this discussion: [113]]. Later this was expanded to article space also and it has not mitigated the disruption. Frankly if we cannot trust an editor to edit articles then the only reason to keep them here is the hopes that one day they will be trusted, but this is not seeming likely. Sadly I don't see this user justifying the time they are consuming. I support El C's action here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, HighInBC. Sorry, what userpage are you referring to? El_C 10:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I misread Future Nostalgia in the block log, for some reason it seemed like a username. In fact it would be a good username... dang I already have one. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise we hardly knew ye! El_C 11:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why someone who claims to be a Jewish man who has "integrated" himself into the Jewish community of Antwerp is also a fan of Fox News anchors and a POV editor of various right-wing topics. Glad to see them indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not watch Fox News, but from what I know they firmly support Israel, and there was a lot of progress in foreign relations concerning Israel under Trump - which is not expected during the Biden administration. More generally, world history seen and written by Jews looks very different from what we used to learn at school.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: From Vlaams Belang (Belgian far-right party, probably to be situated to the right of Trump): Currently the party sees itself as strongly pro-Israel, regarding Jews and Israelis as allies against radical Islam. In Antwerp, sections of the city's large Jewish community actively support the party, as they feel threatened by the new wave of anti-Semitism from the growing Muslim population. In Europe, neofascism expresses itself mainly through islamophobia. It's very widespread, not wholly unlike the antisemitism of 1930s Europe. Scary stuff. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Page protection requests for Greater Manchester articles

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

---

I've been seeing unhelpful and opinion using changes by used https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zynthetik#Your_edits.

They claim use of human settlement in England is bland boring and unhelpful. Calling his edits suburbs of Manchester because they border the city are correct and not in the wrong. I think other editors and admin might want to look at it.

He has been reverted multiple times but repeats the same offenses committed.

DragonofBatley (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley, In summary you want the article protected right? Then you may want to visit WP:RFPP. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Extensive vandalism

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

---

The ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ persistently vandalizes the page Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election by constantly placing logos that are not allowed to be placed. I will ask an admin to block as it is dangerous this user as he did not do it once but 3 times this thing and it has become tedious to constantly undo either me or other users his vandalism.[114] --Derzki (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this article exists in the first place. It's just an aggregation of existing poll data, not an encyclopedic article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Derzki, here's a radical idea: try speaking to this user on their talk page before escalating here (where you did no notify them per this board's instructions). El_C 19:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate talk page message needs redacting

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

---

BloodIronFan (talk) just left a nasty hateful message on their talk page. May want to look into this. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the comment, but should probably be revdel'd, and use should be indeffed. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Both done, with TPA revoked, because no. El_C 21:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow up. BIF created Draft:The Red Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and seemed to be working on it. Then the last edit they made before the block was to create The Red Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Should they be merged or deleted? MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the article. It was an out of process copy-and-paste move of the draft. clpo13_(talk) 22:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this Clpo13. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Haleth using proxies and alt accounts to harass me.

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

---

Was going to let this be, but I'm realllllly getting tired of this. User:Haleth apparently took umbrage at something I said on Discord a while back in late June, and has since been attacking my contributions. I wouldn't particularly mind, as I've plenty of watchlisted articles that do need sprucing up, except that a) this doesn't seem to be done with an aim to improving the encyclopedia, but a personal vendetta, and b) they are apparently using undisclosed alts and socks to do it. Since June, a bunch of proxy IPs have tried to start article reassessments on articles I edit, or get other people to start them, e.g. 58.187.231.180 (talk · contribs), 45.119.84.59 (talk · contribs), 125.192.15.65 (talk · contribs) and 180.195.208.219 (talk · contribs); these seem to be obvious Haleth alts as their interleaving edits and interests demonstrate (e.g. [115] or [116], where the IP is editing Haleth's own draft pages or articles minutes after or before Haleth repeatedly). I asked Haleth off-wiki to own up to his edits instead of hiding them; immediately after, an account was created solely to vandalize talk pages (I suppose the other editors targeted are a smokescreen, or else others Haleth has beef with?) Now there are new single-purpose accounts being created (User:HaloFanDude, User:HaloFanBoys) to continue the process. I'm getting rather tired of this bizarre response, and am at the point where I think some remedy is necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: This is probably LTA MyRoyalYoung (MRY), not Haleth. I've been blocking proxy IPs and socks related to this latest spree of fictional character edits all month. He "deceased"s me regularly. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Joe-jobbing doesn't make much sense to me as an explanation, given this only starts after I have a disagreement with the user in question and the contributions line up as such. And starting reassessments or a focus on Halo doesn't nicely line up with MRY's interests specifically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been blocking this proxy user all month. I am fairly certain that it's not Haleth. It's much broader than Halo, that seems to just be the overlap you're experiencing. They're editing across the entire swath of fictional characters from numerous franchises, and I've placed at least 15 blocks in relate to them including 3 other accounts. Regardless, the "deceased" attack account is a classic LTA harassment that MRY or related does periodically. I get that once or twice a month almost. Don't have much more to offer I suppose. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, HaloFanDude and HaloFanBoys are  Confirmed to each other, as far as I can tell  Unrelated to Haleth, suspect joe-jobbing.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Can you say anything about the technical relationship between those two and A wiseman knows everything, fictional articles sucks. (talk · contribs)/MRY? --Blablubbs (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, possilikely at best - similar geo, same ISP, different devices, nothing sufficiently distinctive to make a call. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr Fuchs, besides the evidence supplied by other admins in this discussion that the IP edits and sock accounts have nothing to do with this account, which has been registered on Wikipedia for more then 15 years, I think your brazen decision to file a vexatious ANI report against me, without any tangible SPI and CU evidence, says a lot more about your personal vendetta against me and the nonsensical basis behind your allegations. We've barely interacted, except for maybe a brusque comment or two on or off Wiki which I thought little of, but now it is quite clear that you've been nursing a personal grudge ever since. I have better things to do with my time then tag bombing articles or trying to force an article through to the GAR process, not to mention the fact that I never left a GAR tag on any article throughout my on-wiki time here and would need to research the proper procedure on how to actually do it. You also conveniently left out the fact that I responded to your Discord DM literally minutes afterwards, demanding a reasonable explanation to your wild accusations, to which you never replied to. I have passed on a screenshot of the chat log to a Discord moderator for their reference and to prove that you never bothered to confirm your suspicions or make an attempt to sort out our perceived differences. It's quite unbecoming of you, as an administrator AND a member of Arbcom, to drag me to ANI over some insubstantial allegations and your casting of aspersions at me without any credible evidence. I think a WP:BOOMERANG for you may be appropriate here. I also find it incredibly baffling that you would characterize spam edits and tag bombing to reassess a couple of mainspace Wikipedia articles to be personal harassment, but maybe some editors might think that your ownership issues over the Halo franchise topic area to be a benign quirk. Haleth (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You profess to not nurse any hard feelings, yet you were the one complaining to other people about my comments on Discord (which is the only reason I found out about it, because another user said you were very upset about it.) I'm not sure '15-year editor couldn't possible figure out how to do a GAR' is a compelling counterclaim, and I still don't see how the likelihood of an SPI joe-jobbing a random editor for the better part of half a year for reasons unknown makes more sense than the more obvious answer that you're editing from multiple accounts and interleaving your edits (any thinking person can obfuscate the technical data.) I don't see any reason to retract my claim, since it makes far more sense in this context than the alternative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

David Fuchs, you mean the time when you would openly denigrate other editors' contributions on a public Discord chat, something that you, a long time and rather prominent member of the Wikipedia community, should have known better to be not very appropriate or nice? So maybe I was unimpressed with your off-wiki conduct and your decision to publicly single me out, and I may have told someone else about it. How long ago was that? Four months ago, and "very upset" may not be very accurate since you only heard about it from someone else. Don't let that distract from the fact that you seem to know more about my editing patterns then I do yours, and right now you are the one who wouldn't drop the stick with filing a vexatious ANI even after two other admins have told you, after doing their due diligence, that I have nothing to do with the sock puppetry or disruptive edits, not to mention pointing out the logical fallacy behind how you came to that conclusion and doubling down on it. I said I have yet to do a GAR because I haven't had a compelling reason to figure out the proper procedure of doing it yet, and certainly not to pick a pointless fight with someone like you. But clearly you have every intention to pick a fight with me regardless of the evidence at hand. Haleth (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

With respect, you're basically saying that they are smart enough to know how to obfuscate the technical data, but not smart enough to separate the attack sock activity from their main account. We can go down the doublethink rabbit hole all day, of course ("well of course he's doing them close together because he knows we'll think that's too obvious"). GeneralNotability (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

i used to use that as an arugment for why “password” was a good password when I was young. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It used to be one of those rules in movies. (1) All monitors display text in letters 4 inches high. (2) All passwords can be easily cracked, usually by a couple of teens guessing PASSWORD, on their third attempt. Narky Blert (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I have met Haleth for a long time and he is always civil with me even on Discord. I find it ridiculous to see him as a sockpuppet when he is always busy creating new content for Wikipedia so please assume good faith.Tintor2 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Haleth is one of the best contributors I've seen at AfD. I find it impossible to believe that they would be socking. Considering that the OP has now doubled down on their accusations, I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. Mlb96 (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what would justify that, beyond spite. It just needs to be closed. A concern was raised. The concern was debunked. Discussion is over, everyone move on. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Spamming on my talk page

Hello. Throughout the last year or two, several anonymous editors have posted nonsensical messages repeatedly on my talk page. Although most of the messages have just been mildly anonying, in the history of those most recent messages, you'll find they are reverted as being spam, vandalism, or personal attacks. The latest such attempt was posted in this revision. The recurrent spamming of my talk page and/or personal attacks can be verified and corroborated in every respect by ChristensenMJ, Meters, and FormalDude. I am not sure at this point whether a request to protect my talk page would be in order, but these repeated spam messages and personal attacks are very much interferring with my capacity to get anything meaningful done here on Wikipedia outside of monitoring my talk page. Any recommendations you have for me would be appreciated. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeraldFord1980. Sro23 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Long-term trolling of your talk page by throw-away accounts justifies protecting it. Link to an unprotected talk page and you can still be contacted by unconfirmed editors (and any unwanted garbage there can be quietly ignored until you feel the urge to clean it out) Meters (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Attended to this by way of RfPP (permalink — Roxy the dog, woof alert!). Will follow up. El_C 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

IP deletes my talk page messages

This IP has deleted my talk page message as seen here. A poor son of Adam (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

They are allowed to remove talkpage edits that are attacks or soapboxing - given your behavior, I don't blame them. Your declaration that you are using a :"fake account" draws my interest: please explain what you think you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

CIR issue from a month ago

• 919499sp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See this archived thread for context. The above editor's edits are indicative they do not have the "ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively". Many of their edits also keep introducing reports of "no problem reported" rail accidents (something which has been pointed out as not particularly enlightening...). I'm not sure keeping this unchecked will have any productive outcome, beyond people having to go take a look at it again and clean-up more of this editor's edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

919499sp (talk · contribs) has made a total of three edits to their talk:

• 21:36, 11 October 2021 "Sorry i dont know how to edit it"
• 23:27, 11 October 2021 (change a word in someone else's comment)
• 23:37, 11 October 2021 (blank the page)

Apart from the above, 919499sp has only edited articles. I plan to indefinitely block them in 24 hours unless there is a useful response or an alternative suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Given the very simple way they write and their obsession with trains, maybe it's possible that they're just on the younger side? They might just need a block for a year or so and they'll have a better grasp of the English language by then. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a WP:PBLOCK on the two most recent lists of rail accidents, and advised 919499sp to treat it as a de facto block for other similar lists. Talk pages remain available to suggest edits. Let's see if we can avoid an indeff here. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: Their edit here shows they're not able to understand the instructions for an unblock... (and "I'll tell you why I was wrong if you unblock me, but I can't tell you now" is bad enough of an appeal as is). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thus it is doomed to failure. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian and Mjroots: This appears to be pure CIR. The user's responses have all been to the effect that they don't understand, including their first response to the partial block and the second attempt at an unblock request, which reads "So I am sorry i didnt know what is wrong but if you unblock me can you tell me whats wrong", not "I'll tell you why I was wrong if you unblock me, but I can't tell you now". Please let's try to be kind in how we talk to this editor. I'm going to try to explain at their talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Need Some Help With Possible Copyright Infringement Issue(s)

I had a look back through my logs the other day because I like to make sure if/when stuff reappears its not as it was when it got the axe. Going back to 28 April 2020 I found the article Carolyn Rodriguez had been recreated...and then saw that it got the axe for being a COPYVIO. I went digging and with some effort managed to trace the article back, and it seems this new version is still copyright: here is the article at the time (it was userfied) and the one with the copyright box at the top, then compare that to the current version Carolyn I. Rodriguez, and you'll see it reads remarkably similar. Moreover, if you look at the history of both articles ([117], [118]), you'll see no move log, suggesting a copy past.

A look through the contributions of the creating editor, one Microglia145 (talk · contribs), shows some of the articles s/he are creating are being created as massive text groups (some at or near 20,000 characters), which on its own doesn't prove anything (we've all had moments where working on an article meant getting it just right and then posting massive texts into the article mainspace, and that includes me too), but when you consider the above discovery and then look at the pages (like this one) one gets the feeling that perhaps they may be paraphrasing a little too closely here. Before I or anyone else takes any official action though I would like some feedback here: Am I imaging things, was this simply a case of coincidence, or does this look like an account generating material a little too close to copyright status? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Confirmation that the user has been notified of this discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• There was a bit of copying from this source which I've removed from the article, but if you're referring to the Earwig tool's 79% match to [119] (which is what that now-userfied draft was G12-tagged with), that results from matches to publication titles and the names of various awards and institutions. DanCherek (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

~~ Hi there, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I wanted to message to let you know that when I was creating pages #onedayonewoman I was writing them in Google docs and then entering them as one into a page. It was easier for me this way as I could work on it a little bit during the day on my google doc, and then finish and submit each night. I can see how this might look like copyright, but I can assure you that I spent many hours each day during 2020 making these pages for women, learning about their scientific careers as deeply as I could, and then trying to cover their notability in an honest way. I tried to cite each sentence as well to make sure that no problems occurred in terms of copyright. For Carolyn's page, my order of her awards was in the exact same chronological order as it was on Stanford's website, and this is why I got flagged for copyright in that case. When I amended that part of the page, I just removed the awards I thought were not as notable. In this case, I am not sure what else I should do and I welcome opinions and comments in terms of how to do better in the future. I am a relatively new member to the Wiki community and I am still learning and welcome advice. I do want to make sure though that the community is aware that I am not trying to commit any illegal acts, I was just trying to use my time in COVID quarantine to improve representation of women on Wikipedia. I hope this makes sense and I am so sorry to have caused concern and worry in this regard. 00:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Microglia145 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with DanCherek that this is seemingly a false positive regarding earwig. @Microglia145: You're fine; just try to avoid doing cut & paste moves per Template:Uw-c&pmove.
Regardless, I have now tagged the article to fix that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

help would be welcome

Hi I’ve been involved in a two separate debates on the talk page of The Battle at Lake Changjin involving editors who appear to lack basic knowledge of the encyclopedia’s policies. Specifically the debates I am referring to can be found here [120] and [121] For the sake of trying to not escalate the dispute unnecessarily I will not be naming the editors nor accuse them of doing anything specific as we are talking and in the process (however slowly) of trying to resolve the disputes. Having said that any input or oversight especially from experienced editors would still be welcome in order to ensure that the dispute resolving process goes as smooth as possible. I had previously requested help on the NPOV noticeboard [122] but found the response their to be lacking particularly when compared to this one so that is why I’ve come here asking for help. Thanks in advanceEstnot (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Estnot, The dispute resolution noticeboard may have been a better bet than the NPOV one. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated IP reverts at Guiding Light

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

---

An IP (2600:1700:A2F0:15A0:A912:D863:37B0:3869 being the most recent one) has been edit warring on the Guiding Light article over the past few months, insisting on replacing "would be canceling" with "canceled". The IP has never provided an edit summary explaining the change and has been reverted five times (here, here, here, here, and here) with each user noting its redundancy in their edit summary, which the IP seems to ignore. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit doesn't seem necessarily related to the others, and the IP is also quite different. I've partially blocked the 2600:1700:a2f0:15a0::/64 range, which the edit warring IPs belong to (and which is all one person), from the Guiding Light article for two months. The range seems to be contributing constructively in other television articles. Bishonen | tålk 07:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC).

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

Green Marble unblock

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

---

Green Marble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I have reported to this noticeboard several weeks ago, has now agreed to an WP:AMPOL2 topic ban (I can certainly agree to abstain from editing pages related to American politics for the past 100 years or whatever). Kleinpecan (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

First, Kleinpecan should not be making unblock requests on behalf of another user. That user has access to their Talk page and can request an unblock there. He did so once, and it received a standard decline because it was not a real unblock request. Second, Kleinpecan should have notified me of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

They are perfectly capable of making their own request - they did it before, claiming they didn't know what the problem was. I would expect a useful unblock request to address their problematic behavior, and not just promise to be good from now on. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Disagreement with newly arrived Mobile editor

I'm having a little bit of a problem with the individual behind the mobile accounts 2001.8003:e840:9e00:888c:e730:d81e:6561 & 2001:8003:e840:9e00:946b:243e:83b6:ff56, mainly at Monarchy of Australia. If I'm dealing with the situation wrongly? let me know. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It seems you've attempted to start a conversation with the editor, which is the correct path. You might also want to advice them against further reverting you, so as not to break the WP:3RR. Also, leave a notice in their talk about this ANI thread. Nothing out of ordinary, just usual attrition when dealing with new editors who are not used to our policies and guidelines. Isabelle ^🔔 02:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: It appears the typed IPs are incorrect. From checking the history, it's 2001:8003:e840:9e00:888c:e730:d81e:6561 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2001:8003:e840:9e00:946b:243e:83b6:ff5b (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Isabelle ^🔔 02:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, just so many numbers. BTW, I've informed the latest used mobile IP, of this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The individual's mobile IPs have been blocked per spamming & pro-advertising edits. If he/she returns? I'll inform the blocking administrator. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

EvidenceAlliquots returns from a block and immediately picks up the stick.

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

---

EvidenceAlliquots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring on Sept. 30 [[123]]. Since they came back- they have continued their crusade to insist a youtube video be used as a source- including opening a DRN requesting punishment for the person trying to keep the youtube source out of the article and the admin who blocked them [[124]]. I think this person has a bad case of WP:IDHT mixed with a bit of WP:NOTHERE. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Concern about admin

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

---

User Acroterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repetitively issuing administrative bans and suspensions in improper ways, for example reporting vandalism before the three reversion rule. In my opinion his behaviour is also very rude; this is evident on his talk page. In my opinion a few other admins should just to read through his talk page and review his suspension and ban history carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ester 9002 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the 2 edits you made before making this report you have had no interaction with this admin. What is your other account name? Is that account blocked? These accusations being made need evidence in the form of diffs. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The three revert rule applies to edit warring and that is a bright line rule. But it is possible to engage in edit warring behavior without violating the letter of that rule. Vandalism is a different type of disruptive behavior. Administrators can block editors for a wide range of disruptive behavior. Please furnish diffs that provide evidence of the serious misconduct that you allege. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I see you have a few previous accounts. Perhaps this time you can write down your login information so you don't have to keep creating new ones. – bradv^🍁 05:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be gratified to see an example of “reporting vandalism before the three revision rule” so I may correct such errors. What account did this happen with? Acroterion (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Reporting vandalism before the three reversion rule." That rule has nothing to do with vandalisms. Any Wikipedia editor can report vandalism when he/she locates it. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not that anyone means to stifle you but if you are going to make allegations a (diff) (reference to what you speak of) wouldn’t be too much to ask. The onus lies on you to substantiate your allegations, without which i see no reason why this is yet to be closed. Furthermore you may want to review our policy on optimizing more than one account. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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

False credits from Meath

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

---

• 2001:BB6:A63E:DE58:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 86.41.222.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can we get a block on Special:Contributions/86.41.222.63 and a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:A63E:DE58:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance.

Someone from the Meath area of Ireland has been putting false credits into articles for months, maybe longer.[125][126][127] Nothing constructive from this person.

Back in March, the same exact stuff was seen coming from Special:Contributions/86.40.217.135, also from Meath. Same breathless style of edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Both blocked for 2 weeks, not a single useful edit from those IPs in months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Request review of block of Efosa1987

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

---

This user has been blocked for 24 hours edit warring, which I think removed my request to block them for vandalism. An editor @Jpgordan (who probably just saw the edit warring and didn't need to look deeper) has said on their talk page "They were not blocked for the content of their edits."

However the content of their edits was offensive, and clearly not appropriate, "Unfortunately nigerians are mostly very ill educated and very gullible, that is why they are ready to believe in obvious fictions with absolutely no historical basis whatsoever." and "nigerians please grow in the head, stop thinking like toddlers." (in the article, and edit summaries) [[128]]

I think deserves greater sanctions. They have also seemingly continued to make similar edits to the same article as an IP user [[129]]

I don't know if this is related to the ongoing Yoruba Disruption mentioned above JeffUK (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have extended the block indefinitely due to an unblock request that claimed a 24 hour block was equivalent to lynching. Combined with the rest of the behaviour, WP:NOTHERE applies. I extended this block before I saw this thread. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An IP (2A04:CEC0:11D5:D8DC:8DBA:8AF0:E2:AF82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is now edit warring across three of the same articles, using some of the same edit reasons. Page protection has been requested, but a block of the IP might be helpful to prevent the war from spreading further. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 12:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, Hut 8.5 blocked them as I was posting this! Now that's service. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 12:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Asbarelam

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

---

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

I am certain this user is not here to build an encylopedia. They make no contribution to wikipedia. they have few edits, and occasionally come back, but all of their edits are POV Karachay-Balkar nationalist edits removing things related to Circassians or replacing them as if they are Karachay-Balkar things. The edit descriptions are stuff like "typo corrected." or "corrected incorrect information." things you can expect from a typical vandal. The only thing this user has done since they joined was to remove things about Circassians. The account was dormant for a while but they have now returned and made two more edits which are, again, removing things about Circassians. I am certain this user is a chauvinist and not here to build an encyclopedia as all they ever did on Wikipedia was to remove things related to Circassians. Sincerely, Adigabrek^Talk 14:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

They have now started an edit war (which I won't respond to) on one of the articles where I reverted their edit, and called me a "great vandalism supporter" in the Turkish language. They are continuing their "efforts" and I do not want to engage in edit wars with them. Best wishes, Adigabrek^Talk 14:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's very weird how they're only removing content related to Circassians and in the process using sources that are listed as unreliable. The edit summary being in Turkish is unusual, especially since this is the English Wikipedia. It's likely they're up to no good. Jurtaa (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I might just leave it until an admin sorts it out. Multiple sources that they listed do state that the father of Ludmilla Tchérina is of Georgian origin, but one source I found states that they are of Circassian origin, so I'm not sure what to believe. The way they wrote their edit summary for this revision and their usage of unreliable sources raises too many red flags to count, so I'd say that they are very likely WP:NOTHERE. Jurtaa (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jurtaa: I mean the problem is not that one article, I hadn't even heard of who that person in the article is before checking their edits. The problem is that their general goal seems to be remove things about Circassians and their attitute is... not kind, at the very least. Adigabrek^Talk 19:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Adigabrek: Yeah, I may have misremembered what your point was while writing that. You're right about their goal being removing content related to Circassians being a problem and their attitude not being kind. Hopefully this gets sorted out soon. Jurtaa (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Now they've been going around shouting in caps lock calling people racists and vandals. I do not want to engage with them in any way as it will cause an edit war for sure. Adigabrek^Talk 20:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Dtobias at Talk:Irreversible Damage

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

---

Dtobias (who signs comments as *Dan T.*) has been chronically violating WP:NOTFORUM with commentary at Talk:Irreversible Damage, and accusing other editors of bad faith. Since multiple attempts to resolve the issue has failed, I feel I have to go to ANI. Diffs follow:

The conduct I take issue with starts on October 1 with Dtobias' creation of a new section with the comment that The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. After several replies by other users, Dtobias commented that "observed" should be used instead of "assigned" because it would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. At this point, I replied and noted that Dtobias had been involved in previous discussion of the same issue on the same talk page and had even used the same reference to the Sorting Hat, a clear appeal to ridicule. I asked them to stop repeating the same argument and accusing unnamed editors of having an ideological objective. However, Dtobias continued to make comments that used the talk page as a forum while adding nothing constructive to the discussion, and in one comment that was relevant to the discussion put scare quotes around the term gender identity.

Around this time I left a message on Dtobias' talk page asking for a change in behavior, and after Dtobias commented a couple of days later that Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject I left another message pointing out that Dtobias' behavior was uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. Dtobias replied accusing me of applying double standards, so I explained why I didn't think a double standard was being applied, and asked a question to which they did not reply. I was subequently asked by another user to message Dtobias again, at which point Dtobias commented on my talk page and expressed an intent to stop participating in these discussions. However, just today Dtobias made another comment on the article talk page, this time linking to a self-written and tangentially relevant essay (Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander) and commenting that (Incidentally, the thing that distinguishes a goose from a gander is, of course, biological sex, but it's a "transphobic dogwhistle" to say so!)

This user's WP:NOTFORUM violations, assumptions of bad faith, and general conduct at Talk:Irreversible Damage makes me doubt their ability to contribute constructively on the talk page in question. Honestly, it makes me doubt their ability to contribute constructively within the gender topic area as a whole. I apologize for my lack of concision – I tried to keep this post short but I felt some explanation was necessary. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Diffs in chronological order, in case my commentary above is overwhelming or unwelcome for anyone:

[130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139] ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't want to read that whole talk page, and won't judge anyone without doing so. However, I will point out that arbitration enforcement might be a better venue for this complaint. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree with that. WP:AE has its purposes, and this is one of them (seeing as made Dan aware of the DS/regime almost 2 months ago now). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Moved to AE on the advice above. Pinging users who have commented here: 力, MJL, Dtobias, Dronebogus. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Going to arbitration about a few possibly slightly snarky comments I made would seem to be vast overkill. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'll also strongly dispute an assertion that I am unable to constructively edit in that topic, since I've avoided any edit warring there, taking things up in the talk page as I'm supposed to. It's a very ideologically charged topic, and I'm hardly the only one there who shows some leanings in their comments, but I'm not going to inject it into the actual article without consensus. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I’m willing to assume a degree of good faith, but even “slightly” snarky comments are inappropriate for a highly sensitive subject, and mostly come across as an attempt to pick fights and make trans Wikipedians feel unwelcome. Dronebogus (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

177.206.36.42, 89.172.36.162, Croats, and Serbians dispute

/* Original title was: From ip 177.206.36.42 vandalism, insulting, changing what is written in the source, accusing me of being another editor, etc. */

[[140]], [[141]]. [[142]], [[143]]. I am asking someone to return and fix the pages from the vandalism that ip is doing in edit war. Thank you 89.172.36.162 (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

He is a clearly a sock of Mikola22 [144] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.206.36.42 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The articles of concern are related to Serbia. I have a related RfPP report (permalink) about them which should probably be actioned.

177.206.36.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) claims 89.172.36.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Mikola22 (talk · contribs) via the above diff. Mikola22 is topic banned from the area 89.172 has been editing.

I am going to notify Mikola22 about this just because he has been mentioned here. Still reviewing things, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I also sent a message to Mikola22. So let him respond to these accusations and insults89.172.36.162 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Let them check if I am Mikola22, let them compare ip.I hope someone fixes this vandalism that you did from those articles. 89.172.36.162 (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

[145]177.206.36.42 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Let them check everything , and most falsely putting false words that are not written in the source, that you have edited. Let them see all three articles you did vandalism 89.172.36.162 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As for me is concerned I have pointed to the fact(on administrator Peacemaker67 page)[146] that part of the information's where Croats are mentioned forcibly outside the RS changed to Serbs and no one reacted for months. I do not edit a single page except administrator Peacemaker67 page, nor am I interested in whether Serbs will remain in the place of Croats in the articles. It is the job of Wikipedia editors to control that. Otherwise, in opposite to reliable sources there are probably more of these changes but i can't fix them because i don't edit eng wiki anymore. This is what you need to do. Otherwise, if I had made such changes in my editorial career, I would have received blocks etc every day while these IP editors go unpunished. Thank you for righteousness. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I see El C protected the pages we had edit war on. I wonder if this will check what is written in the edit war. I hope it won’t remain the last thing he wrote, because I didn’t want to give back anymore. I hope he will write correctly, that there will not be something left that is not true and vandalism. Please someone check out these 3 articles and decide what exactly is there. Thank you 89.172.36.162 (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell if it's a protected site about leaving vandalism something that is not true and now that vandal is laughing, the administrator protected the page, and mine writes. That's what I wanted to say, someone should check the page later and correct it if it says incorrectly. So I want someone to check those three pages because they were left as ip 177.206.36.42 wrote which I say is not true, so check it out . Thank you 89.172.36.162 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

By searching I see that it is one and the same user who changes the ip starting with 177.etc or 179.etc from Brazil, Espirito Santo City: Vitóriaevo, here is an example , [[147]], [[148]] ,here now and this changes whether someone will block it [[149]], more of this ip [[150]] , [[151]], [[152]] , etc..89.172.36.162 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

To help you we should block this range ip as far as I could find. Although there are certainly more, it's all one and the same user. [[153]], [[154]], [[155]], [[156]], [[157]], [[158]], [[159]] It's all the same sockpuppet ,there must be more.89.172.36.162 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think 89.172 is right that 177.206.36.42 is the same user that can be found on 177.17.0.0/16 (In particular: 177.17.85.93,^[160][161] 177.17.93.255,^[162][163] 177.17.21.28,^[164][165] 177.17.17.99,^[166] and 177.17.92.231.^[167][168]) The later is notable because it exists on 177.17.88.0/21 which was CU-blocked by Drmies earlier this year. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Can I drag you into this? I have a bit too many irons in the fire right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

DrewWill2021 and the seventeen sandboxes

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

---

DrewWill2021 (talk · contribs) has created 17 sandboxes, most of them fake articles about alternative versions of events, songs, or films. Some of them seem plausible at first glance, but I have checked most of them and can't see that any of them is anything other than a hoax. Some examples: User:DrewWill2021/EddsWorld about an upcoming film (written by Drew Williams, screenplay by Drew Williams); User:DrewWill2021/sandbox12 about another film, also written by Drew Williams and starring Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, and a dozen other well-known names; and a bunch of pages about made-up past or future versions of the Eurovision Song Contest and other singing competitions, e.g. User:DrewWill2021/sandbox, User:DrewWill2021/sandbox2, and User:DrewWill2021/sandbox5. Then there are some sandboxes with tables, like User:DrewWill2021/semi-final, presumably relating to some alternative version of a contest.

I asked DrewWill2021 about the sandboxes two days ago, here, but they haven't answered – they have created yet another sandbox about a fictitious film, though, and made other edits to some of their other sandboxes. They haven't been very open to discussion in the past, see Special:Diff/1041938834, and from their edits there is a bit of a language issue as well, Special:Diff/1039885971. Oh, and see also this Teahouse thread. I could tag the sandboxes per U5 and G3, but as there are so many of them, I wonder if they could be mass deleted instead. --bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of the logged-out edits are worse, and there's at least one sock puppet account that added outright hoaxes to mainspace articles. I blocked indefinitely, and I'll mass-delete the sandboxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping editor is changing romanizations at many articles

/* Original title was: Destructive edits */

• Special:Contributions/5.197.251.128/25

5.197.251.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The essence of my claims is that someone anonymously on the English Wikipedia constantly "corrects" various transliterations in various articles, where there are texts in other languages ​​at their discretion. For example, everything from articles about Belarus, the Belarusian language (and everything that concerns Belarusian-language texts) to other articles with foreign-language texts. In particular, I am interested in the edits in the article about the Yakut language. In fact, this anonymous user has unleashed an edit war. In particular, he/she writes from IP addresses: 5.197.251.205, 5.197.251.133, 5.197.251.255, 5.197.251.157. Perhaps there are more of them, but from the style of the edits it is clearly noticeable that this is one and the same person. He removes transliterations of other users, promotes ONLY his own. Doesn't go into dialogue especially. And actually I would like to get some advice. What to do next? I would like to come to some kind of constructive.

p.s. I do not know where to write a complaint about vandal edits in the English Wikipedia.--Modun (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything you said is a lie. I have explained Belarusian romanization on a talk page, but you didn't respond then left for a few weeks and reverted all my edits.In fact you are the one starting edit war and inserting your opinion.We found a compromise on Yakution, but you wanted only your version, so you left for a few week and then reverted everything5.197.251.255 (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything?! Don't you take on a lot? I have already explained enough the shortcomings of the trinsliteration system you used. It is bulky and, to put it mildly, not comfortable. We even came to a consensus, this is what concerns the Yakut language.
At the expense of the Belarusian language and its Latin alphabet, this is a different story. The Belarusian language already has its own Latin alphabet under the name "Łacinka", and the transliteration system that you use is generally limited in terms of functions in use. In particular, it was created ONLY for transliteration of Belarusian geographical names within Belarus itself. This is written in black and white in the document itself, which approved this system.
and you, for that matter, is not the ultimate truth, so that by your own arbitrariness (and also anonymously) you can tell other Wikipedia users how to write an article. Claims, by the way, not only I have against you, but also other users!--Modun (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Lacinka is NOT romanization. Look at the romanization of the Belarusian Wikipedia page and you will see that none of the systems uses polish L.Belarusian is written in Cyrillic, so there is no point in bringing up Lacinka. And we reached a consensus in Yakutian talk page but you broked it by reverting everything. I am pretty sure you deliberately waited for some time in order to revert everything. I explained my edits, but you didn't respond. 5.197.251.255 (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

And I never wrote anywhere that Łacinka is just a romanization of the Belarusian language. Łacinka is a historically developed Belarusian Latin alphabet. And yes, if you are referring to the presence of the article "Romanization of Belarusian" in the English Wikipedia, then keep in mind that there is another article on Wikipedia "Belarusian Latin alphabet" which you are diligently trying to bypass.
By the way, I did not expect anything to make edits in the article about the Yakut language. I just accidentally noticed about the existing changes already due to the latest changes.
And as I already said, you are not the ultimate truth that you indicate at your discretion which edits are "correct" and which are "wrong." You've put a lot on yourself!
By the way, why are you editing from multiple IP addresses?--Modun (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Then why you are using anachronistic Lacinka as a romanization that no entity recognizes including Belarusian state. By the way, I have no idea why multiple accounts appear. 5.197.251.255 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? That is, you have no idea why, at the same time interval, anonymously from IP addresses from the same country, edits are made in the same articles and on the same subject? Are you taking us for idiots? That transliteration system for the Belarusian language that you are trying in every possible way to cram into each article is used ONLY for GEOGRAPHICAL names, and only within Belarus. The Belarusian version of the article on the Belarusian Latin alphabet is written about this in black and white! In addition, the Belarusian language actually uses two spelling norms for which, in fact, there are different segments of Wikipedia, seemingly as for separate languages.--Modun (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Your last edits in the article about the Russian language, by the way, are very "constructive"--Modun (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I have no idea why I switch between accounts. Seriously. And again please read on how to romanize Belarusian in Wikipedia page. Lacinka is not romanization and shouldn't be used as such and generally, it isn't used in any context. Everything should be romanized according to Wikipedia rules and again there is a Wikipedia article for that. I repeat again Lacinka is NOT romanization and shouldn't be used because it is used by no one and is anachronistic.And what a weirdo are you?Why do Russian language edits matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.197.251.255 (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Then that you have received a complaint for non-constructive edits, and you continue to make other non-constructive edits? Seriously?
For the Yakut language (and other Turkic languages), there are no instructions at all on how to “correctly” transliterate the language into Latin. This means that your system cannot be "correct" either. But the common Türkic alphabet is quite itself a universal transliteration system. It is quite enough for transliteration of the Turkic languages.--Modun (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The more you two go back and forth, the less likely anyone uninvolved takes a look at this. It looks to be a content dispute from what I've seen. Also, often times IP editors have no control over when their IP changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the edit conflict, ScottishFinnishRadish. I hope you realize we're enemies now! El_C 13:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to place a block template on your talk page so you can't edit at me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• A couple of things. First, not sure why Modun says the IP's range isn't legit. And sort of hinting throughout that editing unregistered is somehow below registered editing, but that is not so. Also, not sure about the romanization and transliterations and so on, but I'm seeing the IP getting reverted by multiple editors when correcting language usage — with the reasoning given being official (legislated) usage. Like, on Russian language, which isn't what the sentence [and is used widely...] or the cited source [gallup.com] are saying (diff). The IP also has a point when they write in multiple edit summaries Unexplained removal, because for some reason Modun is reverting them without even bothering to write an edit summary (example diff). Regardless of who is right here, it doesn't look great. The best sources should win the day, not sheer numbers or presumed status. And browbeating a content opponent in this way is not on.

That said: IP, there are Wikiprojects that you can try to gain the consensus toward changing multiple pages to align with whatever. There are also dispute resolution requests, like Third opinion and a Request for comment. Don't call Modun a weirdo. Conduct yourself professionally in a manner befitting a collorbative project, please. El_C 13:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, maybe I behaved somewhat unprofessional and I should have been more careful. But I want to note similar edits as mine were made by other users, therefore I can assume that they also have similar claims. Actually, for what I wrote here so that the other participants judge us and resolve controversial issues. In particular, the weak point of the given argument about transliteration of the Belarusian language approved by the law is that this system is limited in use. The law of the Republic of Belarus "on the approval of instructions for transliteration geographical names of the Republic of Belarus by letters of the Latin alphabet" (in Russian). I don't know the translation of the law itself into English, but from the name itself it seems clear that this transliteration is used in limited cases. In general, Łacinka differs from transliteration by only one letter. Because of what, in fact, the controversy began. Actually, neither the Constitution nor the law on the languages ​​of the Republic of Belarus gives an understanding of which writing is traditional or which writing has official support. But it is clear from history that the Belarusian language has both different scripts (Cyrillic and Latin).
By the way IP, if I wanted to resolve controversial issues myself, I could be the first to contact other users in the future.--Modun (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've retitled this thread from "Destructive edits" to "IP-hopping editor is changing romanizations at many articles" in the effort to be more neutral. Although this IP editor may be well-intentioned they are making a high volume of changes in areas that are obscure to most people. Thus they might be inserting wrong information that won't be easily noticed. (They have made 500 edits since July 23 and many of those changes have been reverted by others). In my opinion they risk being mistaken for a vandal unless they will open a centralized discussion to get consensus for this kind of change. The Lacinka stuff in Belarusian is a well-known disagreement that has a history, for example. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is a consensus. Look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) 5.197.251.255 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, I reread it in the whole discussion, but I still did not understand. And on what basis did you decide to expand the use of this system for non-Slavic languages? After all, they never came to a consensus?--Modun (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As you can see there (which "is not a recommendation") for Belarusian "BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) is to be used" and "Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script may be additionally included". Lacinka on the other hand "is not to be used". For non-Slavic languages, it states "choose a relevant standard used in recent reliable sources on the subject. Some collections of romanization systems: ALA-LC Romanization Tables, BGN/PCGN romanization systems (By the way, this is the system I have cited), UNGEGN Working Group on Romanization Systems. See also Romanization of Kyrgyz." 5.197.251.255 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As for the Belarusian language, it is still quite clear. But I still don't understand, but on the basis of what for the rest of the non-Slavic languages ​​only the specified system was selected and recommended? I have not found a single discussion that raised this issue. Accordingly, on the basis of what and by whom were only these systems selected? This issue was raised by user Mzajac, but the discussion did not go further in this direction.--Modun (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia romanization systems for various languages were selected variously and without coordination, and based on some choices that turned out not to be the best. In my opinion, the romanization rules for Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian should be harmonized for consistency and to better serve readers, and their scope expanded beyond “naming.” Until then, we should use the Belarusian guideline at WP:CYRL, because it is not terrible and will give consistency for the one language. I haven’t reviewed any of the edits in dispute, but it sounds like the editors are starting a productive conversation. Do you think you can both agree on respecting the guideline? —Michael Z. 17:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally can agree with respect for the leadership. But all the same, I do not agree with the general leveling in the form of a general system of romanization for almost all Cyrillic languages, because the chosen system has objective flaws that can be misleading. In particular, the Latin letter "Y" is overloaded with functions according to the system used. In particular, as many as three Cyrillic letters "ь", "й" and "и" are translated through it. A simple example in the Yakut language: in this language, letter combinations «-ыы-», «-ыа-», «-йа», «-ыйы-» are quite often observed, which are trastelled too monotonously. A simple example of transliteration of the words ыйытыы -yyytyy (question), ый - yy (moon/month), кыайыы - kyayyy (victory). And there are plenty of such controversial points in the Yakut language. Instead of resolving soporific moments, this system, on the contrary, is too misleading. Is it normal?--Modun (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. in the Belarusian language there are simultaneously valid orthography norms (some do not recognize the new orthography, therefore, the old orthograthy also exists in parallel), respectively, for these two orthographies, there are also two variants of Łacinka for the corresponding orthographies
P.s.s. I do not know how things are with other non-Slavic languages, but I suspect that approximately the same problems arise, and maybe even worse. In general, I believe that if you do not know how this system will work, then you should not start introducing it at your own discretion either.--Modun (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make the rules. If you want you can use ALA-LC Romanization Tables, which doesn't have a given problem. In respect to Lacinka, it is written black and white that Lacinka shouldn't be used. 5.197.251.232 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Lacinka must go to hell and be purged from the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

In every single discussion we ever had in this project, consensus was that Lacinka is never the most common name, with the exception of the discussions fully dominated by the group of hardcore Belarusian driveby editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This IP has also been "correcting" romanizations of the Adyghe language, what they fail to realize is that slavic latinization does not work for Adyghe. Adigabrek^Talk 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there consensus for your romanization? 5.197.251.232 (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As of today (October 30) this IP editor has resumed changing romanizations. There have been small discussions at Talk:Yakut language and Talk:Belarusians, but no discussion at all at the two pages most recently changed. In my opinion the IP should stop with these changes until they have found consensus for them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't we already found a consensus? 5.197.251.232 (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, judging by everything that the dispute continues, we did not find a consensus. At the expense of the Belarusian language, everything is more or less clear. But now we are talking about other romanizations of non-Slavic languages--Modun (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, specifically the romanization of the Yakut language. Are you satisfied with the KNAB 1995 system? And let's finally close the topic of this particular language. But all the same the question (or rather questions) is how to romanize the rest of the non-Slavic languages ​​also using the Cyrillic alphabet? These systems have not yet been developed for all languages.--Modun (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use ALA-LC Romanization Tables (https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/nonslav.pdf) which has unique letters for Ы and Й, and it would be according to Wikipedia rules. As to how to romanize every single non-Slavic language using Cyrillic, we should use ALA-LC Romanization Tables, BGN/PCGN romanization systems, or UNGEGN Working Group on Romanization Systems.I didn't make these rules.If you don't like it you shouldn't argue with me, but with the author of these rules. 5.197.251.232 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In general, do what you want. And you're right, you don't make the rules. You are just introducing confusion instead of constructively introducing your work to Wikipedia. Just notice how many times other users have canceled your edits. I still do not understand why it was necessary to break from scratch an already less worked-out system that was quite enough for transliteration.--Modun (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe they’re not quite on the cusp of agreement. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss the merits of romanization systems. Please follow the current guidelines, and do discuss these things to improve then at an appropriate venue, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). —Michael Z. 01:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Problematic new IP editor

Could someone take a look at the edits by 49.178.138.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The good news is that they are keen, and they are not vandals. The bad news is that they are adding poorly worded and improperly formatted text into multiple articles, at a speedy rate, and appear to be very reluctant to accept advice as to how editing should be carried out here. They seem unconvinced by arguments that they should improve their own skills, rather than expecting everyone else to clean up their mess. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Kingdom of Wolaita

On 12 December 2020, I started to write this article on my draft, Draft:Kingdom of Wolaita. But the contributor, @Ella Lachow, ignored the WP notice and started to write the article that I am contributing to. This contributor can contribute to the existing draft page, but intentionally he/she ignored it. I need the administrators attention to this issue. - Yitbe ^A-21 09:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) So somebody beat you to the punch? That is what you want administrator attention for? Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, as an admin, I can tell you the first thing you need is images. Is there a map image or something of that nature so we can see where it is? Also, photographs from the place would be good. And you could deal with the citation needed tags in the infobox as well as the last section concerning wars, which is presently no cited at all. Otherwise there is little we can do save but for to remind you that "he who hesitates has lost" :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

For further clarification, unless Ella Lachow used some of the content from the draft page, there is no real reason why they had to re-use the draft page to create the article. And the draft page is so short plus partly contradicts the information in the new article so I suspect the content from the draft page wasn't used. Also if the article they created was quickly developed so it was sufficient to exist in mainspace, there's no requirement that they must use the draft space. In other words, it doesn't seem they did anything wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the final line in my above response which I've now struck, it looks like something quite wrong was done even if not the issues stated in the opening comment. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is that article not a copyvio Earwig? That website (gijash.com) appears to be copyrighted, so it would appear, could someone confirm? Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like definite copyvio, Black Kite. I stripped out the copyvio, which doesn't leave much left. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

NPA issues, possible harassment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship

Self reporting for my behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship, to include possible violations of WP:NPA, failure to abide by WP:AGF, possible WP:CIR failures, and depending on how you choose to define it harassment of Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), and Dronebogus (talk · contribs). Reporting myself because I feel that editors in general and admins in particular need to be held accountable to the community, to include accountable for actions on and off the article space, or as I put in my userspace, "Be thou for the contributors." TomStar81 (Talk) 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• No worries. Nominating an FA for deletion is not a normal process and so it's naturally uncomfortable for us all. I once took a tour of the USS Missouri and still recall being impressed by the size of the shells which were stacked up on the deck. In the good old days, people actually used to fire these things at each other so we should count our blessings. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• There are a few other people who should be composing a mea culpa in that discussion. I note that after the first expressions of outrage, there is now a more measured discussion concerning what is appropriate for the encyclopedia according to policy. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• I agree the temperature looks like it's gone down a lot here, so blocking at this point wouldn't help. If it stays on the track it's on now, that's fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that if you weren't such a productive editor you'd probably have been blocked for "Don't gimme this "snow keep" bullshit when its overwhelming clear none of you even bothered to read the damn thing, nor have you put any meaningful thought into your keep votes. Try again, gentlemen, and this time try not to embarrass yourselves by getting giddy over the bronze star, shall we?". I think it's pretty great on your part to want the same standards applied to all Wikipedians regardless of status and it's even more amenable to offer yourself up as a martyr for such. At the same time though you really weren't that bad during the deletion discussion itself and you seem to be overstating the gravity of your WikiSins.

I would suggest that a better method of dealing with your guilt would be writing an informal apology of some kind on the affected editors' user talk pages; rather than starting an AN/I thread & leaving the rather impersonal AN/I template. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: Even if they weren't "that bad" I do not want to foster a perception that I'm one of those "untouchable" or "unsanctionable" editors on site. We've seen how the community struggles to deal with people like that, and the end result is usually either omnipotent apathy (no one every does anything and thus the offender is empowered/embolden) or a catastrophic nuclear incident (along the lines of WP:FRAMGATE). Trying to reign myself in here is an effort to allow others to weigh in on the matter by acknowledging that I helped to power this thing whether I wanted to or not. In this case, if I were on the other end and bring this here, I wouldn't block, but I would demand a shot across the bow at the very least since the five pillar include AGF and civility, neither of which were demonstrated early in the discussion, and if I was on the other side I'd similar expect to be reminded that simply because its a featured article doesn't make it an untouchable article, if its afd its at afd for a reason, so reading the article and the nominator's rational (however brilliantly or poorly phrased) to understand why its there should be within the realm of common sense under the BRD method since the goal is consensus and it can't be obtained if two parties dig in and fortify. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would demand a shot across the bow – Well, this is the right article for that. EEng 20:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that does amount to gross incivility unbecoming of a sysop. You should consider going back and striking the most egregious of those remarks, then unwatching the discussion. There is also scope for further apology if you're of a mind (but don't apologize insincerely).—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

188.149.107.101

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

How this IP has casually been doing this for a year is perplexing. Most of his/her edits (which have been reverted) have to do with pushing a fictive Kurdish or Feyli origin to various articles. It's literally gonna take an hour or two if I am going to link and explain all his/her disruptive edits, so I'll just link a few of them. Looking at the talk page of the IP, I seem to have reported him/her before, but to no avail. I can't find the original discussion though. EDIT: Found it [169]

27 October 2020 - Added unsourced claim that the family of Ruhollah Khomeini is Kurdish

27 October 2020 - Added unsourced claim that Leyla Qasim was Feyli

27 October 2020 - Added unsourced claim that Adel Murad was Feyli

29 October 2020 - Changed the (sourced) descent of Mero from Turkish to Kurdish

1 November 2020 - Added unsourced claim that Shwan Jalal is Feyli

1 November 2020 - Added unsourced claim that the Malekshahi are Feyli

24 November 2020 - Changed Luri to Feylis/Lurs

5 February 2021 - Added the Kurdish name of the Medes, an ancient kingdom that has nothing to do with Kurds and existed long before them

7 March 2021 - Changed Kurdish to Feyli

10 April 2021 - Added unsourced claim that the Zands were Kurdish dynasty

3 October 2021 - Once again attempted to claim that the Malekshahi are Feyli

4 September 2021 - Added unsourced claim Reza Shah's mother was Kurdish

4 September 2021 - Changed Persian to Persian-Kurdish

Judging by these edits, it goes without saying that the IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I left the IP a warning. Please let me know if problems continue. You might do that by adding to the IP's talk with a diff or two and a brief explanation of the problem, and include a ping to me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Please check the IP's latest edit: 16:13, 31 October 2021. I blocked the IP as they were continuing their unexplained and unsourced changes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if 2A00:23C6:4E12:D601:8DCE:1BE6:84A1:4343 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is related, or simply coincidental. pauli133 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This IP address 115.178.210.186 and other IP started 115

This IP user is always been adding an unsourced edits, keeps adding the airline and destinations at the page of Soekarno–Hatta International Airport

[170] (This is the page history of Soekarno Airport that edits)

(Below edits are 115.178.210.186 and other IP started 115) [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176]

I already give warning to that IP but still continue to disruptive edit.Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This IP user again have been continue to disruptive edits at Soekarno–Hatta International Airport [177]. i don't what to say but these IPs were the previous sockpuppet of User:Jellywings19 and User:Jellyjelly34. Both of these accounts were blocked, but seemingly continue to edits with this similar edits of IP. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, this user continues to add unsourced content on Sriwijaya Air operating flights to Balikpapan, Yogyakarta, Ambon etc which SJ no longer operate this route just around this year. This guy must be a Sockpuppet of User:Jellywings19 which this user has long history of doing same thing as well. EricSDA (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour on airport pages

For several months the Orlando International Airport page has been disrupted by Andrewgprout (talk · contribs). This user does not add any new content for the page or add any value, but merely reviews the history and polices whether they think the sources are good enough. There are many examples of where the user simply reverts the edit to what is clearly incorrect information. It is often reasoned by some pedantic and contentious issue they have with the source. The reversion usually makes Wiki worse because it reverts to clearly incorrect information, rather than loosely sourced correct information. I would think that a user that spends so much time policing references to seemingly improve Wiki would make an effort to improve the page by correcting the sources to what they believe is better. However they seem more bothered by references and sources than about improving the content.

A recent example is where Wiki Orlando Airport cited a KLM flight to Amsterdam as launching this week (November 4, 2021) sourcing an article 6 months old (May 2021). A quick review of KLM's timetable or Orlando Airport's new service page makes it clear that no so such flight exists and appears no longer planned to launch. As such I deleted the entry from the Wiki page. Andrewgprout (talk · contribs)'s response was to undo the deletion and tell me that I shouldn't be removing referenced material. If that were true then the entire site would be full of incorrect information although with lovely references.

Andrewgprout (talk · contribs)'s talk page is full of comments from other users about Andrewgprout (talk · contribs)'s disruptive behaviour and edit warring on several Airports pages (Cork, Dublin, Newquay, Manchester...). A similar war over sourcing has occurred with EireAviation (talk · contribs)

I have previously suggested that Andrewgprout (talk · contribs) might not be disruptive if he were to correct the sources and help make the page better instead of just policing references and sources and reverting content. However, the user continues to just revert and add no value.

As Andrewgprout (talk · contribs) does not make any value-added comments or seek to improve Airport pages, but seems to cause disruption and edit war, then the user should be considered from being blocked from making any edits to Airport projects.

90.248.204.187 (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• You must provide WP:DIFFs in order to back your argument. I'm not saying I doubt your claim, but a cursory look through the page history of OIA indicates an edit war and rather than digging through mud in many articles, a list of references to back your claims would be appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see the edits made here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1051869223&oldid=1051835327 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1050841616&oldid=1050752019 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1050131533&oldid=1050123619 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1038255398&oldid=1038231555

A quick look at Andrewgprout (talk · contribs)'s contributions page here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Andrewgprout&offset=20211022094303&target=Andrewgprout

...demonstrates that the vast majority, if not all, the edits are related to somebody's references or sourcing rather than engaging in improving the content. The user appears to want to police references and sources and engage in warring about it rather than help make Wiki better by making simple edits themselves.

On 20 October 2021, Dublin Airport had to be put under special protection because of edit warring by Andrewgprout (talk · contribs) and I would hate to see that happen again because it is disruptive for everyone who is genuinely trying to make better content. 90.248.204.187 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This can also be interesting: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EireAviation The Banner talk 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

But taking it all in, it just seems to be a content dispute that can be solved by replacing both related sources by independent sources. The Banner talk 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid it goes beyond a content dispute on a single edit because this user has a track record of engaging in the behaviour over a long period of time on several pages. The pattern is that the user monitors airport pages and will pick holes in references, almost as if it is their daily fun. They have done this on several pages. It then discourages anybody from editing, posting, etc...sometimes it results in edit warring over pedantic and controversial references. Their behaviour is not in line with the wiki community. If they were seeking to make the content better or more reliable then they would be contributing. This users contributions are all different themes of reference disputes. The user only reverts or deletes, never adds content. It is as if their job is wiki police. 90.248.204.187 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If I may add a bit of context, I have several airport articles on my watchlist, but I largely ignore them because of the constant churning of edits about airlines serving the airports, cities connected by those airlines, gates used by the airlines, and dates for the beginning or ending of various services. In my opinion, most of that information violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I fail to see how information that changes seasonally, monthly, or sometimes, daily, belongs in an encyclopedia, even if there are reliable sources available. - Donald Albury 17:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I replied to the original poster here [[178]] and I stand by this advice to them. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:69.131.212.230 and User:2600:8801:1f00:2c0:5594:4bdb:5ef1:5235 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Persistent unconstructive editing; first reported at WP:AIV but not acted upon. The IP ignores my warnings and keeps reverting my reversions. [179] [180] [181] [182] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is awkward as 69.131.212.230 and 2600:8801:1F00:2C0::/64 are prolific editors making unexplained changes to US radio/TV articles. I have no idea whether the changes are desirable. Is there a template-free discussion somewhere about a specific change explaining why it should not have been made? I would have a look but would need explanations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock/abuse

Hello. I raised an issue about an abusive/socking IP a couple of weeks ago, which was unfortunately ignored. They are continuing to edit through a range of IPs, the latest being 93.142.157.188 (talk · contribs), 93.140.183.172 (talk · contribs) and 93.137.5.224 (talk · contribs). Is there any chance of some action? Cheers, Number 57 12:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:AIV can be useful when it's a clear cut case. Less likely to get lost in the noise here. Slywriter (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

They aren't a vandal though – just abusive (and effectively socking, as the original ANI discussion ended with apparent consensus for a ban). Since blocking one of the IPs above, they have left abusive messages on four of my talkpages on other wikis (e.g. [183][184]) so it probably needs to be a global rangeblock... Number 57 13:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple Failed Login Attempts"

I'm getting a flood of notifications about "Multiple Failed Login Attempts from a new device". Should I be worried? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Does sound like a hacking attempt. Probably advisable to change your password just in case. — Czello 15:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as you at least have a strong password that is not used anywhere else in your Internet activities, you're probably fine. I get those periodically and never do anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Same. WP:PASSWORD#Two-factor_authentication_(2FA) might be worth checking out, though. El_C 15:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well whaddya know, I've just gotten the exact same notification! — Czello 15:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Heh, looks like we got some counter-WP:DENY happening. Lock n' load. El_C 15:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15 § Vandalism and personal attacks

 – – Rummskartoffel 16:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Out on the Wikipedia I have been receiving threats since yesterday, right now the person with a new account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PediaXmark has only reverting my edits 5 times and calling it non notable, where as admins have approved the content before. He also did the same thing here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=1520675494 I request editors and admins to ban that account so he can not revert the edit again.

He is doing revert editing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pakistani_animated_films Static Hash (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Static Hash, I'm just removing spam/promotional links and it looks like you have a special care for the subject but let me tell you that it doesn't work on wikipedia. There is no notability and the references seems to be self-published by author. Here is an example. Admins can search "DJ Kamal Mustafa" on wikipedia and they can clearly see that this person's name has been inserted at different places on wikipedia by you. For example: on this page. I'm an SPA and I leave this decision to the admins. Regards PediaXmark (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

please come up with real account, I somehow got it who you are dear :) I m editing for everyone, not attached with any one so first correct your first. in the animated films page you have removed all 6 films where DJ Kamal Mustafa name was added, you said self promotion? here is the link of the media Gulf News https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/pakistan-makes-short-film-on-abhinandan-capture-1.66011154 Geo News https://www.geo.tv/latest/263717-only-22-urdu-films-released-in-pakistan-in-2019 and the News, https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/523984-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan and this is not a self promotion please next time if you have any dear talk via page. Static Hash (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For Tribune one's you are right I should not add it, so accept the apology for that, admins can revert it without any hesitation. Static Hash (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You have said about Daily Times, but let me tell you dear, Daily Times link was not even added to the article so outside of the Wikipedia you can not pick anything, I know the rules, the links I have added on the pages is from Geo News, Gulf News, The News, that's it, please recheck again. Static Hash (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comments are a bit hard to follow, Static Hash, because it seems you have some confusion over how Wikipedia works. All edits to any Wikipedia page go live immediately and with no human oversight (with rare exceptions seemingly not applicable here). Administrators have some additional technical tools (such as the ability to delete pages) but they have no hierarchical power over the content of articles, and are only permitted to use their tools to change content when implementing the outcomes of discussion between editors whose comments are weighed based entirely on evidence and reasoning, and not on any form of seniority.

There are other issues in your actions at List of Pakistani animated films. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, with particular attention to the three-revert rule, and how conflict with another editor should be resolved by discussion, not reverts. You should also note that "notability" is a technical term with a very specific meaning. — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Static Hash: To add to what Bilorv has said, it's advised you try to talk the editor before bringing the issue to ANI. It appears you interacted with PediaXmark only once before creating the thread, which was to accuse them of vandalism and to give a "last warning". You also mention here you've received threats. Could you post diffs showing those threats? Isabelle ^🔔 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Threats were out of Wikipedia as I have mentioned in the first line, that's why I didn't have to say much I know who is behind this. He removed all the 6 films name which DJ Kamal Mustafa has produced, he even removed the list name, he then went to Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=1520675494 to request the team to remove the Wikidata ID of DJ. Now, will anyone explain why he is targeting? why on the first he has removed all 6 films name of DJ? where was the spam promotional content? outside of Wikipedia, We have received 3 threats before he starts editing, but is it out of Wiki so I will not discuss further. My reason for reverting his edit because he was removing the film list without any evidence, nothing was promotional but it was personal as it seems with him and DJ. --Static Hash (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Static Hash, The reference articles you used appear to be self-published as the subject appears to be non-notable. They are not WP:RS, anyone can see that. So I put the deletion request for the page and it is now pending a review by the admin. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PediaXmark (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Static Hash: serious threats of violence should be emailed to emergency@wikimedia.org. In other cases, if you do not wish to discuss the matter onwiki then you could email an active administrator privately, or even a checkuser (who has been vetted for trustworthiness in accessing private information). See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm for more. — Bilorv (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple incidents by User:LupangMalabo

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

I don't know what this user's problem is, but their entire edit history consists of a very clear lack of understanding of how articles are created, which includes improper page moves without going through Articles for creation. I don't know what action should be taken here, but I at least need to see an admin get through to Lupang to try and guide them in the right direction. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

AFC is completely voluntary, and people shouldn't be move warring to put an article in AFC when that action has been contested. As WP:DRAFTOBJECT says: "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD. A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why I attempted to PROD EM10000 2 rather than going through the annoying effort of moving back to draftspace, and plan to do the same with other objected moves to draftspace if this keeps happening. The problem with Lupang's moves mostly comes down to a lack of knowledge of notability guidelines for each subject as well as the Articles for creation process. Also, recently, I tried pushing Lupang a second time to consider asking for advice on their editing at the teahouse, but the user continued to repeat their same editing behavior following my message. As was stated from the beginning of this thread, I do not think this editor should be blocked from editing right away, but rather be given proper warning from an established administrator and guided in the right direction. This may be a misguided editor, yes, but I don't think I've had enough encounters of this type of misguided editor to give a proper opinion on what should be done. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think they're as clueless or misguided as they lead us to believe. Persistent disruptive editing, incoherent replies to queries or messages, etc. I think they're trolling. Itsquietuptown t • c 04:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, PROD is probably not the way, since a single objection is enough to end a proposed deletion. It should probably be AfD'd and then maybe move protected or WP:salted? AlexEng^(TALK) 23:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: An update since I opened this page: user has just recently blanked EM10000 2, a page they had created in draftspace. Not sure what their intent was, but clearly disruptive. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As of writing, they:

• made a duplicate of Yongzhou
• made a duplicate of this image in commons
• moved EM10000 2 and its talk page to the Help namespace. Itsquietuptown t • c 06:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

LupangMalabo's edits look like minor league disruption, the kind that might get solved just as easily if you leave notes explaining how Wikipedia works on someone's talk page. Have you tried that yet? And I don't mean leaving some Twinkle template that says "welcome to Wikipedia, now stop screwing up or you'll be blocked". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An old account is no longer here to be constructive or has been hacked?

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

---

User:Spannerjam has been making weird edits since October.

1. "The truth wants to be left untold.": random erasing
2. [185]: random erasing
3. "Listen to your mother but don't forget to alsa humanize his tall anti hero-cousine": "Wether we he or low lesbians. We are all curios to know in which way they are sexually attracted to males with effeminate qualities."
4. [186]: "Some classical Disney movies have also got reimagined versions."
5. "Jesus said it is more blissful to give than to recieve. But I ask for a bit of Wikimagic on this page, that for once my text gets copyedited and sourced.": Dehumanization is the result of fear and can be projected unto anyone regardless of social strata. People who live in big cities are less prone to humanization since they have experienced more people of different walk of life. Expats who have gotten to know the locals of their new country are even less prejudiced.
6. "There is this Swedish proverb to drsw ones needle to the anthill, coming from the fact that ants in Seden build anthills out of the needle of pinetrees.": "Genocides are often accompanied with euphemistic language."

Something is wrong with this account. These are unconstructive, sometimes clearly deliberately. All of the new nonsense edits are from a mobile phone but the old ones are not.160.39.199.252 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Can anybody help with this account? Should it be locked? 160.39.199.252 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. This definitely seems off. Only issue is that AN/I is rather backlogged at the moment so it might take a while for someone to get to this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked it as a possibly compromised account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued issues with User:Corker1

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

---

User:Corker1 This user was the subject of a previous ANI thread [187], due to their general disruptive and tendentious editing. The thread was eventually archived, after Corker1 was blocked for one week for edit warring. Corker1 has returned from their block, and proceeded to reintroduce all of the content that caused the original ANI thread, this time at a new article titled Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations. Multiple editors weighed in supporting an indef block for Corker1 at the previous thread, and they have clearly failed to understand what is disruptive about their editing. I believe it is time they are indefinitely blocked until if and when they are willing to follow policies on external links and lists.

Courtesy ping of User:Star Mississippi, who blocked Corker1 previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Trainsandotherthings, Corker is definitely on a short WP:ROPE, but do you have specific diffs we can look at for those of us that are short on time? I'm guessing this new article is essentially a WP:POVFORK because they couldn't get traction at the main article? KoA (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, there's only the one diff of them creating the entire new article (+200,000 or so bytes), complete with massive piles of external links to sites like Facebook. Massive piles of clutter that they have repeatedly been told are unacceptable for Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  For the sake of those uninvolved or not overly familiar with the train edits (my knowledge of that side of the problem edits is only superficial), could you briefly show some examples of what didn't get consensus at the original article or talk page and how the current article is a POVFORK to avoid gaining consensus? KoA (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  In a nutshell, giant tables filled with links to external sites in the body of the article [188], a massive list of external links to maps [189] and another to timetables [190]. Corker1 has said they will continue to keep these in the article because "railfans use them" [191] and has failed to get the point numerous other editors have been explaining to them [192] [193]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Corker1 has also asserted that "policies are optional" and they will ignore them at will (see the last two diffs). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed with longer explanation TK on the user page. No objection to this subsequently being adjusted should he choose to communicate, which isn't optional. Thanks @Trainsandotherthings: for flagging. Star Mississippi 19:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And a wall-of-IDHT unblock request denied. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Andrew Davidson's conduct at VPR – topic ban?

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

---

Following my close of the Andrew Davidson topic ban proposal above, an editor raised concerns privately about Andrew's behaviour in other areas. In particular, that his contributions at WP:VPR are always to oppose whatever proposal he is commenting on, describing him as a 'professional contrarian' who always votes the same way depending which venue he is at (e.g. keep in AfDs and oppose at VPR), and that the consistency of the voting pattern means his contributions cannot be considered sincere, but are probably just disruptive.

I can't say I am familiar with his behaviour at VPR, but having had a quick look this his contributions there from 2021, I did only find oppose votes,[194][195] [196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208] so agreed that I would raise the issue here for comment on whether his topic ban should be extended to VPR (and potentially any other areas where his contributions are deemed unhelpful – there was a similar pattern (opposes only) at other village pump pages, although with fewer contributions, so harder to judge a pattern with a quick check). Cheers, Number 57

• Support CBan. Can't be trusted. Has and will push any envelopes left available. ——Serial 21:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. It's false to state a consistent voting pattern cannot be considered sincere. Several of our most widely respected editors have expressed support for maintaining the status quo. For example Irridescent, echoing the almost equally acclaimed editor George (admitedly back in 2009) : I do agree with Geogre's point – I'm a firm believer that the default for all Wikipedia discussions should be to the status quo ("keep" at AFD, "don't promote" at FAC/GAC, "oppose" at RFA) and that the onus on anyone wanting change is on the proposers to explain why the change would be a benefit. This sort of wiki conservatism is arguably a big part of why we've endured much longer than the vast majority of other web projects. Also, there are occasional votes against the status quo, showing discernment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• The previous trainwreck thread in which he was topic-banned is still open a few sections above. Is this really necessary? (It's also not clear to me that simply disliking a lot of proposals is inherently disruptive, unless he is doing it in a hostile way.) jp×g 21:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I happen to think the deletion topic-ban was a good thing. But this is kicking the guy when he's down, and could be a textbook example of how to get a longstanding and productive (outside of AfD/PROD) editor to quit. Even if there's something that needs addressing here -- and I seriously doubt it -- does this has to happen NOW? EEng 22:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking someone because they only posted there recently when they something they opposed, even if they made a valid argument against it, is wrong. Dream Focus 22:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I read through some of the examples. They seemed pretty well reasoned and non-vitriolic. Unlike his participation in deletion discussions. In the meantime I don't necessarily think voting a certain way most of the time is problematic. A lot depends on how you go about and justify it. Personally, I vote delete more often then not in deletion discussions, but I often go out of my way to say I'll change my vote to keep if someone can find references or to state why I think someone could just as easily argue for the article being kept if there are some. So the approach matters. With Andrew in the case of deletion discussions his repeatedly confrontational approach was disruptive, here, it's not. Adamant1 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now. Like other editors here, I don't like the idea of kicking someone when he's already down. If I remember properly, however, there was a similar issue with him at WP:RFA some years ago, and there might have been a TBAN over that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• You will not find many editors more convinced that AD is injurious to Wikipedia than I am. I am utterly unmoved by emotional appeals based around "kicking a man while he's down" on behalf of someone who's kicked as many editors in the teeth as AD. I am likewise unmoved by the prospect of him taking his metaphoric marbles and going home; I would've been the first to support a complete community ban. But Adamant1 called it: unlike his pattern in the deletion process, looking over those diffs, I see that AD explained his reasoning, did so without acronym bombing, hostility or insult, and without notable bad faith or deception. If he had acted half as well in deletion discussions, he never would've been at risk of a tban. I cannot, in good faith and with a clear conscience, do anything but Oppose this sanction. Ravenswing 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I voted to get AD away from the area where's he's genuinely causing disruption (i.e. deletion) but he isn't doing that here. Actually (and not that it's relevant) but looking at the diffs, I agree with him on most of them... Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: if the plan is to topic ban everyone who knee-jerk opposes every proposal to make an improvement to this website then we'll be topic banning the majority of the community. — Bilorv (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest a SNOW close. The proposer admits I can't say I am familiar with his behaviour at VPR, in my experience there is no shortage of proposals at VPR that should be opposed. I also agree with the above comments that this comes off as mean-spirited. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, while this proposal was made in good faith, it comes across as gravedancing to me, and it does not seem remotely necessary at this timeJackattack1597 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely agree with suggesting a SNOW close here per 力. If the editor raised concerns privately to the proposer and then the proposer admits not being familiar with the subject's behaviour it feels quite mean to propose a tban in such manner. If there is an actual case, they should wait a bit for things to quiet down and then submit a stronger case than just a "quick" look.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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