Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093

User:Gebagebo

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

Gebagebo is a user formerly editing under the name Dabaqabad.

Gebagebo received a one-week AE block for violating the March 4 prohibition in August 2021. From his comment to me in December 2021, Gebagebo seems to think this block was "because edited without indicating the source."

And in October 2021, Gebagebo's editorial policy was criticized by several people at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, including myself, but no particular conclusion was reached at that time.

There are a number of problems between Gebagebo and me. Most of them involve Gebagebo reverting my edits and pushing his own policy on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS. I try not to force my edits until we reach an agreement, not just in dialogue with Gebagebo. Gebagebo probably knows this, and thinks that if he (she) shows a "no agreement" attitude, he can settle for editing to his liking.

Some of the pages that Gebagebo and I have discussed include the following:

• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag
• Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
• Talk:Khatumo State
• Talk:El Afweyn

Although Gebagebo's argument seems plausible at first glance, I think he actually has the intention to write in favor of Somaliland and is searching for rules or sources to do so, rather than having the attitude of writing based on Wikipedia's rules and sources. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Gebagebo only writes in favor of Somaliland in his editing of this complex situation in the region.

The latest trouble is occurring in Talk:El Afweyn. I have tried to include information about El Afweyn in this article, but Gebagebo won't let me post it as it is "irrelevant". When I asked why it was irrelevant, Gebagebo would not respond. (Except to explain that it is "irrelevant" and "no agreement.")

I expect Gebagebo to edit neutrally, and to adopt an editorial attitude that aims for consensus rather than mere argument.--Freetrashbox (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have tried my absolute best to reach a consensus with Freetrashbox, however it is very hard to do so when they are being uncooperative, including threatening to re-add disputed content on two occasions despite that not being allowed by WP:NOCONSENSUS ([1], [2]). His accusation is completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Another interesting thing to note is the timing of this report. This report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([3]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([4]). Both users are in regular contact ([5], [6], [7], [8]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([9]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([10]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([11]) after a poor explanation made by Heesxiisolehh that another editor refuted (Freetrashbox didn't even bother changing his original explanation for his previous delete vote, instead just changing the vote itself) . This indicates to me that this report was not filed in good-faith and kinda feels like tag-teaming.

Then is the fact that this would fit better as an RfC or WP:DRN given that this is a content dispute and a Third Opinion has previously failed to solve it due to no one showing up. Gebagebo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this is linked to the same topic area as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Long running original research in Dervish-related content then this needs a wider review at a dedicated venue, such as RFC/DRN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That is my point exactly; this is a content dispute that has so far not been resolved. Therefore it should be discussed in the right venue, like RFC and DRN. Gebagebo (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything I wrote in User talk:Heesxiisolehh are requests for improvement in Heesxiisolehh's editing attitude. Heesxiisolehh has not answered my questions many times and I think there is some problems with his attitude. And I have more stringent requirements in User talk:Heesxiisolehh#Your uploaded figure. If I were to defend Heesxiisolehh, I would defend it directly on the discussion page where Heesxiisolehh is being criticized, not in this roundabout way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the thing; you have a history of contacting the user on multiple occasions, and the criticism you give him is lackluster. In addition you changed your vote on an AfD concerning an article he added massive amounts of original research to to "keep" due to his rather lackluster and unconvincing explanation that was refuted by another edit, not even bothering to change the reasoning behind your original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale (which is backed up by reliable sources).

That and the timing is too close (I mean really, five hours after I contacted GiantSnowman regarding Heesxiisolehh's continued OR?) to be a coincidence. Either way I proposed a compromise on the El Afweyn talk page, I'd suggest you take a look at it. Gebagebo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [12][13] Gebagebo was dishonest in his dialogue with me at Talk:El Afweyn, even though he could afford to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. The time between Gebagebo's second response and my posting on this noticeboard is two hours.

I have only interacted with Heesxiisolehh within Wikipedia, and that relationship is available for anyone to see. I don't know why Gebagebo thought that there was a special relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh. Gebagebo seems to think that they and Heesxiisolehh are opposites, but from my point of view, both attitudes are very similar. It's just that the subject who want to argue for is different.

I thought that by talking to Gebagebo, he would realize the true appeal of Wikipedia, but as it turns out, Gebagebo is only interested in describing the wonders of Somaliland on Wikipedia, and for him Wikipedia's rules and sources are just a means to that end. I think everyone can see that from his short description above.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo: I accepted your suggestion in Talk:El Afweyn. Next time, I hope you will be in good faith even if we don't use the Administrators' noticeboard.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how Heesxiisolehh mentions this ANI and uses it as rationale for removing a user's post warning about his original research from his talk page ([14], keep in mind this was almost 12 hours before he was pinged by Freetrashbox, not to mention the very similar opinion). There is also no evidence of communication between the two on any talk page regarding this.

This seems to make it more clear to me that this is a retaliatory filing, and might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on. Gebagebo (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have given notice that I will remove the description by Heesxiisolehh. Why is it that Gebagebo interprets that as me deleting Heesxiisolehh's opponents' opinions?--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The description I posted in El Afweyn is statements of the role Puntland and Somaliland played in El Afweyn. I tried to be impartial, but the result is a description that shows that Somaliland put a lot of effort into the administration of this town, while Puntland was just a nuisance for sending militia troops. In contrast, Gebagebo says that the expression "Puntland influence" is "implying that Puntland has influence and some sort of control of the town (which it does not claim), which is POV pushing". In other words, Gebagebo considers any representation of Puntland's activities in the region, no matter what the content, to be distasteful. Honestly, I am annoyed that Gebagebo called this statement a violation of POV. Nevertheless, I have continued to discuss whether the description could be changed to something Gebagebo would find acceptable, in order to make the post more fair. I agreed to change the headline of the article from "Puntland influence" to "Security". I also moved the description from El Afweyn to El Afweyn District, accepting Gebagebo's assertion that the Puntland Constitution is about the District and not the Town. However, as the dialogue progressed, I noticed that Gebagebo did not concede his opinion at all until the other party was bored with the discussion. I think this is a enough reason to report it to the Administrators' noticeboard. (To add to that, it is also very disconcerting that Gebagebo suggests I am Heesxiisolehh's meatpuppet without any evidence. I think Gebagebo is familiar with Wikipedia discussions and knows that the community does not like private connections between POV users.)--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of deleting anything on Heesxiisolehh's page. I merely pointed out the fact that this ANI was used as a reason in the edit summary of an edit by him where he deletes a user's warning about original research (this despite the fact that there is no evidence of communication between the both of you regarding this ANI on any talk page). That, along with other things I pointed out points to this being a retaliatory filing with no purpose but to derail my attempts at ridding Somali-related Wikipedia articles of original research. Gebagebo (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been active on English Wikipedia for a short time, but I've been editing Japanese Wikipedia, my home wiki, for more than 10 years. Why would I need to defend a beginner who is suspected of having original research tendencies? On the other hand, my editing in El Afweyn was more about the achievements of the Somaliland government. Nonetheless, you say that my description is a POV-violating description that tries to make the Puntland government look great. From your description above, you are not remorseful about this at all. --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Did my explanation above clear up your "linked to the same topic area" doubt?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Gebagebo's editing is that he seeks to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to conventionalize the mission statements of Hargeisa-Somaliland, by reorienting Horn African history to become amicable to its constitution, and thereby impulsively opposes disparities or dissimilarities within northern Somalia, and seeks to use Wikipedia's pages to promote a homogenous view in line with Hargeisa-Somaliland. As such, he is on a campaign to use Wikipedia's voice to make any of the state declarations of Hargeisa's government appear historically ubiquitous, such as its claim to being a unitary republic, thereby deleting any cultural or historic currents that interfere with Hargeisa's self-proclaimed status as a centralized all-encompaasing government.

• Geopolitical examples of POV & Original research include stating that Sayid advocates for Somaliland borders in 1910s, whilst sources state Somalis only became aware of Somaliland borders in 1950s (see link). Stating that British Somaliland Protectorate existed in the 1850s, whilst sources state the British protectorate arrived in 1884. stating that the Dervish base was pan-Horn African with uniform "support from across the Horn of Africa" although scholars state otherwise, that its forces were "mostly Dhulbahante". Agains, Dervish scholar Said Samatar (1982) singles out Dhulbahante tribe as central to the Dervishes: make a few observations about the Dulbahante, for it was this clan who formed the core of the Sayyid's following and whose strengths and weaknesses Dervishism as a movement could be said to have reflected. Yet in violation of WP:DUE, in this edit, Gebagebo replaces all Dhulbahante-related in-line text and images with core Somaliland tribes (Isaaq) and individuals, even though scholars state that "Most Isaaq, however, sided with the British against the Dervishes.". In other words, Gebageno is inverting what sources say about Dervish demographics. Stating that Dervish was limited to Somaliland, even though the largest battles like Gumburu and Daratole geolocate to Soomaali Galbeed in Ethiopia, whilst the Dervish intermediary capital Illig, lies in Puntland. In this edit states coastal withdrawal happened in 1913, whilst sources state happened in 1910 "withdrawal be carried out on 15 March 1910"

In this edit states Dervish "operated from local centers such as Aynabo" from 1900 to 1913, although sources state their westermost boundary was Badwein & Tifafleh, both roughly 50 km to the east of Aynabo:

westernmost boundary Badwein & Tifafleh
Borders in 1909: Taariikhdii Daraawiishta, 1976, "if you want peace as I do, remove your party from Bohotle and also remove the horses from Badwein and the Ain Valley, and call back your spies from Jidbali " Borders in 1905: Taariikhdii, 1976, "and from Hudin to Tifafleh" Eastern border in 1915 in Badwein Douglas Jardine sea-coast "through Eil Dur Elan to Badwein at the eastern extremity"

Here Gebagebo removes mentions of Nugal, in another attempt to make Dervishes seem either ubiquitous or homogenized with core Somaliland, although sources consistently mention a Dervish emphasis on Nugal as a territory:

emphasis on Nugaal

Source: WS Clarke - 1992, "Abdullah signed with the Italians ... an agreement of peace and protection which made the "Mad Mullah" the legitimate ruler of the territory of Nogal." Source: Empires at War: 1911-1923, Robert Gerwarth, 2014, p. 47, "Hassan, was given the Nogal valley to rule as he pleased" Note Nugaal called a "country" and Dervishes "rejoiced" for it: LIDWIEN KAPTEIJNS, 1996, p. 1 - 8 [https://org.uib.no/smi/sa/06/6Kapteijns.pdf "Sayyid used this new international recognition to realize some of his state building ambitions ... you say that you will go away from the country, that is, from the Nugaal and Buuhoodleh and their environs. At this we rejoiced greatly" Note Dervish negotiations leading to a Nugaal-based state: Salwe, 1996, p 33, "After heated negotiations an agreement was reached on 5 March 1905 ... The Ilig Treaty recognised Sayid Mahamed as leader of a mini state in the Nugaal Valley" Note how Jaamac Cumar (the foremost native Dervish scholar with 120 peer reviews) singles out emphasising Dervish attachment to Nugaal with strong words of "most desired" and "indispensable" and note usage of "dalka / dalkii" meaning country: Daraawiishi xagga dalka iyo xagga degmadaba Nugaal baa sal u ahayd arladana waa ugu jeclaayeen ... Daraawiishi Nugaal kama maaranto oo waa dhulkay asalka u lahayd waa dalkii loo gartay inay iyagu ka taliyaan For the Dervish, their country and habitation had Nugaal as headquarters, as the land they desired most ... Dervishes viewed Nugaal as indispensable, as their original land, and the country that was known as ruled by them Source: 2005, Jaamc Cumar Ciise, p 259, p. 128, Taariikhdii daraawiishta iyo Sayid Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan Jaamac Cumar states similar in the 1974 book: Weligoodna Daraawiishtu waxay haanka ku hayeen in dhulka loo yaqaan Nugaal iyo dhulka ciidda cas midna inaanay gacantooda ka bixin Since its beginnings, the ultimate objective of Dervish had always been that Nugaal and the reddish soil of 'Iid should forever remain in their firm grip Source: Diiwaanka gabayadii, 1856-1921 - Page 152, Jaamac Cumar Ciise

Gebagebo calls the city of Buuhoodle historically anti-Dervish as "clans of Bohotle being allies of the British", although scholars state "Buuhoodle were among the first and most persistent supporters of the Dervish cause" (source: Borders & Borderlands, Dereje Feyissa, ‎Markus V. Hoehne, 2010), whilst Buuhoodle's constituent tribe (Ali Geri) are likewise described as historiclly the most ardent Dervishes: ("bulk from the Ali Geri").

• Demographic examples of POV / Original research include stating that Deria Gure is of the Habr Je'lo tribe whilst sources state the opposite; that he's of the Dolbahanta tribe. He repeates the misrepresentation of Deria Gure's tribe here without a source. Here he rearranges the infobox to give the appearance Dervishes was an Isaaq-led movement, with 4 Isaaq/core-Somaliland figures displayed, although scholars state "Most Isaaq, however, sided with the British against the Dervishes." Here he proceeds to unilaterally claim Dervish scholar Jama Omar Issa as unreliable, even though he has 120 peer reviews on google scholar, most of which call him an expert on the topic. On this basis Gebagebo/Dabaqbad goes on a mass deletion campaign of Jaamac Cumar Ciise sources as recently as the 4th of March (yesterday). In this edit he violates WP:DUE by dedicating 50 percent of the Dervish paragraph and here 100% of a paragraph to a guy called "sultan Nur", although the most recent major Dervish work, a 248 page book by Roy Irons regards Nur as so insignificant, only 1 sentence mentions him.

In this edit he states that the Dervishes were demographically symmetrical, although scholars state Dervish had demographic majorities:

Actual figures of Dervish demographics

EAR, Omar Mahmood, p. 15, "The Dhulbahante were dominant in both the Dervish movement and under the Barre regime" Source Robert Hess, 1964, p 48, "with the establishment of the Nogal protectorate ... the Dervish followers of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan were for the most part from the Dolbahanta" Roy Irons. 2013, p. 30 "The defiant Sayyid, who from his base among the powerful Dolbahanta clan" Samatar, Said (1982). "Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism" make a few observations about the Dulbahante, for it was this clan who formed the core of the Sayyid's following and whose strengths and weaknesses Dervishism as a movement could be said to have reflected. This pattern of communizing extends to individuals too, Sudi (a core Somaliland-tribe member) mentioned 4 times whilst Ismail Mire "the most important general of the dervish forces" is removed by Gebagebo from the Dervish page entirely.

Rewrites history with the WP:OR that two core Somaliland tribes (Isaaq Habar-Yunis) "started the Dervish uprising" (link) and (isaaq Habar-Jeclo) "the first to join the Dervish", or "first arose" in an Isaaq city of Burao, although sources are unanimous that the Dervish movement/uprising began with the Ali Gheri clan:

Sources stating Dervishes began with Ali Gheri clan

Genis, Gerhard (1996). Mohammed Abdulle Hassan en sy volgelinge (PDF). Scientia Militaria - South African Journal of Military Studies. p. 81. Die Mullah se eerste volgelinge was die Ali Gheri, sy moedersmense. Laasgenoemde was dee I van die Dolbahanta-stam en die grootste getal van die Derwisj-beweging se volgelinge was uit die stam afkomstig. (english translation) The Mullah's first followers were the Ali Gheri, his mother's kin. The latter is a subtribe of the Dolbahanta tribe and is where largest proportion of the Darwish followers were descended from. Abdi, Abdulqadir (1993). Divine Madness. Zed Books. p. 101. to the Dervish cause, such as the Ali Gheri, the Mullah's maternal kinsmen and his first converts. In fact, Swayne had instructions to fine the Ali Gheri 1000 camels for possible use in the upcoming campaign Bartram, R (1903). The annihilation of Colonel Plunkett's force. The Marion Star. By his marriage he extended his influence from Abyssinia, on the west, to the borders of Italian Somaliland, on the east. The Ali Gheri were his first followers. *Hamilton, Angus (1911). Field Force. Hutchinson & Co. p. 50. it appeared for the nonce as if he were content with the homage paid to his learnings and devotional sincerity by the Ogaden and Dolbahanta tribes. The Ali Gheri were his first followers *Leys, Thomson (1903). The British Sphere. Auckland Star. p. 5. Ali Gheri were his first followers, while these were presently joined by two sections of the Ogaden

So his edits are basically inverting Dervish history, making the historically pro-Dervish tribes seem anti-Dervish, whilst making historically anti-Dervish tribes seem pro-Dervish. I'm guessing he's motivated to do this to dilute any northern Somali dissimilarities in an effort to promote homogenous nativism per Hargeisa-Somaliland's claim to a unitary republic. In conclusion, Dabaqabad/Gebagebo's approach to sourcing are not intended to be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" as required by WP:DUE, but rather Gebagebo has a predetermined script that wherein he wants sources to state that Hargeisa-Somaliland are the sole powerbrokers in the HoA. Gebagebo does this by rewriting history to suggest the northern HoA has a homogenous historic background where only Hargeisa-Somaliland and its core tribes have ever held influence, and by concocting this unipolar pre-determined script, he seeks to use Wikipedia's pages to promote Hargeisa-Somaliland to the world. As such, his edits depict a Somaliland zealotry for a unitary republic, whilst simultaneously looking for sources that confirm this, whilst obfuscating and detesting references/texts that do not befit this imagery. Another editor has previously pointed out that Dabaqabad/Gebagebo's edits are influenced by "puffing up the Isaaq clan numbers and misrepresenting their proportion in relation to other clans". Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've spent some time looking at the edits above but am finding it very difficult to disentangle behavioural from content issues. Behavioural issues (such as edit-warring and refusal to accept consensus) belong here, but content issues belong on article talk pages. Could anyone raising a behavioural complaint please summarise it in two or three sentences? Otherwise its very difficult for many of us, who, I'm afraid, have little knowledge of this region, to address. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've been somewhat involved in this since the last ANI report, commenting there, at Talk:Dervish movement (Somali)#Removal of original research, and directly with Heesxiisolehh. The only behavioral issues that I've seen are with Heesxiisolehh, who continues to cite outdated sources and primary sources (usually letters) quoted in secondary sources as if they're the opinion of the book/paper author. He just did it above, again, after numerous warnings. (It also appears that he is canvassing to this ANI.) Meanwhile, I've been able to verify every source that Gebagebo has provided—they're the opinion of the scholar, involve no synthesis, etc. Sure, it's entirely possible that Gebagebo is cherry-picking the few scholarly sources that agree with him, or that Heesxiisolehh is correct about the weight of scholarly sources while he cites the worst possible sources available—but I doubt it. I have no opinion on the dispute between Gebagebo and Freetrashbox, except that Freetrashbox has made plenty of assertions about Gebagebo's editing but hasn't included Diffs, which makes it difficult to see if there are actual issues. Woodroar (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Woodroar: Gebagebo reverted some of my edits in the El Afweyn due to POV violations.(my edit, Gebagebo's edit) The context makes it clear that this is not a POV violation intended to make Puntland look favorable. Gebagebo could not explain on Talk:El Afweyn what is the POV violation. Nevertheless, Gebagebo made no compromise and tried to terminate the discussion on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS.([15][16]) Even though it is not a formal decision, Gebagebo=Dabaqabad has been proposed a topic ban by the administrator (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, [17]), his attitude has not improved in any way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think those diffs prove what you think they prove. Your edit added a great deal of content that appears to be poorly sourced. Granted, I'm no expert here, but I'm seeing primary sources (a regional government's constitution), unreliable sources (an activist NGO report), and irrelevant claims (someone dug a well). Honestly, I would have reverted as well. What you don't mention above is that Jacob300, a different editor entirely, partially reverted your edit, you restored it, and only then did Gebagebo revert. Gebagebo then started a discussion at the article's Talk page, which is exactly what they were told to do at Arbitration Enforcement. Your comment about his attitude has not improved in any way would make sense if Gebagebo hadn't started a discussion, but that's not the case. As for Gebagebo could not explain on Talk:El Afweyn what is the POV violation, their comments make perfect sense to me. You appear to be pushing a POV at the article, using poor and irrelevant sourcing (in the article) and arguing that sources should be used to support claims that they don't actually make (at the article's talk page).

  If you have better diffs, I'm certainly willing to look again. Until then, I really don't think there's anything actionable between Gebagebo and Freetrashbox beyond a trouting. It would be helpful if everyone involved could provide reliable, secondary sources when making claims—even on talk pages—and strictly confine those claims to what the sources actually say. I feel like this is a situation where the editors posses a great deal of first-hand knowledge and they may be using that knowledge to connect sources in ways that the sources do not. But we can't do that on Wikipedia. If there's a connection, a reliable, secondary source has to make it. If a primary document like a constitution is relevant, a reliable, secondary source has to say that it's relevant. And if a source doesn't say something, we can't use the absence of evidence to prove evidence of absence. Woodroar (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am not going to discuss the content of the article here, but it is clear that the Puntland Constitution, although a primary source, is a recently written document, and that refworld.org references, and that it is not a fake document. I don't see a problem with writing "this is what this document says" instead of what is written here as fact.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that you were using the primary source to set up the claim that the actions of Jama Ali Jama were unjust, per the article's talk page. The source doesn't say anything like this. Wikipedia articles should largely be based on reliable, secondary sources, and we need to let those secondary sources analyze primary sources and draw connections between them. We also need to fairly represent what reliable sources say and balance articles around them. That's the heart of our core content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. So instead of summarizing what reliable sources say about El Afweyn, you were pushing your own POV by stringing together primary and unreliable sources to say something that none of the sources actually said. You need to understand that we can't do that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  As you can see check my edit in the article ([18], already shown above), I did not write in relation to the Puntland Constitution and the Ali Jama Ali issue. It is simply written in chronological order and not even suggested. However, I explained on the Talk Page that I find it interesting that the president who decided on the constitution acted in relation to it. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. --Freetrashbox (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that your opinion that "the Puntland Constitution is a primary source" is a new issue that came out on this AN page. Your opinion is clear and if you had said it at Talk:El Afweyn I would have been able to respond. However, Gebagebo was not specific, saying only that I don't see how the non-inclusion of El Afweyn in Puntland's claim is relevant to the article. There is no way to reply when said that a reference clearly labeled "El Afweyn" has "nothing to do with El Afweyn."--Freetrashbox (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Heesxiisolehh: This is not the place to criticize you, but as I noted a bit above, your editing is also problematic. In particular, the alteration of the figure I described on February 22 on your talk page is very problematic. Furthermore, as User:GiantSnowman said, you and Gebagebo have already started discussing Dervishes issue elsewhere, so you should use that.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot to unload. I thought this discussion was over after me and @Freetrashbox: along with another editor reached a consensus regarding El Afweyn, where after I was convinced by said user I readded the part about the Puntland constitution to the article (making sure to use neutral language and giving it its due weight which isn't a lot). Now normally this discussion would have ended there, with both of us parting our ways (I literally left him to his own devices) but alas it has not. I have carefully followed the restrictions that have been set on me by the arbitration committee, making sure to follow each revert with a message at the article's talk page (even removals of signficant amounts of content added by an editor). What do you mean exactly by "his attitude has not improved in any way" then if I've exercised a lot more patience with you and Heesxiisolehh than should have been exercised to begin with?

My comment regarding Heesxiisolehh

It's starting to get clearer and clearer to me that this report was not filed in good faith, but rather to deliver some sort of "gotcha" moment, where Heesxiisolehh can vent out his frustrations after I put a lot of effort into removing his OR and synth on Dervish related topics, something @Woodroar: has been very helpful with. Another thing that makes it even clearer that this is nothing but an attempt at getting back at me is the fact that, as Woodroar mentioned, Heesxiisolehh attempted to canvass (at this point clearly votestacking) by contacting users I've had content disputes with months ago ([19], [20]). Not to mention Heesxiisolehh mentioning and using this ANI as rationale for removing Woodroar's post warning about his original research from his talk page. ([21]). Like I mentioned before, this report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([22]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([23]). Heesxiisolehh has been adding OR for several months now and I've exercised patience, giving him the benefit of the doubt and making sure to try discuss with him more than ten times! ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] just on top of my head, most likely more cases). Now since @GiantSnowman: is part of this discussion, it would be relevant to point out that Heesxiisolehh once again breached the agreement reached in the last ANI, adding original research that in some cases is completely irrelevant to the article at hand ([34], [35], [36], [37]). Like mentioned before, Heesxiisolehh is continuing to add OR and synth, and is probably using this report as a distraction. An article of his has also been deleted ([38]) due to OR.

Anyways, to get back on-topic, the issue that caused this report (and tbh I don't think this report was warranted due to this being a mere content dispute) has been solved, and thus this report should be closed with further action being taken against Heesxiisolehh for not only continuing to add OR but also canvassing/votestacking twice as shown earlier by both Woodroar and me. Gebagebo (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo: Your problems with Talk:El Afweyn have already been mentioned above and I have nothing to add. Your problem is well shown in this AN Page. I did not make this notice to help Heesxiisolehh. Heesxiisolehh may be trying to take advantage of this situation, but that is irrelevant to me. (In fact, Heesxiisolehh's message is rather helping you.) Even if you felt that way, it would be sufficient to simply write, "I think this is retaliation against Heesxiisolehh." However, you are trying to steer the discussion so that the relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh is obvious and replace your problem with Heesxiisolehh's problem. Your message "might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on" is also completely unnecessary for a calm discussion.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

POV-push edit by Kangkungkap

User Kangkungkap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making disruptive editing (esp. POV-push edit and removal of sourced content) since his early days in WP. And by now, almost all of his edit is reverted. Some editor tried to warn him on his talk page, but it seems he is not willing to listen. Articles that mostly affected by his edit are Silat, Baju kurung, tekpi. Based on his edit history, it seems that it was clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ckfasdf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

samples of his edit.

• tekpi1
• tekpi2
• nasi goreng
• tempoyak1
• silat
• his statement on other user talk page
• songket
• tempoyak2

Do you have any actual diffs to present to us to support your case? Ravenswing 19:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt mentioned that on my previous post.. I will list some of his recent edit, his previous edits also have similar tones. Please find it above. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo size changes

• BouwMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Markuss86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrzej95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Backlund74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.212.10.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The disruption has been going on for some time. All three editors have been changing logo sizes in many pages and in some instances they were undoing each other's edits. The number of same pages edited by all three editors is astonishing per Editor Interaction Analyser. I thought about opening an SPI, but I cannot start connecting the dots if it is the same person. Therefore, I decided to report them here and hope someone will take some action. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh they have to be the same person. Exact same interest and edit patterns in US basketball, British football, men's handball, volleyball, North American soccer AND Indian cricket teams? Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Six distinct highly specific shared interests is highly unlikely and a competent sockpuppet detective should get to work. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically, in my opinion, it might be better to specify a fixed size for each logo so that such problems do not occur. Anyway, your attention to such issues is profitable in order to improve the quality of the article(s). Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You could probably added Backlund74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that list as well. Yosemiter (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, there's definitely something going on here. It's quite likely by the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: He appears to be ignoring everyone. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

He's continuing his activities (37.212.10.63) signed out, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And so it continues. Doesn't seem as though any administrator's interested in stopping it :( GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of User:Vicentiu D. Radulescu

Dear sysops, sorry for interruption. Recently Vicentiu D. Radulescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps promoting himself by writing autobiography on his userpage, sandbox and draft page or some stuff like that. Although several users try to tell him to come to tea house for help, he seemed to ignore them all the way and still writing autobiography without communicating with others.

I have reported him twice on WP:VIP, but he is still not blocked till now. Anyway, could any sysop have a look on this case? Much thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out, they likely meet WP:NACADEMIC and you are currently asking for a ban because of work in a sandbox. With that said, a soft block for username pending verification may be appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Then, if permitted, what should i do the next step? Pavlov2 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have left a message on their talk page asking them to email VTR. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Should a soft ban administered on this user for now? Pavlov2 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Qhalidal15 consistently uploading unattributed images and not engaging

Qhalidal15 (talk · contribs) has been uploading a lot of unattributed images such as most recently noted at [39]. Their talk page lists about 20 of these image notifications, all subsequently deleted. Another issue, is their failure to engage. Qhalidal15 always marks all edits as minor and never uses an edit summary. I've given several warnings with no response [40], [41], [42] yet they continue in the same path of editing. Not providing edit summaries is not the biggest offence but failing to engage/respond to others isn't in the spirit of WP. The consistent uploading of non attributed images is also a concern.LibStar (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TheFinalMigration incivility and WP:GREATWRONGS issues but more important is the underlying issue of concern

As seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=1076085630&oldid=1075974325 this user is making grotesque accusations against me and project contributors in general due to not acquiescing to their unilateral demands to remove all images of the sexual abuse of prisoners at this institution by US military personnel. This is WP:GREATWRONGS and I obviously can’t do this because it’s above my metaphorical pay grade. They outright admitted they were violating conduct codes and would probably be blocked, though I’d like to clarify I don’t honestly care and normally would’ve just redacted the more gratuitous bits with a “(Personal attack removed)” tag.

But more importantly I’d like to raise the concern over whether the underlying issue of the legality and ethics of the images is valid. These are serious accusations that go beyond the usual Virgin Killer-type nonsense. Thank you, Dronebogus (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dmford13

• Dmford13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get some help at Washington, D.C. with User:Dmford13. They are new and not aware that tthe mass addition of unsource text as per WP:Burden . mass addition of images as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY...mass linking of catagories is not what we are looking for . Put it simply an FA level article is not the place to learn the WIki ways. Think threy are trying their best....but seem not willing to read over the MOS etc. Dont want a block trheem yet ... just need them to understand the additions our causeing verifiability problems and mass addition of images causing accessibility problems.--Moxy- 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have spent many hours over the past few weeks deeply improving the article on Washington, DC. I have already told Moxy that I will get rid of the duplications (which were not that many and were a minority of what I was actually adding to the page). I will also decrease the amount of images, if that is preferred. But I see other articles of large cities that have a very high level of images, and I think this should be the case for Washington DC. But, again, I can get rid of several of those if it's best. Dmford13 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but what you've done on the article has not improved it, the whole article in honesty looks a complete mess. Images everywhere, stuff squashed, far too many photos most of which are better served on specific topic articles. It's a complete cacophony of noise. Although in absolute fairness to yourself, this has been done over a month and other editors didn't mention anything earlier. However you have to stop reverting. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

pls review WP:BRD ..Moxy- 16:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Moxy has now opened a report at WP:AN3. Since this dispute seems to be a plain old edit warring case, I suggest that any discussion continue over there. It is not necessary to have two reports of the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Was hoping they would not just keep reverting...but no luck Still just editing away during ongoing tlak page talks.Moxy- 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Dmford13 I strongly, strongly, urge you to go and discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of continuing to edit on the article. You may be wasting your time and it seems that a complete reversion of your edits may actually be the most likely and beneficial course of action. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, I almost just reverted back to the last good before I saw this thread and I'm still tempted to. It's nearly unreadable at this point. Why do we even need a picture of Wolf Blitzer reporting with a DC backdrop? These images add nothing of value to the article and most of the text even less so. CUPIDICAE💕 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, nothing exemplifies Washington D.C. like Wolf Blitzer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Or a clusterfuck of nonsense jammed into one small area. :) CUPIDICAE💕 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have a clue why they removed thisa? We need some intervention here.Moxy- 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• After another attempt to read through the article and fix it up, I've come to the conclusion that it was better before and if Dmford13 thinks anything should be added back, they should probably discuss it first. I of course have no authority or power to enforce this but I WP:BRD'd because of its utter unreadability and undersourcing/lack of sourcing. Obviously if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me. CUPIDICAE💕 18:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Welp. they've gone back in and partially restored their preferred edits to a featured article. CUPIDICAE💕 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Given their combative behavior on their talk page, I'd suggest a pblock from the article until they understand what we expect from editors and how to collaborate. CUPIDICAE💕 18:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Dmford13 31 hours for first violating the WP:3RR rule at Washington, D.C. and then continuing the war while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:331dot rejecting an unblock request and ignoring the basis stated

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 have been blocked for edit warring, even though my edits come under an exemption from this policy (removing unsourced edits for living persons). My unblock request was denied without the exemption being addressed, and then even after giving the admin an additional opportunity on their talk page, they again failed to address the basis of my unblock request. I would like a review of this admin behaviour, as the admin seems to be neglecting their duties as an admin, and instead choosing to focus on taking my feedback personally rather than performing their admin role. Rebroad (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly the wrong action. Good luck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In my note confirming my partial block in the section above, I specifically noted that further sanctions will likely be required if the disruption continues. Given Rebroad's continued WP:IDHT behaviour, I think we've hit that point.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rebroad, I'm not involved in the dispute in question at all, but have been following your requests here and at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. I would highly recommend withdrawing this request and taking a break from the Şahin dispute. I think it's more likely that continuing this discussion here will lead to additional sanctions against you than a revocation of the one-week page block. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• (snuck in after close, as potentially useful to the OP) I kind of agree with the idea of additional sanctions, but on the off chance that a clear direct response to their question will get them to back away from the cliff edge: the reason that the BLP exception is not valid is because your interpretation of BLP is really, really wrong. So wrong, that it is not really reasonable to accept it as a good faith exception. It should have been clear to a good faith contributor, based on everyone else's comments, that your interpretation was wrong prior to your last revert. You'll find that this was the unanimous opinion at the ANI thread that led to your one-week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

So can we get an actual resolution here?

In the long discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#H2ppyme_and_Estonian_POV, there was a clear consensus both to indef block AND topic ban User:H2ppyme for disruptive editing, edit warring, and his outrageous conduct at ANI. His temporary block expired several days ago, this discussion is two weeks old, and there've been several calls to close the discussion and impose the sanctions upon which the community agreed. Unfortunately, the discussion was archived automatically without this being done. Might there be a kindly admin who'll go through with it? Many thanks in advance. Ravenswing 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've unarchived it, above. Number 57 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

False claims of "weasel wording"

There have been a number of editors recently (including at least one admin) who are making claims of "weasel wording" in the use of the word "claims", e.g. "Bill Gates claims". They insist on using the wording which instead states what the person BELIEVES, even though this can rarely be proven. The false assumption these editors are making is that if a person says they believe something then this is proof that they believe that thing. This is not a safe assumption, given that these exists such a thing as "lying". Please can this issue (possibly a systemic issue) be addressed?

Recent reverts in the name of undoing weasel wording have been occurring at the article Uğur Şahin - diffs to appear shortly. --Rebroad (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Who or what is this about? Page links and diffs would be helpful. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping and running to ANI instead of attempting a discussion with editors? This seems pre-mature at best. Discussion also at BLPN.Slywriter (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "forum shopping" or "BLPN" is, and I have attempted discussion with the other editors. Rebroad (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Uğur Şahin is the same issue. And rather than allow that conversation to occur, you have run to ANI with a vague accusation.Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted Rebroad, I claim that I have not been notified of this discussion. – ².O.^Boxing 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

1) You need to inform the people when you open an ANI claim against them, I have not received any such notification. 2) Here is an example the main diff of concern where the OP insists on putting "claims" in from of what someone stated in an interview to believe in. The OP "claims" seem to be based on the possibility that what someone says they believe in may not be the truth and is therefore unverifiable and needs to be "claimed". Perhaps weasel words is not the right term, but there is a definite attempt to elicit doubt where no evidence or reliable sources of such doubt exists. They've been warned to stop it, and they keep doubling down. Additionally the OP was the subject of an ANI thread recently on this exact behaviour. Casting doubt and removing sourced definites to be slightly more ambiguous seems to be a pattern with this user from a cursory look through their edit list. Such as altering "conspiracy theorist" to "conspiracy analyst". What are we going to do, clarify that every time someone says something they are simply "claiming" it, because we have no way of knowing if they are lying or not? Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am the admin concerned, and have also not been informed of this ANI filing. Rebroad also decided to template me for reverting him, despite the fact that what he's inserting is clearly weasel wording - we don't say that someone "claims" something unless there is a doubt or contentiousness about what they are saying. In this case there is not - the subject clearly said what he said, and it is uncontentious anyway. Rebroad has inserted the "claim" three times in the last 24 hours, five times in total, and has been reverted by four different editors. If I had not been involved here I would be considering a partial block on this article for persistent edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Isn't MOS:CLAIM supposed to deal with this? M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes that's the one. Whatever word you wish to use for it, casting doubt on someone's statements with no reason to do so is disruptive. To insist on doing it repeatedly is over a line. To make the claim that we can't trust what anyone says, is WP:NOTHERE. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is basic common sense. On a side note, the March 2021 source doesn't appear to support the disputed statement: Şahin is against compulsory vaccination and emphasizes the voluntary nature of the vaccination. "Vaccination will be voluntary, no vaccination is planned" is all he said back then. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't great on this, completely agreed. If it's removed then so be it, I don't have a horse in that game and only saw this due to the last ANI report on them. The issue here is the behaviour of the OP, not necessarily the content. Canterbury Tail talk 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I've replaced the source with one where he definitely states his opposition. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I didn't have time to look as I was at work. So the only thing we're left with now is the behaviour of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Really not sure this is an improvement. The edit appears to still be around trying to instill doubt in the readers mind with awkward wording. And they're continuing to template regulars with not providing reliable sources for removing their "claims" wording. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

After reading the original reference I had my doubts, which is why I found a different one. In that interview he is asked outright if he is against compulsory vaccination and replies that he is. At this point User:Rebroad behaviour appears to be a WP:IDHT issue. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Rebroad from editing Uğur Şahin for one week. They can still try to make their case on the talk page and WP:BLPN. If the disruption continues further sanctions may be needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No one was notified of this ANI because this ANI is not about users edits. It's about the chronic misapplication of Wikipedia policy. The false claim of "weasel wording" was how it started, but now it also seems to be the false application of the "edit warring" policy - i.e. failing to recognise the exemption for removing unsourced (or original research) for articles on living persons. And, a failure to recognise "original research" (which a primary source is). Rebroad (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You still must notify any editors whom you are discussing when you open a discussion here. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If that's the case then this is an inappropriate post for this board and should be closed. You are not reporting "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems," so this is in the wrong place. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User TolWol56 left a note on my user page accusing me of "unconstructive edits"?

I have no idea who TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is or what they are talking about. They appear to have participated in "flame wars" in the past, according to notices left on their profile. Please advise? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoritekid (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Meteoritekid, why haven't you asked TolWol56 why they put that template on your talk page? You could ping them to your talk page, where they left the template, to discuss it, or you could have gone to their talk page to ask about it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems they reverted my edits on Russian National Unity and then left the note on my profile instead of adding something to the relevant talk page. I believe their edits are propagandistic and their flagging my profile goes against normal Wikipedia policy. Not sure what do do from here. I would probably start a discussion on the talk page there and then flag their profile for the same conduct they accused me of? Meteoritekid (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You should start a discussion at Talk:Russian National Unity about the content that is in dispute and ping TolWol56 to join the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have done this. What should I do about my user page? Meteoritekid (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. You're free to remove any message. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: And I suggest rewording what you wrote at Talk:Russian National Unity. Article talk pages are not for discussion of user behavior; that's what this page is for. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help? There are strange things afoot over here. I think the person is using alternate accounts to avoid the 3 reversion / edit war rule. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done this. I would also note that TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has several similar issues noted on their user talk page. Meteoritekid (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Meteoritekid started out with clear-cut misrepresentation of source to whitewash this unregistered Neo-Nazi fringe group,[43] then made unexplained revert,[44] continued whitewashing,[45][46] and is now misrepresenting primary sources (vk.com) by creating his own conclusions in violation of WP:OR.[47] His editing reeks of WP:NONAZI. Block the incompetent user and save time from being wasted. TolWol56 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The claims you've made regarding the RNU are demonstrably false -- the 2013 Canadian governmental report on the organization goes against the edits you made to the page, to the talk page, and here. I went through the trouble of making a stable web archived link to the vk.com profile with images of RNU militia members on armored vehicles and in front of a destroyed building in Donetsk, dated June 2021, and posted by the leader of the organization. There's no "misinterpretation" there. You are pushing misinformation. I would appreciate if an admin could step in and have a look at the page and talk page before this would be classified as a flame war or something similar. Meteoritekid (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't contradict me at all. No one is disagreeing that the fringe neo-nazi group you are whitewashing has gone underground after getting banned, but that is not uncommon. You prove my point when you are upholding what is "posted by the leader of the organization" instead of finding reliable source. You have been already told that every group likes to hype their achievements but you are supposed to find reliable source for the information before you promote them.

The only thing admins can do is they can ban you from whitewashing this fringe Neo-Nazi group because you are continuing the whitewashing and making unexplained reverts to restore your whitewashing.[48] TolWol56 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The leader of the organization is a public figure, Alexander Barkashov. I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references. If not, the other sources and edits made to the History section of the page by other users still confirm that the RNU was active in the Donbas War as recently as 2014. Your edits are still misleading. You can keep calling them a "fringe" group. I have not claimed otherwise. They still exist. You are attempting to claim that they do not exist, which is not true. If anyone is whitewashing here, I would say it is you. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. You are the one whitewashing this group by showing it as some largely unbanned registered and dominant organization when the reality is completely opposite. With your problematic belief that I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references, I can only recommend you to should better focus on editing non-political subjects and learn and familiarize yourself WP:OR, WP:RS before you edit these pages. TolWol56 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

>Don't put words in my mouth. You are the one whitewashing this group by showing it as some largely unbanned registered and dominant organization

It has been banned in 4 cities -- in a country with over 20,000 municipalities. You're the one claiming it is 'banned across Russia.' That is misleading. I have not claimed that it is "dominant," only that it exists and has participated in recent conflicts (irrefutable fact).

I agree that as long as neither of us can prove that it is "registered" or "unregistered" across the majority of Russia, any mention of that should not be included in the article. At this point, you are claiming that it is not a legal organization and cannot be registered in Russia, which does not appear to be true, and which you have not substantiated.

>With your problematic belief that I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references

If I am wrong about that one reference, I concede that. I would still point out that you appear to be intentionally mischaracterizing the contents of the Canadian government report and that your edits suggest that the RNU has not existed since 2003, which is still patently false, as corroborated by the rest of the article and many other articles on Wikipedia, such as Russian separatist forces in Donbas and others.

I believe you are editing the article in order to give it a pro-Russia slant, in order to make it appear as though Russia does not contain any active fascist groups, and that those groups are not participating in the current conflict. I would appreciate if an admin would step in at some point.. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hold the phone. My edits to the page have been reverted three times, now -- and by three users that all have significant edit histories on Indian / Hindu pages. I've never seen anything like that before and I believe that TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using multiple accounts. Am I crazy? Meteoritekid (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

banned in 4 cities -- in a country with over 20,000 municipalities But it was never registered in the first place that's why your wild dream of it being registered across Russia looks nothing more than online whitewashing of this Neo-nazi group or trolling.

We write what sources say per WP:RS. But you are not understanding what is WP:OR or WP:RS even after so many of my attempts to teach you about it.

I am not baffled at your incompetence and personal attacks and I stand by my initial suggestion that you should be blocked for your whitewashing and misrepresentation of sources. TolWol56 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2013 Canadian government report states that the RNU was a registered organization in at least some of the 4 municipalities in which it was banned, prior to being banned. If you are going to claim that the group is not currently formally registered anywhere in Russia, and you wish to add that to the article, you would presumably need to cite evidence that supports that claim. Since the group has not been banned in 90%+ of Russia, assuming that it is not a registered organization in any municipality...is a bad assumption. Now, I don't speak Russian and am not certain how to look up registrations of political organizations in various Russian municipalities. So --

The article should not claim that the RNU is registered or unregistered across Russia without solid evidence either way. The edits I proposed on the talk page removed direct mentions of the group being currently registered or unregistered, which solved that problem.

You disagreed and have now edited the page to suggest that the RNU is not registered anywhere in Russia, and has not been since 2003. You have not justified those claims in any way. No justification isn't WP:OR or WP:RS. It's nothing. Maybe there's a formal Wikipedia term for it I am not familiar with. I do not know.

Wikipedia defines whitewashing as "the act of glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data." By using misleading language to suggest that the RNU ceased to exist in Russia in 2003, you are whitewashing.

Again, I will refrain from editing the page until some admins can review...all of this. Including what I believe to be your use of alternate accounts to get around the 3 revert rule Meteoritekid (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: if you have some evidence of sockpuppetry I suggest you open a WP:SPI rather than make allegations here since it appears you're accusing several semi established editors of a violation. I'd note you will likely need better evidence than 3 editors editing a single page. There doesn't seem anything that surprising about the editing patterns to me. You opened an ANI thread where you named an editor, and notified them on their talk page as you were required to do. This in itself is likely to attract the attention of other editors familiar with the editor you are naming like those who regularly edit similar pages. These editors may not comment here, but they may get involved in the underlying content dispute if they feel they can be helpful. Further timing-wise, this issue seems to have blown up at a time when most Europeans are asleep and many Americans are heading that way. And I'd note one of the editors involved first edited the article before you anyway. And please stop talking about a content dispute here, it's not something we can resolve, nor is it something admins will review. As it stands, the article is fully protected so all of you are forced to discuss any changes on the article talk page. Please do so and try and come to some WP:consensus using WP:dispute resolution as needed. If you start the WP:edit warring again when the article is unprotected, don't be surprised if blocks are next. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I see you didn't notify the editor despite the big boxes telling you to. However one of the editors who commented here did so the end result is mostly the same. In future, please ensure you do notify editors if you're going to bring them here, as your required to per the big boxes. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I will open a WP:SPI. While I have contributed to some pages, I am not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and rules. I appreciate your patience.

I posted here initially because I received an email & scary-looking notification from TolWol56 on my talk page suggesting that my initial edits to Russian National Unity were vandalism. That user did not edit the talk page for the article; they simply accused me of vandalism and reverted the edits I had made. I wasn't sure what I should do about it, and there was a link to this page in the notification; I came here and asked what I should do.

As I said on the talk page, I am not going to edit the article again before others are able to comment.

I'm not sure what a formal "big box" notification would be as you describe it, but I did leave a notice on TolWol56's talk page, which was subsequently blanked. Meteoritekid (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: The notice when you edit this page as well as the header of this page clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" but left no such notice as can be seen in the edit history. The compulsory notification was given by Suffusion of Yellow [49]. After said editor had given the compulsory notification you left two pointless templated warnings [50] (+ [51]) and [52].

The harassment one in some circumstances perhaps it can be useful for an experienced editor however it's pointless when you had already opened this ANI. This ANI was warning enough that you weren't happy with their comments. And a template like that is clearly no way to seek clarification from TolWol56 as was suggested at the beginning of this thread.

The edit warring one, personally I'm in the camp of such warnings always being pointless for experienced editors. But even if we put that aside, it came ~40 minutes after TolWol56 had given you an edit warring warning [53]. An editor who has just warned you can be assume to be well aware of our edit warring policy, there is absolutely no reason to warn them. If you need to take them to WP:ANEW and feel you need to show a warning, just show them warning you. (Tit for tat warnings are generally pretty dumb. Even discretionary sanctions strongly discourages tit for tat notifications.)

Normally I wouldn't comment on such things but you claim you gave notice when you didn't. Instead you only gave those pointless warnings but failed to give the notification which actually mattered when you opened this thread. As for the rest, if you don't already know about SPI, it's IMO a really bad idea to actually open an SPI, but whatever it's your funeral.

Also as another editor already said, really you should have just asked TolWol56 for clarification on the notice or if that didn't work, asked at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse rather than coming here. But this isn't a big deal for a one time thing. More important is that whatever the merits of starting this thread, you proceeded to discuss content issues here when it's not the place. Again keep that discussion on the article talk page, which is where you need to resolve the content dispute without further edit warring.

Just to repeat, you cannot edit the article right now, it is impossible because you are not an admin. The protection is going to last 7 days assuming it isn't unprotected earlier, which really seems more than enough time to resolve this dispute provided you actually make an effort. To be clear, you are the one who needs to make an effort by discussing on the article talk page etc. There's a good chance no one else is going to do it for you so if you want to get something changed then you can't just sit back and expect it to be magically resolved.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Maxxnite edit-warring

User talk:Maxxnite keeps reverting productive contributions by me and User talk:SecondLooneyaccount on Domino Masters, even after asking him/her to stop edit-warring via edit summaries and Talk:Domino Masters. This will make improving the article more difficult. Please see: [54]. Thank you GoBig22 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

All three users p-blocked one week for violating WP:3RR. Noting that the OP's first edit was a couple of days ago. El_C 10:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I was done editing it. GoBig22 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Will try to work on omniscience next time. Wish me Luke. El_C 10:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Adrianwo and unsourced content

I've just reverted Adrianwo (talk · contribs) twice for adding unsourced content on Mac Studio. A brand new article like this should have no excuse for adding content without references, and a Google search for "Mac Studio symmetric multiprocessing" brings back the infamous "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search" message.

I notice this user has been warned about adding unsourced content again, again, again and again, so maybe it's time for someone to have more of a word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333:, I'm seeing close to zero communication from this individual. I'd support a block as it appears they have no interest in collaborating or following policy and convention. Tiderolls 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxing, personal attacks, etc. by constant IP hopper in Italy

This is a follow-up to my previous discussion, where I talked about an IP hopper in Italy who hoaxed on articles like Kaeloo, violated MOS:OVERLINK on Kitty Is Not a Cat, and personally attacked others when their work was removed.

They are now making edits on List of Kitty Is Not a Cat episodes (in possible violation of their pblock on the main show article on one of their IPs), and when the protection on Kaeloo expired today, they reinstated their hoax content. The page has luckily since been protected, but I'm thinking that more is needed here.

They use the following IPs and ranges:

• 5.91.190.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.168.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 5.169.113.64/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 37.159.122.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.18.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.19.174.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.22.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 93.45.125.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.246.239.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.250.142.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 158.148.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hoping that this can be solved. wizzito | say hello! 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, two of the three pages have already been protected, and I've now protected the third one (List of), so we're probably good for now. El_C 16:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Johann Hari

• 167.98.45.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MedianJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There seems to be a concerted effort on the Johann Hari article to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by editing the WP article to manipulate Google rankings, as stated here by SPA (as of 2022) 167.98.45.36, and here by SPA MedianJoe. As WP editors, we are not here to right the great wrongs of Google algorithms and Google search results, and I find it troubling that both editors are openly using WP to manipulate search results for a hot-issue subject. As as an aside, I've been editing almost 9 years and hadn't even read the Johann Hari article until last week (to my knowledge), yet was accused of engaging in "reputation management" by MedianJoe (same post as linked above). As stated on the talk page, having 13 top-level categories on a page is unwieldy and doesn't flow well; to add subsections helps the article flow better, which was my original intent.

For full transparency, not sure if this is the best forum for this concern, but I believe it does need to be addressed, as openly trying to manipulate Google results does not seem like editors are editing in good faith. I am more than happy to hear other perspectives. --Kbabej (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If they're using external links to manipulate Google results, they're wasting their time. Wikipedia uses nofollow, which tells search engines that respect robots.txt - such as Google - to disregard outgoing links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not links; they want the plagiarism issues in the first paragraph so they show up in search result snippets and knowledge graphs. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that makes more sense. I've put in a request at RPP for the page proper, but the named user should likely be dealt with as WP:NOTHERE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the RPP request, which has been granted and the page protected. I agree the named user is WP:NOTHERE, and would add that is my opinion for the IP named above as well. Kbabej (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've ECP'd to stop disruption, but I'll leave the sorting to others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The baseless accusations against other editors by MedianJoe has continued with calling long-established editors a "reputation management campaign" and calling the subject of the article a "notorious liar and plagiarist". MedianJoe is clearly not here to help a collaborative project. --Kbabej (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he needs 86'd yesterday. Discounting the content dispute, an us-vs-them mentality is only going to make this a lot worse until someone blocks him. (And since he's an SPA, a pblock is pretty much tantamount to a full block.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

user:Comrade-yutyo edit warring, WP:POV,, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:OR, incivility

As can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Totalitarianism#Deletion_of_Pinochet, this clearly biased user is engaging in all of the above despite the clear consensus being their changes are inappropriate and not backed up by reliable sources. It’s annoying and a clear case of Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT.

Just to clarify I am not a Pinochet fan. At all. I think he was a horrible dictator. But that doesn’t mean he’s a totalitarian. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

[clerking] El_C 21:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC) — talk:Totalitarianism shows that the particular user is under influence of certainly biased philosophers such as Hayek on specifying totalitarianism, telling that Pinochet regime is not totalitarian despite throwing people out of planes and torturing them cuz Chile under him had a free market. Deliberate whitewashing of including right-wing capitalist dictators is visible in the reverts of the particular user. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, if you're gonna clerk, clerk right. But best not clerk / remove at all any items that involve yourself. Also, in your edit summary, you've written harassment. How so? El_C 21:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hounding me with accusations of bad faith. And generally going out of their way to make a wp:point and be annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Dronebogus, please leave determination of "hounding" (what, here, by the reported user?) or "annoying" (what?) to uninvolved admins, here, on the admins board, okay? El_C 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    "[...] be annoying." is not a reason. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, if this editor has violated WP:EW then please report that at WP:AN/EW. Your reports here are becoming so frequent that you risk being treated like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, even if you are right. Comrade-yutyo, it would help people to take you more seriously if you wrote "because" in standard English, rather than "cuz" in your own idiolect. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • They were not just edit warring. Would you three (Callmemirela, Phil Bridger, El_C) stop nitpicking me over process and actually look at the behavior of the disruptive user? WP:BOOMERANG based on assumptions shouldn’t be the default, even though it seems to be. Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, I am an uninvolved admin here, you are the OP. Do not collapse my comment (diff) or I will block you for disruption. Also, it's ironic you speak about nitpicking over process when you removed the reported user's comment by labeling it a new complaint, when it's obvious it was posted in reply to this thread. You need to do better. El_C 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please just… look at the link. I don’t want to have to have two arguments at once. Dronebogus (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, this isn't about that. You can take your time here so long as you do not continue to disrupt this thread. El_C 22:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• El_C, isn't creating a separate ANI thread five minutes after being reported to ANI in order to retaliate against the OP generally seen as WP:POINTY and disruptive? Mackensen certainly seemed to think so. I'm surprised that most of your ire has been directed at Dronebogus's bad "clerking," when you merged Comrade-yutyo's duplicative thread yourself. Notably, Comrade-yutyo's post did not include a single diff to substantiate its characterization of Dronebogus as a "particular user [who] is under influence of certainly biased philosophers such as Hayek ... Deliberate whitewashing ... is visible in the reverts of the particular user", which seems like an inappropriate personal attack.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neither the OP nor the reported user have provided diffs, and both have skirted the line of civility. As I noted, I understood the new header as a reply rather than a retaliatory report — i.e. due to inexperience in how this noticeboard works. An inexperience which cannot be said of Dronebogus, to be fair (if one is concerned with such things, at least). Yes, I clerked accordingly, and noted having done so, which Mackensen seemed fine with (diff) El_C 00:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

El_C, please take a look at these edits by Comrade-yutyo at Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) ([55], [56], [57]). It is quite clear that Comrade-yutyo's sources fail verification, as explained in detail without any response from Comrade-yutyo, yet he continues to restore the erroneous content regardless, while baselessly accusing other editors (and ultimately all reliable sources under capitalism, as "there is (sic) no reliable sources for such because the status quo of the world today is capitalism") of "whitewashing". This is an egregious violation of Wikipedia's content policies by an editor who refuses to listen and seems to lack basic competence, and it needs to be addressed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was helicopters, not planes. Anyway, I think maybe there's an attempt on Comrade-yutyo's part to present something akin to the notions expounded on in "Hannah Arendt and Marxist Theories of Totalitarianism." Which of course doesn't excuse CIR/disruption from either Comrade-yutyo or Dronebogus. BTW, Dronebogus, please do not submit further reports to this noticeboard without attaching pertinent WP:DIFFs. Even just linking to the relevant section on the talk page was something you added to this report after quite a bit of disruption (diff). El_C 23:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Emboldened, Comrade-yutyo is adding more unsupported information to Augusto Pinochet and Pinochetism (an article that I previously had no idea existed), now without even the pretense that his citation contains any mention of "totalitarianism" whatsoever ([58], [59]). It's just pure, apparently deliberate, source falsification.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean emboldened? Those edits were made prior to the filing of this report. Still, Comrade-yutyo you are expected to explain where that source mentions "totalitarianism" in relation to Pinochet (expressly) before you continue to use it as attribution for that, per WP:BURDEN. El_C 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is that Comrade-yutyo has added unsupported or erroneous information to four separate articles ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]), reinstated it once ([69]) at Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) and four separate times at Totalitarianism ([70], [71], [72], [73])—including three reverts on March 5 alone—and overridden this file four separate times on Commons since January, all while impugning other users as bad faith disciples of Friedrich Hayek and questioning the credibility of reliable sources under capitalism. Yet this thread has been dominated by discussion of whether Dronebogus erred by merely linking to a talk page (as opposed to providing specific diffs) and by unilaterally removing Comrade-yutyo's duplicative ANI report (rather than allowing an uninvolved administrator to handle it), with the general tenor being that Comrade-yutyo's actions are more forgivable than Dronebogus's due to the former's inexperience (although Comrade-yutyo has been editing Wikipedia for nearly two years).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Will try to work on omniscience next time. Wish me Luke. El_C 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please actually address the problem. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you do not I will go to an uninvolved admin directly with the above diffs and a complaint about administrative incompetence. Dronebogus (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This probably isn't the best tack to take. You may want to step back from attacking, and wait for more attention to come to this thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You also may want to revert the attacks, right now, unless you really like boomerangs. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Note to admins: now Dronebogus is going out to WP:CANVAS an admin into the issue: [74]. I feel a boomerang may be warranted. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I am only doing this because the current de facto involved admin is not addressing the actual issue. Dronebogus (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

They declined anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I also chose them completely at random. Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Your behaviour is just as problematic in this entire thread. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as problematic as adding Uncited or incorrect POV material to major articles? Dronebogus (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the situation. Putting yourself on a pedal stool isn't going to do you any favours. And yes, instances of personal attacks, removing users' comments and canvassing admins are just as problematic. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I’d guess that “pedal stool” is intended as an insult implying… something about immaturity but the term is so bafflingly obscure I have no idea what you meant by it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Likely a typo for "pedestal." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what I get for typing on a phone with autocorrect enabled. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt, Dronebogus: Whether you are aware of it or not, you are asking to be blocked. You still have an opportunity to strike your previous inflammatory comments. WaltCip-(talk) 16:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that anyone expecting me to wade into this swamp has been sorely disappointed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sorely disappointed" is the watchword for this whole thread. Sore disappointment all around! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple conflicts of interest?

Bringbag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received a notice about their edits seeming to be promoting the Cleveland Review of Books in December 2021. I am now finding that their edits have also included articles from various websites authored by Brianna Di Monda.[75][76][77][78][79][80] Bringbag said on their talk page that they do not have a COI with what I wrote about on Kristen Stewart's page, but the WP:COI seems pretty clear to me. Would love this noticeboard's watchers' thoughts. KyleJoan^talk 04:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. That's very striking, KyleJoan. I have warned the user on their page that they need to self-declare or be blocked for undisclosed COI, alternatively undeclared violations of WP:PAID. If they comply, I hope they will also have a good explanation for denying a COI in the case of their edit to Kristen Stewart when you asked about it. Btw, there's a problem with the link the user added in Kristen Stewart; I only get "We couldn't find your page" when I click on it. Were you able to access it? Not that that is so important, since the form of the reference itself names Brianna Di Monda, just as with all your other diffs. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

I had no issue accessing that link. If you'd like to verify the ref's author for yourself, its archive link can be found here. Thanks, Bishonen! KyleJoan^talk 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Strange about the link — I had no problem with any of the other links. Maybe a geographical issue, as I'm in Europe. Well, never mind, the whole internet thing is a riddle wrapped in a mystery AFAIC. And thank you for noticing and reporting this sneaky promotion, KyleJoan. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

There's off-wiki evidence that there's a COI regarding Bringbag and Brianna Di Monda. With respect to WP:OUTING, I'll leave it at that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do, there's no need to out anybody, especially as I've found something else. Bringbag was warned about promoting the Cleveland Review of Books in December.[81] Guess what? It turns out Brianna Di Monda is a "contributing editor" to the Cleveland Review of Books.[82] Promotion of this individual appears to be Bringbag's main, not to say, only, purpose on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to wait very long before I block, frankly. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

Blocked. OK, I've blocked indefinitely without waiting any longer, because I don't see how this abuse of a volunteer project can be credibly explained. Considering the user's actions so far, I also doubt they would have many scruples as far as creating socks to evade the block. Could therefore the name in question, Brianna Di Monda, be added to the spam blacklist? It's unfamiliar territory to me, so would some cleverer user like to do it? Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

There are 47 link to clereviewofbooks.com. Are you talking about blocking the addition of any further such links? If that is what's wanted, I'm not sure if there is enough activity for WP:SPB. We would first need to evaluate the existing 47 links and decide if they are useful and a reliable source. Perhaps you mean a request to add an edit filter to block addition of the specific name Brianna Di Monda? Some of the links given above show examples where that name is not mentioned in the wikitext—there is no mechanism to block the addition of links to a website that mentions a specific name. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the articles and removed some of the references and from what I have seen the references split into sentences that were bolted on and seem forced and those that it is a standard citation. For example this diff mentions the Cleveland Review of Books to indicate the worth of the author and the following sentence mentions that the author was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. On the other hand you have citations like the link on the page Elena Ferrante is a standard citation (if slightly weak) and is reasonable to keep.

I think that the first type of references will slowly (or perhaps quickly) be edited out and replaced by equivalent quotes from places like the New York Times which is a more notable reference and the second type don't really need to be removed. In other words I don't think that WP:SPB is needed. Gusfriend (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, Johnuniq. Yes, I probably did mean an edit filter, and I meant blocking direct references to Brianna Di Monda - not so much to the Cleveland Review of Books. I realise we can't block a website for mentioning a specific name, and I see Gusfriend thinks that's a lesser problem anyway. But does the name have to be mentioned in our text? The diffs provided in the original post here mention the name in the link they add, though not in the text. Where do you see links that don't mention the name? Anyway, those kinds of links are what I want to stop. And I don't know how to keep a lookout for them (though maybe you do?). I do believe this blocked user won't stop unless we put something in place to stop them. They've been doing this secretively for several months. Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: The second diff in the OP is [83]. The new wikitext does not mention the author's name but is otherwise the same as the other examples of adding a factoid with a ref that links to an article by Brianna Di Monda. Using Special:Search with something like insource:"Brianna Di" gives [84] which currently shows one article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, does that mean that neither an edit filter nor an addition to the spam blacklist would help? If an edit filter would, would you like to request one? Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: A filter or blocklist need to be justified in terms of the amount of trouble they would prevent. This looks like one person, now indeffed, who may or may not return with socks, and the number of links appears to be small and controllable by manual monitoring. That's how it would look to anyone thinking of implementing a filter/block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

possible vandal

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/203.128.83.115 shows a seemingly endless amount of edits that are all very similar. I believe it's a vandal or spammer, but I am not certain. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 23:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they're converting all uses of {{Current events header}}/{{Current events footer}} to {{Current events}}. I have no idea if that's necessary, or event desirable, but if so, it seems like an ideal task for a bot. Still, at first glance this looks harmless. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh looks like there already is a thread about doing this with a bot: Wikipedia:Bot requests § Convert old current events subpages to the current format. I'm inclined to agree with Primefac though: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the IP editor making these changes. Hell, if they manage to convert all of the pages before we finish debating the issue, it becomes a moot point! IP, those edits make me wince, but in the end it's your carpal tunnels. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please forgive me of accusing you of vandalism, @User:203.128.83.115. I hope we can let this go. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 23:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at David Wheeler

Multiple dynamic IPs have been involved with disruptive editing on the page David Wheeler (Alabama politician), including Special:Contributions/107.115.243.58, Special:Contributions/107.127.39.33, and Special:Contributions/107.115.243.50. Reliable sources report on Wheeler's age at the time of his death, though the IPs have been changing the page to include their own unsourced interpretation, stating "I don't agree" with the sources. I attempted to revert parts of the edits, but ceased as it approached 3RR and attempted to leave a message for the most recent IP. I later added a source for Wheeler's year of birth, which was followed by another edit from an IP and a talk page blanking from the IP. Assistance would be appreciated. Kafoxe (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The page has been protected for a couple of days by discospinster. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Massive disruption at Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election

Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election is being subject to a massive disruption/edit-warring among IP users in the last days. These include: random removal/alteration of polling data, inclusion of fake polls (with links to pages that pop up security warning messages), random clashes between those IP users' edits, as well as, well, using edit summaries to throw insults. Individual warnings are not enough to prevent this disruption from going further, and there is precedent for this article in particular to being subject to such IP periodical disruption in waves. Aside of page protection to logged-in users, the problematic edit summaries should be revdel-ed (the latter of which is the motive why I am filling this case in here rather than at WP:RPP). Thanks! Impru20^talk 20:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel of the edits adding links to the pages that show security warnings would also be appropriate, as that is the epitome of a "purely disruptive" edit. Just my 0.50 AUD. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001 and Impru20: Can you give an example of a site with a security warning? I had a look at [85] and did not find a site which had a security warning. The only thing I found was Aftodioikisi.gr which gives a Cloudflare access denied notification. That is not a security warning. All that says is that the site has enabled some form of Cloudflare's DDoS protection and is blocking me. I assume the site is genuinely under DDoS but I don't know but in any case a site being DDoSed doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the site and a site being DDoSed is not dangerous to the end user although may be difficult to access. In fact such a site may still be a perfectly valid RS despite temporary access problems. I don't know why the site is blocking me in NZ when I'm accessing from a residential ISP IP and have never done anything to trigger Cloudflare on this IP that I'm aware, perhaps as a Greek site they felt banning all non Greek IPs was the best way to deal with an attack. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Atsme

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

---

Over the last month and a half there has been a dispute between Atsme (talk · contribs) and I centred around the articles Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Bull and terrier. It been discussed at length at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier (which was first proposed in June 20221), Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article’s neutrality, WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Staffordshire Bull Terrier, WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. and WP:Good article reassessment/Staffordshire Bull Terrier/1.

Until very recently Atsme is someone I considered a friend on Wikipedia, we have exchanged pleasantries both on and off wiki, she nominated me for my ETOW award [86] and as recently as December she thanked me for my contributions here [87]. I have collaborated with her and, like many others, appreciate much of the work she has done and particularly the photographs she has brought to the project.

But as many who know Atsme's history can attest, she has an extraordinary ability to launch crusades, and in so doing she tries to discredit reliable sources, adopts outlandish positions, filibusters discussions and misinterprets policy. Previous discussions of this include:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 103#Amendment request: American politics 2 (June 2018)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 112#Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2019)

Similar examples in this dispute can be found at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article's neutrality where she dismisses clearly stated statements in seventeen sources as anecdotal accounts whilst inappropriately linking policy WP:SHORTcuts [88][89], or WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Staffordshire Bull Terrier where she dismisses many of the same sources as original research [90].

The thing I have found most disturbing throughout this ordeal has been her nastiness after I disagreed with her. She has attempted to hound me, first trying to disrupt an article I recently elevated to a GA [91] and later tagging another I rewrote with page issues [92] (this was very clearly retaliatory, in the month after this dispute commenced Atsme made only three edits to dog related articles or TPs outside of those connected to this dispute). She attempted to derail an SPI that would harm her cause [93] and now she has opened a sockpuppet investigation into me because I am an Australian [94] (I welcome a CU check [95]).

In my opinion her most egregious action was her false claim that she had verified the contents of a source she had cited. In the two pages of the dispute she cited a source:

• [96] added it was a hybrid cross between the now extinct [[Old English Bulldog]] and [[Old English Terrier]].<ref name="Fleig, D. 1996">Fleig, D. (1996). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref><ref>Shaw, Vero (1879–1881). ''The Classic Encyclopedia of the Dog''. {{ISBN|0-517-43282-X}}</ref>
• [97] added It is believed that bull and terriers were crossbred primarily from the [[Bulldog]] and one or more varieties of [[Old English Terrier]]s.<ref name="Fleig-1996">Fleig, D. (1996:86). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref>

I repeatedly requested she verify the contents of the source [98][99]. She eventually added the number 86 to the year [100][101] and explained it was the page number whilst giving an outlandish story about her access to the source [102] (whilst still failing to verify the source's contents). Having found a photo of the book's contents page on the internet here I further questioned her about it [103], but she subsequently maintained her story [104]. My local library has obtained scans of the relevant chapters of the source and I can verify that the cited page makes no mention of the cited content whatsoever (I am happy to email this to any impartial admin for verification) and further that the source does not support the cited claims at all. When I put this to Atsme she instead said that in fact she had copied the contents and source from page 18 of this thesis [105], but even it does not attribute the content she cited to it. It should also be noted that the Vero Shaw source does not support the cited content either.

Finally, I find Atsme's inferences that this dispute is somehow gender based to be utterly offensive [106], this dispute is entirely about content and, as outlined above, conduct.

I appreciate that throughout this dispute I have allowed my frustration at this situation to manifest on a number of occasions. But it is completely unacceptable to dismiss all of the sources listed here as anecdotal and branding attempts to cite them as original research whilst simultaneously not offering sources that articulate a meaningful counter-narrative with any weight. Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC).

I filed a SPI against him before I take my case to T&S, so I imagine this is retaliation, as is the fact that he hasn't gotten his way after tag-bombing a GA, reverting and wikihounding me. This dates back to 2019 when he didn't get his way then, and now after a year of trying, he still failed to get consensus. My final comment about his attempts to merge important articles and add a flat-earth theory to a GA is here - it includes his apology for doing the same thing to me back in 2019 that he's doing now. I will not respond again to his unwarranted allegations. Thank you and good night. Atsme 💬 📧 06:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I find Atsme's inferences that this dispute is somehow gender based to be utterly offensive – did you link to the wrong diff there? I see no such implication in the diff you linked to. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume I'm tired of having to deal with grown men who throw temper tantrums and bully editors when they don't get their way is what they were referring to, but to go from that to "this dispute [is] gender based" is a very large leap. I highly doubt that's what Atsme meant. Endwise (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we could all leave gender out of this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, Endwise - you've both made excellent points. His sentence comprehension issues are part of the reason he filed this case, along with DIDNTHEARTHAT. It's the reason he's been wasting editors' valuable time with OCD-like persistent behavior. Perhaps now that I've received email verification from The Kennel Club that supports my position, and draws further attention to his sentence comprehension issues, I'm hoping it will be the end of this ridiculous fiasco. His wall of text above is nothing but a play by play history of his own relentlessness, bullying and demands. He failed to gain consensus for his proposed merge, rewrite of the article, and NPOV tag - he has forum-shopped, and created mountains of disruption while abusing me with PAs and misinformation as with the Fleig citation, and has gotten away with edit warring. Horse Eye's Back is spot-on with his suggestion of a boomerang. And btw, his PA about the Fleig citation is pure nonsense as evidenced here, and more of the same bullying/interrogation because he didn't get his way. I grew weary of his aspersions a while back, and simply removed the citation, but even that didn't satisfy him - he kept on and on and on and on - and as you can see above, he won't let it go. I work hard to get articles up to GA/FA standards as evidenced by 8 FAs & 19 GAs that I've either promoted or reviewed, and a rerun main page FA that first ran in 2014 and has withstood the test of time. It's no fun being bullied, interrogated and pounded on over and over and over again as what Cavalryman has done. Anyway, thank you for noticing the sentence issue and drawing attention to what's really going on. Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And please keep OCD out of this. I know several people with OCD and they behave no worse than people without. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, Phil Bridger - it was a bad choice of words on my part. I also have a friend with OCD, and it's involuntary. I struck the term. Atsme 💬 📧 16:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also tired of dealing with Cavalryman's broken record behavior at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, where I have tried, tried again, and again, and again, to mediate this dispute. I generally have an aversion to taking things to drama-filled noticeboards, but, here we are yet again. The broken record I hear Cavalryman playing is a tune that goes something like this. The bull and terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are the SAME dog (Cavalryman proposed merging those two articles). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ORIGINAL bull-and-terrier which was genetically engineered to maximize its aggressiveness – and its performance in dog fights when pitted against other dogs. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original pit bull – it's still the same dog that fought in the Staffordshire dog-fighting pits. Now, perhaps that's as far as Cavalryman goes with this. But the conclusion I'm led to by this POV is that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog. A dog that can't be safely left alone in a room with an unfamiliar dog – or human. A dog that may require legislation to regulate its existence at best, or outright banning of the breed at worst. Other breeds such as the Bull Terrier are OK because they are not original bull-and-terriers. These derivative breeds have been crossbred with less aggressive dogs to make them safe around humans. I expect a minimal response to this at best, before I'm steered back to being asked again, "what sources exist that state the Bull and Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are different?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You cant mediate between someone who uses sources to back up an argument and someone who blatantly falsifies sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, I am going to push back pretty hard against these accusations, when have I ever even suggested anything approaching the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog that can't be safely left alone in a room with an unfamiliar dog – or human? Cavalryman (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

Cavalryman, no as I said you haven't said that. What I'm saying is that others may be hearing "dog whistles". Perhaps you're not intentionally blowing such whistles, and can't hear them yourself, but you're wearing ear plugs when I try to explain the issue to you – you're rejecting all attempts to tone down the certainty of the specific wording that's blowing dog whistles. I won't go so far as Atsme as to call some of your sources "fringe", but I think these sources are targeting a non-expert audience and, in an attempt at brevity, over-simplify things. This topic area may not have the high standards of medicine, which rejects such writing for the general public in favor of writing for medical journals (WP:MEDRS), but a willingness to compromise on that could help break out of this jam. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So you heavily implied an editor is editing from a POV without any evidence whatsoever, nor has been brought up in any previous discussion on the topic, while completely ignoring the accusations of falsification of sourcing (with relevant diffs). Thanks for your useful contribution that in no one addresses the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, respectfully I am going to push back again. When have I rejected all attempts to tone down the certainty of the specific wording that's blowing dog whistles? To my knowledge no one has raised the issue of people hearing "dog whistles" until now. Are there any sources that corporate this? Re brevity, several of the over two dozen sources I have provided devote whole chapters (dozens of pages) to the breed's history. Have any MEDRS quality sources have been provided that present a contradictory position to the sources I have provided?

Throughout this you have asked me to justify my position on numerous occasions and put several propositions to me. I believe I have answered all of your questions and addressed every proposition you have put to me, with multiple sources corroborating my position. Cavalryman (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

A section has been opened at RSN, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#German hard cover to ePub. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• From the 45 minutes I just spent down that rabbit hole and will never get back I think a boomerang is in order for Cavalryman. The only question for me at this point is whether a topic or full ban would be more appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'll start by saying that I'm wiki-friends with Atsme, and that I've had some limited interactions with Cavalryman that were entirely pleasant. This thing started as a content dispute, and has escalated to where it is a real mess. In the RSN RfC, I went and looked at most of the disputed sources, and it looked to me like a case of some sources say one thing, and other sources say the other thing. I want to refer to the comment I made in that RfC, that "I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice." But clearly both editors believe so strongly in their respective readings of the source material, and feel so strongly about it, that it's become personal and splitting the difference is never going to happen voluntarily. There's not enough here to justify admin action against Atsme, and there's not enough here to justify a boomerang against Cavalryman. And any kind of mutual TBAN or IBAN would be far too blunt a tool. I note that Atsme says that she has taken this to T&S, and it may be best to defer admin action here until T&S does whatever T&S will or will not do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Struck part of my earlier comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I just re-read Atsme's comment, and I realize that she is planning to contact T&S, not that she has already done so. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm sure after I take T&S' new upcoming mandatory administrator training, I'll know exactly how to resolve this one with ease. LOL wbm1058 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You mean their mandatory re-education? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Now, now. Have faith in the Affections Committee. They do stuff and advance things, I'm sure! El_C 20:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

While a lot of this revolves around a content dispute, there are serious behavioral concerns raised in Cavalryman's post, and they deserve a less flippant admin response than they've received here to date.

• WP:HOUNDing: following their dispute about bull terriers, Atsme went to golden retriever—an article which Cavalryman had recently gotten promoted to GA, and which Atsme had never edited before—to incorrectly accuse Cavalryman of a copyvio (thread).
• Vexatious litigation: in this SPI report filed by Atsme against Cavalryman, the evidence is literally just... that two editors live in the same country of 25 million people and agree about something. This is an utterly frivolous and unsubstantiated report which weaponizes site process to tax Cavalryman's time.
• Most seriously, Cavalryman alleges, with supporting diffs, that Atsme either falsified sourcing or (in the most charitable interpretation) evinced a completely cavalier disregard for the verifiability and accuracy of cited material.

I'll leave it to someone with less prior negative experience with Atsme to determine the seriousness of those issues, but Cavalryman is a long-term productive editor in good standing with a clean block log and a strong contribution record, so he deserves the courtesy of having his concerns discussed seriously. Separately, the invocation of T&S is another example of weaponizing process to bully and intimidate an opponent in a content dispute; nothing described by Atsme here rises to a level that would warrant their involvement, and these threats therefore seem intended to have a chilling effect. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In which MastCell and the ill-disposed other editors have an argument

Maybe just leave her alone. You seem to pop up any time she is talked about anywhere. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Holy shit! Seconded. El_C 03:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC) There are few things that will bring MastCell out of his low activity, but a chance to attack Atsme is one of them. This is a very poor look for you. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) She's one of his worst sorts of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, I think we all agree that I suck. My point is that you all seem determined to do anything but examine the merits of Cavalryman's complaint, a point which you're underlining here. He deserves better. MastCell Talk 18:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC) To be fair, I'm ignoring hundreds of possibly fine complaints here, I was just sucked up into a nasty confluence of you people again. You all deserve nicer colleagues. Stop harassing yourselves! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC) I know this is piling on, but I feel a need to do so. As I hope MastCell knows, I've long been friendly with him and have a lot of respect for him. But he and Atsme just push one another's buttons. Having personally commented at the SPI, I'm a bit offended by MastCell's dismissive treatment of it. WP:BEANS, but let's just let the process play out. As I said earlier in this thread, there isn't enough here to justify admin action against either Atsme or Cavalryman, nor for that matter, against MastCell (not that that was ever on the table). I agree with the Hulk that we all should be nicer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've collapsed the above. It was singularly unhelpful all-around, and it's too easy for ANI to get derailed by these third-party discussions. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Anyway, main idea is a content dispute that went wrong. Any views on that, preferably from people who don't have a history with either party? Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a clear, well organized view on that. You collapsed it along with the rest of it. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Refactor as you feel appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And have the usual suspects launch into me with personal insults that I'm out to get Atsme? No, you're the uninvolved admin. If you think that it is appropriate to hide someone's directly on-topic comments because other people attacked the person making the comments, then we've all learned a valuable ANI debating tactic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Who was attacking whom is very much in the eye of the beholder here. Kudos to those with a semblance of institutional memory wrt this matter. El_C 15:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is something of a bravura performance, even for ANI. I hat a thread because it was completely derailed by discussion of a third party. Not helpful to anyone. You turn up and immediately make it about yourself. My idea was that someone who doesn't have a history with either of the two parties should try to comment. Surely there are such users out there, perhaps ones who won't engage in self-pitying snark, though that's probably hoping for too much. Someone else can hat this thread, also off-topic and completely unhelpful, at the appropriate time. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your hatting was sensible, I felt, Mackensen (though the collapsed summary, not so much). Your comment directly above even more so. I echo your exasperation. El_C 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MastCell's initial comment should stand, as it was not off-topic, only the responses were. Now it looks as though no-one has supported Cavalryman's position at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone with less prior negative experience with Atsme — key word, Pawnkingthree: pattern. El_C 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MastCell was upfront about his bias, yes. People comment all the time at ANI about editors with whom they have previously been in dispute. I don't see why we can't weigh the value of the comment ourselves.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll go through the (same?) motions next time Atsme is criticized on a conduct board and MastCell unsurprisingly shows up to opine, unsurprisingly against her. See you then. El_C 16:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll take Mackensen up on their suggestion. I've uncollapsed the part that should not have been collapsed. I've no objection if this part stays uncollapsed, or is collapsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs) --15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So uncollapse the comment from person whom you support in this matter, collapse those whom you oppose. Okay! El_C 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight. I and other editors who commented in the section that was collapsed are "ill-disposed", and then there is a post-collapse argument about the collapse, that is longer than the collapsed part. Maybe someone should simply close this entire mess, because it has clearly stopped being about the original complaint. Excuse me now, because I'm feeling ill-disposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read through the above, and all the diffs, in detail, but one particular comment stands out to me: She attempted to derail an SPI that would harm her cause. I handled the SPI case in question. Atsme made one comment there, to the effect that she wasn't persuaded that Platonk was a sock of Normal Op. She made no complaint when I came to the opposite conclusion. I do not believe that making a single comment, then immediately accepting the outcome, can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to derail anything. I also don't believe for a moment that, if Atsme had actually believed that it was a Normal Op sock, she would have spoken up to enable their continued socking (given the history). I'm quite certain that this was simply Atsme not being persuaded by the behavioural evidence, and I think that the OP should withdraw that part of their complaint here. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• OK, I'd invite an uninvolved party to evaluate just one of Cavalryman's complaints. Just one, so the quantity of information isn't overwhelming. Start with the easiest and most obvious. Cavalryman and Atsme are in a content dispute at one page. Atsme goes to Talk:Golden Retriever, an article and talk page she has never been to before, recently promoted to GA, and runs an Earwig tool copyvio check on it, and asks Cavalryman about his apparent copyright violation. The only possible explanation in the universe for doing this is looking for dirt on someone she's having a dispute with. This is textbook hounding. When others explain to her that it isn't a copyright violation, and instead the other website copied Wikipedia, she does not apologize. Instead, she says Cavalryman is obligated by WP policy to complain to the other website that they reused his content without permission. This also somehow proves he should be looking at his own contributions instead of disagreeing with Atsme. This shows a complete lack of understanding of copyright and of WP policy. Atsme is an OTRS volunteer (before you think this is unrelated, Atsme is the one who brought it up), and thinks this is how copyright and WP policy work. Before we move on to the SPI, can anyone uninvolved provide a believable non-hounding explanation for running Earwig's tool on one of Cavalryman's GA's? Can anyone uninvolved provide a believable non-CIR explanation for her confusion about editors' obligation to complain about a 3rd party's unattributed reuse of WP text? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The only possible explanation in the universe for doing this is looking for dirt on someone she's having a dispute with If you are starting your comment in bad faith, you can only expect others will treat it as such. But let me try to assume good faith and offer an explanation, and you can see if there is small section of the universe where it may be accepted. Atsme is a content editor interested in dogs, that should be obviously clear. She has also contributed to many GA's and FA's (indeed there is a thread on Atsme's talk page about an upcoming TFA which she contributed to), and likely interested in the quality of content for topics she's interested in. She had a concern about potential copyvio's, it was answered that the other source likely copied it from Wikipedia, and then she linked to a letter which is "meant to be sent to web sites (and their service providers) in order to explain the requirements of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and to urge compliance." An editor responded that there is no requirement for editors to act on possible off-wiki copyvios, another editor linked to a helpful essay, and Atsme seemingly accepted the explanation and dropped the topic. Why would she need to apologize for asking why the Earwig tool returned a high possibility of copy vio? It did return a high possibility, and then her concerns were addressed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This type of reply is frustrating (by design). A fantasy rationale where it just happened by coincidence to be Cavalryman's GA she checked is a bad faith insult to the reader's intelligence. If we're required to just swallow this as an actual possibility then all hope is lost. In that case, you really can obfuscate almost anything reported to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I feel your frustration, but disagree that this is textbook hounding. The lesson to be learned here is to always check the Internet Archive to make sure the other site's content is older than Wikipedia's, before going public with your copyvio investigation. This, AFAIK, is a one-off, from which hopefully a lesson was learned. It only becomes hounding if the lesson isn't learned and the behavior repeats, i.e. we see multiple talk-reports of possible copyvios that aren't (bots might be excused because coding to automatically check the Internet Archive is work for the bot's coder). wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058: That would be the lesson to be learned if I was just pointing out the fact that she was initially wrong. That is not my concern; people are allowed to accidentally misuse Earwig (even someone who makes a point of emphasizing in discussions that they are an OTRS volunteer who deals with copyright all the time and a NPP expert). My concern is the fact that she intentionally went digging for dirt on someone she was in a content dispute with, and has come up with a completely unbelievable explanation when asked why. Approximately the same level of unbelievability as Mr. Ernie's theory above. And further, once it was pointed out on the article talk page what had actually happened, she still claimed that this was a policy issue that Cavalryman didn't understand, and he should police his own edits instead of disagreeing with her. You say she's hopefully learned her lesson; could you re-read her latest post and explain how you get that? And while you're here, I notice above that you're saying Cavalryman has been arguing with everyone on the talk page, not just Atsme. Could you help me square that with Atsme's repeated claim that she's being targeted by Cavalryman? To the point where she has made two chilling threats of going to T&S to report him? Would you agree, based on your previous assessment of Cavalryman's behavior, that he is, in fact, not targeting Atsme, but is instead perhaps bludgeoning the discussion (I'm not 100% convinced on that, but I can see how others might be, so I'll say for the sake of the argument that he is)? If so, would you agree that it is a serious issue that she's repeatedly making this targeting accusation, and weaponizing T&S to win a content dispute? Does that not seem more a more serious behavioral issue than bludgeoning a discussion? If you don't end up at the same point that I am about this particular set of questions, I'm curious where we diverge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  You marinated your comment in sarcasm and baked it in bad faith. You said “let’s have someone uninvolved look into this issue which has only one answer in the universe and it should be obvious since it’s the way I see it,” which I assume was also by design. I’m willing to accept there may be other explanations. The universe is big. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe both editors to be good productive editors, but I do have a worry about Atsme suddenly arriving at a GA that Cavalryman had recently had promoted, and, well this thread is the result. Mr Ernie's defence above doesn't appear to address the elephant in the room. Certain other editors, supporting both "sides", don't appear to have come well out of this discussion either. So what do we do? Two-way IBAN? Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (Certain other editors??) Maybe a 2-way IBAN really would be the best path to getting back to productive editing. But there is the potential for locking both of them out of dog articles, so I think there would have to be some additional guidance over "who got there first". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I owe you an explanation, but above all, I don't want you to have a bad feeling about me based on the aspersions by the few detractors that repeatedly show-up wherever I'm involved. As Cavalryman mentioned above, I nominated him for EoW back in May 2020 after suggesting it to a former teammate William Harris. In retrospect, he was a different editor back then - especially in light of his apology to me for his disruption during the 2019 GA promotion of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and him gracefully admitting that there were indeed two theories about the dog's ancestral origins. Why that changed 2 years later, I don't know. The editor we're dealing with now is not as willing to admit he's wrong or to apologize for the nasty things he has said about me that simply are not true. I take my volunteer work on WP seriously as a team member of Project Dogs, and I also take GA-FA promotions very seriously as an editor who has been involved in reviewing/promoting 8 FAs, 19 GAs, and 8 FPs (3 of which were PoY finalists). I was naturally interested in the recent GA promotion by an editor I once nominated for EoW and considered a team member. It's natural for me to want to see his work as an editor as it is a reflection on WP, the project team, and my credibility as a former nominator. I saw that the GA failed, and naturally ran Earwig first thing to get that out of the way - it's spontaneous for me. The result was like 70%, and I was pressed for time, so I simply asked instead of doing the research myself. My bad. I then scanned over the failed review, and according to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Failing, you're suppose to close a failed review, and re-open a new one as GA2. In this case, Cavalryman immediately requested another opinion the same day it failed - typical behavior demonstrating his refusal to accept that the earth may actually be round. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I would not have failed it, but his actions overall should definitely be considered. When you read the second review, there was alot of updating and fixing, and JLAN even got involved. There is also a proper process that was not followed once a GA is failed. Bottomline: I did not accuse Calvaryman of a copyvio - I simply made sure there were none. If that is what is considered retaliation or disruptive behavior, then I don't need to be editing WP. What we're seeing now with this ANI filing is Cavalryman's retaliation over my filing the SPI. And what message does that send, BK? That whenever an editor files a SPI, they get taken to ANI with a poopcart full of innocuous diffs, and t-banned, blocked, or site-banned? I will be happy to answer any questions you may have because I am not the editor my detractors are attempting to portray, and I don't deserve to be treated in this manner for doing my job. Atsme 💬 📧 19:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I had popped into the talk page discussion originating this dispute earlier on. I was struck at the time by the fact that Cavalryman was responding to every contrary opinion that was raised there (not just those expressed by Atsme). In my experience, this is often a bad sign (and before anyone goes searching for it, yes, there has been a discussion or two where I have tended towards this, and when I go back and look at those discussions later, I often find that my position was overly stringent). BD2412 T 20:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • BD2412, what you say here is consistent with what Wbm1058 said earlier here. I'm inclined to take that as the strongest argument given against Cavalryman in this discussion. And I'm inclined to take what Floquenbeam said here as the strongest argument given here against Atsme. It seems to me that the back-and-forth has been going on in this ANI section for some time now, and it would be best to see where it is heading. One option would be to have some sort of 2-way IBAN, and another would be to just close it. (At least, those are the two options I personally would be most comfortable with.) Perhaps editors can discuss how to proceed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Tryptofish: That would be correct. This is a case of two generally productive editors getting rather deeply into a content dispute, through in the original discussion I think Cavalryman was generally the more aggressive in asserting their position against all editors (not just Atsme). BD2412 T 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

BD2412, you have pinged me so I am responding. With the exception of comments from editors that were identified immediately as TBAN-evading sockpuppets (and even then), can you provide any examples of me being aggressive in asserting my position? I believe the vast majority of my replies were attempts to verify what sources were being used to justify certain statements. I appreciate a quick review of the merger proposal makes it look busy, but upon scrutinising the date stamps you will see the discussion plodded along for over six months before the current dispute started, whole months passed between comments. Cavalryman (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

• This seems more like an attempt to find justification for the false claims made against me because every. single. claim. he made about me is misinformation. I can assure you, I had a valid reason for my actions, while his TE, reverts, demands, misinformation, IPs showing up in support of his unsupported fringe theory, SPI concerns and everything else I've stated above is the result of his refusal to let it go. He did not gain consensus, behaved badly in 2019 and is now repeating that behavior today, but worse. As for Flo's concern about the copyvio issue, he could've just asked me, but I'm already guilty because of his preconceived notions. I'm not going there with more diffs, done. You want to know why I did a copyvio check - it's right here. The GAC failed and was renominated. I did not dig into it because of time constraints, so I simply did a quick copyvio check to see if maybe that was the initial problem. I simply asked about it - and just look at this mountain that was created out of a frog wart. As for Girth's explaination about the socking - I would think he cut it short out of respect for me, and I appreciate that, but here I am now under attack so I might as well reveal that I provided more evidence privately because of my concerns over retaliation by that sock. Back in 2020, after the article was promoted to GA, SMcCandlish and I were both outed off-wiki. We were lied about and were under attack by a BSL advocate. And let's not forget, Cavalryman's apology in 2019 for the same thing he's doing now after he finally admitted to the two theories - completely opposite what he's doing now; i.e. attempting to destroy a GA with a ridiculous claim that defies logic. Multiple RS, and I didn't bother to list them all to prove common knowledge that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not the renamed bull and terrier. The Kennel Club - the breed registry that accepted the breed as a purebred and accepted the name for that pedigreed dog confirms what I'm saying, and it is publicly published online on their website. The email verification that was sent to me yesterday can be seen by those with access to VRT Ticket#2022030910008018 - read it for yourselves. And what makes it worse, is that I did include those theories per DUE in the article but refused to do it in Wikivoice which is what Cavalryman has made all this fuss over. Just look at what has happened as a result of not getting his way. It's a sad state of affairs. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme, I just want to be fair here, so I have a question about the copyvio check. I'm not seeing why a prompt renomination for GA would imply that there had been copyvio issues, or why you would feel the need to check whether it had been the reason when you could easily see the first GA review. Can you either clarify that, or reconsider? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Tryp, if you were being fair, you would be asking Calvaryman why his 1st GAC failed, and was renominated the same day as if the fail never happened. As for the copyvio check, it's habit for me as a longtime NPP reviewer. I picked up that habit before we got the curation tool - it's second nature. I never imagined it would be a reason to bring an editor to ANI, especially considering the bullying, disruptive behavior and repetitive demands that I've had to endure by my accuser. Atsme 💬 📧 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I think he explains the renomination here: [107], and I don't have a problem with that explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• All this fighting over types of dog that were first bred for fighting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You forgot to mention the accusations of hounding. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And WP:BITE! Anyway, I'm probably one of those "certain other editors". I can't comment on the dispute, as I stepped right into it when I nominated Staffordshire Bull Terrier for GA review (in the gravely mistaken belief that that would concentrate attention on the article rather than the argument). I've had pleasant interactions with both parties, and am hoping that a solution will be found here that will both put an end to this, and allow both to continue editing in their areas of expertise. It needs to end now.

The history of the Golden Retriever GA nomination, fail and re-nomination is all plainly documented at Talk:Golden Retriever (yes, I had a – fairly minimal – finger in that pie too). There was no suggestion that it was failed for copyvio reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that, at this point, it just needs to end now. I'm beginning to think that we should page-ban both editors from Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I think that an IBAN would lead to too much difficulty over who got to a given dog page first. And I now think we are past the point where closing with no action would be a sufficient outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, what you're telling me is that Cavalryman's IDONTLIKEIT, TE behavior, aspersions against me, forum-shopping, and tag bombing a GA promoted article is acceptable behavior. But me doing a simple copyvio check on a failed GA that was quickly renominated is ok? I've demonstrated that he doesn't like it when he doesn't get his way - to the point that he bullies editors. He didn't like that his GA failed, so he turned right around and got someone else to pass it for him the same day - and that's acceptable? And so we bury our heads in the sand and say, well...there's nothing wrong with what he did - Atsme was wrong for doing a simple copyvio check on a failed GA. And that he did nothing wrong when he started bullying me, making demands, HOUNDING, reverting after I refused to give him his way by not allowing him to state false information in Wikivoice. That makes me the bad guy? I'm the one you want to punish because he didn't like that he failed to gain consensus for the merge and that I refused to violate NPOV and OR? That's the message you're sending? Have a good rest of your day. Atsme 💬 📧 22:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This started as a content dispute, and it should have stayed there. Both editors are valued content contributors, both have done some things that are suboptimal, and the individual incidents on either side do not, in isolation, rise to anything ANI-actionable. The real problem is that both editors have, cumulatively, raised the dispute to where it won't self-resolve. Neither is willing to just drop the WP:STICK. I think they should both be page-blocked from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier page and banned from discussing that breed in any namespace, and warned not to dispute with each other at other pages. That would shut down the locus of the dispute without impeding either editor from working on other dog pages. It's really saddening that nobody was willing to just reach a compromise, but here we are. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Be careful what you propose if you still want to be Atsme's wiki-friend. Rather than a page block, maybe it would be better to ban them from

• Filing sock puppet investigations
• Placing {{POV}} tags on articles
• Filing copyright-vio reports
• Proposing article merges
• Putting Good Articles up for review
• Posting any RfC at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

and maybe a couple other things too that don't immediately come to mind. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wbm, despite what some other editors have said about me at various places, I try to balance my wiki-friendships with what I hope might be the right thing. And I can be friends with someone without needing to agree with them. Maybe I over-reacted yesterday to the implication that I wasn't being fair. At first, I thought you were serious about that list, but now I'm guessing that you are saying it tongue-in-cheek. In any case, ANI really is a cesspit, and I'm starting to regret that I ever participated in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I did compromise, and he refused to accept it. What he wants to do will destroy a long-standing stable GA, not improve it. He wants to add noncompliant OR and NPOV material in a GA - that's Planet Mars. His proposed merge of The Bull and terrier article (which failed to get consensus) would destroy an important historic reference that at least 6 modern dog breed articles rely on. He also wants to state in Wikivoice that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the renamed bull and terrier from the 1800s. It defies logic – there are 5 other purebred dogs with the same ancestry. What happens to them? Bull and terrier is not a breed, it's a heterogenous group of dogs. How can a modern purebred be the common ancestor of modern purebreds? It's absurd. In addition to numerous sources, I even received email verification from The Kennel Club that supports my position - it is available as a VRTS ticket. Calvaryman is disputing the indisputable. I sought advice from Tryp here, and it ended with the following conclusion: ...so to say in Wikivoice that this is the fact of the matter would be OR or POV. I think that the page could say something like "some sources say that the SBT is the same as the BaT (cite sources inline), while other sources say it is not (cite sources inline)". That information is included in the article, and was subsequently tagged by Cavalryman during one of his tag bombing episodes - ironic isn't it: There are unsupported theories or opinions that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier[original research?] rather than one of several descendants that have been standardized as modern purebreds without taking into consideration important evolutionary factors considered to be "very often misquoted and misunderstood."[27][28][improper synthesis?] This whole case against me is a travesty. Atsme 💬 📧 07:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme, it's true that I gave you that advice, and it's true that you worked to make it that way on the page, and it's true that Cavalryman got in the way of that. You asked my advice then, and you didn't ask my advice now, but I'm going to give you some advice anyway. Cavalryman has made his disagreements with you much more personal than he needed to or should have done. But you also made it too personal. Being "right" about a content issue isn't a license to go personal at the person who disagrees with you. Nothing you've done really justifies Cavalryman taking you to ANI. But nothing he has done really would be a matter for T&S. (I tried to give you room to do that, at the start of this ANI thread, but, come on.) When you implied that I (of all people!) was being unfair to you, you also posted a lengthy complaint here that you have been absolutely blameless and that everything, everything, here is, as you say just above, "a travesty". No one likes to see a refusal to be introspective, a refusal to meet others half-way. Throughout this content dispute, there have been plenty of times when you could have said something like I disagree with you and here's why but I see where you are coming from, but I ask you to see what I'm saying. Not saying it's "Planet Mars". Even if you are sure it is. Editors here at ANI shouldn't have to drag it out of you to say that although you didn't mean any harm with the copyvio check and it was just something you do routinely, you can see how someone else would have seen it differently and you want to assure them that it was not your intent. You did say "my bad" in your reply above to Black Kite, but one has to go searching and searching for it before getting to that in this thread. If you (and, equally, Cavalryman) had taken that stance from the start, we would never have gotten here to ANI. This should have been a content dispute, in which both editors should have tried to be gracious instead of adamant. So here we are, with no resolution of this WP:Cesspit in sight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Tryptofish that "This started as a content dispute, and it should have stayed there. Both editors are valued content contributors, both have done some things that are suboptimal, and the individual incidents on either side do not, in isolation, rise to anything ANI-actionable." If both parties would step away from the subject for a month or so, other editors should be able to resolve the underlying issue (of interpretation of sources, which sometimes seem to contradict each other), given that we've had several very in-depth discussions already. There's more than enough to go on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Mickie-Mickie‎ and intractable personal attacks

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

---

• User:Mickie-Mickie is treating the article 1987 Lieyu massacre‎ as their personal property. Their conduct is becoming increasing disruptive and has now escalated to edit warring paired with a blanket refusal to engage on the talk page. There is an odd obsession here with "sabotage" and suspected political enemies. Attacks primarily occur in edit summaries but also user and article talk pages. Issue is most egregious at 1987 Lieyu massacre but is also present on other pages such as Capture of the Tuapse. I first tried addressing the ownership issue in 2020[108], didn't get through apparently.
• October 2020 edit summary "1) Recover last sabotage removal of non-deprecated ref; 2) Add late footage on 3rd/last crime scene of Wall in 2019; 3) Add localized notes & references"[109]
• October 2020 edit summary "Revert the repeated abusive offense of (talk) as Gen. Zhao's resume reference is well-known originated from the official archive of Nanhwa Couty, Yunan, PRC, not fit in the deprecation category" [110]
• October 2020 edit summary "Revert the sabotage without even explanation for a reason on which part is the untruth. Please exam the referred content before making judgement." [111]
• October 2020 talk page comment "Dear HorseEye's Back, Wikipedia is an open resource, hence nobody claims the ownership on any article here. Please don't put your words on other people's mouths as in your talk page, or in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion before. The entire process of research and edits are to seek the truth whereas the public has the right to know, particularly when the evidences were systematically destroyed and the witnesses were silenced as dead people can't talk with 30 years of denial, ignorance and lies to forge a fake hero prestige covering fascism and protecting privileges till the military literature award still cheating the public last autumn... Every clue of intelligence and forensics is open to exam, and you are surely welcome to join in filling the missing link in history at any time of your preference. However dictating a simplified "gold rule" to eliminate reference unprofessionally against the freedom of media with a hidden agenda in another 30 years will not be possible. We were nobody but little servicemen simply let people know what happened to prevent the history repeating by any excuse again. Thanks for your attention, and hope you have a good day!"[112]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious Sabotage of mass deletion"[113]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious Sabotage of mass deletion - these legal references are for those still refusing to recognize the international laws and continuously defending the cause as legitimate." [114]
• March 2021 edit summary "See Also section here displayed for the related legal references for the concerned readers due to serious argument till today. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare. Respect yourself."[115]
• March 2021 user talk page comment " 1. The legal references were listed for the concerned officials and population who still refuse to recognize the responsibility and international laws, then continuously defend the causes of operations as legitimate as per the serious arguments till today. 2. Edit war is disruptive with the mass deletion manipulated for the further operation. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare, especially started with an anonymous account to launch a cover-up operation. 3. It appears that more alt accounts will be set up to proceed further cover-up operation. It's really low to cheat the public by cutting off the legal references and evidences even with the belief as justifiable as per your ideology."[116]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious sabotage of mass deletion"[117]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the groundless accusation - lease read clearly the sources before hasty conclusion, and put questions in the Discussion page"[118]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the sabotage before the 35 memorial anniversary"[119]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the sabotage and the cover-up operation"[120]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed the malicious judgment by a disputed Chinese nationalist on media"
• March 2022 talk page heading "Stop sabotaging the historical page of 1987 Lieyu massacre"[121]
• March 2022 edit summary "Undid revision 1075777201 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) whose radical ideology of advocating Chinese nationalism on Taiwan in Wikipedia forums leaving no room to comment anymore."[122]
• March 2022 edit summary "self-named "deep green" wouldn't quarrel ROC and Taiwan as the same in Wiki forums, and revokes over 80 international laws on this Taiwanese subject for political warfare sabotage purposes."[123]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed the malicious personal attack"[124]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed a direct attack and manipulated description"[125]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed a political-motivated sabotage action"[126]
• March 2022 talk page comment "Wow, bravo! you surely got the great talent to mis-use "We don't seek the truth" gold rule to cover up then justify the evil doings. Dr. Tunchi Chang is the truth investigation committee member of the DDP government being assigned to the re-investigate this case, and the interviews with the witnesses at scene are revealed. Second-lieutenant Wenhsiao Liu is a secondary witness himself, who has followed this case for 35 years but still got unanswered but only being insulted. Their open statements are far more creditable than your mind attempt, and now you are putting your own words in other people's mouths again. Nobody ever owns the page, but stop sabotaging the collection of historical statements either."[127]

• PS this user is highly reminiscent of an LTA I remember from 2019 or so (particularly insisting that among other things Taiwan has tested a nuclear weapon) but I can't find the LTA case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Mickie-Mickie#Block. El_C 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Do this user's contributions need to be checked for neutrality? He recently wrote Capture of the Tuapse, which does not present the Taiwanese side of this incident at all, and many of the most controversial claims are sourced to (mainland) Chinese and Russian sources, making me concerned about accuracy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a matter for editors, not admin. Admin do not decide content. We sometimes determine suitability, but making the articles neutral doesn't require the admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

DWC LR monarchism civil push-pov

DWC LR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is moving Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza against sources, since the guy is not a prince, as you can see in pt-wp: pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança. Monarchists are allways trying to push the "prince", but our brave Awikimate stops them in pt-wp. The en-wp page was stable since 2020, but was moved by a sockpuppet and was corrected recently. Now DWC LR start moves with nonsense summaries:

1. unexplained & undiscussed move

2. Revert undiscussed POV move

3. This is controversial, if you think this should be moved please initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves and present supporting evidence. Thanks.

After the discussion starts, the civil-push-pov without RS is presented in plain form: [128]. DWC LC states in his user page that he is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, then we can suppose that he knows the sources about the subject, but he not presents them. Please, stop this disruptive behaviour because trying to engage in discussion with this type of user is very tiresome and not productive. Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean Monarchism (or possibly Monorchism, though I don't have a source for that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks AndyTheGrump for correction of my bad english. I changed it. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

... the Monarchists! --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(No one born in 1941 is a Brazilian prince, for obvious reasons.) --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Explain this page, then: Prince of Brazil (Brazil) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the lead section correctly identifies "Prince of Brazil" as a title that existed (please note the past tense) during the Empire of Brazil. Then (as is common for our articles about royal titles) ridiculous monarchists have larded the body with an uncited list of people who definitely were not princes or princesses of the Empire of Brazil, since they were born after the Empire of Brazil had ceased to exist. Does that help? --JBL (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Bloody monarchists! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Like, the article about "an imperial title" has a list labeled "post-monarchy" -- that doesn't raise any red flags for you? --JBL (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes—I was calling it out for having misinformation. Hard to convey sarcasm in text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the point! I've gone ahead and removed the uncited list of "post-monarchy" princes from that page. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles which misrepresent living individuals as 'royalty' due to descent from a defunct monarchy are quite probably a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are lots of these on WP since the media does like calling such people princes and princesses. As they are pretty much absent in other type of sources, and we have no policy regarding claimants (most of which are AfD material, IMHO) you get stuck with the royal claims.Anonimu (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should delete the bio's as fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: can you give us your wisdom to this question. A Hungarian living in Hungary born female then today said they were male. Legally in Hungary you can’t change gender. So Male or Female? Applying the same logic as you have for this “Prince”, female correct? - dwc lr (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I bet this discussion will totally benefit from dragging in a totally unrelated, much more inflammatory topic :eyeroll:. What I can very confidently assure you is that if the person in question was born in 1920 or later, they are not a prince or princess of the Austro-Hungarian empire. —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good politicians answer your obviously good law abiding citizen ;) but your statement is dangerous and could have far reaching unforeseen consequences on Wikipedia if we are guided by National laws only, as I have highlighted with my example. But really I have nothing else to add to this spurious noticeboard posting you’ll no doubt be pleased here. - dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He does have a point though: he is reverting a previous undiscussed page move and suggested an RM to resolve, so why not take that option? I don't see why this needs to be at ANI which shouldn't be used for a run-of-the-mill page name dispute. Spike 'em (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And the page was not stable without Prince since 2020: it was moved there March 2020 but then moved back in May 2020, having previously had Prince in the title since 2006. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest page move and created an RM on this. As above and below, the page has had "Prince" in the title for all but 2 months of its history. It was moved as Ixocactus states above in March 2020, but that was reverted 6 weeks later. The current move warring started a week ago with a move away from the previous stable name. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this serious? @Ixocactus: if you think the page title should be moved open a WP:RM, present your Reliable Sources where a discussion and consensus can be reached rather than start a war, this article isn’t the country of Ukraine and there many reliable sources with an alternative views to yours which I assume are still allowed in Wikipedia. The article title has had “Prince” in it since 2005 when it was created. - dwc lr (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

“this article isn’t the country of Ukraine” Wow, that makes two grossly inappropriate analogies in the length of two short posts —- wtf? —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I am moving away from the discussion. Civil-push-pov/wikilawering is not my beach and english wiriting is very time consuming. Brazil expelled royalty in 1889 and no one takes monarchists seriously. Thanks to fellow wikipedians for the support. To monarchists, enjoy your "prince" because en-wp is your last bastion. Ixocactus (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You are just as guilty of POV pushing as the person you are accusing. You were also clearly wrong about the stability of the page name. What happens on pt-wp does not override what is decided here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"POV-pushing" is not really the problem here: there is (1) the move-war, in which both parties were equally culpable (and that had ended, but that you (Spike 'em) have now extended for no good reason) and (2) the substantive question of what is the right title (and Ixocactus is obviously correct about what the answer is, but now you (Spike 'em) have moved it back to the definitely wrong title). --JBL (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words, Spike 'em. You are invited to rename pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança and fr:Bertrand d'Orléans-Bragance. Ixocactus (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The page title was stable for most of its 16 year history, and the approved way to resolve any disputes over the name is the RM process, not move warring : Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Ixocactus created this farago by making the second move to the princeless title, in contravention of these instructions. If they really are "obviously correct" then someone should state the reasons, including with how it fits into WP:AT at the RM created. (Though I have no idea what this has to do with gender politics in Hungary or the war in Ukraine, so if this is part of some other dispute then it is going over my head). Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the guidelines are for article titles on other language wikis so I will not be getting involved in either of those. If you want to change article titles on en.wiki then you need to follow the guidelines here. I've started the process off, so make your representations on the move request. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll this is not new behavior. DWL CR has been making grossly inappropriate comparisons to transgender recognition for years. He even uses the same offensive "example"... JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: ugh gross; "thanks" I guess :-/. Anyhow hopefully people will mosey on over to the RM that Spike 'em started at Talk:Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza. --JBL (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, the widespread monarchist POV-pushing has continued: see [129] and [130] for example. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

this is harassment now. Completely unrelated to the request move, Luiz of Orleans-Braganza is not up for discussion, his brother is. It may be next but at present it’s not. I added sourced material summarising what *is actually* is the Ottoman article see the list of heirs since 1922 section… - dwc lr (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

DWC LR's repeated edgelord behavior, after warnings

DWL CR is continuing to equate recognizing defunct titles with recognizing transgender identity, and has made some highly uncivil assertions about support !voters at the RfC. Can an admin please address this? JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I have added a section heading because I think this is a sufficiently separate issue to merit it. (Actually I was about to start a separate discussion but luckily I saw your comment first.) To collect the evidence for administrators in one place: in the discussion above, DWC LR made grossly inappropriate comparisons involving their obsessive hobby-horse and transgender identity and the war in Ukraine. As JoelleJay noted above, this uncivil, intentionally offensive behavior has occurred many times in the past (links repeated for convenience: [131] [132] [133] [134]), and it has also continued in the last few days [135] [136], including after explicit warnings above and here that it was offensive and unwelcome. I request an indefinite block to address this chronic nastiness, since it seems likely that DWC LR will ignore anything less. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This comparison offends some peoples sensitives because it either exposes 1) hypocrisy or 2) bigotry of one type or another (class, trans etc) but it has profound and far reaching consequences for Wikipedia. On the one hand someone like JoelleJay says we can’t possibly say a member of a deposed royal family is a Prince or Princess because the *law* of the country says so, they are 100% not a Prince/Princess despite the fact they are called such by the majority of Reliable Sources. So following her logic through because the *law* says you can’t change gender then a female citizen of Hungary for example who said they were now male would still *legally* be female. So by JoelleJay’s logic on Wikipedia if we had an article on this person then they would have to be referred to as female still as that is the *legal* reality. But I completely oppose this bigoted logic of JoelleJay and anyone else who follows this logic. - dwc lr (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

i support the this proposal. If you don't understand how comparing someones rights to a title or how comparing an article to a country at war is uncivil then you shouldn't be here—blindlynx 17:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have never attacked trans people or disparaged them so frankly I have nothing to answer for, if people dislike a comparison I can’t help it they should perhaps stay off the internet, away from newspapers and indoors if they are so easily offended. Anyway as I say below Wikipedia is not about you or me or our views, if you don’t understand that then I’m sorry but should you be here? Wikipedia is about policy, it’s about what Reliable Sources say, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia Editors on any number of topics. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Given DWC LR's responses doubling down on the comparison here and at the RfC, I support an indef block for disruption and NOTHERE reasons. Although since he's never received an initial formal warning I suspect that will be the outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s obvious I have not disparaged any groups of people, if you are so easily offended how is that my fault? At the end of the day on the issue at the RM it’s irrelevant what you think, or what I think. Wikipedia is about policy, about what is verifiable WP:Verifiability and presenting different points of view WP:Neutral point of view. So the fact the majority of sources still recognise titles for deposed royals is unbelievably easy to verify so this issue will never go away or be suppressed. Is this the true reason behind this spurious ban attempt, to shut down and suppress view points you disagree with. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DWC LR blocked for two weeks, for the totally inappropriate gender comparisons and the pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF in their most recent comments here. The princely behavior is likewise troubling but, for now, beyond the scope of this ANI post--or beyond my scope at this time. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this more of a strained attempt at a metaphor than an insult? I really don't think someone should be blocked for that. I'm not commenting about the AGF stuff, though. But I don't think someone should be punished just for the gender identity comments. Viewing them as equivalent is weird, but not inherently offensive. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And now there is this rant, with further accusations of collusion, besides misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If gender identity isn't comparable to other self-identifications then MOS:IDENTITY shouldn't have "gender identity" as a subheading. If our guidelines say gender identity is a sub-issue of self-identification rather than being in a class of its own then is that not a tangential issue that should be addressed by administrative action? Given that we've established making the comparison is an blockable offence perhaps the heading should be upgraded so we don't have a guideline saying something that goes against the party line. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In keeping with this I've gone ahead and made the change myself. [137] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

“Against the party line” reassuring when trolling comes so well labeled! —JBL (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, incivility and OWNership

Walter Görlitz has made several incivil and rude comments to myself and other editors over the past few days while edit warring at Charlotte FC and New England Revolution, two articles in their "territory".

• Deciding to skip the last step in BRD, Walter Görlitz decides to double down on a claimed ENGVAR convention that is not present in other American English articles on soccer. They later self-revert.
• Following a routine cleanup of disruptive edits by an uninvolved user warned several times for making mass changes, my talk page is graced with a "reminder".
• After reverting the message on my talk page, in line with policies on page blanking within one's own userspace, Walter Görlitz decides to post a longer message that begins with belittlement ("You either do not understand what a revert is").
• After asking them to back off, I'm pinged inappropriately at Talk:Charlotte FC by a message that includes "so, yes, you do need an instructional session on WP:3RR". Again, a belittling statement.
• After I asked them not to message me again, they respond with "I'll message you until i feel you get the message", which is textbook hounding.
• Walter Görlitz then reverts an addition by Oluwasegu to New England Revolution that was made in good faith, starting another edit war.
• They then return to Charlotte FC to remove an entire section without discussion, which I revert and they revert back.

The basis of the new content dispute is whether mentioning previous soccer teams in a given city is appropriate for an article on a modern soccer team. Given that this hasn't been an issue in existing FAs (such as Seattle Sounders FC) and not brought up in the two years that Charlotte FC has had the section, it seems to have be a personal opinion.

What I take issue with is the clearly combative manner in which these comments are made, as if questioning the competence of every other user. I'll note that Walter Görlitz had been blocked previously for edit warring and personal attacks (including the same brand of incivil comments) and has not learned their lesson. I'm seeking guidance while I try to find some enjoyment while editing, which has hard to find in the past few days. SounderBruce 06:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I erred. I was reverted by another editor and did not notice it was the same e4ditor. I opened a discussion and am happy to self-revert. No ownership implied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And I am not returning to the article, it, and all MLS articles, are on my watch list. These are not edit wars, they are an application of previous seen actions as I mentioned on the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme and Estonian POV

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.

---

Shorter version - editor involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, and clear POV edits.

Longer version - H2ppyme (talk · contribs) is involved in edits like this, removing reference to the historical Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this, adding in clear POV of 'Soviet-occupied Estonia' and very concerning POV edit summaries like "Estonia was illegally occupied at the time". A quick look at their contribs shows that myself and many other editors have been reverted, sometimes multiple times. We need a topic ban or block to prevent ongoing disruption. GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [138], [139] and [140]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [141][142] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanna mention that the editor in question has been engaging in this behavior for years and was already warned and blocked for exactly the same actions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

State continuity of the Baltic states, please have a read. I'm pretty sure H2ppyme acts in good faith, unless the user broke the 3RR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [143], [144] and [145]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't covered what's been going on at non-ice hockey articles. But, I do know it's frustrating for us WP:HOCKEY members, to have to continue to revert such PoV edits on ice hockey (particularly player bios) articles, from time to time. Regrettably, if such PoV edits continue to be pushed on those articles-in-question? I fear that eventually, Arbcom may have to step in. This is no longer an issue of content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously ice hockey was especially important for Soviets, and is now for Putin (to alleviate the inferiority complex). Should his troll factory ever target wiki-topics, then hockey would be a logical one to start with. Of course, hopefully there are no paid trolls participating in the incident here. Nevertheless, in case there are some, let's have some human empathy for them – it's better to work, work hard, and hang on to a nice warm office job instead of being treated as cheap cannon fodder and sent to some seriously snowy, muddy and bloody battle in Ukraine, for example.80.26.203.48 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - and this is conduct which they have been warned about/blocked for before (please see diffs above) - although they have not edited in 2 days so the disruption has technically stopped. I suggest their edits are reverted and we monitor from there? GiantSnowman 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Long standing edit consensus on Baltic States related articles have been to use only short name, not full political name, as is standard in WP as also noted above by BilledMammal. Even the hockey does it China is listed as just China, not People's Republic of China. He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc. I noticed that a user with administrator privileges was reverting the edits. So i went to their page and asked few questions, but all I got was smirky sarcastic FO by WP admininistrator saying that Estonia should be removed and just Soviet Union be left. No explanation, no arguments. That's the level of administration in Wikipedia. what about WP:ADMINCOND? Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is because our article is just on China, not People's Republic of China. This is not, despite what you think, a political decision - it is merely reflecting the historical name of the country as confirmed by WP:MOSGEO. GiantSnowman 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell me? China is the common name, People's Republic of China is full political name of the state. China covers all the culture and history of China, same as Estonia covers all about Estonia including the Soviet period. --Klõps (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Estonian SSR was commonly known as Estonia btw. --Klõps (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

People's Republic of China and China are the same article, whereas we have separate articles on Estonia and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (and Governorate of Estonia) to reflect the changing political nature of the country over time. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Per Infobox person Countries should generally not be linked.That's why opening random Chinese hockey players most are China unlinked He Xin (ice hockey), and even Xi Jinping article has Beijing, China (unlinked). That's not a factor, and besides that Article Estonia has section about Estonian SSR. This is not really convincing argument from you. --Klõps (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Klõps: Perceived incivility does not justify obvious incivility. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Come on. You have higher authority here as a moderator, but instead of moderating you just answered with a sarcastic insult. Nothing to Percieve here. As a moderator you should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. WP:ADMINCOND, what you did was WP:ADMINACCT failure to communicate.

It's clear whats is going on here. User H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made some good faith edits restoring the articles with what has been a long standing edit consensus of having only Estonia listed as birth/death place in infobox. As seen it is standard to use common name even in WP:HOCKEY biographies (eg China instead of People's Republic of China) He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc to take some random articles. What followed is really toxic, he got attacked by a couple of moderators with highly opinionated opposite POV as you and GiantSnowman have clearly stated to support the opposite POV. WP:ADMINCOND if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith. You have both misused the moral highground that you have been given. --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea no, I don't think it's that simple at all. As was noted above H2ppyme synthesized ″information″ from a source to include content about Estonia on Geats and then participated in some minor edit warring once that was pointed out, that doesn't seem like good faith editing to me, that seems more like shoehorning Estonian content into where it doesn't belong. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

So now @Klõps: is engaged in the exact same edits as H2ppyme was (same article as well!). Disruptive edits, meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it time for a sockpuppet investigation?--Berig (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored it to the state before the edit war. I do not know H2ppyme. This is my only account. --Klõps (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If so you would not mind a sockpuppet investigation. It would only prove that you are not the same user.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, what do I have to do? --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There isn't anything; requests to prove you are not the same user are not accepted. If Berig believes they have sufficient behavioural evidence, they should submit a request at WP:SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is sock puppetry, but definitely a small group of editors closing ranks and covering each other's backs. Offline collusion? I couldn't possibly say. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Klõps, why are you removing in-line citations and valid parameters from infoboxes? GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, given the comments here that removing reference to Estonian SSR is disruptive, please can somebody restore the previous version on Friedrich Karm? GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In agreement, that it should be restored. But, if I restore it? members from WP:ESTONIA might disrupt the ice hockey bios again, particularly Leo Komarov. There's a kinda truce between both WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: feel free to post at Talk:Friedrich Karm and see if you can persuade @BilledMammal: to change it back... GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing BilledMammal involved in this topic-in-question, in the past. Would suggest that he back away from it. He seems to have taken the side of the Estonian-POV argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic bans for Estonian POV

There is a very long-standing issue with Estonian editors doing this sort of thing, and when challenged, several of them will turn up to the same discussion to back each other up (exactly as has happened here). Personally I would strongly support a topic ban for anything related to pre-1991 Estonia for these editors, as this has been going on for over a decade. Number 57 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds serious, indeed.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits for Klõps and H2ppyme (I am personally unaware of any other editors involved in this behaviour). GiantSnowman 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this is edit warring, the example provided includes edit warring by both "sides" (four reverts by GiantSnowman, three by H2ppyme, two by Klõps, with the status quo being the one supported by H2ppyme and Klõps), and it is not sufficient to warrant a full topic ban, particularly as such a sanction would go far beyond the issues discussed here. Give warnings to all parties, reminding them of WP:BRD and MOS:RETAIN, and if any party attempts to implement a change to the format through edit warring in the future we can return to ANI and consider actual sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would also note that so far the only evidence of Klõps "misbehaving" is two reverts to restore the status quo at a single article - it is not clear why they are grouped with this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Because they are engaged in the exact same disruptive editing and have been for some time (i.e. removing all mention of Estonian SSR/Soviet Union from appropriate historical context - see this and this and this and many, many more). GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How are those changes disruptive? You obviously are on one "side" of this content dispute, but as there is no global consensus (attempts to find one have always ended in "no consensus") it is appropriate to find local consensuses, and that can include finding such consensuses by editing as it appears they are doing in those examples. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you look at something like Leo Komarov, you will see that H2ppyme was making the same edit (changing Estonian SSR to Estonia) multiple times between 2014 and yesterday, calling their opponents "Kremlin trolls", every time they were reverted back, and they have, as far as I see, zero edits at the talk page, where the topic has been extensively discussed (and there is either no consensus, or possibly even consensus against H2ppyme). This is massive edit-warring for 8 years, mixed with personal attacks. Irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but that doesn't answer why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme - I am not seeing any basis for them being brought here, except for the fact that they are on the same side of the content dispute as H2ppyme.

H2ppyme does have a case to answer beyond edit warring, but I don't believe that a topic ban is appropriate for them at this point; they've only been blocked once, eight years ago, and aside from this recent discussion no one has attempted to discuss WP:CIVIL with them, or WP:EW since that block eight years ago. In other words, I've seen no evidence that a warning won't work, and I believe we should give it a chance. Specifically, give GiantSnowman, H2ppyme, and maybe Klõps a warning for edit warring, and H2ppyme a warning for personal attacks, and if any of them continue the behaviour we can return here and implement topic bans. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Klops has retired. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question of "why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme", it's because they have been part of the small group of editors doing this for years – see the history of Toivo Suursoo, where they made these edits repeatedly. Number 57 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. However, that appears to minor (three reverts over a couple of months) and stale (three years ago) edit warring. It would add weight to the notion that we should warn them alongside GiantSnowman and H2ppyme, but I don't see any reason why we need to jump straight to topic bans, or what the issue would be with trying a warning first.BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Great another one who has always has had very strong one sided POV on this question. Yes add random diffs without any discussions that were had then. The pattern has been always like it's with Friedrich Karm, for ten years since 2013 it was one way, then in January 2022 some random user changes it and then you guys appear to defend the change. 90% of Estonian biographies are it the way Friedrich Karm was for a decade, it's a small group of editors who for years have been trying to change it. Always the same, some random user changes ca 10 articles, and then your gang appears to defend them, But yeah having a strong POV on this question won't stop you for demanding a ban for someone who isn not supporting your POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're retired, stop editing while logged out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per above.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - There's something kinda odd here, concerning whether one chooses to accept or not, that the Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union. Why would he or she concentrate on only Estonia? What about Latvia & Lithuania? Are those country names also being pushed in bios, where there's "Latvian SSR" & "Lithuanian SSR"? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What's odd? We had this discussion already at WP Estonia I said to You that I'm an Estonian, I mostly edit Estonian related content, fix, add sources, update, remove vandalism. Estonian community here is small, there's a lot of really outdated articles, old vandalism from years ago. As I'm a football fan I have created Estonian football league season articles, given them prose content so that their not just tables etc. I have created Kaja Kallas' cabinet, Jüri Ratas' second cabinet, Jüri Ratas' first cabinet, Taavi Rõivas' second cabinet etc all of the existing ones. And as I said, Lithuanian and Latvian community here is much smaller even than Estonian, I have worked on many Latvian articles also if I have seen really low quality articles there that scream for attention, one liners not updated since 2008. --Klõps (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Objection I have tried to have a civil argument and to find a solution, like here, but got slapped without even a hint of effort to give argumented replay, I tried to make sense at the discussion at WP:Estonia, here, but got insulted that I'm nationalist doing historical revisionism. All I have tried to say is that isn't black and white as Gigantsnowman, C.Fred, Soman are taking the problem. There's a huge gray area. I'm saying everywhere that both are right Estonian SSR existed and Republic of Estonia existed as Soviet occupation was never recognized by the international community. For heavens sake there's loads of articles about it State continuity of the Baltic states read about it get to know the backstory and facts. The solution has been to use just Estonia (without political additions ), As is standard with other modern states. As noted above by BilledMammal, as I have noted about only China being used instead of full political state name People's Republic Of China.

Per WP:ADMINCOND GiantSnowman and C.Fred shouldn't even be judging here as they are very heatedly having really strong one sided POV on this question taking part of the edits. As seen in edits and talk like here Talk:Friedrich Karm. They should leave this for impartial admins. This is really low to hand out bans just because someone has different opinion than you do. --Klõps (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban for both of them, a long-standing issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I remember having long discussions about it with you before, you supported really strongly the soviet naming. The long standing issue is that you and I had different opinion. Go on ban my dead account . Thats just bulling to demand someone to be punished because you have different POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought you retired? now you're posting signed out. BTW, you messed up BM's above post. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for H2ppyme as this appears to be a long term issue, the misrepresentaton of a source seemingly in an attempt to shoehorn Estonian content into where it doesn't belong, edit warring and personal attacks makes this seem warranted. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support warning given how both sides have engaged in edit-warring and Klops in particular does not seem to have done enough to warrant a topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoQuesadilla (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Do you people not understand how you are defending the age-old systematic propaganda of a fundamentally sick warmonger?! To hell with all Russian propagandists on Wikipedia! This is not a neutral encyclopaedia anymore! H2ppyme (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area, especially with me just reverting an edit of H2ppyme's where his edit summary was "No to Kremlin propaganda, to hell with Russian propagandists!" Obviously this is going to be an especially touchy subject for quite some time to come given Putin's aggression, but we don't need the war played out on Wikipedia: it is plain that H2ppyme is NOTHERE. Enough is bloody enough, and this is coming from someone whose great-grandfather was from Lithuania. Ravenswing 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sick Kremlin propagandists should be the ones who get banned. You are the lowest of all human forms, you warmonger apologists! Disgraceful that people like you are even allowed to exist on Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, it should be based on facts, not on the fundamentally sick propaganda of systematically lying hostile dictatorship like Russia! You people make me sick for defending their sick crimes! H2ppyme (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • ... whereupon H2ppyme immediately reverted [146], with the edit summary "Leave fundamentally sick Russian propaganda out of Wikipedia and stick to international law and mainstream interpretation of history!" At this point, while he isn't (yet) in 3RR territory, given the viciousness of his personal attacks and his plain intent to editwar these changes Wikipedia-wide, I think an immediate block for H2ppyme's in order, and I would willingly support any proposal to indef. Ravenswing 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. H2ppyme (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • All you Russian propagandists should be banned and never allowed to return! Wikipedia is no longer neutral, it has been overtaken by sick Kremlin propagandists! H2ppyme (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This has gone beyond blocking territory, I think. I'm proposing an outright community ban on H2ppyme; it's plain that he's declared war here, and given his long history it doesn't seem likely that he'll ever be an asset to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Russia is literally invading peaceful European countries, you keep defending age-old Russian systematic lies, and I am the one who has declared war, lol? H2ppyme (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Ravenswing: "Declared war"? slightly unfortunate choice of words, old chap SN54129 15:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Not particularly contrite. We none of us can do anything about Putin right now, and I called it exactly as H2ppyme is acting. I have this tight-lipped feeling that we're about to see a tidal wave of such disrupters from all sides, and we'd better be prepared for the onslaught. Ravenswing 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban or at least a topic ban from all topics related to Estonia, Russia, and the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. They have demonstrated that their personal opinions about Russia have overpowered their ability to constructively and collegially edit the project. (I have no particular love for Russia. No country is perfect, but they've got some pretty atrocious things on their track record, and...they aren't exactly on a PR and goodwill tour right now. But I am able to compartmentalize my opinions and not let them cloud my judgment while editing. If there were a topic where I couldn't maintain neutral point of view, I'd step away from the topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 1 week due to the above aspersions, which have also spread to other threads on this page. This is a stopgap measure to halt current disruption, and can be superseded by whatever outcome this thread arrives at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in examining the extent to which Wikipedia has a bias related to Russia, check the relative ratings of Russian state media at WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG, as compared to both independent Russian media and media from other countries. (Spoiler: as a community we don't consider Russian state media to be reliable on anything controversial, and there currently isn't a single Russian source, state-backed or otherwise, that has unequivocally been judged as "generally reliable" by the English Wikipedia community). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering their latest comments, I support an indef block. Isabelle ^🔔 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Coming here to post this diff and edit summary to one of the disputed articles - please can somebody revert this editor's disruption? Given this response to their block I think we need an indef? GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Austet H2ppyme, Klõps and all honourable wikipedians, make no mistake, during putinist rule the Russian govt and intel agencies have been putting great many technical and human resources into propaganda and modern "hybrid warfare", including aggressive disinformation campaigns on social media channels. What you may have noticed here is just the tip of the iceberg, not only an odd Wikipedia editor or two with a pro-Kremlin-Stalin-USSR-etc-trolling hobby but a whole network of hundreds of editor and admin accounts, in concerted action and manned 24-7-365 by professional staff. For these operatives, inserting "SSR" somewhere, deleting "Estonia" in another article, or reverting another edit somewhere else once every 2-3 minutes is nothing but routine paid work (with getting an honest anti-Soviet editor blocked or banned sometimes as an additional bonus). Just my two kopeks' worth.37.143.124.39 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-genuine suggestion - indef ban for any editor who comes here to accuse other good faith editors of being Kremlin/Putin stooges etc. IP should also be blocked. GiantSnowman 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I get it, but tensions are understandably very very high right now. Let's not completely bite the heads off people for it at the current time unless there is genuinely a lot of disruption. We can ignore the odd comment and focus on making sure articles aren't disrupted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Except articles are being disrupted, with editors such as H2ppyme and Klõps having engaged in long-standing whitewashing (by removing reference to Estonia SSR). GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should we ignore the comment? It is hate speech.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, tensions are elevated in a number of quarters, but that doesn't mean that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been suspended for the duration. For a Ukrainian IP address, I'd cut some slack ... presuming, of course, that your average Ukrainian had nothing better to think of today than editing Wikipedia. 37.143.124.39, by contrast, is geolocated in Spain. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Today is also the Estonian Independence Day - I wonder if that is what has inspired the recent outburst... GiantSnowman 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Am I reading things clearly? Has H2ppyme promised to create sock(s), if banned? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, he sure did. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Perhaps could be along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Accusing other editors of "pro-Kremlin bias" is a personal attack and should be discouraged. TFD (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban - on the basis that the reported editor has promised to evade any topic ban handed out, via creating socks. I realise, H2ppyme emotions have been charged up, since Putin's latest actions & well, he can & should be upset. But, that doesn't give him the 'green light' to be disruptive across several articles & make personal attacks, let alone promise to continue to do so after he's blocked or possibly banned. He's definitely not here to contribute constructively, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic or infef ban unsupported accusations of pro-Kremlin propaganda must not be accepted. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment), Support topic ban per GiantSnowman. This is protracted edit warring with inflammatory rhetoric, seemingly without any willingness to find compromise solutions. --Soman (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Klõps appears to have retired to restrictions against them probably not needed; can an uninvolved admin therefore please review consensus against H2ppyme? GiantSnowman 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I would advise against closure. What's going on in Ukraine, can still create a potential for attempts at revisionism in the Baltics. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Erm ... and what does that have to do with whether there is consensus on a ban for H2ppyme? (It's plain there's no consensus for action against Klõps.) The way to deal with further nonsense from H2ppyme is to indef him. The way to deal with nonsense from any other editor is to open a separate complaint, when and as necessary. Ravenswing 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of my hands. We'll follow your advise. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ravenswing - let's indef H2ppyme and deal with Klõps if/when they return... GiantSnowman 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea, definitely indef for H2ppyme after all these outburts. This little group of editors pushing this Estonia centered POV edit using a lot of different IP's though it seems, several of them are geolocated in Spain like this one I found today that I highly suspect is part of this effort 83.59.57.39 (talk · contribs). They really love to call people Russian bots whenever someone opposes their little campaign. TylerBurden (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• So can we get some closure here? H2ppyme's 1 week block expired a few days ago, and he's able to pop right back up. There's solid consensus for an indef, and heaven knows that perps have been indeffed for a good deal less than his atrocious rants here at ANI. Ravenswing 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Even if the closure is an indef block, I think a topic ban should also be included – if they successful appeal the block, they should still be topic banned if they start editing again. Cheers, Number 57 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I can't imagine a successful block appeal (we are, after all, talking about an edit warrior employing gross incivility and threatening to sock if banned), but no objection. Ravenswing 22:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree with topic ban and indef block. GiantSnowman 08:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I already voiced support for the topic ban but will reiterate that on top of the indef block, why this has been open long enough for H2ppyme's temporary block to expire despite all the evidence and outburts, as well as threats to sock, is beyond me. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Unarchiving as a close for this (there appears to be clear consensus) is outstanding. Number 57 19:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Edin balgarin

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.

---

Note: I tweaked the header from it's original Edin balgarin and "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick"; that's what some people are specifically referring to below. If anyone disagrees I'll defer to them, but my thought is, especially now that this has run its course, there's no need for that obnoxiousness to show up on watchlists and archive tables of contents. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC))

Edin balgarin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Most days this stuff doesn't bother me and but at this moment I am emotionally taxed and not in a mood to tolerate this bullshit. On my user talk page, Edin balgarin and Horse Eye's Back were discussing WP:ARBEE after being notified of WP:1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions on Kosovo. Edin balgarin took exception to being referred to as "they". This was the most recent post I found when I logged in:

We haven't cleared anything up. "They/them/theirs" is most definitely not some "general concepion". It is a new-fangled brain fart. When they taught me English in Bulgaria, they said "they" is for plural, and we were not to even generalise when the sex wasn't known. Instead we continued the longstanding convention of "he" until it is known otherwise. I previously referred to you as "he", and if you are a biological female then I wholeheartedly apologise for having ascribed the wrong sex. If you indeed came into this world with a Y chromosome then there is nothing to apologise for simply because you choose to identify as something else. I have seen the Wikipedia practice of referring to some individuals as "they" and I am likely not to touch those articles, because I stand by the adage that "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick". Yes people like me are considered dinosaurs, and I know that here in the west where I live, it demonstrates a major chasm between older and younger generations. In Bulgaria where I am from, it has not regressed to that phoniness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are one of these. You are simply one person who is well within your right on this otherwise anonymous project to conceal every aspect of your life story - and what's more, I support and protect that right. I am also a realist and accept that some people come into this world, are believed at birth to be one thing and later on discover that internally, they have some properties of the other sex. I refer to intersex which I think applies to about 0.5% (1 in 200) of people who come into this world. But not even they get to use this discrepancy to go from "he" to "she", let alone "they" depending how they feel at the time of day. It's a scientific phenomenon, and it presents language problems because tongues developed over millennia to see male and female without thinking that some configurations are a mash-up of the two despite the individual being perfectly healthy in every way. "They" however is reserved for where we know there is more than one. The word will never be ambiguous, i.e. "when you say 'they', do you mean there was more than one person, or were you referring to an individual that denies the biological sex and denies identifying as the opposite sex"? That's never going to happen. I take care to write this language in accordance with the prescriptive tradition, and the style guides I use (such as Simon Heffer whom you won't like) don't even recommend saying "he or she". I see no problem with saying, "he or she was driving too fast" when a car shoots passed at a dangerous speed, but the guidance is that until we know different, "he" extends meaning. Saying "they were driving too fast" because I couldn't see if it were a man or a woman is plain asinine. I'm sorry Horse Eye's Back. It is one or the other.

Given that I'm not able to be neutral about this right now, I'm bring this incident it here for review. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I can definitely say it’s absolutely beyond a conduct violation to address a pronoun misunderstanding with that virulently transphobic wall of text. Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's interesting that he claims to be very very very concerned about the proper use of pronouns, but is still of the opinion that it is OK to refer to a transgender person as "it" (as long he thinks it's hilarious, I guess?). I take this as definite proof that he is not actually a strict grammarian, but instead a garden variety bigot. While pronoun use is still in flux, and I'm not interested in sanctioning people who are just confused or still on a learning curve, I am inclined to block people who demonstrate that they are actual bigots hiding behind the fig leaf of grammar. At this point, I'm inclined to block indef, the same as we would do with a racist or misogynist. Any objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there's no way of reading this as someone who is innocently confused; it's blatant transphobia and we would never accept equally blatant sexism or racism. I would support an indef block. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indef block this kind of bigotry is inexcusable, and even “learning curve” isn’t a justification (not that’d be anyway) because they’ve been here since 2015. Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Indef block. Either they truly don't understand the basics of English, in which case they should not be editing here anyways, or they are choosing to apply a fundamental misunderstanding of English in order to push an anti-trans POV. ––FormalDude talk 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• At least a warning as noted, this goes beyond mere translation issues. Also, as a self-described prescriptivist, I am a bit surprised this editor considers himself a greater authority than one William Shakespeare, who had no problem with singular "they." Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Too late. Blonked. Dronebogus (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes - I have blocked. I tried to post here but kept getting edit conflicts. In short, even when wearing my extra-thick rose-tinted AGF goggles, I think that this was someone being willfully offensive towards someone he disagreed with, which just isn't acceptable. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

telephone number needs attention

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

---

Could someone revdel the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse item "FREE Renarldo Cartagena at fishkill correctional BY Maria cartagena ...." as it contains what looks like a telephone number Elemimele (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The editnotice here specifically states, If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or [...], do not post it here. This should be oversighted as it's personal information, so I've already emailed the oversighter team. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bsoyka:, sorry, I'll remember next time. Thank you for sorting it; I see it's been redacted appropriately. Elemimele (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem, everyone misses things sometimes. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 19:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Hamkar 99

User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article List of Hazara tribes and continues the edit war. I have added information (on the identity of the Behsud and Besud tribes) verified by reliable sources, including secondary sources. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he described the sources I added as follows: "So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted". To a request for a more reasonable argument, I received the following answer: "This is my own conclusion." I suggested that he stop deleting sources and, in order to comply with the WP:NPV I invited him to add his sources. In response, he added a source in Persian (which I can't verify yet) and removed the sources and information I added earlier. Now he reverted (diff) my edit with the following description: incorrect and pan-Mongolism edits. I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV. Also the accusation of pan-Mongolism is a direct violation of Godwin's Law (I think such accusations are unacceptable on Wikipedia). I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me add here that previously both users asked me to do something with their opponent, and I really think what is happening in the article is not ok. It can certainly benefit from an administrator looking at it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for continuing the edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Recently registered user has username issues

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

---

So, there was a user that was recently registered. Their username is Mothafaker. The username itself is inappropriate and considered to be profanity. Should we do something? Meltdown reverter (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:UAA is the place for such reports. I've already filed it. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to post that very same thing. Even though I'm an admin, I don't really work with usernames, so even I just report it to them, and let the regular admins with experience handle it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I do a lot of work at WP:UAA these days. Normally, we do not block an editor for a dubious or problematic username unless there has been at least one obviously bad edit and no good edits. However, all rules have exceptions and I see this username as such an egregious violation that I think that an immediate hard block is correct. That is just what Orangemike has done, and I agree with him. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

CreecregofLife

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

---

There is a pattern of behavior you folks should really take a look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? All I see is repair and updating of references. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

They’re upset about the discussion over at Star Trek: Discovery's talkpage and does not understand WP:NPOV. Basically trying to steamroll over perceived ideological opponents to get their way. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Help me create a talk page?

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

---

Would an admin create User talk:Nehakhanworks with {{welcome-COI}}? Titles involving this person's name are currently blacklisted because of long-term abuse, but I'm not convinced that this person is a sockpuppet (although I am not personally familiar with the relevant LTAs, Arshifakhan61 and Wefffrrr); I think he's legitimately clueless. Once an admin creates the page, everyone should be able to interact with this editor normally. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Editor(s) refactoring articles

Pages edited are various language versions of Your Face Sounds Familiar. A lot of editing and page history added. Winners being changed, dates altered. IPs geolocate around Pulilan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines. Editor(s) often edit the sandbox after their edits are reverted. I first noticed the problem when the event date was set to after the citation date.
Is there any method to correlate IPs from that area editing the other language versions? e.g. for vandalism? What to do about this? A range/article series block?
The IPs I've logged:

• 120.29.105.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.29.105.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.29.106.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 20.29.105.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.29.107.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Added a 2021 eighth season using 2013 citations. Diff Needs repair.
  • Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek series 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Example Changes the date from April 14, 2013 to September 13,2021 The source is dated April 15, 2013 and the access date is February 20, 2014.
  • Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek series 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Example diff changed the winner of Week 5 from Betty Maggira to Onyok Pineda. The citation following gives the winner as Betty Maggira.
  • Your Face Sounds Familiar (Greek series 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Added an unsourced season 8 here.
• Russian series
  • Odin v odin! (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Appear to have been repaired. Seasons 2&3 appear untouched
  • Toch-v-Toch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Need repair
• Polish series
  • Twoja twarz brzmi znajomo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) MartinCZ1243 (talk · contribs) appears to have repaired much of the changes. (Thank you!)
  • Tvoje tvář má známý hlas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Repaired by MartinCZ1243

I wonder if there is more, but I'm overwhelmed at the moment. Adakiko (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by Eastern Australian geography and BLP IP user

1.144.107.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Long term disruption, edit warring, maintenance template removal without explanation or resolving the problem, failure to use any meaningful edit summaries, failure to engage. Currently evading a block on Special:Contributions/1.145.0.0/17 @JBW: Did you want to take a look at this? May need a new rangeblock. (moved from AIV) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Can you explain what shows that this is the same person evading the block? It isn't obvious from a quick look. JBW (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned that they are active on the /17 quite a bit more, which makes the pattern much more apparent. The behavioural similarities are quite clear: never uses any sort of meaningful edit summary, edits the same sort of articles (Eastern Australian named places (towns, cities and suburbs) and railway stations, also adds unsourced information, removes maintenance templates without fixing the problem or explaining why they aren't needed, and finally, is the only Australian based editor that I know of who changes Australian English to American English on articles clearly about Australian topics, even when there is a "use Australian English" template at the top. I will give some diffs in an hour of two if that would be more helpful? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Here are some diffs, note the addition of distances and elevation to the infobox as well, that is their most common edit. However, they never provide sources for it, and sometimes also change the existing distances and elevation without giving sources. They also replace non-breaking spaces with regular ones, and remove hidden comments.

• Edits by 1.144.0.0/17: [147][148][149][150][151]
• Edits by 1.145.0.0/17[152][153][154][155]

Does this make it clearer? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Yes, that does make it much clearer. Thank you. In fact the range 1.144.0.0/17 is much bigger than is needed, as all the editing from that range is actually in the smaller range 144.96.0/20. Almost all of the editing from that range in recent months is clearly from this editor, and the small number of other edits are divided between harmful edits (vandalism etc) and trivial edits, so risk of collateral damage is very small. I don't like blocking large IP ranges where there is likely to be any collateral damage at all, but on this occasion the risk of losing a few very minor non-disruptive edits seems to be overwhelming outweighed by the benefit, so I have blocked the range for a while. JBW (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking that a smaller range would do this time around, but hadn't actually had a look at which exactly. Thanks for figuring that one out. I don't think that this will be the last we see of them though. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett

Sentencing is scheduled to occur today in the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax case. [156] The BLP article concerning Smollett was recently the target of multiple editors who insisted he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence, and were prepared to edit war over it (the article already provides appropriate weight in the lead section and in the body with regard to Smollett's legal issues and status). The article currently is protected to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access. Even so, asking for additional eyes on Jussie Smollett, as today's news, whatever it may be, can be expected to revive this disruptive activity. General Ization ^Talk 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You've had a grand total of 1 talk page discussion about the appropriateness of including "felon" in the lede sentence. [157] Sounds like you're prejudging what the consensus is and I don't see why anyone should be blocked if they "insist he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence". Just because someone is disagreeing with you doesn't make them disruptive. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: If you'd like to participate in the talk page discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett#Convicted felon and contribute to the development of a consensus, you are welcome to do so. Those of us who have participated in that discussion and who have experience with editing BLP articles on Wikipedia have thus far rejected the introduction of the term "convicted felon" in the initial sentence of the lead until and unless there is a consensus to do so. Repeatedly making a disputed change to a BLP after being informed that there is no consensus for that change is disruptive. No one has ever been, nor will anyone be, blocked just for disagreeing with me. General Ization ^Talk 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening an ANI thread because of a pure content dispute that's been resolved is somewhat frowned upon and pre-emptively opening an ANI thread for a content dispute that hasn't really had a firm consensus yet is also questionable. I assumed by "recently" you meant the people discussing on the talk page wanting to get this added in, since at the time you posted this the last time people sought to add this information was over 2 months ago while an IP editor made a reverted edit request a few weeks ago. [158] [159] Since that wasn't the case, I don't really get the point of this ANI thread. ANI is usually when you want someone blocked for doing a bad thing recently. It's not a general noticeboard for "this article may have misguided editors doing things they need a warning for in the near future!" That being said, my opinion on this dispute is you should start the RfC yourself and settle the matter. Sure maybe the editors proposing the change should be doing it but they're all new editors who don't know how to start an RfC. If you really want to curb disruption, starting an RfC yourself means inexperienced editors will have the opportunity to easily comment and give their two cents rather than being told to spend an hour or two learning how to make an RFC and getting frustrated then deciding to just editwar. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: This was not an AN/I complaint, nor a report of or a request for help resolving a dispute. This was a request to administrators for additional eyes on an article due to a history of disruptive editing there, anticipated to resume because of RL news. If you're not interested in offering yours to the task, no one's twisting your arm. I really don't need to justify my posting here to you. General Ization ^Talk 03:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Agree with Chess; this discussion should not have been opened here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Then a constructive and helpful response would be to point out where it should have been opened, not to write an essay telling me why I'm wrong to mention it. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a right place. The closest might be WP:AN, but it would be better to wait and see if an issue develops and if it does notify the community about it with a post here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

An RfC on the talk page is a good way to get people to opine on a dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That is more so for when the dispute is continuing not a prediction of a dispute coming back. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ordinary Person - Original research and disruption in the topic of historical wealth.

Ordinary Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently looked at a few articles on historical wealthy figures and noticed that a number of them were making completely ridiculous claims about the value of their net worth adjusted to modern money. Looking at the article histories it seems that this account has been performing a combination of their own original reasearch and calculations and blindly converting articles to use the {{inflation}} template, regardless of what actual sources say.

Blindly using the inflation template in this manner is not an appropriate way of converting historic net worth's to modern net worth's, inflation is a measure of the change in price of consumer goods and the cost of living, it does not work when applied to sums of money making up significant proportions of a national economy.

For a typical example of a problematic edit look at this edit to John D. Rockefeller [160]. The edit replaces an estimate of 400 billion with an inflation template, despite inflation being a meaningless measure when applied to 2-3% of the US's GDP. Their edit directly contradicts the sources in the article - the sources directly following the inflation template give an estimate of 300 - 400 billion dollars calculated as a proportion of GDP and certainly do not support the 23 billion calculated using inflation now present in the article. On the talk page they explain how they have calculated this figure [161], which drew criticism from another IP editor for being "bad original research".

Here's a few more examples of problem edits. Ripping out sourced information to replace it with a application of the inflation template with no sources supporting 300 million dollars us equivalent [162]. This utterly ridiculous calculation where they convert one historical currency to another, then convert to USD, then chuck into an inflation template, replacing properly sourced information with an estimate 1000 times smaller [163]. Ripping out sourced information to replace it with application of an inflation template and an edit summary assertion that their net worth was x [164] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the source material is not saying what the article editors seem to think it is saying. It might be interesting to compare different historical figures on the basis of what percentage of the national economy their wealth made up, but this is not the same as comparing them on the basis of their actual wealth. . Sir James Ratcliffe is not just wealthier than anyone who lived in the 11th century AD: he has more wealth than the entire economy of Great Britain in the 11th century AD. I've no objection to the existence of an article on the topic of a list of historical figures' wealth by percentage of national economy, but it is simply erroneous to purport that such a list would be a list of wealthiest historical figures. Ordinary Person (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ordinary Person, I'm concerned that you might be carrying out novel calculations that reach conclusions which aren't found in the sources.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Σύμμαχος

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

I recently reported this user for constantly altering (sourced) information [165]. He was blocked for his conduct on the talk page of the article, but now has resumed his disruption of the article [166]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• It seems a little rich for the person who pointed to the talk page to now be just revert warring, and not contributing to the discussion at Talk:Nader Shah's invasion of India#afsharid empire that xe xyrself started. I offered an expert source there who disagrees with both sides of the revert war here, and gives an explanation why. No comment by anyone to that thus far. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Checking needed

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.

---

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He is a long time wikipedia editor. He didn't improve the article and keeps moving my page. Finally, he wanted to delete it. 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Expand Chinese}} I think is a good tool, so any action next that i can do?

I have pages hung, coz i cant undid it, or im blocked. I dont know what to do next. I think is very serious acting almighty or start a civil war.

Yan Han (Jin Dynasty) Restored revision 1076526187 by Onel5969 (talk): As per WP:BURDEN, do not readd uncited material, and as per WP:DDE, it could get you blocked. You also might want to cool it with vandalism claims, which also could get you blocked.

Yan Zhiyi Undid revision 1076543612 by Ngancheekean (talk)You do not appear to get it, as per WP:BURDEN. The next time I'll be forced to go to ANI about this, as well as the vandal comments. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Onel5969's reverts. The english was very poor, and when the prose was (rarely) sourced, the sources were mostly unreliable. Also, you have to notify editors when you start a discussion about them. I've done so for you, as well as moved your post from the top of the page where you placed it directly under the instructions NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE. It seems likely that you lack the english language skills to edit this Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Checking needed, where they brought up the same thing (and missed the same instruction to add to the bottom of the page). — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 17:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add on that there's nothing stopping you from going to the Chinese Wikipedia and editing there. To be polite, your English is not good enough to write Wikipedia articles if this is the best you can do. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess While not intended, that is a little rude to tell someone their edits are not welcome here. SoyokoAnis - talk 06:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So it went missing again. Thats just so poor. Ngancheekean (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that Ngancheekean copied previous versions of the associated articles that had been removed/reverted/changed by Onel5969 at Talk:Yan Han (Jin Dynasty) and Talk:Yan Jianyuan. I mentioned on their talk page that "the talk page is designed for discussion of the page". Gusfriend (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m concerned, after reviewing Ngancheekean’s talk page, that they have WP:CIR issues along with WP:IDHT, a potent combination.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I copied some of his text.I think what he said learning to use vandalism, might hurt wiki.

1. I dont wish to be so outspoken but Asian hate has been rising in America.
2. Since when American help vandalism
3. Dont move my page. No American will ever helped again.
4. I dont intend to be an idiot arguing with dont know what. You have move the article again which intended for english readers. I'm learning to use vandalism so you should watch out. Rastinition (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with Ngancheekean's editing, with WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, and WP:BATTLEGROUND combining together to prevent attempts by other editors to help from succeeding. I have posted a message to their talk page, warning that a block is likely if their editing doesn't change. As for the complaint about Onel5969, it is obvious that it has no merit whatsoever. JBW (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Does this fall under WP:NONAZIS?

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 IP, 86.58.92.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has made edits that are consistent with far-right ideologies, such as the removal of Cultural Marxism as being a anti-semitic canard and accusing well-sourced academics such as Azar Gat and Christian Fuchs as being "Communist propaganda". 14.38.24.214 (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I'd instantly label it as pro-Nazi edits, but it's certainly disruptive. Normal disruptive edit warnings would be appropriate here. — Czello 08:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, tiresome POV pushing but not enough evidence to say that the editor is singing Springtime for Hitler.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

And singing Springtime for Hitler is not in itself sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Some musical comedy is just... musical comedy. BusterD (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would go further. Throwing around NONAZIS allegations like that is in itself disruptive. IP86 seems to be engaged in general right-wing POV. What’s it got to do with NONAZIS? In fact, this edit summary suggests the IP is not a fan of Fascist economic policy at least. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends a lot on who's doing the singing. "Cultural Marxism" is not a "general" right-wing view; decrying Nazi Germany as not capitalist is not a "general" right-wing view. Angela Merkel is "general" right wing. I don't see the OP's comment as a wild aspersion, but as an editor showing welcome caution. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Both edits have been reverted (one actually reverted, the other re-added) and a Level 1 warning left. As there have been no further edits from that IP in 48 hours, this can probably be closed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting that OP's IP is a proxy; I have blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

IP editor 174.20.131.248 engaging in rants on Talk:Lauren Southern

Not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for this, or if it's AIV. As this is talk page related and not mainspace, I think here might be better? I'm happy to move it to AIV if that is the place for this however.

I'm reporting 174.20.131.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP has been going on a bit of a rant over at Talk:Lauren Southern in the last ten minutes, see [167], [168], [169], as well as on Talk:Margaret Sanger three days ago [170]. All of the posts contain aspersions that Wikipedia has been captured by leftists. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Diff of ANI notice. I tried to link the thread but it kept breaking the subst template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Like the now-closed thread up the page, this is a garden-variety troll who is using Wikipedia to soapbox. I'd just ignore them unless this becomes a longer-term issue. Acroterion (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 36 hours for too much trolling. Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

User:Ellinewilliams231 and editing behavior

Ellinewilliams231 has been repeatedly warned about unsourced edits, original research, not providing edit summaries, and addition of wrong edits to articles, but there seems no changes to their editing patterns and no acknowledgment to the warnings. The main article where this user is problematic is at 2021 PBA 3x3 season – Second conference. They are mainly the one adding the scores, and there is a official source that is already linked in the article, but this user seems to be adding their own calculations, instead of the official ones. Some of their edits are also just wrong as well, and it's a burden to check their edits and clean up the wrong one every time. Another editing behavior that this user has is providing information ever if it is not yet assured or confirmed, such as this and this. This user also seems to not know what they're doing, as shown here where they made an unblock request, even if they're not blocked. Warnings are of no use so I decided to bring it up here. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I erred. I was reverted by another editor. I opened a discussion and am happy to self-revert. I also make sure that I add the links to the scores. User:Ellinewilliams231 (talk) 1:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: Despite this ANI report and this user's "acknowledgment" of their mistakes, they keep on continuing their editing behavior. This user made this edit, which violates WP:OR, as the source did not support their edits, and WP:CRYSTAL, as it turns out that the final standings is very different from their edit, as shown here in my edit. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nelveto and continued POV edits

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

The user made, as of now, 24 edits. They have been warned at least twice, last time in November, that some of their edits are inappropriate, specifically, they push what the see as pro-Ukrainian POV against consensus (replacing Odessa with Odesa etc). I gave them a Ds alert and said that if they continue a block becomes an option. Today, they have chosen to continue [171] [172]. I guess the option needs to be discussed seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Also this one, the current consensus is both Chernobyl and Zelenskyy.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Eastern Europe POV pushers don't need to be humored here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian

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.

---

Disagreement over content on Talk:Rump state gradually morphed into open mockery[173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181] (edit summary:"jeez, what a putz"). Not sure if this is because consensus was overwhelmingly against them or if its a personal distaste for me. The latest and what puts it over the line into an ANI issue for me:

"Wrong again, horsey. I disagree with some viewpoints, which is very different from dismissing them. I get why you might make that mistake, as both of them start out being spelled the same before making a series of sharp turns into different meanings. Here's a link to an actual dictionary, so you can avoid getting all confused again. You're welcome. Now, do you want to simply go away, or shall I taunt you some more?"[182]

I don't believe that such false civility, taunting, or name calling is appropriate and Jack Sebastian seems fully aware of what they are doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you kind of start that here? Yes we understand that is *your personal opinion* but to be brutally blunt we do not give a flying f*ck what your personal opinion is... By sharing it you're wasting both our time and your own. It looks like the discussion was civil until that point. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The incivility began with this false accusation "Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a problem with -re-adding, without correction, text that you yourself know to be worded so as to be actively false." against user:Furius before I even offered a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a pattern here of feigning confusion in order to insult or belittle. We also have "It is your contention that Salo is currently a remnant of and a rump of nazi Germany, yes?" which by that point in the conversation could not possibly be taken as Farius's contention. Not saying my conduct was angelic, but there are important lines I didn't cross. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I understand that things got progressively worse here, and HEB is not blameless, but JS's last comment was way over the line, and JS's behavior in that whole thread was poor. I've removed the last comment as it was not related to the content of the article, and will block if it is reinstated. It appears that the actual content issue is settled, so hopefully neither one of you needs to continue talking in that section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I admit that HEB managed to push every single one of my buttons in alphabetical order from the get go, and I responded poorly. Though I did make continued attempts at civility and de-escalation, they were unsucessful with this particular user.

  I'm not going to go into the content issues, as a consensus was found, and I agreed to follow it. That should have been the end of it, but HEB felt the throbbing need to take cheap shots at me. It was pretty much the final straw; I fucking despise bullies, as they are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. It begs the question as to why someone with so little good faith in both parties requiring 3O would be rendering Third Opinions at all.

  But it is what it is; I went too far, and I apologize for my part in it. I have zero plans to interact with HEB wherever he pops up again. I would ask that he do me the same favor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not consenting to an interaction ban. I also think you need to take a long look in the mirror, "Now, do you want to simply go away, or shall I taunt you some more?" is bullying on an almost comical english boarding school level... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  HEB, with all due respect (and I do indeed respect you), there's no need to prolong this. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate the advice and its good, but I'm not walking off someone viciously bullying me and then turning around and calling me a bully. "but HEB felt the throbbing need to take cheap shots at me. It was pretty much the final straw; I fucking despise bullies, as they are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. It begs the question as to why someone with so little good faith in both parties requiring 3O would be rendering Third Opinions at all." is over the line as far as WP:NPA is concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  "I left the woman at the riverbank, so why are you still carrying her?" ^learn - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Just to offer some perspective: You people and your what-the-history-books-say arguments have got it easy. Over on Client state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) editors were citing Julian Assange's mother. See its talk page. One editor found a 23 page conference paper by two political science professors modelling the various ways in which the United States has historically formed client states of various kinds, from which one would have thought one could get sourced analysis of a complex thing, and used it at Special:Diff/1021643410 to support the content "▪ Spain". So be kind to each other. You history book readers could be having it a lot worse. You could be up against a mass of editors who do things like take 2 words of headlinese and think it to be enough. Or Julian Assange's mother. Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oof. You win, Uncle G. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from InuKishu (who was blocked indefinitely for advertising)

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.

---

WP:NLT has told me to report legal threats here, so I will.

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inukishu, the banned user has been listing everything that has happened to them "for legal counsel later on.", which I think constitutes a legal threat. They have been indefinitely banned except for on their talk page, so someone should remove their talk page privileges. I don't see the point of notifying them though since they won't be able to edit here anyway. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inukishu&oldid=1076887898 is the link in case anything changes since making this post. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by User:Commonedits

Commonedits was blocked by 331dot at 12:08, 11 March. Since then, they have made multiple edits whilst logged out to evade the block, per the evidence below.

• First, here they admitted to using a particular IP, note that the IP used to evade the block is in the same /22 as that one - [183]
• Resubmitted a draft that they had been working on earlier, Draft:Chahat Pandey :[184]
• Left a message on Liz's talk page making the same attacks that had got them blocked in the first place

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for block evasion, and increased Commonedits's block to one week. Courtesy ping to @331dot: as I've modified their block -- TNT (talk • she/her) 11:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the hostile remarks by Commonedits at Draft talk:Chahat Pandey, where they allege a conspiracy of incompetent and corrupt administrators, I have my doubts that they will refrain from disruptive editing when that block expires. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

---

Can you please review the last comment on my Talk page left by an administrator who is calling me "rude" for describing a user's attempt to edit war by "indoctrination"? The user has reversed my edits three times although I provided three sources. The admin described my sources as unreliable when there is no source at all to support the version that the other user reverted to. This has been a constant struggle on Wikipedia that certain users want to enforce a certain narrative without the use of any sources and admins still allow them to get away with it citing "consensus" when it is a very difficult thing to gauge and also should not overrule the use of sources. Back to my initial point, the admin's comment is a retaliation for the perceived "attack" that I made which I think is biased and unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayo890 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Mayo890: You are meant to notify the editors (as it says in red at the top of this page). M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

According to https://simshomekitchen.com/about/ , Jen Sim is a "foodie from London, United Kingdom." Could you explain why her blog is considered by you as a reliable source to talk about non-recipes content? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The underlying content dispute seems to concern Shakshouka. It would be best discussed at Talk:Shakshouka, and if anyone wants to contest the reliability of cherry-picked online recipes, at WP:RSN. I see no personal attack, or anything that needs to be brought here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Ngancheekean

Please see the currently closed discussion above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checking needed. I purposely did not participate in the discussion in the hopes that the editor would learn from that discussion. Alas, they appear not to have. With this edit and this one too, they have once again inserted uncited information into the article after repeated warnings not to, and being warned as per WP:BURDEN and WP:DDE. Then there is this edit, once again removing an AfD notice after being warned on their talk page (and I see there is yet another one). In addition, there is this bizarre editing on Yang Liang. Finally, this edit leaving incorrect template warnings on a user's talkpage. They do not appear to show any willingness to understand English WP's rules and guidelines. I think at this point some type of block is warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

You dont seem to understand it that it is not my problem, User:Ngancheekean, that you keep talking. Why keep involving me, in wikipedia discussion. Now ANI has to answer. Ngancheekean (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ngancheekean: when do you mean it's not you're problem? You're responsible for all edits from your account. If someone else is using your account, it will be blocked as WP:Compromised. Sharing accounts it not allowed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I mostly on chinese history. Ngancheekean (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My talkpages is full with his comments. Btw I started writing in wikipedia because there is a page about my surname (owned by wikipedia), which created by User:Prisencolin in (25 June 2020)‎‎. I mostly write about historical person of Yan surname since the page information is insufficient. The problem, the pages was vandalised from page to page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block - I've tried to engage with the editor, but they can't seem to understand or answer the most basic of questions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspected from their name that this editor might be Malaysian, after noticing TNT asked them if they speak Malay I checked out their user page and found out they do they say are from Malaysia. While they didn't seem to respond very clearly to TNT's question and although it's been a while since I've written anything much in Malay, I wrote a comment to them in Malay trying to explain the situation. (To be clear, I wrote this in Malay myself, it isn't a machine translation although I did use dictionary searches and similar to try and help me remember words or find ones I didn't know.) I'm doubtful it will help, but maybe it will and didn't see any harm in trying. And yes I know they've already lost talk page access but they might still be checking it out and if the problem is really an inability to understand what we're telling them it seemed fair to try and get through to them. (Although it's easily possible their level of Malay is below their level of English.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

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

---

Could someone—anyone—look into this timesink and come to the completely independent conclusion that their TPA needs revoking? They can hardly write intelligible English—so a CIR problem—or it's deliberate, in which case we're being trolled. Either way, some of our finest, etc., are having their time completely and utterly wasted. SN54129 16:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Block review: User:Rokifacet

Resolved

 – account locked

Rokifacet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I've blocked without tags and not notifying to avoid feeding the trolls, but they're clearly not here. Anyone know whose sock this might be? First edit is to critique a Jimmy Wales edit, and second set is edit warring to Russia/Ukraine Talk as a forum. Happy to have my block overturned if consensus is it's inappropriate, but nothing rang as a new editor here, or one who is going to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 23:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks like WP:LTA/GRP. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Now obviously socking as an IP which hopefully helps. Star Mississippi 01:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Handled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rokifacet (thanks TonyBallioni, this can be archived. Star Mississippi 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Life threat Hostility coming from an editor, TrangaBellam

I am not a political editor, just a film article editor. I stumbled upon a recently released film article on Wikipedia and saw several biased and "unusual edits" for a film article. So I thought to correct the bias by adding NPOV (positive and negative) and balancing it out especially the reception section which had several problems but was reverted and then I started a discussion. Several other film editors have noticed this bias in that article but two editors have been reverting everyone as if they WP: OWN, calling names to others. See the discussion here. When I removed an unsourced claim in the article, and started a discussion to discuss the bias, TrangaBellam replies with Go to ANI or wherever - I do not care. - clearly accepting their bias. When I opened a thread on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, they attacked me calling me POV pusher (I write film articles for god sakes) and a political stooge of current government (equalizing me with a Nazi) with a threat saying "they have their attention on me" like they "have marked me" or something. This is a clear case of Intimidation and possible life danger hostility. I don't feel safe on this site. Administrators need to intervene here.Krish | Talk To Me 08:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can you please cite the diffs where I equalized you with a Nazi or held you to be a political stooge of the current government or wrote either of the two phrases in quotes? TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I came across this thread from yesterday which may be of relevance in deciding the course of action. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  You clearly called me a "long-idle POV pusher" whose edits across the last few years have not escaped your attention". You called me Hindutva or alluded to suggest that I am. The wiki articles about this word makes it clear what the editors who wrote mean by Hindutva. You can write anything on articles and is not called names but I question only two things on talk pages (the two edits in last years on talk pages just as a reader which made you "watch me" with suspicion) made you assume my POV pushing ability? Make it make sense? Krish | Talk To Me 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing this because it proved that the discussion was going nowhere with you guys and your constant intimidation and condescending tone made me to not get into the debate further until I saw in the morning that other editors are also questioning your edits. Me asking to erase yesterday's edits on talk pages especially show how I cannot take your constant intimidation and humiliation on these made up political issues on film articles, which is not good for my mental health and for wikipedia guidelines.Krish | Talk To Me 09:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, I request that you provide diffs where I issued a threat for your life rather than write walls of text. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Krish! (talk · contribs) You either need to provide diffs of TrangaBellam making a "life threat"...or stop spouting such nonsense. – ².O.^Boxing 09:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• NOTE: This editor's WP:OWN and hostile attitide and disregard for other POVs and Wikipedia rules was questioned by another film article editor here but TrangaBellam continued their hostile behavior even after that. How are we supposed to edit film articles with this kind of disregard for Civility and full of toxicity?] This editor is dismissing different POVs and is not ready for consensus. Administrators need to act ASAP. Krish | Talk To Me 09:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that they have their eyes on them is huge life threat intimidation and this editor's continued toxic and hostile attitude towards me and few other editors is a proof.Krish | Talk To Me 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  You are claiming that your life was threatened, you need to show the diff where that was done, or withdraw that accusation. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is the only diff you have provided (at RSN) in relation to a threat. There is no threat whatsoever. I'm willing to assume AGF and say this is down to a language issue, if the baseless accusations stop. – ².O.^Boxing 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  On the help desk, several editors carefully explained to User:Krish! that they should not alter comments once others had responded (with the exception of their own user talk page): refactoring by scoring through words, possibly adding a new time stamp, was recommended. Now they have changed the title in an extremely unhelpful way with edits like this.[185] Krish!'s WP:GAME of "wanting to have the their cake and eat it" are is not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)"Le beurre et l'argent du beurre." Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake and I have corrected it by striking it. I did not intend to mislead. I have corrected the title too.Krish | Talk To Me 10:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - While I do not want to comment on the hostility between the two editors - the great problem here is with the film article The Kashmir Files, which has been highly unstable over the past few days. TrangaBellam has reverted the article to their own preferred version numerous times, with no consensus and clear opposition on the talk page. That's what should matter here and what I would ask admins to take note of. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Shshshsh: ANI does not deal with content disputes. – ².O.^Boxing 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Squared.Circle.Boxing: No, this isn't contect dispute - it's edit warring and user misconduct, which I believe ANI should deal with. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  DIFFS are required at ANI esp. since you accuse me of commiting countless reverts, which if true, ought be sufficient grounds for imposing a block.

  I have made two reverts (1 and 2), of which the first one was procedural: it restored the status-quo version to stop an edit-war between Krish! and Tayi Arajakate. Besides these two, I have reverted in one instance of obvious vandalism. That's all. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not true. I was not edit warring, I started a discussion after reverting a version with unsourced claims but was again reverted.Krish | Talk To Me 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: edit warring can be dealt with at WP:ANEW. As for user conduct, I have yet to see any evidence of anything that requires administrator attention. And just to note, Krish called on you for backup at the article's talk page. So all this "I'm an impartial observer working towards peace and harmony" gig doesn't quite wash. – ².O.^Boxing 10:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? I always had disagreements with Shahid. I only invited him because he is the only Indian film editor that has been active. So your claim is not true. Like, me, Shahid has also written several film articles and is one the only few editors active whom I know. I invited Kailash too and he did not support me. So this is not true.Krish | Talk To Me 10:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CANVASS? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: - I have. The first sentence says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That's what Krish did. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Krish wrote - "Would you like to present your points?" and I put a disclaimer saying that I had been invited to comment. I've had my biggest arguments with Krish (see Talk:Bajirao Mastani). I really am an impartial observer. And "working towards peace and harmony" is not at all my point - I want the article to be in neutral shape, and I let all of them know that I think all opinions should be presented. I honestly do not get your hostility either. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• TrangBellam has been hostile and intimidating towards us, not ready for consensus, with a "my way or the highway" approach, not ready to listen other POVs, not adhering to MOS of other film articles, constant reverting and to the point even said "take me to ANI - I don't care" and we are accused of being trying to corner him?Krish | Talk To Me 10:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I urge Squared.Circle.Boxing, 331dot and Mathsci to provide pointers on how to continue conversation at this thread. Whatever I write is held as personal attack, dismissed without engagement, and it is repetitively claimed that I am making them feel unsafe. Tbh, this is resembling a not-so-clever strategy to stonewall discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps User:RegentsPark can help. Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Krish writes above "How are we supposed to edit film articles with this kind of disregard for Civility and full of toxicity? ... Administrators need to act ASAP." I agree, and have therefore page-blocked Krish for two months from The Kashmir Files for tendentious editing (this edit, removing a line from the lead with a false claim that it is not supported in the article, is a good example, out of quite a few), disregard for civility,[186][187] false claims (I don't know if these statements come from a place of incompetence, or of disingenuousness), and violations of WP:CANVASS. Bishonen | tålk 11:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC).

So this is why that editor said "TAKE ME TO ANI- IDON'T CARE". Says a lot about behind the scenes CANVASSING. This and Kautilya3 work together with that third editor but are not accused of CANVASSING but I invited the film editors I know of and gets blocked? Nothing more to know about the state of Wikipedia. You claim I am hostile but that user was the one being hostile towards me. He was the one breaking WP guidelines.Squared.Circle.Boxing, 331dot and Mathsci.Krish | Talk To Me 11:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen: you have your reasons, and I find that Krish is too emotional about the subject, but I suggest that you oberve the article's history, particularly on the part of the other users, especially Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam. The former, in particular, added yesterday parts which were downright false (Diff). I wasn't willing to engage in an edit war, but they were later reverted by an admin (1, 2). As I said on the talk page, I personally trust Tayi Arajakate to maintain the article in good shape and neutrality. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Shshshsh Just to be clear, I am not "emotional" about the subject. I just feel the MOS that film articles have on WP is not being applied to this article. I have written so many film articles yet nobody has ganged up like this for such a silly thing. I don't know how the hostile and OWN attitude of Kautilya3 and Trangabellam is not questionable but I am being accused of the things these two editors did. It's bizzare.Krish | Talk To Me 11:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Shshshsh, re "they were later reverted by an admin": administrators put their trousers on one leg at a time just like other people. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: - of course, but what is your point? What about the actual content of what I've said? Did you actually look at the user's edits? Now, I'm not saying you should employ the same course of action here, but can you think of a solution to such problematic behaviour? (if you think you could be available to keep an eye on the article, that will be good enough). Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that, while admins have special tools as admins, they have no special authority when they edit an article. Note also that if they edit a particular article, they're not allowed to act as admins on it. You want to discuss Kautilya's editing now? I'm sorry, I'm not up for researching that at this time, I have some urgent stuff going on in real life. Maybe later. (This page seems to have some updating issues. I know RegentsPark posted before me and before Ravenswing,[188] but it's not showing up. Can somebody fix this, please?) Bishonen | tålk 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: okay, I get it - no problem. Thank you for the reply, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Bishonen's page block, the diff of the removal of content (provided by Bishonen) from the lead is concerning (almost the exact words are used in the article body). And then there is the section on Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Lack_of_NPOV_and_WP:_I_Don't_Like_It that is equally unsupported by diffs as is this complaint. Bottom line, if you're going to charge into a divisive, controversial topic, don't come running to ANI crying about neutrality unless you can back it up with solid evidence. Because, if you don't have the evidence, you end up looking like the POV editor.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, I don't care much for TrangaBellam's angry tone. But oh my freaking heavens, Krish's reaction is so far over the top my eyes are popping. Is he trolling us, or does he really, truly think that the edit of "Though this is the last article, that I am editing, before taking a break from S. Asian discourse, I have no intentions of ceding ground to long-idle POV pushers; your edits (1, 2 etc.) across the last few years have not escaped my attention" constitutes a threat against his life, so that -- as he states above -- he no longer feels safe on Wikipedia? Seriously? If it wasn't for Krish's solid contribution history, I'd suggest that someone on that touchy a hair trigger is a poor fit for Wikipedia.

  Beyond that, I really don't care for "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of inquiries. "Take it to ANI, I don't care" does not admit bias. It admits nothing at all, and claiming otherwise is unwarranted and objectionable. Never mind that Krish started this in the first place. It was Krish who first threatened to "raise this concern to the administrators." It was Krish who first claimed bias, and finished with "This is highly suspicious." ("Suspicious" of what, may I ask?) Frankly, I find TrangaBellam's behavior less objectionable than Krish's. Krish is not being "accused of things others did." He's being accused of his own hyperbole and incivility. Bishonen made the right call. Ravenswing 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Funny to see that I have been mentioned multiple times (even sanctions asked), but never pinged even once! This is the ultimate POV attacking I have seen in all my years. For the record, I haven't deleted anybody's content on that page (yet). I just wrote my own content, every word of which was reliably sourced. These people apparently don't like what the reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved [to the dispute] editor, from what I read and understand, TrangaBellam never did such a thing as threatening a life!! I was bemused to read this report. Still no idea where they got the idea, but it's good to start that it's stricken off. Perhaps Krish, as you said on your talk page that this whole thing got to you [189] [190] and that you won't appeal the page block, I'd advise taking some time off to clear off your head, and resume working on a different article that interests you. All of us need to recharge at some point. Hope it helps! — DaxServer (t · c · m) 19:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin move a leftover local description of Wikimedia Commons file?

When a file is moved on Wikimedia Commons, a local description for it on Wikipedia is not moved as well and is left orphan. I have identified such local descriptions and tagged them for renaming, but it looks like file movers cannot move them. Can admins move them? So that they would be in sync with name on Wikimedia Commons again? So that their content is displayed? BTW, you have to add redirect=no to see local descriptions instead of Wikimedia Commons page. Mitar (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mitar, why is this on WP:ANI instead of WP:AN? For the redirect thing, there's User:Alexis Jazz/RedirectCommonsRedirects. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When I started adding it to WP:AN, I read: "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you." Because this is about concrete list of files to be fixed I saw it as a help request. Mitar (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mitar, hmm, I think you could be right. On the other hand, this isn't a true one-time issue as this will just keep happening. May need a bot operator for this.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fastily: or any other admin reading this: can you go to [191], press "Move page" and tell us if you get the dreaded "The filename chosen is already in use on a shared repository. Please choose another name." or not? I could probably help with recreation if moving is impossible, but I want to know first if moving is impossible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried completing the rename request but MediaWiki won't let me proceed. Sure would be nice if the devs gave admins an option to override. The current solution/workaround is to R4 the redirect and recreate the content page at the target title, provided that the redirect has no substantial history. This was the case here, so I've gone ahead and done that. The DYK template also exists at Commons, so I've copied it over to the Commons description page. -FASTILY 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Fastily, content pages recreated. Can you or another admin dump the contents of Category:Redundant or conflicting file renaming requests (partially NSFW)? (be careful not to delete the newly recreated pages, use RedirectCommonsRedirects if needed) There are like 172 local description pages there, 155 I recreated using User:Alexis Reggae/redirected DYK and my script, the remaining 17 are mostly/all vandalism-sensitive pics like File:Adipomastia 001.jpg (page history) for which the bad image template page had already been recreated at the target by Cyberbot I. (not sure if there was anything else in there. probably not. the collection made me hurl so I didn't examine it that closely) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

So, all of these redirects from old image names to new ones can be deleted? Just checking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

5.173.0.0/16

Persistent cross wiki vandalism targeting Cugowski family – a well known family of Polish musicians. The range belongs to a mobile operator so I suggest a long-term partial block of possibility of editing of Piotr Cugowski. --jdx ^Re: 06:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Too much collateral for that range. El_C 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: A partial block of that IP range from editing that one article would cause less collateral damage than semi-protecting the article, which also blocks people using other IP ranges and newly registered accounts, as well as that range. Or have I misunderstood something? JBW (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no, sort of. No, because look at the page's history. For a long, long time, the only unconfirmed accounts to edit that page are of that LTA. I think the latest p-block was of 83.168.64.0/18, but they obviously just go on to using another range for that weird idée fixe of theirs. Sort of because it does look like I conflated 5.173.139.129 (Warsaw) with 5.173.17.29 — thanks for calling attention to it! Yes? El_C 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ban evasion by HarveyCarter

• 86.150.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter

Can we re-block the range Special:Contributions/86.150.120.0/21? Banned User:HarveyCarter has been active there. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm lost. El_C 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, El C, here's the longer version: Widr blocked the above IP range in September 2020, after seeing some typical User:HarveyCarter edits such as emphasizing lung cancer,[192] closeted gayness,[193] and anything at all about Leif Garrett.[194] HarveyCarter is known for using IPs from Bury St Edmunds but recently the UK reorganized their IP geolocation system, unlinking past IPs to Bury St Edmunds and instead assigning them to Birmingham or London. The above IPs were most certainly connected to Bury St Edmunds at one time—I clearly remember looking them up.

The recent activity causing me to make this report is this comment pushing to denigrate Winston Churchill, this edit regarding Stalin's antisemitism, and this edit pushing a homosexual controversy. All of these edits are typical of HarveyCarter's behavior.

Related rangeblocks include Special:Contributions/86.154.234.0/24 and Special:Contributions/86.173.0.0/21 which are both active. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year. El_C 02:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Stalking

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

---

I’m a longtime Wikipedian, a retired handyman in New Jersey. I’ve written hundreds of articles for 12+ years. I’ve never taken money for my contributions. I've uploaded 3000+ images and declared almost all of them to be public domain. I edit using my real name. I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. But editor Melcous has been using my past mistakes as an excuse to stalk everything I do here, claiming that I have a conflict of interest on such subjects as RepresentUs (an anti-corruption organization) or Michele McNally (a deceased NY Times photo editor) or undoing my work on Raynard Kington (an educator) or Molly Secours (a filmmaker) or Boryana Straubel (a deceased tech executive) or Xyla Foxlin (a YouTuber) or restoring notability tags on the nonprofit The Oasis Center for Women and Girls. I have no connection with any of these subjects. Melcous didn’t edit these articles until after I edited them. It’s a consistent pattern of stalking behavior. Please cause Melcous to stop this harassment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also a fairly long term wikipedian, and I'm happy for someone to look into my editing and let me know if I have crossed any lines. When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. I would also note that my greater concern, and encouragement to Tomwsulcer, has been to properly respond to COI concerns raised and disclose them. There have been two threads at WP:COIN (here and here) where concerns have been raised about his edits. As noted by other editors including Wizzito and SVTCobra, both times he has chosen to disappear from editing from a period of time, and reappear after the threads have gone stale and been archived, so the issues have not been resolved. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been stalking me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's stalking imho. I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking', 'it's all sourced' (articles can be sourced but still have tone/grammar issues, etc.), and stuff like that. wizzito | say hello! 05:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you think you need to be "humble" - but in actual fact you were right when you said "I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking'".

Tomwsulcer needs a block more than help for some imaginary offence. I'm astonished he stuck his head up in this way, but I have confidence in the correct result of this self-destructive posting. Begoon 13:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a very straight forward case of WP:HOUND. @Tomwsulcer: We generally shy away from using the term "stalking" now in reference to editors following each other around onwiki. @Melcous: Don't do what you are doing. If you want to start a new COIN thread, by all means. However, it is very inappropriate to just unilaterally tag all of an editors contributions with COI. WP:HOUNDING is not okay in any situation, and you should instead try to open a dialogue with the respective editors. If that doesn't work, you can escalate to a noticeboard, but don't follow the editor around the project. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow this advice and will bow out from here if possible, but it would be good to at least be honest in what we are talking about. I have not "unilaterally tagged all of an editor's contributions with COI". There were exactly two articles here that I tagged for COI, one out of a discussion at WP:COIN after the editor had inserted promotional wording about the subject into multiple unrelated articles, and the other because it was the first article created after he returned to editing after failing to deal with the WP:COIN thread and I noted this on the talk page. I'm reluctant to start a new COIN thread when it seems that all an editor needs to do is "wait it out" and the issue gets ignored. Melcous (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous: If you started another COIN thread, and Tom just waited it out, then that would be WP:GAMING which you could report here.
Semantics of what you tagged vs. copy-edited aside, these three diffs were all made within minutes of each other. If I was Tom, I'd be rightfully upset about that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A straightforward case of WP:HOUND? Forgive me if I laugh. How much research did you do? Begoon 12:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, more than you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No one in this thread has said what happened wasn't a case of WP:FOLLOWING. The only disagreement was how justified Melcous was in doing so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, MJL, WP:HOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING (same thing) describes hounding as being "...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." So no, you are wrong - if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll just add that "Nobody denied the accusation I made" is never a valid justification for an accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Boing! on Tour: Okay, in reverse order: (1) Melcous literally admitted to following Tom around: When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. That's a straightforward definition of a pattern of behavoir which can be seen as hounding depending on the circumstance. However, instead of being like "Melcous literally admitted to following." (which would've required I get a diff or provide the exact quote for) I said "No one here has contested following has happened." because it would be absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say otherwise when Melcous literally admitted to following.
(2) It is amazing to me that I can say how the only disagreement here is whether Melcous was justified in following Tom around, and for you to tell me I'm wrong because if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Like, yeah.. I know. While I understand that you feel otherwise, I don't think Melcous was justified in this months-long quest to get Tom to answer for things he did eleven years ago - which is what the original COIN thread was about and the thing Melcous thought was important enough to bring up again in the second COIN thread (ignore my choice of diff; COIN was oversighted). Yeah, sorry, but no. We're almost five months out from the original COIN thread which was based off things which happened 8-11 years ago, and we're a month out since the second COIN thread. That Melcous used those events as the excuse to follow Tom around as recently as two days ago, is not only buck wild, it's borderline obsessive.
(3) Are you really just going to say hounding and following are the same thing? One is negative, and the other is neutral. The policy goes into detail about both. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm obviously not saying that hounding and following (as used in English) are the same thing, I am saying that in Wikispeak WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOLLOWING are links to the same paragraph, which is Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. In this reply you are still using "following" (English) as justification for your accusation of WP:HOUNDING (Wikispeak). And yes, the policy does go into detail as to what is acceptable following and what is not, but that is an explanation of what is and what is not considered hounding. Did you also notice that Melcous got no help in those WP:COIN threads? Melcous did the right thing, but nobody cared, and Tomwsulcer was just allowed to sit it out and carry on his COI editing without hindrance. Is it any wonder Melcous felt alone and saw WP:COIN as a waste of time? That's my big gripe here, that Melcous followed the proper procedures, got absolutely nowhere with them, and then when she tried to address the problems she saw directly (because she was getting no help), she was accused of stalking (and then of WP:HOUNDING and WP:GRUDGE here at ANI where people are supposed to examine issues in a fair and balanced manner). The initial response here was from people piling in without properly examining the whole situtation, the background, and the wider picture. Sadly, that's what ANI is like these days - there are too many here who are ready to jump on any accusation they see without putting in the effort to investigate it properly. And that makes me angry. Thankfully, someone did care enough to investigate properly, and found that the concerns that led Melcous to follow and review Tomwsulcer's edits are well founded. And yes, Melcous was still following and correcting Tomwsulcer's COI violations days ago. That's because they were still happening days ago. It has been going on for years. Frankly, I'm disappointed by your responses and your lack of self-reflection here, MJL, instead just doubling down on your flawed accusations. But I've said enough, and I know I would get nowhere trying to challenge the poisonous atmosphere at ANI. Thank you, at least, for listening. Boing! on Tour (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE. Melcous needs to agree to stop following Tomwsulcer around. ––FormalDude talk 05:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely? In that case I'm sure you can back up that assertion with diffs? Begoon 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Tomwsulcer provided seven in their initial comment. ––FormalDude talk 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven what? There's some external links in that post but I have no idea how that's supposed to be an answer to my question. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven diffs. Diffs of Melcous making what appear to be rather superfluous revisions of Tomwsulcer's contributions. One alone might not mean much, but seven separate occasions is a pattern of harassment. ––FormalDude talk 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  But did you bother to check them to see if they really were superfluous, look beyond those specific diffs to the wider recent editing of those articles, or check to see if Tomwsulcer does actually have any undeclared connections with any of the subjects before jumping on the accusing bandwagon? No, you didn't, did you? Without making any actual effort to properly check, your "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" comment is just a lazy throwaway accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I did check, thank you very much.

  Represent Us - Tagging a COI despite zero proof/evidence from a COIN thread.

  Xyla Foxlin Removing details from references for no reason.

  Amongst the rest, it is at the very least borderline hounding. ––FormalDude talk 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  So in your checking, you didn't find the clear COI violation at Molly Secours which Tomwsulcer has since admitted, and the indirect connection with The Oasis Center for Women and Girls? You didn't notice the excessive quoting and the puffery that Melcous was removing? No, your checking was not remotely sufficient for a "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" conclusion. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and the removal at Xyla Foxlin was not for no reason - Melcous clearly gave a reason in the edit summary. You might not agree with it, but that's a content disagreement and not evidence of WP:GRUDGE. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm striking my comment in light of the misconduct by Tomwsulcer below. ––FormalDude talk 09:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tomwsulcer: Do you have any undeclared personal connection to Molly Secours? (I note you said, above, "I have no connection with any of these subjects", but I want to ask you specifically about this one just in case you had forgotten anything). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I hired her to narrate my audiobook. I paid her. She didn't pay me for a Wikipedia article; I did it on my own on a volunteer basis. So there's no financial connection; there's no conflict of interest. But pretty much everything I write about, and every person I put into Wikipedia, I have some kind of connection with, if you'd like to get philosophical about it. I'm a New Jerseyan; so I'm predisposed to write about New Jersey subjects. I'm an American; I tend to write about Americans and American-type issues. I think everybody here is like me in that way -- we write about what we know. I've never accepted money for anything I do in Wikipedia. My policy is to try to get everybody who qualifies for a wiki-article into Wikipedia. If I met you Boing! on Tour, at a coffee shop, and within a few minutes, if we got to talking, I'd be wondering how I could get you into Wikipedia; if you'd qualify, you'd be there. It's just how I am.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about being philosophical (which is the line you took last time, if I remember correctly), it's about direct personal connections with the subjects you write about. And COI is not just about financial connections, or about being paid. It's about any connection that might lean an author to writing favourably or unfavourably about a subject, rather than from a neutral point of view. You *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and when you said "I have no connection with any of these subjects" that was not the truth. I see also that Molly Secours worked at The Oasis Center for Women and Girls, so can you see how there might appear to be an undisclosed connection there too? How your direct personal connection with Molly Secours might lean you towards writing favourably about that organisation? You want to try to get everybody you know who you think might warrant it an entry into Wikipedia, and that's just the way you are? That is *not* the way Wikipedia is - or, at least, doing it without declaring your connections is not the way Wikipedia is. When you have connections with people you write about (like the very blatant connection with Molly Secours), you *must* declare it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I have connections with pretty much everybody. And so do you, and so does everybody. We're all connected. For example, take Boryana Straubel. I read about her death in the NY Times. I felt sorry that she died in a bicycle accident. So I put her in Wikipedia. Are you saying that I should *declare* my 'connection' with this subject? It's a good article. Do you think I need to *declare* my 'relationship' with her, that I felt sorry that she died? If we make that a requirement, then I think everybody here in Wikipedia will spend half of their time declaring their associations, and they won't have any time left to build this great encyclopedia. Straubel belongs in Wikipedia. Or take Molly Secours; everything I wrote is referenced; she belongs here too. Is the article fair? Take a look. I simply said what the sources were saying. I agree about close family members; even though I write using my real name, I should have been more forthcoming that Frederick D. Sulcer was my late father. So I question the assumption that *any* connection that any of us has to anything here in Wikipedia invariably brings about bias or unfair coverage, and that simply is not the case. Why? Because of the requirements for notability and sourcing and the biography guidelines. We can't just say *anything* about anybody we want to. There are rules. I follow the rules. That's why very few, if any, of my hundreds and hundreds of articles I've written here ever been deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on Tom, don't be so disingenuous. No, if you had no personal connection with Boryana Straubel then of course you don't have to declare any interest. But you *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly told us here in this very discussion that you did not. And it has got *nothing to do* with the quality of what you write or whether it is sourced - WP:COI does not have an "unless you write good stuff that's well referenced" clause. The Molly Secours article as you left it was packed with excessive quotes, laced with puffery, and read to me as though it was written to show her in as favourable a light as possible. Melcous improved it considerably with some warranted pruning, and ended up being accused of stalking as a result. You can disagree with WP:COI policy as it is written, but unless you can get it changed then you *must* follow it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to add... WP:COI is not about "Man, I'm at one with the universe, and I have a connection with everything..." waffle. No, it is quite specific, and you should read it. Its very first sentence says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Tom, you have a clear employer/client financial relationship with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly denied it. I can envisage someone suggesting sanctions against you (maybe some sort of BLP restriction) unless you can show you understand and accept that, and that you will adhere carefully to WP:COI policy in the future. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better? Begoon 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Which previous comment?

Is there a reason you can't just answer my question? I didn't think it was hard.

I'm confused now. Begoon 14:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This almost doesn't need to be said since you already pledged to better adhere to WP:COI for the future, but having any financial relationship with someone (past or present) generally means you have a COI with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my main issue with Molly Secours is why the opening sentence of "...is a Nashville-based filmmaker, author, and activist" requires six citations after it. Anyway, I haven't investigated the problems with Tomwsulcer, but I just want to mention to Melcous that edits like this that put {{cn}} tags into an article but are disguised by the edit summary "copyedit" are unhelpful. In this instance, I would recommend doing the tagging in a separate edit with a summary like "cannot find a source for this" or "the given source does not state the claim specifically, need another one" or something like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks like genuinely good copy editing to me - and did you see the peacock drivel it removed? It might indeed be better to do the {{cn}} changes separately with a separate edit summary, but I think suggesting it was "disguised" is a poor choice of words as it implies deliberate obfuscation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I did - it was just a suggestion. As for Tomwsulcer, I would suggest they have ownership issues and need to stop giving slippery and evasive answers to questions, or hoping difficult questions will just disappear as it will probably end up with a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment here because I've already had one unpleasant encounter with Tomwsulcer but I think my experience may help illustrate the issues. On Raynard S. Kington, I removed a statement that was not supported by the source given. Tomwsulcer re-added it with additional sources but none that supported the specific claim. I started a discussion on the talk page but Tomwsulcer did not participate. Instead, he posted on the talk page of gay men, asking "Do gay men endure discrimination in Wikipedia?" which suggested that I, a gay woman, was removing his edits because I am homophobic. I asked an experienced user for advice and they posted a message to Tomwsulcer's talk page. It was removed unanswered. I assume that Tomwsulcer is trying, in his own way, to improve Wikipedia, but it is frustrating to work with someone who will not communicate and/or is passive aggressively attacking you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's quite troubling. Tomwsulcer, what was your intention with that edit on an unrelated talk page? Were you canvassing for help or genuinely accusing Polycarpa of being homophobic for removing an unsupported statement? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure @Tomwsulcer will be along to shed light on that shortly, but in case they missed it I've taken the liberty of adding a courtesy 'ping'. I do hope it's received - but I have faith because we're all connected to everyone, after all... Begoon 10:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

He has stated that he is no longer editing, so I doubt he will be here. This is not the first time he has cast aspersions on an editor for trying to uphold WP's notability guidelines. This didn't seem to get picked up before. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's tried to duck repercussions by disappearing either, only to reappear when he thinks the heat might have died down. Just my opinion, but I really think it would be a very good idea, by now, to make that tactic less easy. Begoon 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing a topic ban (probably on BLPs) for Tomwsulcer, but didn't know enough about the situation to suggest which sanction, if any, was appropriate. Do you think we should proceed with suggesting such a thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd propose a site ban, personally, because I don't think the bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". But I'll leave it to others because I'm loathe to commit the sort of time that would obviously be necessary, given the bizarre, shallow, knee-jerk 'defences' above, and also I'm no longer a "regular" so tend to consider such a proposal a bit outside my current remit. Wikipedia is very bad at removing bad actors like this. That's one of the reasons I don't participate much any more. Begoon 12:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Begoon speaks for me on this matter. SN54129 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking or hounding cannot be a defense against misconduct if Wikipedia is to function, and dealing with another editors' mistakes and issues cannot be considered stalking. There's abundant evidence above and in his contributions Tomwsulcer "doesn't get" COI policies, willfully or deliberately, and if this thread is to be closed it should be with restrictions against him, not Melcous. Simply because this thread is just a repetition of existing patterns and Tom's editing has been problematic for years (his image contributions are promotional at best, copyright violations at worst), I would recommend a site ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Site 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.

---

Okay, let's formally propose that Tomwsulcer is banned from Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after six months, and if unsuccessful, every subsequent year thereafter. Comments, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question I'm a bit confused here. I've had my run ins with Tomwsculcer and I'm sure we are both certain the other editor was a civil POV pusher. But Tom has a clean block log and while they were violating COI I can probably see how one might think, absent reading the policy, that they didn't have a COI etc. Is a site block really the least intrusive way we can protect Wikipedia in this case? Would it be better to issue a clear warning with a stated escalation plan? Springee (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Support. I was envisioning a restriction on BLP edits, perhaps with new articles submitted via AFC and a clear commitment to adhere to WP:COI policy (rather than just "I'll try"). But no, Tom is editing in good faith despite his chronic policy failures (and, yes, his original dishonesty in this discussion), and I think a site ban would be excessive at this point. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've changed my mind after seeing the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer. Tom was socking as recently as January 2022 to hide his continued COI editing. Given that the previous COIN discussion had been in November 2021, I can't possibly accept this was a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment. No, I think I'm a soft touch at times, but this has eliminated any possibility in my mind that Tom was acting in good faith here. It was an obviously deliberate attempt to evade the COI policy that he had no excuse for not understanding at that time. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Ban is not warranted in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, not only for the issues pointed out above (including the "original dishonesty") and the disappearing to avoid sanctions tactic, but also because of the worrying discussion with Begoon above: Begoon asks then "Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better?", to which they only can answer "Please see my previous comment" (which, as Begoon points out, doesn't seem to be an answer), and then "Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future." which again doesn't answer the question, leaving me with the impression that they have used their editing to make friends and family look better here, but that they are not willing to admit it or to indicate where they did this. No thanks, we don't need people here who use these tactics and don't even want to make amends when it is (again and again) pointed out that such editing is not acceptable, but instead attack the ones trying to uphold our policies. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am puzzled about this because I feel like the opening statement does address the question: I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This was last month. This, admittedly is a little older, but, quite honestly, wtf? Begoon 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I get it, I'm just saying "didn't address the question" doesn't seem to be the problem. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, given my comments above. I don't believe that "Tom is editing in good faith", Boing, I'm sorry but I just don't. Good faith would be demonstrated by owning the issues, some sadly absent honesty, and showing some real understanding of why they were wrong, with a meaningful, credible commitment to avoid such issues going forwards. None of that is in evidence. An indefinite block, rather than site ban, might serve to enforce that, but limited "Tbans" really don't seem sufficient here. I'd also ask anyone closing this thread to note a couple of the comments above this "formal proposal" which seem to support it (and, of course, those which don't). Begoon 11:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, fair points there. I was thinking good faith in that I think he genuinely wants to write nice stuff about people, whether has has a COI or not. But as for good faith regarding Wikipedia standards, no, he has clearly been deliberately trying to circumvent them. I recall a similar problem with his approach to copyright at Commons, where he essentially argued that we should ignore copyright law because everybody else was doing so. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quite. I'm sure Tom's a lovely chap, the type who, if I lent him my lawnmower, would scrupulously clean and oil it before handing it back. We're not discussing that here though - we're considering whether he's a good fit for, or a continual detriment to wikipedia, and whether his bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". I don't think it is, but if he turned up and said something that genuinely addressed those concerns in a credible and convincing way I'd rescind my support for a ban in a heartbeat. Begoon 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Tom has edited about family members and friends and this has been mentioned in a previous COIN report. These were around ten years ago and I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood COI policy wrt the more recent articles where he had a COI. I believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies. I do have additional concerns about his conduct in defending these articles. I am recusing myself from an actual support or oppose !vote as it occurred to me that I myself had written an article on a family member some time ago... I have reported myself to COIN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also "believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies" - and commits properly to adhere to them in future. I just don't see any evidence of that time being taken, genuine understanding or any commitment. Begoon 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/reply: As the initial subject of this report, I will also recuse myself from supporting or opposing. But I would note Catfish Jim and the soapdish that the editing of articles about his family members is not just "about ten years ago", but has continued on as recently as the last few months. See 1 and 2 for some fairly blatant examples. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, looking at those examples (along with the others I've seen), I think the main problem is that Tomwsulcer's writing has been relentlessly hagiographic in style. It might not be a particularly bad human fault to want to pour gushing praise on others, but obviously completely inappropriate here. Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is true... it does significantly erode the case for giving him the benefit of doubt. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be more a case of a user whose writing style isn't a good fit for Wikipedia, not someone who was intentionally violating COIN to promote a third party. Per their talk page, the user has already quit, and I don't see any benefit to a ban here. We've managed to drive them off from the Wiki already, no need to twist the knife. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- mind if I weigh in on this? I'm committed to exiting Wikipedia but my heart has gone out to all of you fine people, that I feel horrible that I've been wasting everybody's time on me and my stupid problems, so I'd like to briefly explain myself. My mistake has been, clearly, that I have not heeded the COI guidelines as rigorously as I should have. I admit it. My flawed thinking has gone along like this: that what's really important in Wikipedia are the three pillars: notability, reliable sources, verifiability. This is what I grew up on, and I really thought, honestly, that if contributions meet these three tests, they're okay. I should have been more forthcoming in my contributions. See, I was writing under my real name, I just didn't think about it after a while, and when I got called on it in the COI noticeboard, I didn't treat it seriously because I thought it was just users wanting to fingerwag me, and I wanted to keep contributing. But it's one of my many problems: I have ADHD (TWO shrinks in my town diagnosed me) so my mind is all over the place, I'm interested in everything, and one way I've learned to moderate my ADHD is by writing (I can cover it up that way -- I've edited my own writing here with several passes, how it's done...). So I'm actually a semi-competent writer with a few self-published books to my name. PLUS maybe I picked this up from my father, an advertising man, but I have this marketing sensibility of wanting to promote everything and everyone I see. I agree -- that's not the best writing sensibility for Wikipedia. I'm also tremendously interested in all sorts of ideas so I've contributed heavily to articles like History of citizenship because I listen to these Teaching Company courses (free from the local library) and want to write about this stuff! I also want to get everybody into Wikipedia if I can (again, not the best mindset, I agree) cause if you're talking to me at a coffee shop, or I read about you in a newspaper, within 5 minutes I can tell if you're wiki-bio ready, and I can write a wikibio in an hour. I can really whip them out. Most stuff, frankly, about people is positive, and I just write what the references say, and it usually comes out sounding positive or sometimes maybe like puffery. Again, one more of my problems. I was frustrated when I was being hounded after the COI revelations so I did write the John Mack Carter article -- again, no pay involved, I used to live near his family in Bronxville years back. So, long story short, my means are flawed, but my goals (I think) were good. I do love this project, I love information, I think Wikipedia is a great project and I urge you all to keep making it great! And the best way for me, at this point, is to bow out. So, again, apologies, please ban me for life (yes my wife would like that!) cause the Internet is a wide new world and there are plenty of other places for me to write. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, Tom. It's good that you seem to (belatedly) accept that wikipedia is not your blog. There are, indeed, better venues for that. It's a bit of a shame though, in my opinion, that you still seem to regard having that pointed out to you as "hounding". I hope that, if you ever do consider a return here, your understanding has evolved beyond that perplexing and inaccurate mindset. I also, sincerely, hope that you continue to get satisfaction and happiness from your writing on other platforms. Begoon 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Tomwsulcer: Much respect for that, Tom. I was always convinced you had the best motives here, and that it was your procedural approach that was problematic. In the light of what you say, I am further convinced that we do not need to apply any sanctions here. If you should wish to resume editing in the future, I would be open to offering what guidance I can. (I might not be active here when you do, as I continue to wind down my Wikipedia activity, but I intend to always keep my Wikipedia email contact active and I would invite you to use it). Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (Withdrawn after seeing the lastest SPI, and amending my recommendation above. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC))

  I said above that I'd rescind my support for a ban if I saw a response that convinces me Tom truly understands and will not continue to be a problem. I still, honestly, haven't quite seen that yet, but he says he will not continue to edit, and I'm honour-bound to accept that at face value, so I guess sanctions are no longer urgent right now. I'd probably prefer a definitive result from the thread, because "I retire for a while, so you don't need to sanction me" is getting pretty damn old, tired and sadly predictable as a response, but meh... Begoon 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Agree here that good faith has been exhausted in this scenario. Tom's entire editing history is littered with COI editing and utter refusal to understand copyright. Given the issues with the line between outing and determining COI topic bans simply aren't sufficient. We can't figure out every person Tom has a connection to, but we certainly can see from his track record it's not going to be encyclopedic. Frankly, Tom's post above makes me even more strident in my belief that we need a ban here. As long as people are willing to say "oh well they're quitting, there's no need for sanctions", there is no limit to how often editors will claim "ANI flu" to avoid discussions of their bad behavior, or trot out a medical diagnosis as explanation for why we shouldn't deal with their behavior. And frankly good faith should be exhausted as soon as those canards come out. We have plenty of editors with ADHD or autism who can edit constructively without problems. If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree with any of that, either.

  I was trying to be "nice" above, but at some point we do need to consider whether that "niceness" is just being exploited or manipulated.

  And yes - "If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it?" Begoon 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Please don't give the user a free pass merely because they say they're quitting! It's not that I doubt their sincerity, but surely we all know that editing Wikipedia is addictive (duh), and that most people who sincerely say they quit are likely to come back when the withdrawal bites. Bishonen | tålk 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC). PS: And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟 Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC).

  "And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟"

  Amen. Boing put it best, above. Begoon 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support per my previous remarks. I found TWS's statement above moving and self-analytical, but unfortunately still ignoring the consequences of their actions rather than the causes of them. SN54129 13:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  Changing to strong support per the SPI; while that seems to have attracted lukewarm attention, their blatant admission of socking is clear, despite the details our august colleagues are discussing. SN54129 21:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I have not seen good behavior from Tom, and I doubt the efficiency of not banning him simply because he quit; in the first COI thread, he simply left for a few months and then came back instead of addressing his mistakes; and I feel as if he may do a similar thing if he is not banned here and now. Also, dropping a link to this discussion regarding possible WP:SOCK by Tom: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer. wizzito | say hello! 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - First of all, let's get out of the way that I agree that someone quitting shouldn't let them off the hook. The issue is, to jump straight to a site ban I expect to see pervasive, egregious problems for which no lesser intervention could suffice, and I don't think the case for that position has been sufficiently made. Few things try people's patience like poorly managed COIs, indeed, but looking through a few people's opinions here, you'd think tendentious and COI editing is all that Tom does... but a perusal through a few of his most edited articles doesn't seem to support that picture. That doesn't mean there aren't big problems here, so don't take this oppose as opposing any action at all -- it's just a response to the only proposal on the table, which is the most severe possible action. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to this one where Tomwsulcer adds a name to a long list of people that went to the same school as Dana Delany. Peter Currie (businessman) was created by Tomwsulcer. Julian Hatton was created by Tomwsulcer. Nate Lee was created by Tomwsulcer. Sara Nelson (editor) was created by Tomwsulcer. Priscilla Martel was created by Tomwsulcer. Gar Waterman was created by Tomwsulcer. The dispute that I mentioned above was in regard to Tomwsulcer's edits to Raynard S. Kington, who is now the haed of that school, Phillips Academy. It makes me wonder if perhaps Tomwsulcer is more interested in Phillips Academy than he is in Dana Delany. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think they are all former classmates of his? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: They are. (Redacted) wizzito | say hello! 15:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Wizzito: I see your evidence was redacted... presumably because of doxing concerns... Tom states that they were on his linked in page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to - This is sort of my point. Why did you then stop? And why did you not look at the others? The question isn't "has Tom made bad edits" because clearly he has -- a lot of them. The question is whether a site ban is necessary, and evidence of bad edits isn't justification for a site ban. We site ban people when there's no realistic way they can contribute productively. I'm saying there is evidence Tom can contribute productively, as evidenced by the other contributions. But what I'm saying doesn't really matter, I suppose, since Tom is quitting and seems to be... well maybe not making things worse, but certainly not making things better with what he's been writing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: You seemed to be saying that Tomwsulcer wasn't just editing pages where he had some personal interest that he wanted to advance. That edit showed me what his personal connection was. Since you asked, I went a little further. Tomwsulcer added a quote from Dana Delany, made in an interview with someone named Jonathan Meath. Sure enough, Jonathan Meath has a page created by Tomwsulcer and Meath attended Phillips Academy. My opinion is that quotes don't belong in biographies unless they are historically significant. I definitely don't think quotes should be used just to namedrop one of your friends. Is Tomwsulcer a good editor outside of the conficts of interest? Read his concluding statement at Talk:Dana Delany/GA1. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support due to COI editing, misrepresenting said COI editing (re the Molly Secours article), and socking. GAB^gab 23:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support There are just too many things wrong here. User:Begoon said it best, but with the (admitted) socking and the inability to understand the problems, I end up here. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment / Post mortem I’ve been doing a little soul-searching and just wanted to understand what happened. I see myself as a good guy, ethical, a worthy contributor, doing an excellent job here with many tough subjects such as History of citizenship, Equal opportunity, Citizenship in the United States, Wall Street, United States Congress and such. And I want to do the right thing. This is a big deal for me, in my life, wanting to do the right thing, so I stepped back a bit, reread your comments above, and wanted to add one more comment since I think there’s much heat here and little light. What’s clear to me is that everybody else here is doing what they think is right. If we think about the idea of assuming good faith, then, what’s the problem?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand how most others here see me. That I was masqueraded as a ‘real’ contributor so that I could get my friends in here, possibly editing for money (I don’t do that). When I was ‘caught’ after 10+ years with a notice on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard, I refused to address the issues, and 'hid’ for a few months, hoping the hubhub would die down, that users would forget, and go back to my sleazy ways of COI writing. When I got hounded by well-meaning users, who (in good faith) thought I was COI editing, I evaded, didn’t address issues, didn’t come clean about all my nefarious history of COI editing. Then, when I complained about the hounding, and the socking got discovered, well proof positive – this guy’s no good, doesn’t belong here. I can see clearly how most of you think of me and my behavior here. Got it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, I realize that most of you won’t trust anything I write here, perhaps you’re suspecting that I’m writing this as a backhanded way to get back into Wikipedia (not the case, trust me – I’m quitting) but I’d still like to state my take on all of this. I’m an old hand here. Been here 13+ years. When I first started out, sure enough I got into wiki-battling, jousting over what went in, and frankly, and I think this is true for most of us here, initially, is that we enjoy the wikibattling. Admit it; it’s kind of fun. We get to play like wiki-lawyers. I was pretty good at the game. So are you guys: hey, don’t believe me, then reread this thread! What happened to me, during my tenure here, is that I learned, slowly, that I really didn’t like how I felt afterwards. So as time passed, I really came to try to avoid it, and to focus on creating good content. So, backtrack to last November, when I got ‘caught’ for COI editing, I figured it was just more wiki-battlers wanting to joust, and I didn’t want any more of that. I had Covid twice in the past two years, the first time quite seriously, and I don’t want to waste my time any more on this stuff. When I tried writing again, I was hounded left and right, with every thing I did being flagged as a COI violation, and the only way I thought I could avoid the wiki-battling was to try to write using another handle. And that from my point of view, having to reveal all of my associations would be more wiki-battling, more waste of time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I know; nobody reading this will trust me, but I’m telling you truthfully, how I’ve been thinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So, again, returning to my earlier question, what’s the problem? I think I’m good and right. Others think they’re right. Yet we have this conflict. What gives?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So I did a little thought experiment. Suppose I have a friend who’s a hacker, who has a way to get into Wikimedia’s databases, and can ‘reveal’ who you people are. Doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that most of you, writing under aliases, are fingerwagging me, who writes using his real name? But suppose I could lift the veil on you people, find out who you really are, then google your real names and your past editing history, and what do you think we’d find? I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings. We’d find that some of you edit for money. But then we’d look a little deeper at the particular edits you did, you horrendous COI editors you, and I bet we’d find that almost all of them were imminently reasonable, maybe sometimes with a little puffery, but verifiable with good reliable references, that if I went over all of your collective supposed COI contributions, I wouldn’t delete anything because they were all good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Think about it this way. I’ve been ‘exposed’ as a COI editor for months now, with numerous smart and sharp contributors going over everything I’ve ever edited here, but none of the articles I’ve written have been deleted. Why not? Because every wiki-bio article I’ve written deserves to belong here. They all meet the tests of notability. I can’t put my friends in here if my friends aren’t notable. But they’re notable. Many times I’ve made friends with people online after putting them in Wikipedia, usually after I’ve tried to beg them for a photo. (But navigating Wikimedia Commons is as some of you know a Kafka-esque pursuit).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So what I’m thinking at this point is that we ought to take a more hard-headed look at the COI guideline. Suppose there’s a public relations person who wants to write about their company, here in Wikipedia. Suppose there’s one of you people who want to write about your friends or your church or whatever. Suppose, further, you followed the rules – you were neutral, you referenced, your edits were verifiable. Would your edits be so bad? They’re checkable. You couldn’t just write anything. You had to use secondary sources not primary ones. You couldn’t engage in original research. See. from my viewpoint, these are constructive additions to this magnificent encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Consider, further, that it is really tough for us contributors here to try to attribute motives of contributors, and then to try to judge whether those motives are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. As I said, most of us here use alias handles so nobody knows who anybody else is. So we can’t even begin to try to track down the motives of anonymous contributors. Consider that I’ve been here 13+ years, using my real name, and it took that long to supposedly catch me and my supposed infractions. Even back in 2011, I declared my association to my late father, but it took more than a decade to have my COI discovered. The way Wikipedia is set up is not conducive to hunting down COI editors. It’s too tough. So it’s kind of like we’re operating on the honor system, as if we’re assuming that others (editing anonymously) will declare their supposed connections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

What the current COI guideline can do, however, is turn us all against each other, to fingerwag, to encourage wiki-battling. In my case, the COI guideline has been abused to turn good contributors like Melcous into hounders. Melcous isn’t at fault here; it’s the COI guideline that is at fault.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So, what to do? My recommendation is keep the COI guideline but phrase it more like an encouragement, a request, but use it with greater discretion, and realize that the other guidelines like notability and reliable sources and verifiability and secondary sources and no original research, etc, take precedence. That’s how I see what’s happened here, is that the enforce-the-COI thing got out of hand, that it turned good contributors like Melcous against good contributors such as myself, and in the wiki-battling, painted me as some form of quasi wiki-criminal, even though for years I’ve been a top creator of good content. That’s what I’m saying: rethink the COI guideline. Keep the COI editing flags since they can help readers judge whether the article is fair or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s my two cents. Trust me, I’m gone. Bye folks. With my reputation in tatters here, I'm not the one to go crusading for such a change. Remember to please ban me. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your two cents? Bishonen | tålk 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

@Tomwsulcer: All you had to do was simply declare that you had connections with the people you wrote about. That's all. The purpose is simply to get others to check what you write, and adjust it for any excessive praise (for example). It's not hounding, it's cooperative editing. And that's all Meclous was doing. No, your articles have not been deleted. But they have been edited for content, with excessive puffery removed. And that is what COI policy is there for. You accept it, or you leave - and it's a shame you chose to refuse to accept it and leave. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: I would have liked to see you accept responsibility for your actions, help clean up some of the things you have written, and carry on editing with a new understanding of what other users expect from you. What I see is you saying that you are a great person and a great editor and if you broke the rules then the rules must be wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings - Yikes. This is perhaps the most cynical and/or pessimistic estimate of COI in the active Wikipedia community that I've come across. I can only gauge my estimate by my interactions with people here and Wikipedians whose real identities I know, but my take (and hope) is that it's much lower. But you do make a good point about use of real names. It does, I'm sure, feel quite unfair and perhaps even creepy to have a bunch of pseudonymous people on the internet pointing fingers at your family connections while keeping their own connections secret. It presents an asymmetric field that removes the possibility of exploring tu quoques. Sadly, that people do sometimes use Wikipedia to write about their families at length, and fail to hide it, makes it harder for those of us who want to discourage this sort of personal digging. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Such cynicism may perhaps be prompted by encountering Guide to Literary Agents (AfD discussion), a directory for authors to contact publishers edited by Chuck Sambuchino, with the Wikipedia article written by Csambuchino (talk · contribs). There's a parallel to Neguev (talk · contribs) writing about Reedsy (AfD discussion). I touched on the account names thing further down in this discussion. I've gone through some of Tomwsulcer's AFD contributions, and xe does seem to grasp the basic ideas, and would actually find a widespread agreement on some of the things that xe says. Where we differ, I suspect, is that it is my experience that the people with conflicts of interest tend in the main to be single purpose accounts or to edit in little walled gardens, or only edit the "bands, biographies, and businesses" subset of Wikipedia. I'm unconvinced that that such disagreement is something to ban for. I think that people are, however, reacting to the failure to say something simple like "I'm just a satisfied customer. They didn't pay me. If anything, I paid them!". Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support It would bring him much virtual peace. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. If anyone is still in doubt, check out this (and thanks to the individual who alerted me to it). It's a blatant piece of promotional puffery, with a lot of it (including the lead) sounding like it was written by the company's marketing department. Oh, and yes, you can guess who wrote it. I think Tomwsulcer's work needs some serious review and rewriting - I wonder how much more of this promotional garbage there is out there? (I'll start a little pruning on this one myself ...on further examination, I think it's beyond salvage in its current state and I've gone for AFD). Boing! on Tour (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, at Special:Undelete/Reedsy, at the second (correction: third) creation of the article in 2017, there is an edit summary from Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) claiming no association with Reedsy. Off-wiki evidence leads me to suspect that "I am merely a satisfied customer." would have been better. Moreover, I personally do not fault writing with a non-pseudonymous account when the subject is close to onesself. Although for many years I have offered the advice at User:Uncle G/On sources and content and User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you that one has to be very careful indeed about it and use only independent sources, which press releases and puffery most definitely are not. I think that failure to distinguish which secondary sources are good secondary sources is one cause of the problem here. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • There is circumstantial evidence that Tomwsulcer had collaboration from the company to write that article, at the time a whole load of its blatantly promotional content was added. I can't be confident that it's any more than Tom asking them to upload photos for him to use, and Tom's "gushing praise" style could account for the promotional content. But in combination with a professional connection with the company (though which Tom received professional services), this all makes it clear that a COI should have been declared so it could be reviewed by other editors under COI policy. There's no way all that puffery would have been acceptable by any review process (eg AFC) had such a review happened. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, and yes, if Tom denied any connection with Reedsy at Special:Undelete/Reedsy (which I can't access), then the off-wiki evidence suggests that was not accurate. But we've already seen in the above discussion how ready he is to deny connections that he really does have. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The edit summary in full is "re-float; company is clearly notable; I'm not associated with Reedsy; added categories; copyedit; rm fluff; kept good refs". This was on 2017-11-19, 3 days after Winged Blades of Godric moved Draft:Reedsy out of the main article namespace, Neguev (talk · contribs) having come back on 2017-11-14 to create Reedsy a second time.

        Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

        • Ha, and have you seen who User:Neguev is? He's Emmanuel Nataf, "founder at reedsy.com and street photographer" (from the link on his user page, so I'm not outing him). Boing! on Tour (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Yes, I had. See a parallel a few bullet points above. Uncle G (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The 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.

Unusually nasty and unfair personal attack

I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would take a look at recent discussion at User talk:Caltraser5 and act accordingly. As I sit watching the horrors of the Russian attack on Ukraine and figuratively yelling at the TV in disgust, I am being accused of supporting Russian war crimes for acting to prevent vandalism of Moscow. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• (shakes his head) Not the first time some editor has decided that Putin's war is an excuse to unleash nasty personal attacks at anyone thwarting their vandalizing of Russian articles. I wonder if there just needs to be blocks of these people for the duration of the war. Ravenswing 04:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yikes! Blocked indef with TPA disabled. El_C 04:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you had to go through that bizarre toxic insanity. El_C 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

El C, prompt service here is part of my generous compensation package. More correctly, it is the only significant part of my compensation package, except for an occasional barnstar, and my own sense of self-esteem. There have also been a couple of t-shirts that I no longer wear in public, since nobody ever says anything about them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Aww! dang! I get as many comments on my WP "kiwis are shy" shirt as on my RBG as Justice shirt, which in both instances is bizarrely a lot. Come visit here to enhance your compensatory regime! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Endorse block. Caltraser5's wholly uninsightfull UTRS ticket has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

McdonaldsWifiAccount

• McdonaldsWifiAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is only a mild annoyance and not really an incident, but this troll account was not properly blocked and they seem to be dancing with cross-wiki trolling. I recently cleaned up some of their edits which had not been reverted. McdonaldsWifiAccount continues to make a mockery of the situation on their talk page. Just throwing this out there, not sure how important it is. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've removed talk page access. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Refusing to respect consensus, referring to multiple editor's reverts as a "frightening" "concerted attack"

I'm filing this due to false accusations of conspiracy, and hostility from User:Onceinawhile at Rachel's Tomb. Earlier today Onceinawhile wrote that the multiple editors who reverted the user's uploaded image had been "Edit warring the image out of the article without consensus", and falsely described this as a "concerted attack" that was "frightening".

Some background, roughly four years ago, Onceinawhile replaced the main image at Rachel's Tomb (the third holiest site in Judaism) with an image that shows barbed wire, plastic bottles, and cinder blocks lying on the ground. The cinderblocks, barbed wire, and debris being more prominent and in focus than the actual subject of the article, which is almost entirely invisible and out of focus. This was then updated to a cropped version of the image, that was still out of focus, and still contained a bottle of garbage in the frame. There was unanimous consensus on the talk page that the images were unsuitable (the conversation in its entirety is viewable here). Due to this consensus, the original/preceding image of the tomb was kept, and it had remained stable since that time.

Recently, Onceinawhile restored the cropped version of the image, falsely claiming that this was "in the absence of any solution here" and bizarrely claiming that there was consensus for, alternately, "a photo from outside" and "a modern image" (there wasn't). Now, this is merely annoying, I'm aware that "consensus can change" and would have no problem opening an RFC and requesting opinions. But, being accused of partaking in a "frightening" "concerted attack" made me feel that the editor wasn't interested in engaging constructively.

It is also worth noting that Onceinawhile was warned roughly a year ago at Arbitration Enforcement that "Their general conduct as depicted by the complainant's evidence is simply beyond the pale. Myself, it has been years and years since I've seen discourse in the ARBPIA topic area degenerate to such an extent. Not at all a good sign, which ought to be nipped in the bud." It doesn't seem to me that anything has changed whatsoever. And personally, I'm not sure how to proceed constructively with a user who falsely accuses those who revert their edits of conspiracy, and describes those edits as a "frightening" "concerted attack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the usage of such terms create a toxic atmosphere in such fragile and contentious area especially the user was warned multiple times already Shrike (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That was me. Probably time for an WP:ARBPIA WP:TBAN...? I mean, I did issue Onceinawhile a final warning on Feb 2021 (permalink, I did indef TBAN their opponent later on, though), which followed the AE complaint linked to above (direct link), closed by Awilley on Jan 2021. The problem with issuing a TBAN to an established ARBPIA editor, is that their camp will come to their defense (like in that final warning I linked to), then the opposing side will counter-offence, and downhill it goes from there.

It pretty much never fails to happen. And the worse forum for that inevitable spectacle is this freeform, word-limitless AN/ANI, where threads quickly become impenetrable to nearly all but the most ARBPIA dedicated. I'm inclined to go with no action (on my part, at least) just by virtue of Drsmoo's lack of clue about choosing this forum. Granted, a much easier forum to draft a complaint such as this (a diff-light complaint), but wrt enforcement, usually accompanied by meager results (i.e. much heat, little light).

Sure, one is technically allowed to post complex ARBPIA complaints at AN/ANI, but that doesn't mean I or others will act on em if we find the process at WP:AE less disruptive for these sort of entrenched ARBPIA matters. Might as well nip that practice in the bud, I'd say. Or, rather, have been saying, for years and years. (edit conflict) As I write this, of course! El_C 10:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that I got that out of my system: Blocked – for a period of one week, but am still holding off on the TBAN per my above rant. El_C 10:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Being a staunch proponent of the "AN is deliberately listed as the primary conduct forum, and listed as an alternate forum within AE for various aspects, not accidentally" wing, I've chuckled at El C's position (more valid than normal given that the warning was done over at AE), but I'll endorse arbpia-scope tban given a breach of a final warning (I should note that had it been a really mild incursion I'd have just reissued a warning given the more than a year since Feb 2021) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, you keep missing my point all through the years, about freeform, word-limitless AN/ANI, where threads quickly become impenetrable to nearly all but the most [topic] dedicated. I've never seen you provide a convincing counter and, at this point, I've pretty much given up trying to reason with you about this. So I suppose till next time we rinse and repeat this once more. El_C 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Vs the longer dispute where this isn't the place for it (and sorry to both OP and you for doing so - mea culpa), in this case, it was more of the quickform "so long as policy permits them to raise the request here, I'll engage in the process" Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What does Vs mean? Anyway, you're gonna chuckle per usual in response to my stance, I'm gonna do my your-position-is-unresponsive/unsubstantive thing. We've been through this how many times now? What's the point? El_C 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I missed the apology, sorry. Withdrawn. El_C 12:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• As one of the 3 referenced in the "concerted attack" is a now-globally-locked user, there's at least a smidge of merit there. ValarianB (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Not when others are grouped with them without distinction. El_C 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Ladapo BLP

Wikipedia unfavorable to the truth on this article? It would seem the fake news editors here are busy trying to spin the truth and the cited article itself by misrepresenting it in this BLP. I have tried a few times to correct this article from the fake news editors with this edit in () (In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation "healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC" in Florida.) It just doesn't say what the pro vaccine editors want it to say... Hmm that would seem to be a violation of Wikipedia's rules and quite frankly intellectual dishonesty. Wiki is supposed to rely on creditable sources and taking and quoting the headline of the cited sources obviously cannot be allowed by the pro vaccine folks who wish to perpetrate fake news. And to that, I must ask why?

Editors here refuse to allow the word "healthy" to be included here and I must ask why? The cited source says "healthy children" and whenever those two words appear, it is immediately edited to delete the word "healthy" and carry water for the fake news editors.

Any one want to chime in and answer the question? 2600:1700:7610:41E0:D54A:165:F3E5:33C2 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please work on resolving the dispute on the article talk page, IP. Also, please spare everyone the usual buzzwords of "fake news" and so on. While you might have a valid content argument, that kind of rhetoric is inappropriate, so please refrain, review WP:BATTLEGROUND. El_C 02:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

While we don't resolve content disputes here I actually agree with you that if Ladapo restricted his recommendation to healthy children the article needs to make this clear in some way. However the first time you said anything on the talk page was after you'd been reverted three times (I think) and was the same or at least a very similar hyperbolic statement as you made here. If you want to resolve WP:content disputes you need to calmly discuss the dispute on the talk page rather than simply complaining about other editors or ranting about Wikipedia. If you are having problems resolving a dispute or feel the problem is urgent and you need help, do so at some appropriate place for WP:Dispute resolution probably WP:BLPN in this case. ANI is never a place to resolve content disputes as I indicated in my first sentence. I'd also note that while you were trying to do this, you also tried adding disputed tags to the article [195] [196] again without discussion [197]. When you make good or partly good edits interspersed with bad ones, it's very easy for your good edits to be missed especially when you make no attempt at discussion for any of them. I'd also note another IP who I initially thought was you but looking more carefully may not have been added some similarly questionable edits [198] after your second attempt at effecting the healthy thing and I think there's a good chance others thought and still think the other IP is you and so it's affected their perceptions of you as an editor. If that IP is not you, unfortunately you have to accept that when you chose to edit without an account it can be easy to mistake you for another editor. I'd say especially with IPv6. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for honestly stating the BLP needs to reflect what the source is stating. While it is true I did not use the talk page until just prior to posting here, neither did the reverting editor check what the source actually says before reverting the constructive edit. Does every constructive edit need to be defended on a talk page to stop the reverting of constructive edits? I am also surprised nearly everyone else ignores the talk page even when my edit summary plainly states see talk page. I do not wish to defend some poor choices. I have sworn off Wikipedia many times and when I see blatantly inaccurate information in some article I try to be constructive and are once again rebuffed by some editors who, without checking the source, revert my edit and issue warnings or accusations about vandalism while they themselves are vandalizing a good edit and article. Thank you for your replies I realize that for every editor that reverts constructive edits there are countless more who allow the constructive edit to stand. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:C16D:29A3:38C5:ECC7 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

IP 33C2, you said I have tried a few times to correct this article. I see one time, by IP D674, that I assume is you: [199]. The only other IP I see having done that is IP 3FIF [200]. I also note that in that edit, 3FIF removed the sourced sentence The recommendation was contrary to that of the CDC while only leaving an edit comment mentioning the part they added. (Note that, when 3FIF put back [201] the "healthy" part without removing the CDC part, that edit was not challenged until it was reverted three days later by another editor.) 3FIF also removed sourced content from another article [202] with no explanation beyond a bizarre non-sequitur about pajamas, and then decided it would be a good idea to do this ([203] [204]) in response to being asked to stop removing sourced content. If the editor using the 3FIF IP expressed concerns about the intellectual dishonesty of others, I would have some doubts they were doing so in good faith. Would you know anything about that, IP? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Egsan Bacon: because of the way IPv6 works, you can generally take any IPs within the /64 to be the same device and the dynamicness is intentionally built into OSes for privacy reasons. Sometimes the /64 could cover a whole house (so multiple devices and theoretically possible multiple people just like a single IPv4), it's a lot rarer that it will cover something like a large educational, commercial or residential building. This means all the contributions from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7610:41E0:D54A:165:F3E5:33C2/64 can be taken to originate from the same editor barring evidence to the contrary or someone who knows more about AT&T's current allocation policies. That being the case, I count 4 times that the IP tried to change this detail [205], [206], [207], [208]. The last time was just before they came here [209]) and also finally went to the talk page [210] (as I noted above), and it is now semi stuck due to the protection (not complaining). As I noted above, the IPs other edits to that article were generally questionable so I can understand why their good edits were missed. However, while they should not have removed the CDC thing, even their first correction should not have been simply reverted like that, instead the bad part of their edit removed and the good part kept. Likewise, the other 2 edits which were reverted really shouldn't have been, and it doesn't matter that much how long it took for them to be reverted if they were. These edits could have been improved but since we are dealing with a BLP here, we really need to do our best to ensure BLP violations are corrected and attempts to do so aren't lost just because of badness in between or during by the same editor. I'd note even if this had been a banned editor, while I'm a strongly believer in WP:DENY, when it comes to BLP we cannot allow deny to outweigh our responsibilities (actually WP:BANEXEMPT means technically they aren't wrong to make an edit if all they're doing it correcting a BLP violation). Although I'm not saying anyone needs to check each edit from a banned editor carefully before reverting. In this case the editor isn't banned AFAWK, and the number of edits is fairly limited so while I can understand why the good edits were missed, and as I said above, if the IP had simply handled this better there's a good chance this would have already been resolved, and of course none of this excuses the terrible way they handled this including the silly comment above and on the talk page, you can't deny that we also seem to have failed here since we unfortunately kept a BLP violation for longer than we should have. (I haven't checked the sources but so far no one has challenged the IPs on the talk page so I assume their basic premise is correct.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism by IP since September 2021

Disruptive IP (new to old order)

Articles involved

• Chuu (singer) – Adding nonsense about krill, squid, penguin, hunting, birds which isn't relevant to article.[211][212]
• Chuu (single album) – Same as above.[213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222]
• Draft:Running Girls – Same as above.[223][224][225][226][227][228]
• Template:Loona – Same as above.[229]
• Cheongju – Same as above.[230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239]
• Draft talk:Running Girls – adding WikiProject Birds when article isn't related to such.[240][241][242]
• Talk:Chuu (single album) – adding WikiProject Birds when article isn't related to such.[243]
• Ji-woo – In October 2021; not affected recently. Same nonsense.[244][245][246]

I don't see them stopping anytime soon with the latest edits made today consisting of the same nonsense, hence requesting to range block 240F:7A:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 106.171.0.0/16 which consists of the above disruptive IP that are active in 2022. If possible, also 106.131.0.0/16 in case they hopped to that range, I'm fine the decision to restrict 106.131.0.0/16 range from editing the articles involved since this range hasn't been used in 2022 yet to disrupt the articles involved. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The IPv4 ranges being used here are 106.171.40.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 106.131.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The IPv6 ranges are 240f:7a:c000::/34 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2001:268:9000::/38 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). It's not really a /16 or /32. wizzito | say hello! 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito Hi, thanks you for working out the range, my IP knowledge isn't that board, I thought it only works with /16 or /24 or /32 or /48 or /64 since this are the ones I commonly encountered through the red notification box that appear in certain IP contributions if it's within the blocked range. Anyway, thanks again! Regards, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hajrakhala blindly reverting

Hajrakhala (talk · contribs)

Today IAmAtHome (talk · contribs) let me know on his talk page that this user was reverting external links for further readings additions on certain historical personages. [247] here, he puts 4 time warning. Hajrakhala claims İslâm Ansiklopedisi links are spam, as if IAmAtHome is promoting his own website or something. I personally use [248] this website as a source here as well on various articles. It isn't spam and has various credible authors. Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by JamesA.Blatt

Per WP:LEGALTHREAT, notifying admins here about a perceived legal threat by the user @JamesA.Blatt posted on my Talk page, Special:Diff/1077283019 over a decision to decline their draft, Draft:Prince Pius. – robertsky (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really a legal threat, so much as JamesA.Blatt screwing around, making others clean up after him. Blocking them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam thanks! – robertsky (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of Snow Close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry

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

---

I would like to request a review of the SNOW close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry by RandomCanadian. As I mentioned on their talk page, I see their close as inappropriate for the following reasons:

• Their close rationale cited WP:CSK and they quoted #3: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. For this nomination to be completely erroneous, it would have to be so ridiculous that it either doesn't make sense or is gibberish. Second, I obviously provided an accurate deletion rationale (per WP:GNG). They may disagree with the rationale, but no one can claim that I didn't provide an accurate rationale. This also completely ignores Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry, an ongoing WP:AFD on a same type of article I nominated with the same rationale (that is going to close as a delete). I say this not to cite WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but to show that my rationale was not ridiculous.
• They also cited WP:SNOW, but they failed to give even a reasonable amount of time for editors to comment on the deletion discussion. They only allowed 7 hours to elapse from start to close, a time that is shorter than a normal work day! If this happened on day 3 or 4, I wouldn't bat an eye, but after only 7 hours?
• Lastly, in their talk page, they cite SNOW as being necessary to avoid drama and WP:NOTBURO, but neither of those were an issue. Keeping a good faith deletion discussion open a few days to allow all editors to participate is not a bureaucracy, and rather is a common courtesy.

I get it, the discussion was definitely headed in one direction. But I have been party to many deletion discussions where a flurry of comments comes initially that advocates for one side, and then later as more editors take part the other side comes forward. This type of close would be appropriate for clearly bad faith nominations, for nominations from new editors who obviously don't know where they are doing, or for nominations that are clearly ridiculous (i.e. if I nominated Bears-Packers rivalry). But in this case, my nomination was legitimate, it had a valid rationale (as shown by the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry) and it would not cause any harm to keep it open for a few days to give others an opportunity to participate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Endorse - Honestly I don't know where to begin with that deletion rationale, which explains that it's a decades-old sibling rivalry (two teams in the same city, even in the same stadium) that is widely covered (as are all major sport sibling rivalries, by virtue of their rarity and the fact that they basically only happen in large markets with tons of media coverage, thus ensuring widespread in-depth coverage). "only comprised 14 total games, with only 2 games in the last 10 years", is, in the context of inter-conference NFL, a nonsensical rationale, as explained by several !voters (and in the lead of the article, for that matter, 14 games is a lot). The nomination rationale is actually a "keep" vote. Levivich 14:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved): I think RC's close is saving the community time. The nominator's rationale appears to be based on a reasonable belief about what constitutes a "true rivalry" and an analysis of the sources that shows they do not prove the existence of one. I think RC's characterization of that rationale as an inaccurate one is also reasonable, as there's no expectation in our notability policy that sources meet a certain editors definition of the term. Inter-league rivalries between teams that play in the same city are more of the rule than the exception. I also see it as likely that the Bears-Packers rivalry page will be deleted, but many of the Delete voters are viewing it as "too soon" and calling for draftification, as the teams have been co-located for a relatively short period. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Gonzo fan I have no idea why you reverted Ad Orientem's close of this as it quite clearly should be at WP:DRV. I would like to request a review of the SNOW close - that's exactly the type of thing Deletion Review handles. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• My bad. Feel free to archive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I restored the close. (But really, don't bother with DRV. The difference between Chargers/Rams and Giants/Jets is that Chargers/Rams is new.) Levivich 15:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• I had this in the edit window when I edit conflicted a while back, and well, might as well include it since I had bothered writing it:
• Closer comment The OP's characterisation of CSK no. 3 seems to be overly restrictive, and their reasoning that a similar rationale is correct for another article on a similar topic does not mean it is accurate for this one. I've explained CSK no. 3 on my talk, but just for everyone's convenience, the gist of it is that I could find WP:THREE just by looking at the article. Also, it doesn't require nor imply any malfeasance from the nominator [otherwise it would be CSK no. 2]. As for the similar articles on a similar topic, that is simply a false comparison: if one were to make the argument that Cashion London fails GNG, they'd probably be correct. However, make the same argument for Trayon Bobb - who plays the same sport in the same country - and you'd correctly get called out on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour

I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for hatting. :) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to start off by saying that I totally admit my actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard and that I should have tried to work on this situation before it ended up getting to here. My actions need to be considered in the full context as reactions too. Firstly it seems a bit of a WP:supervote to classify my behaviour as simply disruptive editing when there was disagreement in the the original case, some think it seems to be behavioural towards another editor and some think it is a content dispute with another editor. If it is either of those then I think a way for the editors to work together should be put in place instead of a blanket ban on a single good-willed editor of the two. With regards to the first point (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd) these are supported by the source. If another editor thinks the wording is misleading, biased, or unencyclopedic then they should politely offer alternatives. With regards to the second point I have challenged the sentence, which shows it is controversial. It is not for another editor to just discount my challenge and say it is not controversial. The third point shows me trying to engage with the editor on the talkpage. With regards to the sixth point this is clearly a difference of opinion between two editors. Another editor not liking them does not mean I am being disruptive. With regards to the first point (Amber Heard), WP:RSPRIMARY says "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." and WP:SELFSOURCE says to be careful with self-published sources when they are self-serving or exceptional.. The editor admits to this bit leading to constructive moments and then improves the article after realising what I had pointed out. Just because something is sourced it does not mean it is due in the lead. With regards to the third point that is what the source says as per the quote. I admit that the actual information may have ended up being outdated with the information we have now. That is what was available at the time it is not me (whether that be a he or she) misrepresenting what the source says, information can change over time. As can be seen on both article talkpages I have tried to work with the other editor on this. Already pointed out in the original discussion but OK Magazine had not been to RS/N at the time this was brought against me. I can not remember using my edit count to "jerk around" another the editor, especially considering their accounts seems to have been created years before mine. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• You say at the beginning you acknowledge that your "actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard", but then don't mention that again; the rest of the appeal is based, if I understand correctly, primarily on the idea that the original page blocks were incorrect because you were right on the underlying content issue. Even though 4 admins independently saw your behavior as problematic, and 3 admins explicitly endorsed the page blocks? That approach seems unlikely to result in a successful appeal. I can't speak for the other admins who commented originally, but my own concerns were about you repeatedly reverting without explanation or discussion, and playing WP:SOUP games on the article talk page to stonewall the discussion. Particularly irksome was seeing you revert with the rationale "my version is better", when your version was not in comprehensible English. It's possible that if I had had more time during the original discussion I would have suggested a stern warning to knock it off rather than partial blocks, but the blocks were certainly reasonable, and now that they've been made, I'd want to see those behavioral issues addressed before I would support an appeal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not based on the idea that I am correct or incorrect on the "underlying content issue". If there is a content WP:CONTENTDISPUTE there are other avenues to go rather that claiming an editor has allegedly used the edit count to bully an editor who has an account older than them and to say that is "disruptive editing". As shown on the talkpages I have tried to work with editor and I am sorry for not raising this at one of those venues when it seemed to reach a brickwall against each other. xTools shows me as the the editor who has made the most contributions to article 1 and article 2. I am not sure in what world having done around a fifth and a third of the articles respectively and being the biggest contributor after the other editor is disruptive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: While Emir does show up on that list as #2, it’s because few editors have shown interest in the article. I have not seen Emir add anything substantial to the article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to be polite, but respectfully you are not the sole arbiter who determines if I have added anything substantial or not. If other editors have thanked me for my edits it shows that they must have though there was some good in them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re fora

Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO (non-admin closure) SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an WP:UNBLOCK request on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Per Jayron32, and in answer to the OP's question: No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) To create a unblock request: copy and paste this: {{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~ Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. Severestorm28 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC) That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC) If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) In addition to Canterbury Tail, it will probably not, due to the fact that this is a noticeboard, not a page for appealing blocks. Severestorm28 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Wikipedia version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. Ravenswing 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no other place to appeal your partial block, there is a block notice, and you can appeal it below the block notice. This is how other blocked or partially blocked users do. Severestorm28 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. Ravenswing 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a WP:SELFBLOCK anywhere other than your talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice WP:WIKIHOUNDING though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a page besides EoW's talk page where I can decline his unblock request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, no. Severestorm28 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, Floquenbeam said it was behavioral, not a content dispute, Mjroots said how about a WP:PBLOCK, and El C said done. Then Jayron32 endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? Schazjmd (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Adding onto what Nil Einne said above, if you'd like an unblock request to be given serious consideration by an administrator (or the community, assuming broader input is needed), you need to make a point of addressing exactly why you were blocked in the first place, ideally by demonstrating that you understand how your past actions were problematic, and committing yourself to avoiding repetition of the same conduct in the future. Some other things that are generally taken into consideration when an administrator reviews an unblock request include the amount of time that has elapsed since the block was placed, along with your activity in other areas of Wikipedia within that same interval, and your overall editing history. This block was implemented only a few weeks ago, and the main reason for its existence is because your editing of those two articles was tendentious in nature—unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles—or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and never have been. Literally, the page WP:PBLOCK states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Wikipedia can request the review here, he's quite allowed to do so. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Wikipedia has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --Jayron32 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I agree entirely with Jayron32, both on the procedural question and the merits. A cardinal rule for requesting an unblock is that you have give some kind of rationale--the block was improper, I'm sorry and I've learned my lesson, the cabal (TINC) is out to get me. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I'd like to see a rationale as mentioned by by other editors here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in WP:UNBLOCK#Routes to unblock that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full mea culpa on my part. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if WP:NOTBURO becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Wikipedia can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)  Done SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

CX Zoom Bot

Today, while searching for myself at the move log, I realised that an account User:CX Zoom Bot was created on 10th March that has since been blocked because of username policy, i.e., "bot" suffix in a not-bot account, by 331dot. But I also wanted to let administrators know that I'm in no way related to, neither did I know of this "CX Zoom Bot" account before today. Thus, I request an administrator to note in CX Zoom Bot's block log that it is an unauthorised impersonation/doppelganger of mine, as if I had a bot. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for the notice, on the off chance said account makes an appeal you've saved unblock reviewers a lot on the back end. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Request REVDEL and block of User:Chitagbig for highly inappropriate content added to talk page

I'm a talk page stalker of the admin User:Redrose64 and just noticed a highly inappropriate and abusive posting. Asking for a REVDEL and block of that account - this is the only entry in this user's contributions history. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 02:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See also ANI history for additional REVDEL needs for edits by the same user on the same basis. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 03:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Vanisaac -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You got the block, but I still see the abusive post in history. This should qualify for WP:REVDEL under criterion #2 - Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel applied, I went with RD3 but either one fit just fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There's also three diffs to ANI; [249], [250], and [251], that you may also wish to revdel or otherwise hide. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BANEVASION by 124.104.57.209

Clear WP:BANEVASION by 124.104.57.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the form of 2001:4451:12EA:AE00:D119:6E62:13EE:D524, 2001:4451:12EA:AE00:98D2:41DC:A18A:3865 and 2001:4451:12EA:AE00:494C:DEF3:27FD:94F3. They all have the same location after looking it up at geolocate.

The user is evading a ban by using alts created yesterday. It is pretty easy to spot as the articles vandalized by him have been calm until yesterday when these two accounts were created. He also uses exactly the same reasons as his banned account. The only edits done with this acocunt have been reverting the article date to his banned accounts version which was one of his ban reasons. Finally geolocate confirms it.

Reverting to his old account edits: [252] -> [253] [254] ->[255] [256] -> [257], [258] -> [259] [260] -> [261]

As his ban is only a month, and he could not even respect that, by creating 3 alts, I do advise a longer ban for the banned account too. BastianMAT (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Kashmir Files

I think someone has to get in there and calm everything down. There are 50 topics added in the last two days alone. I have never seen anything like that, and from the outside looking in it seems like a lot of shouting and arguing about biases rooted in the Hindu-Muslim conflicts, and then they look to tear page protection down to let loose the actual biased pouncing. And then they wonder why the page protections are there. By god. Anyway, whether my interpretation is off base or not, I do think someone needs to clear out the madhouse--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: you may be looking for WP:DR. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

119.73.112.206 IP reported

• 119.73.112.206 IP account repeatedly engaging in Disruptive editing and likely Vandalism, even after warnings.

Some of his disruptive edits, edit-warring and likely vandalism, I tracked down across various articles:

( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 )

shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

IP won't stop adding non-free image

178.121.32.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persists in adding non-free image File:Flag of Athens, Greece-en.svg to Flags of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FDW777 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly edit-warring, couldn't you just add an FUR? Or at least explain why it's not free? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of non-free content violations isn't edit-warring, see WP:3RRNO. There can be no fair-use rationale for that image in that article. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's why you aren't blocked or warned - for that reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a valid fair use to use a copyrighted image in that article table, as per WP:NFTABLE. Although this should be explained to the user on their talkpage, rather than a confusing template being placed and taken as them being expected to understand how non free content works on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Joseph2302. I don't often do galleries (and certainly not with non-free files). Still, I don't get why the image is non-free when all the others are? Anyway, since the IP saw "An image or media file has been removed from your user page, user talk page, or other page because it is licensed as non-free", they might well have thought, "well I'm not adding to a user page or user talk page, I'm adding it to an article .... why isn't this thing working .... GRRRR!" Still, they seemed to have stopped now, so maybe the matter can be closed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly a valid question, I'm often puzzled as to why one flag is free whereas another is non-free. However this particular flag has been deleted from Commons following the discussuon at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Athens.svg, so it does appear for whatever reason that the flag of Athens is not a free image. FDW777 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are two factors. First we have to know if works of the country's government are free or not. In the U.S. this true, but in many other countries (including Greece it seems) it is not. Even then, if the flag design was simple enough, it could qualify as PDTEXTLOGO on en wiki due to being under the threshold of originality. However that flag is definitely more complex and passes that threshold, so remains copyrighted. --Masem (t) 18:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

usernamekiran is making unnecessary closure with disparaging remarks about the common sense of Wikipedians

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.

---

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

Anupamaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was a dispute that was discussed properly and resolved Talk:Anupamaa/Archive 1#Updates_based_on_OTT as it should be. The thread was even marked as resolved.[262] The participants had already disenagaged after satisfactory consensus was achieved.

Several hours later, a user uninvoled in the dispute, usernamekiran then decided to act smart and closed the resolved thread with a sagacious comment questioning the commonsense of the participants.[263] I objected to the unnecessary closure of the thread, and moved his comments as a comment like everyone one else had commented.[264] I tried to reason with usernamekiran on why he is trying to forcefully close a thread when it was unnecessary and uncalled for.[265] He again moved his comments to the top and closed it a second time[266] usernamekiran continued his comments repeatedly questioning the common sense of the editors linking WP:COMMONSENSE in every reply and then made a personal attack on me and claimed that I lacked common sense. [267] [268] All this on an article talk page.

He accuses me of ownership issues, "Authoritarian behavior" while assuming that he has rights to unnecessary interfere in resolved matters with disparaging remarks. My attempts to discuss and resolve this on his user talk page have been reverted twice and he asked me to approach admin boards diff.

I believe his conduct on this talk page is incendiary and inappropriate. usernamekiran should be asked to redo his comments without telling other contributors that they lack common sense, calling them authoritarians or any other disparaging remarks.Venkat TL (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a beautiful day out here, I'm going to go for a walk. Maybe you should do the same; or read a novel, catch up with a friend, go watch a movie, .... --JBL (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

For viewers at home, this is the diff of the closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The recent history of the talk page is perhaps more informative. --JBL (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• ... this is something you thought was an issue so serious that it needed to be taken to ANI? While we're talking about getting mad over a suggestion of lacking common sense. JBL called it right: go for a nice stroll in the sunshine, watch a movie, read a good book, and ratchet down the angst.

  EDIT: Never mind ratcheting down the edit warring, @Venkat TL:. You do not get on the one hand to claim that usernamekiran is out of line for "butting in" to a thread you claimed to be resolved, and then get huffy and edit war to prevent it from being closed. Don't snarl at other editors that they're not "super users" and lack vetos when you act like you have a veto yourself. "You should keep off this thread" is a demand you do not get to make ... while we're talking about getting mad over being accused of having ownership issues. Ravenswing 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update Admin Abecedare has removed the off topic, disparaging comments and closed the threadwith a neutral comment. In my opinion this issue is resolved with his intervention. This ANI can be closed. Thanks for your help. Venkat TL (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Note: I have closed the talkpage thread since the point of original discussion was resolved and have refactored the heated meta-discussion that followed since that was not helpful. To editors Venkat TL and Usernamekiran: I know both of you to be experienced and productive editors. Even in the linked discussion you are on the same side of the substantive issue. Lets just chalk the unfriendly exchange to an aberration, drop the issue, and move on. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Pofka

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

It's the second time I am reporting this user, first time was in October. He continues his behavior. Basically, every discussion with him is problematic. As I said in October he is accusing me of the lowest motives. Here he accused me of "desire to spread false Polish superiority propaganda", although I was merely explaining to him why the term "Partitions of Poland" are more popular in English literature than "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania", other than some "Polish historians' conspiracy". I warned him to stop insulting me or I will report his behavior. Nonetheless, he did it again and accused me of "hatred towards Lithuanian language". I don't think I deserve such treatment.Marcelus (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please make sure you notify all concerned editors of this discussion on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that you did and I just missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Marcelus is actively performing Polonization activity in Wikipedia. There is ongoing discussion (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Language_in_the_former_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth), but he is not waiting for the WP:CONS there and is performing the questioned actions by himself alone. He created this report as an act of revenge for me when I stressed his recent activity at the same WP:NPOV discussion (see: my explanation here on 11 March). In the article "Partitions of Poland" he basically said that Lithuania (Grand Duchy of Lithuania) was called Poland (see this Marcelus' statement), thus falsely presuming that Lithuania was annexed by Poland or didn't exist at all (similar to Putin's propaganda that Ukraine have no statehood traditions). Just by looking at the name of the article Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth it is evident that such claims are absolutely false. Such anti-Lithuanian claim and actions of Marcelus reminds nationalism which is strictly prohibited here. And he is still accusing me of anything... -- Pofka (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

And the slander continues, now I am compared with Putin. I insist administrators take action in order to stop Pofka from these constant personal attacks. Marcelus (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: It was you who said that Lithuania was simply called Poland and this way tried to deny its existance, not me (YOUR STATEMENT). I never questioned Poland's existence or name. It is not my aim in Wikipedia to deny other countries existence or names. I respect Poland as much as my own country as it is a historical and current ally. Lithuania deserves as much respect as Poland and per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Assume good faith nobody should be allowed to falsely try to deny its existence or name. -- Pofka (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka - Look, here is the concern. You have been blocked for personal attacks recently, but you continue to comment on editors and what you think their motives might be. This is not okay per WP:NPA. The last thing I want to see is you being sanctioned, but you need to stop doing that. Do you think you can promise to focus and comment on content and not on the contributors? GizzyCatBella🍁 01:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: put an end to this nonsense

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.

---

These two users seem to have a mutual problem - I remember when this previously went to ArbCom back in June last year (where it was correctly declined as premature and already covered by the Eastern Europe DS area), but the situation hasn't really improved since then. Since Pofka and Marcelus don't seem to be able to collaborate with each other without having a mandatory visit to the dramaboard every while and then, then the simple solution is to impose a mutual interaction ban (see WP:IBAN) so that hopefully both editors can find something else to edit without stepping on each other's toes. It takes two to dance, and the prolonged duration of this doesn't inspire any confidence that this can be resolved otherwise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
• Support. I might go one step further and topic-ban them from the area entirely. There are millions of articles in other areas that either of them can edit without being stirred to such discord. BD2412 T 17:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: Please pay attention to the fact that this report about me was created by Marcelus when I provided examples (see: 1, 2) at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Language_in_the_former_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth how he is ignoring the said discussion and is continuing the Polonization of Lithuanian names despite no WP:CONS was reached as of yet there. He presented such warnings as personal attacks. Whaaat? I provided some strong arguments there and it is strongly doubtful that his actions will be according to the upcoming WP:CONS. It is he, not me who is ignoring that discussion and is creating new conflicts, chaos in other articles. I did not removed any Polish names/words and I'm waiting for a WP:CONS at the discussion. And now he even initiated this report in order to censor my counterarguments. I said that he is spreading Polish superiority propaganda because he said that Lithuania was called Poland (see: HERE) and aggressively attempted to defend such obviously false claim. I can't see how such claims of his qualifies as Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:NPOV. He literally attempted to deny my home country's name and existence. With all due respect, but such claims about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are a pure propaganda as it existed as a separate country in 1236–1795 and never was Poland. On the contrary, I did not performed any anti-Polish edits and never attempted to discredit Poland or its name. It will be really sad for me if I will be blocked after 11 years in Wikipedia for defending my home country's name, existence and language, but if it will be the final decision – then I will have to respect it. Waiting for your decision, -- Pofka (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not proposing to block you from Wikipedia, but clearly you have an attachment to the subject area that would not impede your editing in other areas. BD2412 T 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - What are you talking about @RandomCanadian? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• @RandomCanadian Please explain this to me, because I do not understand something. According to what you are proposing, I should not report constant insults and harassment by another user because I could be blocked from editing articles in which I have knowledge and interest? In addition, you have linked a discussion in ArbCom in which I did not participate, but in which Pofka participated. I only commented in the thread about the merger of the two articles. It seems to me that there is a place on Wikipedia to discuss articles and these discussions can get heated, but we should refrain from personal attacks. I just wish Pofka would stop referring to me as a "Polish nationalist" etc. And can you explain what you understand by "dramaboard" and "this nonsense"? Marcelus (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that by the use of the term 'dramaboard', the user is referring to the way that some people use this board to argue over some content issue so as to then argue in the article that the 'sdmins agreed with me not you' in a way that is reminiscent of children running to Mama to tattle on the other. It is not a complimentary comparison. I think it is important to point out that you have possible been far too passionate about this particular topic, which is not a Good Thing. You are internalizing the edits, but that is to be expected; people edit what they care about. And to be fair, Marcelus has been goaded and manipulated into appearing to be the one who needs a break.

I think it should be pointed out that Pofka has been casting those sorts of aspersions that both last a while after they are said and particularly sting. If indeed Marcelus is a "Polish nationalist" (and I am not suggesting he is), then comparing him to a Russian is a particularly nasty comparison; the majority of Poles loathe Russia, and being compared to who is currently not only the leader of that country but a leader who is currently viewed quite negatively by the world¹ seems a particularly manipulative move on the part of Pofka. I've seen other users do this before (hell, even I have in the past), and its always about thinking you're smarter than the other guy. That doesn't work in Wikipedia - not at all. We lose scores of honest contributors because of this type of behavior.

It is because of this that I feel this is indeed a behavioral issue regarding Pofka's poor interactions regarding dissent, and not the typical - albeit sticky - content issue. Pofka needs a formal warning about this sort of attack-y behavior; it's corrosive to the idea of collaboration - the centerpiece of Wikipedia's strengths. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment by Pofka @RandomCanadian: @Jack Sebastian: Marcelus tried to prove "historical" fact that Lithuania was called Poland (Marcelus' statement). So how such claims can be described? It indeed reminds nationalism. I used Putin's manipulation of history as an example because he also said that Ukraine is just Russia. Ukraine never was Russia and Lithuania never was Poland. Straight facts. So Marcelus' wording seemed like a really similar case. I have nothing against Poles and I had successfully collaborated with Poles in the past. We have a glorious history together and we must respect each other instead of trying to prove someone's superiority or attempt to discredit Poland/Lithuania or Lithuanian/Polish languages. Just a reminder: I initiated a discussion at Talk:Partitions of Poland#Requested move 26 February 2022 to rename article Partitions of Poland into Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in order to include both countries names when Marcelus began dropping "facts" that Lithuania was just called Poland. By doing so, I did not attempted to discredit Poland or its name. I create quality content in Wikipedia for over 11 years and never said such non-senses about other countries and never questioned their existence or names. On the contrary, as far as I checked Marcelus' edits mostly are related with Polonization of Lithuanian noble families names, etc. It was Marcelus who attempted to prove that "historical" fact and dragged me into this dirty discussion that Lithuania is just Poland. I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't ignore it when such false claims are being spread about my country as "historical" fact. -- Pofka (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Really calm down. If you hadn't noticed I agreed with you in this discussion by saying: "Personally, I don't mind renaming articles for consistency, the name "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is generally accepted on Wikipedia to describe this country". I was simply trying to give you a reason why the term "Partitions of Poland" is so popular in English literature. Simply put, the whole of the Commonwealth was often referred to, especially in the 18th century, as "Poland". This does not mean that the GDL ceased to exist, it was simply the result of a long-standing union. That's all. Marcelus (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Pofka TBAN

I've applied an indef WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN on Pofka from Poland or Lithuania. Sorry to have probably derailed the IBAN proposal, but this has been a long term problem which I've been aware of for some time. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like things have improved. El_C 02:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the logical next step, given they seemed to be digging their own WP:HOLE. As far as disputes regarding ethnicity and nationality and all sorts of similar things, it usually is the fact that you need two to tango, but hopefully this does solve the problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't disagree with the decision under the circumstances but please consider my plea --> [269] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes to Polish-Lithuanian friendship! No to plea, sorry. El_C 02:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: I received permanent topic ban, but Marcelus did not receive anything for starting this (calling Lithuania as Poland)? I think we should be sanctioned equally then because his actions certainly weren't any better. -- Pofka (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not undertaking to unilaterally Tban anyone, I merely expressed my views to the community. It is the community which would need to act towards this end. BD2412 T 15:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think nationalist identity disputes are among the worst sorts of problems Wiki-EN has to deal with, along with creeping history revisionism and paid writers. I could be wrong, though; I often am. Thanks for being on top of this, @El C: - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack Sebastian, I appreciate that. El_C 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Just don't let it go to your head. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User: BaldiBasicsFan

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.

---

BaldiBasicsFan is using intimidation tactics to keep their disruptive edits up. They refuse to use any article talkpage, They're accusing me of attention seeking, and put qualifiers up that their edits must violate a rule to be reverted. They are not editing in good faith, labeling me as a disruptive editor to justify reverting me. They made up their own personal, nonsensical rules to force people to use cancellation terminology for The Owl House. They told me to "shut up" and stop reverting their edits and if I didn't they threatened to report me. Then, when I removed their "disruptive editing" warning on my talk page, they replaced it by bumping it up a level. They continued to condescend to me, and as the conversation went on it became clear they're trying to drive me off the platform for simply telling them they're wrong. I can't stand it--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I was already warned by an admin, do you really need to take this far? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: And why have you come straight here instead of opening discussion at the article talk page yourself? —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I refer anyone reading this to this edit that I made above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Had some hard focus. I don't have the best intentions. Besides, NO ONE IS PERFECT! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

user:PerryPerryD

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.

---

He Recently have been disrespectful to me because I said to not spoil the new Batman Film before the release to another user & can you ban this user called as PerryPerryD & He should have been nice to me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambaram97 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tambaram97: Diffs? I don't immediately see where you've interacted at a talk page or on a Batman film article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, wait, this? That's hardly disrespectful at all. I'd certainly say it's more respectful than your comment that led to their reply. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred I would like to mention @Tambaram97's block history in this situation. I feel as maybe a block should be issued to Tambaram, i've noticed them being highly disrespectful, and absolutely not assuming good faith. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING and violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary policy by User:Archives908

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.

---

• Archives908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi dear admin people. I would like to address the unpleasant behaviours I've faced recently. Thank you in advance.

1. The user has recently engaged in the act of persistently reverting my edits (6 times on List of European countries by population between 7-10 March 2022 and once on Tunceli Province on 15 March 2022).

2. I've addressed the issue and tried to reach a consensus on talk page 1 and talk page 2. I've also tried to clearly explain the reasoning behind my corrections while making edits. The user insisted on their same claims and reverted my corrections, even without reading them in some occassions.

3. Example diffs of their reversions: [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275]

4. On the same list, they have made another automatic reversion to the correction of another user here: [276]

5. Here are the main points I've corrected to contribute to Wikipedia:

5a. The first sentence of List of European countries by population creates confusion by lumping together an arbitrary set of Transcontinental countries with two countries completely in Asia (as also indicated in the table by different colors). I've corrected the lead to separate the countries within two different categories. My claim is that the user kept WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING in an attempt to present his country, together with countries that have territories in Europe.

5b. The second paragraph contains unnecessary information (Why is here special attention only on Turkey [1 of the 6 countries in its category]?), wrong information (Not only a "small" amount of Turkey's population is in Europe), a meaningless term without a proper citation to it (What is an intermediate region?). I've proposed a paragraph that reflects two different opinions together. My claim is that the user kept WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING in an attempt to present another country misleadingly.

5c. A country in the list was listed in the wrong category. I've corrected this.

6. On Tunceli Province, they have made another WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING.

6a. They have added an unsourced (and pretty weird) claim that the official army of a country had invaded its own lands.

6b. The death toll given there is biased (see: Dersim Rebellion for a neutral list of sources containing death toll).

6c. For no reason, they have deleted the information I've added from the corresponding source indicating similarities between Armenians and Zazas.

6d. The last sentence is very misleading (by also giving a biased death toll). When I first read the sentence I had the impression that thousands of Armenians were massacred. However, the reality is that there were only 359 Armenians (0.48% of the population) a decade before the rebellion and a pro-Armenian newspaper (another source I've shared and they have removed for no reason) writes that Armenians were converted to Alevism.

To sum up, the user

1. persistently completely reverted my edits without providing sufficient explanation, as you may see in the diffs, while I was trying to converge a solution,

2. did not try to approach to consensus by repeating the same arguments while I was patiently explaining my argumentation, as you may see in the talk.

As I am new on Wikipedia, my humble opinion is that they may have also violated WP:3RR as they have done the same reversions 3 times in 24 hours, and made their fourth reversion a few hours after the 24-hour period.

Thank you for your attention. (I hope this is the correct place to raise this issue.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You’ve been 9 days here and already making an ANI report. You’re the one doing tendentious edits and edit-warring over them like in Tunceli Province. So far, you didn’t get consensus or create any talk discussions for your edits in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you ZaniGiovanni. I'm confident the Admins will see right through this baseless accusation. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Is there a time limit to make an ANI report ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I would love to learn from you.

2. Archives908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I've presented my base above. :) You might prefer to read first before opposing an argument (something you haven't done before your neverending reversions, unfortunately).

All the best and hope to have a Wikipedia full of easy consensuses, and free from nationalist manipulation. Meurglys8 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you may be upset/frustrated that your edits are not being accepted. But that's not how Wikipedia works. I am aware that you have only been here for 9 days- but to present false information and continue to make personal comments about me is not acceptable. The Admins will see that I have been more than polite to you at every point of our dialogue. I have taken time to explain and refer you to policy and I have initiated conversations with you on your talk page and on the respective article's talk page. Nonetheless, you continue to edit disruptively (as seen in your own edit history), before reaching a consensus and while having an on-going conversation. ZaniGiovanni, Kevo³²⁷, and I have all had to restore articles based on your disruptive editing tactics in the past 9 days. You have also (more then once) made personal and negative remarks about myself after I have asked you to stop with such remarks and keep focused on the subject matter/topic. Admins- please review the talk pages diligently to see that I have tried engaging with this new editor, tried to encourage conversation, and explain policy...sadly, to no avail. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to review in detail, but I've placed a couple of overdue DS notices on Muerglys8's talkpage. I am unimpressed with this attempt by them to use ANI to complain that they're being disagreed with. I see no edits to Talk:Tunceli Province, and I see a lot of assumption of bad faith from them. Mueglys8's first edit [277], removing sourced content to "correct flawed content" seems to have been the beginning of a trend. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, dear User:Acroterion. Let me clarify a misunderstanding.

1. My first edit was my first ever edit on Wikipedia. I managed to finish it in several steps, so it is not limited to what you have seen at a first glance. Then, I learned swiftly how edits work here. I wasn't even aware of how to use the talk page. Then, I moved to the talk page and encountered with this user preventing to replace unsourced phrases with "facts".

2. The user has clearly violated the policies/recommendations listed here: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Bad reasons to revert I have listed their violations above.

3. a. I have done the following, written on Wikipedia:Editing: Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit nearly any page and improve articles immediately. b. Later on, I have done the following, written on Wikipedia:Editing#Talk pages: If you ever make a change that gets reverted by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus. c. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary lists the examples of good and bad reverts. Unfortunately, I have faced with complete reversions to my replacements when I included A. facts with sources and B. phrases that represent different points of view. Do we have to wait until someone who automatically reverts clear facts (such as a country having lands on both Europe and Asia) starts seeking for consensus, while no one else writes on the talk page?

Please swiftly check [278][279][280][281][282][283][284] to see how the user insistingly prevent the page to grow. Thanks! Meurglys8 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please allow me to correct a misunderstanding; after fifteen years as an editor of this project I have seen a lot of new users try to quote policy to justify their disruptive insistence on their own point of view at the expense of other editors and the encyclopedia. The term is Wikilawyering, and it's what you're doing now. Please stop, it annoys people. Complainants are subject to scrutiny of their own conduct, and should approach ANI with clean hands.

I mentioned the arbitration enforcement regime because I would likely have placed you under a topic ban of about six months on subjects relating to Armenia, Armenians, Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, which appear to be motivating much of your editing interest. This would allow you to become better acquainted with the editing ethos of Wikipedia before jumping into contentious topics that have seen similar disruption in the past. I have not done so because policy, which I can read perfectly well, does not allow me to until after you have been notified, and after you return to the behavior that brought about the warning.

Wikipedia is founded on consensus, which you do not appear to understand. and which is fundamental to participating here. Aggressive edit summaries in lieu of talkpage discussions are not a helpful approach to finding consensus. Attempting to weaponize policy at ANI to win an argument against consensus is a very poor strategy. Accusing others of tendentious editing while doing precisely that is worse. Please be aware that the community can enact editing retrictions without reference to arbitration enforcement, and that individual admins can do so if you continue to be disruptive in those areas. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion for your fair review of this. It's appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Coloring Greece with an appropriate coloring (green color that indicates being in Europe and Asia) is not disruptive. Reverting this with no explanations is disruptive.

2. Objecting to lumping together two different categories of countries (a. those who have lands in Europe and Asia, b. those who have lands only in Asia) is not disruptive. Reverting this with no explanations is disruptive.

With all my regards Meurglys8 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

After 10 days, with multiple editors advising/warning you, unfortunately you still appear to not understand why your editing tactics are disruptive. For this reason, I do not believe you are here to genuinely WP:BUILDWP. Archives908 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive WP:SOAPBOX editing by User:ABetterWorld89

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

---

Over the past week or so, ABetterWorld89 has been repeatedly performing disruptive WP:SOAPBOX edits to articles regarding tennis tournaments, specifically the 2022 BNP Paribas Open. Their aim was to add back flags for Russian and Belarusian players. The reason as to why they were removed, as explained in this thread, was due to a ruling by the governing body of tennis that players from Russia and Belarus were permitted to play, but their tennis organisations had been suspended from membership so players are unable to play with their country's flag by their name. A few editors noted this on their talk page; they simply replied with comments attacking the editors that were warning them. Almost all of ABetterWorld89's edits have been reverted, with some examples of the disruptive editing here, here, and here.

I am not sure if this qualifies as straight vandalism, which is why I have added it to the noticeboard (please let me know if this is better somewhere else), but am hoping this editor can be looked into more urgently as it is becoming rather tedious having to see hundreds of edits being reverted. Bonoahx (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

And they are being abusive see Special:Diff/1077078013 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Shāntián Tàiláng

• Shāntián Tàiláng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:CentralAuth/Shāntián Tàiláng

User:Shāntián Tàiláng keeps harassing English Wiktionary administrators, including (but not limited to) myself, Justinrleung and Fytcha with talk-page hounding (1 2 3 4 5...) and constant pings, in a (futile) attempt to get his indefinite block overturned despite disruptive editing and near daily block evasion. Is there anything that can be done about this? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So, SO terribly sorry for harassing you guys (I didn't really mean to do so, I just didn't know who to contact and how to do so). 🤦‍♂️😢😳😭😧
But! Could you all please tell me how to successfully get my indefinite block overturned? 🥺🥺 I already asked Fytcha, but I would love to hear what the rest of you have to say. Whatever you do, don't block me from Wikipedia as well; I have never made any disruptive edits here AFAIK.
Also, Surjection, I'm sorry about what happened here yesterday. 😢😳🤦‍♂️ Can you please show me a table of all the CheckUser info correlating the actual block-evasions I've done so far? I'd really love to have my account unblocked from Wiktionary, so I would also appreciate a table of all the disruptive edits I've made that weren't Chinese/Japanese entry creations or {{etyl}}-related foolishness. Seriously, you don't think I feel ANY remorse for any of my bad actions?! 😫😧 And if it seems that I don't feel remorse for yesterday's block evasion, trust me—there are some genuine categorization edits that need to be made to a lot of entries, and blocking my account from WT won't make those edits happen any faster. I'll gladly add Chinese redlinks to WT:RE:zh, as RcAlex36 requested, if you unblock me from WT. 🥺🥺🥺🥺 Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To provide context for anyone looking at this thread, Shantian was indeffed for "Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: using IPs to evade block" after they were blocked for 1 week for adding inaccurate Chinese entries to Wiktionary. [285] Then they got their talk page access revoked for "continuing to ping other users to ask them make edits for them after request to stop pinging other editors". Here's their user talk page thread that goes into the evidence against them: [286] Meta:Global bans also exists if Shantian keeps up their behaviour. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Shāntián Tàiláng: I'll choose being clear over being overly polite. We do not care if you are blocked on Wiktionary. if you use English Wikipedia to make one more comment, question, criticism, ping, or any other post that is related to your block on Wiktionary, you will be indefinitely blocked here. We have enough internal disputes of our own, we do not need to import them from other wikis. You will have to follow whatever process Wiktionary has to appeal your block. I am confident posting here is not a part of Wiktionary's process. If Wiktionary's processes do not work, then you won't ever be able to edit there. You are close to making it so you cannot edit here either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into their editing here, but if you think that they have crossed the line into cross-wiki harassment you can request that stewards lock their account globally at Steward requests on meta. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 09:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

DeltaSquad833 and copyright issues

User:DeltaSquad833 has created more than 1,000 articles over the last 2 1/2 years. In September 2020, User:Diannaa warned them about the need to add attribution when copying within Wikipedia[287]. Further warnings by multiple editors for the same issue in October 2020, December 2020, June 2021, July 2021, again July 2021, and December 2021.

Warnings for copying text from websites with an acceptable license in November 2020, February 2022, and again a few days later[288].

Actual copyright violation warning by Diannaa in August 2021.

On 4 March 2022 I gave them a final warning because, after all the above, they were creating articles with unattributed poor machine translations from copyrighted texts (see also this from User:Kusma). Because this was found in multiple articles, a CCI was opened by User:Moneytrees.

So what do they do today, after all this? Create ORP Iskra (1982), an unattributed machine translation from the Polish article on the same ship. Not a one-off incident, they also created ORP Wodnik as an unattributed translation of this, and ORP Odważny, and ORP Hutnik, and ORP Metalowiec, and so on and so on.

Warnings haven't changed anything here, a CCI hasn't changed anything, 2 years patience haven't changed anything, so I guess it is time for a block. Fram (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the user understands what the problem is; they have never replied to any of the copyright-related issues. As in my comment Fram mentioned above, in addition to not adhering to copyright and licensing issues, they also insert factual errors into the encyclopaedia by machine translating from languages they do not understand well enough to know the limits of the translation (my example is that Google turned "year 民國54", which is 1965, into 1954, and DeltaSquad followed). I have not checked their other translations, but I am certain that DeltaSquad does not have the competence to vouch for these. The user does not engage with criticism, and so the issues do not improve going forward. I agree with Fram that it is time to block to prevent further copyright violations and misinformation. I deeply regret that the user does not seem to be willing or able to stay within the rules and within their competencies when they edit here. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:DeltaSquad833#Indefinite_block. El_C 10:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Tsans2 adding back FICTREFs, non-RS, BLOGs, and OR

@Tsans2: has been adding back information to Russian fascism (ideology) which I have removed for policy or WP:FICTREF reasons without justifying themselves. For examples:

• I removed the data concerning the fluctuation of the word "rachism" and explained why (also [289]); the user added back part of it without giving any explanation
• I removed part of the lede ([290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [[295]]) or moved some info: [296], [297]); the used has added back those information six times without justification ([298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304])
• I removed an undue quote and an unsourced claim, after explaining the user why; the user added it back.
• When confronted with those problems in their editing methods, the user states: disagree. it's just your own view what is relevant and what is not; I thereafter told the user: WP:DUE, WP:RS. You have also added back all the non-reliable or unrelated references I had removed without justifying yourself. The user has also stated in a smiilar situation: you didn't notice I add a lot of sources for each sentence. reliable sources, not blogs as you can think. I reverted your vandalism again, and I double checked and added some basic info with iron reliable sources. Note: as the edit history of Russian fascism (ideology) proves, the user has either not double-checked anything, or is clearly trying to vandalise.

I could give other examples if necessary, but collecting those takes time. @Jr8825: who seems to have followed this article for a while may be able to provide some more insight into Tsans2's behaviour.
For the records, Tsans2 has opened an ANM against me recently. Veverve (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I haven't been keeping the closest eye on this, but I stumbled across Russian fascism (ideology) early after creation and had a brief scan of potential sources, as well as providing relevant clean-up tags. I was contemplating an AfD nomination before another editor initiated it. I've been cautious so far and have refrained from the !voting at the AfD as I think there's scope for a similar article based on academic sources, but having glanced at the AfD and article several times from a distance I agree there are definitely judgement issues which may verge on competency problems, particularly given the edit warring, AN thread and non-WP:AGF accusations of vandalism. Content-wise, the main issues seem to me to be repeated instances of synthesis and non-neutral tone. Most of the current sources are in Cyrillic so I can't verify them, but I do see a lot of Ukrainian web addresses and sites such as Unian, which are unlikely to be appropriate or academic. There were also previously YouTube links. I haven't looked closely enough to check whether named political scientists are supported by the relevant cites. This could be a WP:RGW issue and I see Tsans2 is a relatively new editor. I don't feel I'm in a position to judge the best solution, but navigating our policies can be particularly tricky around emotive topics, so perhaps a talk page reminder/advice/warning of the importance of these policies – and that repeated good-faith mistakes still risk a topic ban – would be helpful? Jr8825 • Talk 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Thanks for your input. Articles in other languages can be checked using Google translate if needed. Unian is to me a reliable source, but the problem is that the user uses FICTREFs constantly.

Tsan2 has been reverted numerous times by me with explanations every time; I also have told the user on their talk page about the problem and gave them practical example of their bad editing behaviour in the article's talk page (as I put in my first message). This was to no avail. Therefore, I doubt one more reminder/advice/warning would do anything.

Most of the article is a mishmash of claims of Putin's governement being Fascist, historical Russian Fascism, and the alleged Raschism ideology; it seems all this confusion relies on the purely OR definition of Russian Fascism/Raschism/Russicism being both allegedly the practical disposition of Russia under Vladimir Putin and an alleged sub-ideology; this is all Tsan2's doings despite my efforts. The user also constantly uses FICTREFs and OR; for example "Term 'rashist' has became widely used by policital and military establishment of Ukraine, as well by journalist, influencers, bloggers, etc." ([305]) has three sources and none contain this information. On WP ru, Tsan2 also tried to spam the Rachism POV on the Russian Fascism article, and was rejected. Veverve (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• The user has once again reinstated some terrible content of the article, once again ignoring all my criticism and not providing any real justification. I think enough is enough. @Drmies: a few days ago you thanked me for an edit on this article. Therefore, my hopes are that by chance you have more or less followed the edit history of this article and can therefore make a decision concerning my complaint. In any case, I would be grateful if any admin was to put an end to Tsan2's vandalism. The user so far has not substantially responded despite my attempts, so I think a sanction is needed. Veverve (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am afraid that user Veverve edit war to remove sourced content about Russian Neo-Nazi, for example here (note edit summary). Yes, many of the sources are on the Ukrainian language. But it does not disqualify them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes:

  Let us review each of those sources I have removed in this revert. I had provided a rationale in my edit summaries for each of those removals; since you accuse me, I will have to do it again here for those. The subject of the article, while vague, appears to be Russian Fascism/Raschism, an alleged specific form of Fascism, just like Maoism, Stalinism or Marxism-Leninism are a form of Marxism.

  • Рашизм і фашизм: знайдіть дві відмінності: despite the title, no mention of the topic, only numerous Conservative to far-right topics discussed here and there without any coherence between the topics. No mention of what the source is supposed to support in the article: "considered by many to be the political ideology and social practice of the ruling regime of Russian Federation in the 21st century. This interpretation is based on the ideas of the 'special civilizational mission' of the Russians, Moscow as the third Rome"
  • "Fascism and the New Russian Nationalism" : brief mentions of Fascism in Russia, the article is about Russian nationalism; no mention of the "expansionism" in the article, only that "For Ziuganov, Stalinism shorn of its Marxist-Leninist trappings, infused with nationalist and statist sentiments, rendered politically homogeneous, 'organic' in character (Ziuganov, 1997 p. 85), developmental in intent, and expansionist in practice, constitutes a political ideal." (p. 11; my emphasis), and that "What seems evident is that a plausible case can be made for the presence of Fascist elements in the political ideology of some of the major opponents of the Yeltsin administration in post-Soviet Russia. That those elements constitute the grounds for identifying its proponents as 'right-wing extremists' is, at least initially, counterintuitive." (p. 12)
  • "Is Putin's Russia Fascist?": the article states some people have called Russia under Vladimir Putin Fascist; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism, simply that "Fascist regimes have charismatic dictators with hyper-masculine personality cults. These regimes generally evince a hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines, and imperialist projects. Fascist regimes are hugely popular—usually because the charismatic leader appeals to broad sectors of the population. Putin and his Russia fit the bill perfectly."
  • "Is it Time to Drop the F-Bomb on Russia? Why Putin is Almost a Fascist": the article states Russia under Vladimir Putin is almost Fascist; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism
  • "The antisemitism animating Putin’s claim to 'denazify' Ukraine": the article states Russia under Vladimir Putin is Fascist; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism
  • "Ідеологія рашизму має бути засуджена світом, як нацизм і фашизм – історик": copy-paste of an "opinion [...] expressed in a post on Facebook by historian, chairman of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Council Oleksandr Sych", not a notable nor reliable opinion although it does discuss the topic
  • "Amazon sells clothes with Russian military Z symbol", "Автомобили с буквой Z замечены в Уральске и Шымкенте", "Авто с наклейкой Z: водителя оштрафовали в Нур-Султане": absolutely no mention of the topic or anything related to political ideology, it simply describes how the "Z" symbol is used with no mention of Fascism. The Times article states: "Russians around the world have been daubing the white letter on black backgrounds to denote support for their army fighting in Ukraine. The adoption of the 'Z' as a symbolic expression of support is viewed as particularly controversial as it was originally daubed on tanks attacking Ukrainian cities. [...] Police in Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic, said they would fine drivers featuring it on their cars. Czech police will treat the 'Z' symbol in the same way as the swastika." tengrinews.kz reports that in Kazakhstan the symbols "Z" and "O" are forbidden to be displayed on cars. So those source support most of the information in the line they are in front of, but no link is made, either in the WP article or in the newpaper articles, between the "Z" and Russian Fascism/Raschism.
  • I will not check the sources supporting what is written later about the Z symbol, as the symbol's link to the alleged Raschism has no been proved; those parts should simply be removed

  As you can see, I have good reasons for removing those sources along with what they allegedly supported. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is not the place to discuss sources, but anyone can follow your links and see what they are about (I think most of them are on the subject). More important, Russian fascism is a notable subject, and such page has every right to exist, not as a diambing., but as a regular page. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  You have accused me at an ANI of POV-pushing and WP:AGENDA, so I was forced to justify my edits.

  I agree that Fascism in Russia - the History and tendencies of Fascism in the Russian geographical territory - is a notable subject. Russian Fascism/Raschism - again, the alleged sub-ideology the way e.g. Strasserism is - seems not to be a notable topic, which is the reason why WP ru has been - rightly so in my (Veverve) opinion - refusing the article's creation for 12 years according to one of WP ru's admins. Veverve (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• No. While "Fascism in Russia" [in general] is a valid subject (agree), many scholarly sources (for example scholarly RS mentioned in this discussion) say specifically that the current Putinist regime in Russia is a variety of fascism, a variety also known as Ruscism (per sources like [306],[307],[308],[309]) or Rashism (per [310],[311]). All these words mean exactly same thing, an allegedly fascist regime under leadership of Vladimir Putin. This is the subject of the page under the AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  See my refutation at the article's AfD. You have not provided any source stating All these words mean exactly same thing, an allegedly fascist regime under leadership of Vladimir Putin. In any case, an ANI is not the place for such debates. Veverve (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• The user has, once again, reverted me without any form of justification. Veverve (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• As of now, user Veverve made a 3RR violation on the page, refused follow 3RR rule [312] and continued edit warring [313],[314]. All of that while filing this complaint about another user and knowing that the subject is under discretionary sanctions. This is just a textbook example of disruptive editing, especially given the peculiar nature of the page he edit war about during active AfD discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Tsan2 has once again reverted me without any explanation. Veverve (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, you are engaged in sustained edit warring on this page for a week to win a content dispute, and you complain? My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I was invited here on my talk by one of the disputants. Looks like a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. I partially blocked both for 1 week. ANy other admin my modify or unblock as they see fit. I'm of to do my taxes. Tschau! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I totally contest it being a content dispute. As I explained, it is a problem of the user POV-pushing and refusing to communicate. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The redirection of Japan bashing

I am not so sure if this is the right page but this might be a potential vandalism. So there was a page called "Japan bashing" which existed for more than a decade at this point and pretty well sourced. There are at least 5 more different languages verson of this topic. However, a user called Chipmunkdavis redirect the whole page to the page of Anti-Japanese sentiment instead recently. While "Japan bashing" is indeed an anti-japanese sentiment in the US but many agreed this topic is important enough to have its own page. Moverover, when the page got redirected, there were little new content added in the page of "Anti-Japanese sentiment". Also, I didnt found any discussion about redirecting the post, at least not the talk page of "Japan bashing". User Chipmunkdavis also reverted those changes who disagreed with his action without any explaination. You can see that in the history page of the topic --Someone97816 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone97816: when starting a thread on ANI, you are required to notify involved parties by leaving a message on their talk page. I've done so for you. Isabelle ^🔔 13:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh thx. Someone97816 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen on the history page of the topic, the page had existed for about two months, not a decade. It can also be seen that the page was created by block evasion using IP proxies, which I did give as an explanation. To add further, this particular user has a habit of faking sources, so I take "pretty well sourced" with a grain of salt. CMD (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify the timeline of Japan bashing:

• Page was created as an article on January 12, 2006 by Sir Edgar. It cited no sources, but that wasn't uncommon in 2006.
• The page existed as an article until March 23, 2014 at which point it was turned into a redirect by Jamesx12345 with the edit summary, "Not worth keeping". It cited 3 sources at the time it was turned into a redirect.
• It remained a redirect until January 4, 2022, at which time an IP removed the redirect and improved the sourcing. I imagine this is what @Chipmunkdavis means by "the page was created by block evasion using IP proxies". However, the IP did not create the page - they restored the previous content from prior to 2014 and added additional sources. By the end of that day the article cited 7 sources.
• On March 4, 2022 @Chipmunkdavis restored the redirect. Since then there have been several attempts by IPs to restore the content, and CMD to keep the redirect. The most recent article version cites 14 sources.
• I do not see where @Someone97816 has ever edited the article at all.

Just for clarification - I have not analyzed any of the sources to see if they support the content, meet RS standards, or anything. I can see both @Someone97816's point that the page "existed for more than a decade" and also @Chipmunkdavis's point that "the [article - not page] had existed for about two months". I wanted to clarify that both are correct in their own way. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thx for clarification. I came across this article couple week ago as I was doing a project about anti japanese sentiment in US. I see some people dont think this article is well sourced enough. Well fine but I did found plenty of new sources about this topic in the internet and it can be used to improve the article. My biggest concern is that he redirected the whole page without any discussion at all. Someone97816 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I just wish admins would close reports here immediately when they are about individual pages but there has been no proper discussion on the relevant talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  As I said above, I am not sure if this the right place to post. I thought about start a discussion on the talk page but since the page of "Japan bashing" is gone I dont think it would be useful. If I start a discussion on the talk page of "anti japanese sentiment", people there might be confused. Sorry about that Someone97816 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  The talk page for Japan bashing is not gone, it is just a little bit more difficult to access now. Here is a link to it. Mlb96 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Weird editing behaviour

• Pédjy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pédaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Space diving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seventh-day Adventist Church Pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:CentralAuth/Pédjy
• Special:CentralAuth/Pédaja

Pédjy (talk · contribs) (also using their alt account Pédaja (talk · contribs)) displays some really weird editing patterns which effectively amounts to good-faith vandalism. They seem to be obsessed with Space diving and, more recently, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Pioneers, editing them with sequences of sometimes 10s of test edits. They seem to pretty much only add images, often leaving the page's formatting broken or out of keeping with the general style of English Wikipedia articles.

I tried to talk to them on their talk page, leaving a message in French as well as English (since they first registered on French Wikipedia), but they don't seem to have read this, and if they have, they have not responded.

I'm not sure what to do about this. It's not particularly urgent, but it seems that they won't stop their campaign of 'improvement' by request. — Jthistle38 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

They have made no further edits since 12:45 on 8 March so I wouldn't block yet. If you see this continuing it can be reported again with a link to this post. Their usage of two accounts to edit the same article appears to be WP:ILLEGIT. Many of their uploads to Commons are tagged as 'own work' even with photos from the 19th century. (Hiram Edson died in 1882). I'll notify them of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:POINT editing

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

In the past, I've gone to ANI about User:Cornerstonepicker's past canvassing and consistent stonewalling in this previous ANI report here, which may be useful context in this situation. However, another incident of disruptive editing has happened..

Background:

In December, I started an RfC on Nicki Minaj to re-add the honorific nickname "Queen of Rap" to her lead section, because new sources had come out that supported it. Before that, Cornerstonepicker started an RfC months prior to remove the title from Nicki Minaj. When I started my RfC to readd it per the overwhelming sources, predictably, Cornerstonepicker strongly opposed it. However, the RfC had enough support votes from other editors to pass. Then, shortly after that, he started mass-adding the "Queen of Rap" title to the lead of other female rappers, such as Lil' Kim and Queen Latifah directly after Nicki Minaj's RfC passed.

If you look at his editing history on those articles, he hadn't edited said artictles for months until after the Nicki Minaj RfC passed, and he edited them to add "Queen of Rap" to their leads, once again after "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead. Is this not clear disruptive WP:POINT behavior, as he had already previously opposed adding it to Minaj's lead?

Evidence of WP:POINT disruptive editing
More evidence of this can be found in edit histories, these are just specific diffs that highlight the pattern.
Missy Elliot: Last edit (10 November 2021) | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (30 January 2022) Lil' Kim: Last edit (24 August 2021) | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (15 February 2022), (He had also added weak unreliable sources for Lil' Kim being called the "Queen of Rap." on February 2, such as a non-notable Jamaican newspaper) Queen Latifah: Last edit (15 September 2021) | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (30 January 2022) Lauryn Hill: Last edit = nonexistent, because he had never even edited her article before "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (17 February 2022) You can see the full edit histories here and how he has been adding "Queen of Rap" to these articles a lot. (Missy Elliott | Lil' Kim | Queen Latifah | Lauryn Hill)

Note that Cornerstonepicker only added this content after the RfC had passed, afaik not attempting it before on such a wide scale. He had also reverted anyone that questioned this sudden mass adding of "Queen of Rap" to a lot of articles. I'm not even talking about myself here, a different uninvolved editor had gone to his talk page to question why he was edit warring to add this content in almost every female rapper's lead. The editor had commented how Cornerstonepicker adding it to every female rapper's lead is oversaturation, and asked why he was particularly pushing for the "Queen of Rap" title specifically on those leads, not any other title. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• A note - I've given Shanghai a final warning for edit warring, and while it hasn't been broken yet, there's still an awful lot of reverting going on. Additionally, in my observations, I've noticed that virtually every single edit I've spot-checked has been about adding more positive content about Nicki Minaj, or removing negative information about Nicki Minaj. I'm not saying Cornerstone is innocent, but I do believe there's some WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues here developing with Shanghai. Take that as you will with reviewing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: If you look at my edit history, I'm not afraid to add negative information / remove positive information about Minaj when needed. [315] [316] (I can provide more diffs) I've been very open and transparent about being a fan of Minaj, something that Cornerstonepicker himself has attacked me for many times. This is the same person who's been called out for bias against Nicki Minaj by other editors, with seemingly no accountability so far. Meanwhile, I've gotten countless attacks about my transparency to others... shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's true that RogueShanghai has not been neutral with regard to Nicki Minaj, adding far too much positive material, and arguing strenuously for more. There's definitely room for a boomerang with this report. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

100% agree with a boomerang - this editor has been here a frankly absurd number of times for the amount of productive edits they have actually made. For those unfamiliar with the history, here's the list of previous ANI and ANEW threads for this editor, in no particular order:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#User:RogueShanghai
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#User: RogueShanghai
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#Ignoring WP:ONUS and potential COI
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Ping abuse by user:RogueShanghai
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Uncivil abuse from Ronherry
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive438#User:RogueShanghai reported by User:ChicagoWikiEditor (Result: ) (and the section below it)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive436#User:RogueShanghai reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )

Given the persistent, long term issues with edit warring, ownership of articles and biased/POV editing I am convinced that a boomerang is needed here. For someone with a total of 1850 article edits the amount of time that has been wasted on this editor is absurd, I cannot see how allowing them to continue editing here would be anything other than a timesink. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't really ping this IP so I'll just normally reply. I'm also concerned that an IP address with only 150 edits that only started editing a lot last month, knows so much about disputes that happened several months ago. Would I be crazy to call sock?

Three of those ANI reports were by people who had thrown multiple personal attacks at me, which you did not mentioned at all here. One of the reporters even openly misgendered me in the thread. One of those reports is literally by me about the person who had been throwing me personal attacks, and another of those reports was filed by the same person who went to Cornerstonepicker's talk page above.

I'll say this about my Wikipedia behavior previously in 2021: I'm not proud of it at all and I wish there were so many things I could've done differently. I had only started editing a lot in 2021- I didn't know a lot of the policies, I didn't know how serious edit warring was, and I'm sorry for being stubborn. In my experience, Wikipedia had a very steep learning curve, and there's still stuff that I don't know or that I'm not sure of. I'm really trying here and I feel like I'm getting stonewalled and gaslit continously, to the point where a global steward had noticed it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 22:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor who commented above is an incredibly valued long-term contributor to many parts of the project. Please retract your socking accusations. DanCherek (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: My bad, I was just suspicious. I'm sorry if this person is actually notable around these parts. shanghai.^{talk to me} 23:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read the comments from the admins and the uninvolved editors who have been responding to those threads the exact same issues are showing up over and over and over again: 1) you adding promotional and positive material to articles and generally writing from a fan's POV. 2) You displaying WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour over the article and being unable to accept other people's opinions. 3) You edit warring and being disruptive to try and get your way. I'm not proposing a ban for your benefit, it's for the benefit of everyone else. If you cannot edit articles about Nicki Minaj without us having to have monthly ANI threads about "RogueShanghai and Nicki Minaj" then you should be topic banned. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll address all of these one by one:

• I've always tried to include reliable notable sources for all of the "promotional" material I add: for example, the "Queen of Rap" title is very well sources, using sources from Billboard, NME, Time Magazine, NBC News. I've already noted below how the previous lead, before I started editing Nicki Minaj, makes note of some achievements like her debut album being certified triple platinum, that aren't in her current lead at all today because while they are notable achievements, they're not due for her lead.
• What other opinions are being talked about here? Provided the discussion is about content and not other editors, I'm always happy to take it to the talk page.
• I've avoided edit warring (afaik at least 3RR) as much as possible and have opened multiple discussions on the talk page instead of edit warring. And this is with my edits being stonewalled and removed for no reason for months. That's the entire reason I started editing Katy Perry, as I was sick of the hostile environment on Nicki Minaj.

No one's managed to point out that I've been doing work on other articles such as Perrys, with no one from that article taking such issue with my edits saying they are "promoting positive material" or "trying to get my way." I've discussed plenty of content on that talk page, and even found the current new image. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Far too much? All I've been trying to do is to get the article to WP:FA, which I've been working on since last February. I have been transparent about being a fan, yes, but I've always tried to balance it out. Since January, I've literally been cutting down on accomplishments in her lead, minimizing it from four paragraphs to three paragraphs. shanghai.^{talk to me} 22:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The number of paragraphs in the lead section? People aren't worried so much about that. They are worried about the overly promotional tone that you bring. And your three lead paragraphs are beefier than the previous four paragraphs, almost the same size in total characters, so it's not really much of a reduction. As your older example, you ought to have picked the version of the article as it stood right before you first touched it in November 2020; that version was more succinct, with fewer words in the lead section and also fewer words in the article body. The tone of that version was much more neutral. Back when the bio was listed as a Good Article, it was a decent balance of media observations. Now, it's far too promotional. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: If you want to make it about article content "then vs now", let's talk about that.

Compare the "2014-2017 The Pinkprint" section now vs "when I first touched it". The section previously had a bad flow, had ten paragraphs, and had very poor sources such as "elitedaily.com". Now look at the section that I had recently put a lot of work into cleaning up a couple of days ago. I cut the entire thing down to five paragraphs, kept the relevant stuff (for example, having the entire critical reception in the article body isn't due and instead should be kept for the actual album article), I replaced bad sources, fixed referencing to properly cite magazines instead of "websites", etc.

This also applies to the Queen section. Before I "touched it", the Queen section had twelve breaks/paragraphs, poor sources, and original research. I cleaned up the bad flow and unnecessary sentences, again fixed references, and cleaned it up. Please tell me that the career section before with its messy sentences and bad flow is better than the version that I had fixed. shanghai.^{talk to me} 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, there's so much positive information / achievements in the previous lead that isn't even noted in the current 2022 lead at all, such as the top five/top ten positions of Starships, Anaconda, Turn Me On, and Chun Li, the triple platinum RIAA status of Pink Friday, the lead sentence calling her an "actress" and a "model", Minaj being cited as one of the most influential female rap artists of all time that Cornerstone has been trying to prevent being readded to Minaj's article. There's actually so much stuff that I purposefully didn't include in Minaj's lead because it wasn't due weight for the lead. I'd even say that the previous sounds more promotional, because of consistent mentioning of U.S. chart positions for a lot of her singles. shanghai.^{talk to me} 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

These things are not mutually exclusive though. You can be generally be improving the article in some ways, while also skewing things too positively. You can be holding back on adding positive content...and still be adding too much positive content. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, but Binksternet's entire point was that the article was "worse" off and had a "more promotional tone" when I'm just showing that it's in an arguably better quality. To quote Binksternet, he literally said "that version was more succinct with fewer words in the article body" and a "decent balance." A really long 2018 section isn't a decent balance at all... shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sub-discussion

Thanks to 192.76.8.70 that listed all the reports against RogueShanghai and such behavior on the Nicki Minaj article. The most recent suspicious behavior was:

• Removing over and over again the reason given by SA victim Jennifer Hough for moving her lawsuit against Minaj and her husband to another state, leaving it at "voluntarily dropped", only quoting Minaj and Minaj's lawyer. RogueShanghai cited "original research" twice for deleting it (when it is explicitly written in the reference). [317] [318]
  • In the same topic, RogueShanghai has kept removing that the accusation is for harassment to "recant her account" [319] [320]
• Removing the whole Controversy section from the article. [321]
• Minaj said it so it must be true, examples: [322] [323] [324]
• Removing the "swollen testicles" part on the vaccine controversy section without pointing out why. [325]
• More promotional language [326].
• Instead of removing one word, removing alot of criticism [327]; also citing 'vandalism' to remove criticism [328]

This account, RogueShanghai, is here with a single purpose. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll respond to a lot of this later- you've taken it a lot of my diffs purposefully out of context, many IPs had in fact vandalized the Boyz article to the point where several admins had to protect it several times. I removed the Controversy section following the advice of an editor who has brought multiple BLPs to Wikipedia. Those controversies were not actually controversies, they were And you've still failed to acknowledge your disruptive WP:POINT editing.

That being said, Cornerstonepicker, I'm sick and tired of you misgendering me since January, I have made it very clear on multiple occasions what pronouns I use yet you've been doing this for weeks. Please explain why you've been misgendering me for months w/o no reason? shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How is anybody suppose to know or remember? please write they/them/pref pronoun in your signature. I randomly remembered you wrote the word misgendering once last year so I made the previous post genderless before you replied. [329]. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus shouldn't be on me for you to do basic civil behavior by using the proper pronouns that I've made clear many times, but even so, you literally said yourself that I've confronted you about your misgendering last year.. and yet you are still doing it """by mistake""" all these months later, It is highly irritating and uncivil every time you misgender me because you've done it multiple times. Why do you continue with such an uncollaborative environment... I'm sick of misgendering being treated like it's literally nothing when it is very insulting. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please use your signature, nobody is keeping that in their minds, we have lives outside of this discussion. As I said, I barely remembered that (was not many times, that's not true) and changed it before you replied. It's sad that you're accusing me of misgendering you on purpose, and yesterday you acussed another user of misogynist on the Nicki Minaj talk page#RFC. don't use a serious social issue to redirect the topic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be the one changing the topic from your WP:POINT disruptive editing pattern on female rappers articles... which you still haven't addressed, I asked you to address it on Minaj's talk page and here as well, but there is still no addressing of the "Queen of Rap" edits on every female rapper after the RfC for it on Minaj's article passed.

I didn't even accuse anyone of misogyny on Nicki's talk page, I said that someone's implication came across as possibly misogynist. I told you straight up on that talk page "tell me where I called this editor a misogynist." As for the misgendering, if you truly misremembered, then all I ask from you is a genuine apology for using the wrong pronouns. That's it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Editors'_pronouns#..._can't_I_just_say_their_username_instead? applies here, as you only changed the misgendered pronoun "he" to "RogueShanghai".... shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Already addressed this: I changed my post to genderless before you replied. Then, you accused me of misgendering you on purpose. This conversation is offtopic, the other editors involved pointing out stuff do not have to read all of this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's still not the pronouns that I'm asking for (you changed the he pronouns to my username) and now you're accusing me of using a "social issue" to redirect the topic when I am literally nonbinary and part of that social issue. I'm just noticing a pattern of calling me "he" from editors that have directed personal attacks at me before... shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said, already addressed this; you're still deflecting the topic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If you misgender me, I have the full right to call it out... it's extremely offensive. You're insisting it was a "genuine mistake" but at the same time I've never seen you apologize, which is all I'm asking for when anyone misgenders me.

Additionally, you keep saying "I'm deflecting" for calling out offensive misgendering but you haven't even acknowledged the reason that this thread was created in the first place, your WP:POINT editing pattern across female rapper articles.... shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're not reading my replies at all, and going deep in a serious social issue to deflect the ownership behavior pointed out here in the Nicki Minaj article. this back and forth is not helping anything here. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Misgendering is not a "social issue", it is an insult. You've been stonewalling all of my edits since March 2021, for months now, consistently, I would prefer you actually address that because that's the root of the dispute here, while I'm trying to move on to productively improving other sections of the article that need it, like her Career section, you seem to be still attempting to get "lyricism" and "most influential female rapper" removed from her lead... even though the former has seventeen sources that make note of it...

and again, I've pointed out that you keep deflecting from explaining your WP:POINT mass editing because of the passed "Queen of Rap" RfC on Minaj. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed you have used the same argument [330] against Ronherry when called out for your behavior. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: your explanation might be fine if this was an editor you rarely interact with. But it's clear from your own comments RogueShanghai is an editor you regularly interact with to the extent you remember the alleged problems with their editing behaviour. That being the case, you need to make much more of an effort to remember the editor's preferred pronouns and avoiding misgendering an editor, even temporarily. Notably, if you can remember that an editor finds misgendering particularly offensive you should be able to remember their preference and if you really can't, then make the small effort to check before posting. While avoiding gender pronouns may be fine in some cases, doing it when you know the editor has clearly expressed a preference and you are avoiding using that preference is not acceptable and is the sort of think which has lead to blocks before. If you do that or misgender this particular editor again, I'll fully support a site ban of you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I would never misgender somebody on purpose. I'm fully aware of what that means and how it is used to harm, I've educated myself on the topic. I used the name of the editor here to be specific of who I'm mentioning. I also support that anybody that does that on purpose should be banned. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

A lot of these diffs are straight up out of context, and don't paint the full picture at all.. here's the necessary context for all of it:

1. Actually, I cited "original research" because the article makes it clear that the whole jurisdictional laws thing (I'm not American) is only her lawyers claim, which you didn't note at all in your edit. That's one of the reasons I removed it, plus, it's not due weight. Hough's lawyer only statement is "Stay tuned! The lawsuit will be refiled in California!" which is already noted in the section.. and I removed "recant her account" because "recant her account" falls under alleged intimidation.

2. The entire "controversy" section does not have any actual controversy besides the COVID vaccine tweets. In fact, I didn't actually remove the Controversies header itself at all, I kept it, it was another editor who removed the section heading. I removed the feuds from her article, because none of these feuds with other rappers were key to Minaj's notability at all and didn't need their own section. They were moved to the "diss track" song articles by Minaj such as Roman's Revenge and No Frauds, as they have more due weight there. In fact, the same editor who brought Katy Perry and Lady Gaga to featured article remarked that the "feuds and controversies section" was undue negative weight.

3a. The UK officer's comments are still undue weight because the controversy revolves around someone based in Trinidad, not England. However, in retrospect Fauci specifcially being the one that Minaj was supposed to call with was a claim that needed better sourcing than Instagram Live. I'll admit fault there.

3b & 3c. This directly deals with songwriting credits, where Minaj revealed that she wrote the entirety of "Chun Li" herself, and that Jeremy Reid was only added to the songwriting credit for his production. This is a comment from the musicians mouth herself about her own music, wouldn't it make sense to use her own words as a source in this situation per WP:BLPSELFPUB?

4. Because "swollen balls" is seemingly quite vulgar, although if there is proof that notable sources did use these words specifically and consistently, then it would be acceptable.

5. How is this even promotional language when it has already been in the article way before I started even editing Minaj's article? Minaj being noted for her influence by TNYT even dates back to when the article was originally given GA status in 2012, so your framing of this as a "new edit" that "contains promotional language" is confusing..

6. As I showed above, the article WAS getting lots of IP vandalism, where several admins had to protect the page because of the amount of vandalism it was getting.. it wasn't a shield for criticism, those edits were actually being made by vandals. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

1. I did... then only add the quotation marks, instead of removing the reason given by the lawyer of Jennifer Hough (Minaj's husband's sexual assault victim). If you had space to quote what both Minaj and Kenneth Petty's lawyer said, you can also add that. Here you gave a paragraph to Minaj's defense not using quotation marks (this: The filing also alleged that Hough's story was inconsistent and had multiple discrepancies.), so that wasn't a problem for you there. And "Harassment" does not imply "to recant her account" at all.
   And look at the language in your contribution here: It is a common misconception that Minaj had helped Jelani, however, Minaj did not post her brother's bail [331], with the source being gossip blog Bossip (context for non-involved editors: Jelani Maraj was sentenced for SA minors and was bailed out; that it was not by Nicki Minaj is pushing a narrative). Yet you removed the interview that Jennifer Hough gave to The Daily Beast [332] beause it is a 'tabloid'. why does it feel you are taking sides on Hough's lawsuit?
2. SNUGGUMS, whose contributions I've fully appreciated through the years and whose message made me come back, was clear: after removing the rest, you only left the COVID vaccine controversy in the section, then that topic becomes the header.
3. Your argument is still basically Minaj said it so is true.
4. The quotation (from the subject) was "swollen testicles" caused by the vaccine, and wikipedia is not censored; yet you removed it.
5. In the diff, that's you adding the promotional language.
6. It was one bad word to be removed: yet you removed paragraphs of criticism of the Minaj song.

In my opinion, and I think I'm not the only that perceives it, you are using wikipedia as a tool for promotional language and to push narratives that benefit Minaj's image. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Replying to the original comment, it's not necessarily a point violation to add the term to other articles after it was added to the one article due to an RfC. It really depends on the strength of the sources and how the editor engaged in discussion afterwards which isn't something I'm willing to look in to. It seems reasonable to me that an editor may feel adding terms like queen of rap to the lead of any article isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. When consensus develops to add it to one article, they may feel since the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in that earlier case is clearly against them, perhaps the communities views of the situation is different from theirs and so it's reasonable to add it to others. Any editor opposing such a change in other articles needs to explain their support in that one article but opposition in the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not withstanding. There may very well be reasons relating to the strength of the sources etc for why it belongs in one article but not the other, but if there isn't this does suggest their editing maybe unacceptably biased. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, the consensus in that specific matter was that, if is backed by many sources, it is ok to add the nickname. I opened a conversation on Missy Elliott's talk page to make sure everything is ok about the topic, and a third-party editor opined the same. All three that had the nickname added were backed by numerous sources. Those three, at the same time, are not random articles that I never clicked on, I fully created and implemented their "Legacy" sections. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

So, I'm pretty certain this discussion is an example of why we keep having ANI discussions about this without resolutions. They get so long-winded and spiraling that you're just going to scare away anyone from intervening. And that's not a great approach - eventually you're going to exhaust the community's patience and irritate some admin into doling out blocks. I'm often told I give people too many chances before blocking editors, and even I'm starting to get exhausted by all this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

See? Carrying on like this has completely halted any progress or outsiders from intervening. You'll never get any resolution at this rate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to comment that it's discouraging how the reports above by fellow editors on RogueShanghai's behavior go nowhere for the 7th time, and just archived. In August 2021, it was proposed that they should be topic-banned from editing BLPs in the area of music (cc: Black Kite), but also went nowhere, and here we are again. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

While I believe RogueShanghai is the worse offender here, it takes two to tango. If you want intervention, don't run up the section with these massive wall-of-texts responses and back and forth. We're all volunteers here on Wikipedia. I'm sure there's been plenty of admin who look at this, mumble "yikes" to themselves, and keep scrolling because they don't know where to begin, or don't have an hour to wade through all that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally see why the back-and-forth didn't help anything and just made admins not follow-up. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Paramount Global Content Licensing

The article refers to the division as Paramount Global Content Licensing, even though the official website refers to it as Paramount Global Distribution Group [333]. So I tried updating it like many people have before, but it keeps getting undone. I tried bringing it up on the Talk page, but that got undone and I was told to "SHUT UP". I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyfunkydude23 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You should both stop edit warring, but I see that you did try to discuss, and AdhiOK has reverted your section twice, which is no good.[334][335] They've also removed an earlier sections, mislabeling it vandalism.[336] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it does appear that Averyfunydude23 tried to take the issue to a talk page discussion and AdhiOK has tried to revert that talk page discussion. I have notified AdhiOK of this discussion (which should have been done at the outset). 20:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularity42 (talk • contribs)

• Requesting closure. I have intervened in the underlying content dispute between the parties, and have started a move request discussion on the article's talk page. To the extent that AdhiOK was reverting Averyfunkydune23's attempts to start a discussion on the talk page, there has been no prior similar behaviour issues and I see that they now have been properly cautioned/warned on their talk page. I do not believe further admin action is required at this time, and I hope both parties can follow my example on the article's talk page of how to settle these types of disputes. Singularity42 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually looking through AdhiOK's talk page and edits there is plenty of behaviour to be concerned about. They appear to be generally rude to other users and disruptive, with a huge issue of throwing the word vandalism around for good faith, and often correct, edits. Are we looking at the same user? And that's before the fact they add unsourced additions, while also reverting others for adding unsourced content. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail Indeed, and that's before you look at things like creating user pages that were G10 deleted as attack pages [337], creating pages which are literally nonsense [338] [339] [340] [341] [342] [343], Creating ridiculous LTA pages [344] and giving out fake block templates [345] [346]. Seems to be a long-term CIR issue, I'm amazed they've made nearly 14,000 edits. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  More problematic edits: Edit warring with an IP to stop them blanking their own talk page [347]. Edit warring with an IP to remove content they had placed there themselves, claiming it to be fake [348]. Reverting a message someone left on their own talk page as "Irrelevant..." [349]. Another example of calling another editor a liar [350]. Leaving a personal attack so nasty it was rev-delled [351]. More extremely nasty personal attacks [352]. The more you look the worse it gets. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Vandalising user pages [353] [354] [355]. Blanking someone's sandbox for unexplained reasons [356]. Vandalising someone's sandbox then submitting it for AfC review [357] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  All good points. I have struck my request to close this thread. 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularity42 (talk • contribs)

  It's concerning that AdhiOK has continued to edit without responding to this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I just hate that vandalism and anyone who vandalize this Wikipedia, especially anyone who vandalize any talk page on any article with any fake, unsourced and unverifiable information.... AdhiOK (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    AdhiOK, when Averyfunkydude23 tried to start a discussion, why did you revert their comments to the article talk page?[358][359] Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    • Because I have readed the edits from SanAnMan that "Link may say one thing but site says another" [360] AdhiOK (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And I was reporting any vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism AdhiOK (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      In this discussion, Canterbury Tail and 192.76.8.70 have identified quite a few questionable edits that you've made. Do you have anything to say about those edits or their concerns? Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      Because I've found any vandalism across Wikipedia with any hoaxes, fake, unsourced, and unverifiable information.... Anyone who do it doesn't have any strong information source..... So, I takedown it..... AdhiOK (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you explain the edits in the links above, as everyone else here sees issues with those edits. Are you saying they're all perfectly valid edits? Canterbury Tail talk 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Like this one.... [361] AdhiOK (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  No, they're referring to the diffs Canterbury Tail and I linked above. Do you care to explain what on earth you were doing, or do you need a block under some combination of WP:CIR, WP:DE and WP:NPA? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

With AdhiOK not answering direct questions about their edits, the disturbing compilation of diffs above (some of which indicate they are not clear on exactly what vandalism is), and their apparent reluctance to actually discuss disputed information on the article talk page (which started this discussion), I question their competence to edit collegially. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum they are very much not aware of the contents of WP:VANDALISM. But yes I'm leaning on WP:CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm they're still editing and showing no indication of wanting to respond to any of the concerns in this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, maybe a short mainspace block to force some discussion, to make sure they're capable of it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless I see something immediately disruptive in their current edits, I'd like an uninvolved admin to handle that. Canterbury Tail talk 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Out of interest I just took a look at the edit filter logs for AdhiOK. um yes an explanation is needed here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7, coarse language and personal attack in edit summary

Diff: [362] Viewsridge (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll echo them. Why in the fuck did you think that title was a good idea? —Cryptic 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, I'm very careful to ensure that I don't engage in personal attacks in edit summaries, particularly when I'm fixing a major fuck-up, like that case, where an editor less-than-wisely chose very WP:LOADED language. That diff very clearly isn't a personal attack, by the way. However, I probably was a bit too crass, so sorry about that; I've been leading the charge on making sure these Ukraine war articles are up to tip-top shape over the past 3 weeks, so having to constantly clean-up poor work from some editors who may not necessarily have the skill to edit such a controversial topic (which is not a knock, it is very challenging to edit these articles, and I still give major credit those who make good-faith attempts but fall short) has been very exasperating. Apologies, I'll try to keep my frustration in check. (I still curse a lot though lol, I just have a sailor's mouth) Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Pcarbonn topic ban violation

User:Pcarbonn edited the Cold Fusion page in direct violation of his topic ban. --Noren (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard to believe they forgot about a topic ban that led to their absence here for 12 years, but in the interests of kindness, I'll assume it was a momentary forgetfulness. @Pcarbonn:, your topic ban is still in force. Don't edit Cold Fusion or other fringe science articles, whether the content is controversial or not. If you want to edit in that topic area, you'll have to get the topic ban undone first (which, due to almost no editing since it was imposed, is very unlikely right now). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

LambdofGod

LambdofGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is showing an unwillingness to engage in discussion on talk pages and is instead edit warring to try to get their way. For example, at Arabs in Germany they have changed a population estimate four times despite being reverted and without engaging in the discussion at Talk:Arabs in Germany#Updated population figure. They have also resorted to personal attacks. This editor seems to have a history of problematic behaviour, judging by their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Problematic behaviour". FACEPALM

You simply have no argument against me posting the latest recent data from the German government and instead keep reverting to old census data from 2010 and beyond because you have a some problems with data. LambdofGod (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@LambofGod: it would appear that you are the one which has no policy backed argument at least in the case of Arabs in Germany. Otherwise why is your name absent from the article talk page but Cordless Larry's name is present? My assumption is it must be because you know you can't defend your changes. If I'm wrong, prove it by discussing on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also now edit warring further at Germans, despite being warned by Rsk6400 yesterday. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Chesapeake77

User:Chesapeake77 has been engaging in disruptive editing on Siege of Mariupol and baselessly accusing me of vandalism.

I had removed and modified some of his edits because they looked repetitive and unnecessary to me, especially as it contained single-para sub-sections and statements of various people directly copied from articles, or describing who a company has worked for.

One of his article concerning the death toll in Mariupol being 20,000 [363] was already mentioned under the "Siege" section. I removed this because of it being repetitive, along with other repetitive text [364].

He later re-added it by moving the civilian death toll [365]. I didn't realize he had simply moved it so I removed it as repeated info again [366].

Regardless it doesn't mean someone is being a vandal. And the information still should be up there in "Siege" section with other civilian death tolls to give more context. Even if mentioning it in "Humanitarian situation and alleged war crimes", it should be brief and doesn't deserve its own whole sub-section.

He also added about the destruction of the city and that company taking pictures of it has worked for US intelligence and military [367].

I removed it but very soon re-inserted part of his statement, because a separate sub-section for a single para and mentioning who the company works for seems irrelevant [368]. Regardless we have been using other sources like Ukrainian state-run Ukrinform that have potential for bias, I don't see a point in singling out one source. And it's not like those satellite images are faked.

I also removed and then re-added Cheaspake77's addition of ICRC statements by modifying them [369] because he had verbatim copied statements from its officials and he decided to create a separate section for it on his own [370], [371].

User:EkoGraf had previously told him it was not needed too. Chesapeake77 reverted him as well.

Plus his section titles seem unencyclopaedic and too descriptive like "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol" and "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" which was a further incentive to modify his edits.

He reverted my edits as vandalism [372] despite none of it being so. And also removed the small additions I made in that revert. Afterwards he left a warning to have me blocked and accused me of repeated vandalism on my talk page.

I removed his warning because it wasn't vandalism. Although I had initially reverted him partly, I later self-reverted until the situation was resolved.

And I also left a message at his talk page about his accusations [373]. He didn't bother to discuss and just removed my message [374], in addition to threatening me again despite me not reverting him [375].

I've taken my issues to the article talk page but he hasn't bothered replying despite me even linking his name, please see [376]. He also removed templates I had added to the page about the content being too long and irrelevant without discussing it first [377]. He certainly noticed what I said because he has restored part of additions I made as I asked on the talk page.

This shows he is deliberately making unilateral edits and ignoring discussions. He has been warned for his disruptive behavior multiple times in past too as visible from his talk page. I request a ban or a block for him for his behavior. He's also been unilaterally deciding what goes where without bothering for a dicussion. Also sorry I couldn't make this shorter. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I've fully protected the article to enforce more discussion and less reverting each other -- TNT (talk • she/her) 07:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I made some reverts too but I've self-reverted to avoid an edit war. I hope there can be some discussion now. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Btw you can temporarily close this. If he refuses to discuss and/or is disruptive I'll open another complain and this can be used as an evidence. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@AbsolutelyFiring:

Your noted edits have been added back in.

You wrote (on the article "Talk Page")--

"[You]...are needlessly creating sub-sections for every single thing you can find...".

That's a personal attack. Refrain from any further or you will be reported for harassment.

@The Admin Here and @AbsolutleyFiring:

As to the two subsection titles in the article-- 1) "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" and 2) "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol"

Those subsections (and their titles) are appropriate because they are highly notable.

1) Reducing the article to a run-on chronology, while making no distinction for an extremely important major event-- like the ICRC warning of an immenent mass-catastrophe that could soon kill tens of thousands of people, lacks due perspective.

Similarly, satellite images that show extensive damage to apartments and homes in Mariupol also document mass-shelling (and massive targeting) of residential areas-- with casualties potentially in the tens of thousands.

In both cases, these extremely notable events warrant their own subsections, rather being buried in run-on chronologies with no distinction from far smaller alleged events.

Therefore your persistent removal of such extremely important subsection titles constitutes serious vandalism.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop falsely accusing me of vandalism. Disagreement on something or removal is not vandalism. WP:VANDALISM says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Even the general definition of vandalism isn't something I'm doing. If you don't stop with the accusations I'll be forced to report you again.

And this is asides from you initially not bothering to discuss this. Also please don't make the same comments. Keep it to the article talk page Talk:Siege of Mariupol. Plus you only restored part of my additions, not all of it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Admins, TNT, please also note that Cheseapeak77 has engaged in censorship of an image claiming multiple people have complained about it. [378] That too over it just showing some blood. And he is also berating an admin for locking an article now. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Chesapeake77 has also been making a mess moving articles without understanding disambiguation and without opening a move discussion. We're still dealing with the mess they made by moving Holly Williams to Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter) when there are no other musicians of the same name to distinguish her from. The article should be either where it started or at Holly Williams (musician) per WP:SINGERDAB. To quote C77 "just because something has a "WP" in front of it does not always mean that it is a good idea. I ask everyone to think for themselves-- who searches for "musician" on Google when they are looking for a "Singer" or "songwriter"??" (Talk:Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter)) (overemphasis in original). I am beginning to wonder whether they may have a conflict of interest with respect to one of the three Holly Williams they have been moving w/o discussion and are trying to get better SEO placement for their client? Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I think this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Skyerise (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

RE the last point: from what I've seen from this user, they seem to be acting more or less in-good-faith, but their edits tend to be relatively rough around the edges. Treads into WP:CIR moreso than WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That could well be. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 7

Special:Contributions/1.36.236.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 1 August in 2020 (only 1.36.236.68 is not),please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also,please protect Bomberman Kart, start at 2 August in last year,spam and DE.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

MCC214, you didn't ping me this time! I'm trying to get a streak here. El_C 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this LTA abuse two IP range,

1. Special:Contributions/42.3.188.0/24, only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2016,zh.wiki blocked .
2. Special:Contributions/112.118.32.0/23, only it edit in this IP range after 29 May in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• El_C,this LTA use 112.118.32.0/23 again!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/203.218.225.0/24, only it edit in this IP range after 5 July in 2019,zh.wiki blocked.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MCC214, got it. El_C 02:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

1. Special:Contributions/124.217.188.128.
2. Special:Contributions/218.250.24.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 26 January in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it. MCC214, if you have time, maybe create an LTA subpage and list everything we've done thus far there, and then ping me to it with any future requests...? (If I'm not around, ANI/AIV in the usual way.) El_C 19:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

1. Special:Contributions/124.217.188.108.
2. Special:Contributions/42.3.188.0/23,this LTA use this IP range after 30 July in 2020 (only 42.3.189.149 is not).
3. Special:Contributions/218.250.33.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 9 September in last year,zh.wiki blocked.
4. Special:Contributions/58.153.0.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 23 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ping El_C again.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, got it. El_C 15:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Juris Doctorate" vs "Juris Doctor"

The other day, I noticed that that the IP (2601:205:3:dee2::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is apparently on a mission to change all instances of "Juris Doctorate" to "Juris Doctor" with their latest edit summaries of I have changed Juris Doctorate to Juris Doctor. The actual name of the degree in Latin is Juris Doctor. Juris is Latin (with no exact English equivalent, “Jurisprudence” and “Law” both being inexact translations of Juris). Doctor is both Latin and English, and Doctorate is English. There is no therefore such degree as the Juris Doctorate. Using this term is like referring to an Artium Baccalaurens or Bachelor of Arts as a Baccalaureus of Arts. I don't really know the difference and I don't care, but I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#"Juris Doctorate" vs "Juris Doctor" to form a consensus (although only two others have given opinions so far) as it seems a bit disruptive to go changing all instances of the term without any discussion. The problem is, the IP is dynamic, so the notices I've left yesterday regarding the discussion look to have gone unseen and the IP continued on changing. Any thoughts on how to get the IP's attention? A block? I'm more involved than I want to be as I'd prefer to step aside and let smarter people figure it out. I've attempted to notify the user of this discussion on the last two IPs used. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A /64 range in that part of the world will almost certainly be assigned to a single user/household - the range can be blocked without fear of collateral, if this is disruptive editing. I'm not sure that it is though - our article calls it a juris doctor degree, and the only place the phrase 'juris doctorate' appears in that article is in the name of one of the sources. I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but the IP may well be correct about usage. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it, either. I only came across this from this article, which at first struck me as just odd, since the source used in that article said Juris Doctorate, which redirects to Juris Doctor and therefore, makes no sense (to me) in changing it per WP:NOTBROKEN. Then, I saw that the IP was doing the mass changes. So, agreed, the IP may be entirely right... but they probably could be going about it changing it in a better way. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw one of these edits, checked it and it seemed correct. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Skyerise

User reported - Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I usually don't document users on first wrong but since Skyerise has been recently blocked for WP:POINT editing. - [379] I am regrettably reporting that this is recurring again. After opposing deletion of this article (see discussion - [380]) Skyerise proceeds to nominate another matching article for deletion [381], presenting the same rationale:

• The article is about Königsberg which already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Königsberg. [382]

Please note that the article that has been proposed to be deleted by Skyerise is about the existing town in Russia.

The rationale from another originally proposed deletion:[383]

• The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad.

Such behaviour is highly disruptive per Examples at WP:POINT.

User has been notified --> [384] GizzyCatBella🍁 13:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:BOOMARANG is appropriate here. If my nomination is 'disruptive', then so is the nomination of Königsberg. There was clearly an editorial decision to divide the history into pre- and post-1945, indicated clearly in the hatnotes on the respective articles. There is a distinct divide here: the city was not just renamed. It's entire culture was changed from German to Russian. We don't merge Ancient Egypt and Egypt for the same reason. One was a polytheistic culture, the other an Islamic culture. Skyerise (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: where is this editorial decision you speak of? 晚安 (トークページ) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight:: the articles are pretty cleanly divided between pre-1945 and post-1945 and tagged with hatnotes. I don't need to see a discussion to understand that that was done by consensus. Skyerise (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight:: In any case, it's been discussed multiple time which anyone can see by glancing at the indexed archives (cute trick, I'll have to learn how to do that). For example, [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390], [391]. The article is where it is because Kaliningrad is basically a new city built on the rubble of Königsberg. This is a longstanding position of the majority of editors of the article. Skyerise (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A couple of things. I note that Skyerise was recently warned by Oshwah - essentially, that there is absolutely no need to respond to vandals, trolls and sockpuppets with abuse and vitriol. Indeed, I would class THIS as vandalism itself. However, that doesn't seem to be directly relevant to this thread. I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaliningrad as "speedy keep" since the nomination was withdrawn, while I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Königsberg is worth keeping open to see what consensus develops (cf. Danzig / Gdansk). And that, I believe, is that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I was about to ask the same thing though - Skyrise, what is the meaning of this edit?? Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The meaning of that edit is that I've been targeted by a sock for eight months and nobody seems to be able to stop them, even though they are clearly taking advantage of having an employer with a large IP range (AT&T?). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat/Archive. My requests that their Internet provider or employer be contacted have been ignored. So I lost it. You would too. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry you are being harassed. I hope it's resolved soon. But, I can say, with 100% certainty, that I would not, in fact, resort to posting a picture of a penis, in any circumstance on Wikipedia (or anywhere for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Sergecross73. Have you tried contacting Trust & Safety - it's what they're there for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware that there was a separate team for that. I thought all that would be handled by the sockpuppet team. In my defense, the sock was responding at 2 to 3 minute intervals. I left it up for 3 minutes then took it down. It wasn't my intent that anyone other than the culprit be exposed to it. Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I look at that page and how to submit a request for action. When I clicked on the action for harassment, it sent me back to the English Wikipedia harrassment page. None of the reasons for action seem to apply, as they are not attempting to out me or make physical threats. There is a section strictly about harassment, but apparently it only applies to protecting administrators from harassment. Is there some other way to address this without applying for adminship? Skyerise (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The harassment pages don't really describe your situation - sustained attacks from an obvious long-term vandal. As an alternative, you could email Arbcom (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org) giving as much information as you can - they'll know what to do with it and get T&S involved if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps the section that applies only to admins could be broadened to apply to all users? Skyerise (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the number of LTAs whose modus operandi is relentless harassment (one of which is in an area that's already hellish) it absolutely should. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't that harassment link you provided say that outing an editors employer is harassment? Revdel please. Cup Spill (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Raxythecat: There is nothing to revdel above. --MuZemike 11:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cup Spill: Don't want the owner of the network you use apprised of your activities? Stop harassing me and vandalizing Wikipedia. Arbcom has been notified and may very well talk to your employer shortly if you continue. Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• The nomination of Kaliningrad at AfD was simple WP:POINT disruption, which is exactly what Skyerise was blocked for less than two months ago. I don't think it matters how many edits you've got, if you are continuing to disrupt Wikipedia, there's going to be a point where you're not going to be allowed to do it any more. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That's funny, as certain editors seem to be specially protected by admins from reaping the results of their actions, even allowed to make multiple name changes to avoid consequences. Skyerise (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise Making snarky comments about Wikipedians who aren't even part of this discussion will win you no friends. I do not want to confuse the issue of having a harassing LTA with the issue of your conduct - they are two separate issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, that's clearly pure disruption. As is the edit pointed out by User:Sergecross73 above, which no reasonable editor would have made however great the provocation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If I can offer a thought here: I stumbled across Skyerise and the sock sparring a couple days ago while doing some RC patrol, made a couple of reversions, and suggested that Skyerise take a breather after seeing the contentious edit noted above. Looking at further issues pointed out above, it really seems like what we have here is a good and quite prolific editor who does a lot of positive work, but has some issues when stress builds up, sometimes ending in blocks. Might it be a good idea for admins here to issue a clear and firm warning, encourage reporting egregious problems like sock attacks to the appropriate noticeboards rather than engaging, and a reminder to step back and think about edits, edit summaries, etc., for tone and appropriateness before hitting the save button? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I did receive a warning, and yes, being targeted by an IP is extremely stressful for me. I had a previous IP target for a similar length of time previously and had to have my talk page protected and my username changed to evade them (somehow they didn't manage to figure out my new username). I've left whole topic areas due to the behavior of one editor with an account who would stalk me to other articles if I unknowingly touched one of "theirs" to make an improvement.

And I have received a stern warning, archived to my 2022 archive and acknowledge that I went too far. Normally I don't engage the socks but he was twice as abusive as usual this time around. So yes, I will make more use of noticeboards and ignore the sock from now on if they come back.

I don't seem to get the same respect other prolific editors get, presumably because I edit occult topics as well as more respectable ones. Some of those articles are quite the mess. Yesterday I discovered that Church of Satan had been hijacked since 2016 - made to look extremely well-cited when it was not. None of the apparently cited sources were actually listed (it probably set a record for sfn errors) and instead of listing the actual sources, a promotional book list which I'm sure was intended to convert readers to Satanism was in their place. I'm not sure how such a state of affairs goes on six years w/o another editor noticing it. I only stumbled on it b/c I was expanding Magical organization.

Anyway that was a digression but I acknowledge my faults and will try not to repeat them. Skyerise (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note - In light of the above testimony I (the complainer) plea with monitoring administrators to be understanding. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Skyerise, I have appreciated your contributions to Women in Computing, an article that I have also worked on quite a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey thanks, @Ritchie333: that must have been some time ago as I don't even remember working on that article. I've re-watchlisted it. Skyerise (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Javierfv1212

Javierfv1212 (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to start a project to remove Sanskrit from all Buddhist articles without discussing it in advance anywhere. I can't point to the discussion that led to it, but Buddhist articles were specifically excluded from WP:INDICSCRIPT because historically Sanskrit was used for Buddhist writings. The Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism for example will not accept any text for which there was not a Sanskrit original. In any case, there is no consensus for these removals, which go back some months at least. Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I could see the case for removing Devanagari script on some articles (eg. if there's a lot of multilingual clutter, or the article is actually about a Chinese text), but that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. There's no valid cause for removing it indiscriminately when WP:INDICSCRIPT makes explicit exemptions for articles on texts originally written in that script, articles pertaining to any of India's neighbouring countries, and for articles pertaining to Buddhism; in many cases multiple exemptions apply to an article. (Such as Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sūtra; an article of international scope on an originally Sanskrit text pertaining to Buddhism; all three exemptions listed earlier apply here.) – Scyrme (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR/Copyvio concerns about User:ClaudeJTurner

• ClaudeJTurner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marta Vorobiova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user caught my eye in my watchlist with this message on Jimbo talk being promptly reverted. After taking a closer look at the user's contributions, I saw 10 edits to project space in 2020 and 2021, and the rest of this user's edits since then focusing entirely on Marta Vorbiova, which is almost entirely copy-and-pasted from the subject's IMDB page. I also found this self-reverted edit to User:Jamiebuba, which I think is beyond the pale. This user has not responded to any of my requests to disclose whether or not they're a paid editor, and in my view, is clearly NOTHERE in either case. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra, I had tagged the article for promo and A7 based on the contents that were added without properly sourcing it. Apparently he/she is angry about it and decided to leave a message on my user page before reverting back. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have messaged other Wikipedia users and let them know about prior deletions and added a comment to the talk page on the Article that was created to please not delete while it was being improved ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been traveling for more than two years, to where I have now had to begin using the computers at the public library instead of my laptop ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are to reference the other Ukrainian Female Models Category page you would see that the Model who I created an Article for has plenty of work and her page was created correctly ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont agree to you thinking that you are able to delete someones work while they are in the process of working on it

I have a limited amount of time on a computer at the public library while there was comments already added to the talk page asking to please leave the article while it is being improved

Other sources were being searched for on multiple search engines other than ones in the United States, such as Ukrainian, European, Russian, Asian search engines ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ip disrupting Scott Baio

• 2605:a000:ffc0:d8:fdf2:3eb5:8751:7a62 (talk · contribs)
• Scott Baio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BATTLE, WP:POVPUSH, WP:DE and WP:NPA (see ip's article and user talk page comments). If there's work to be done developing new consensus in this BLP, and I think there is, this ip is creating a disruptive environment that prevents it.

• blanking sourced info to ip's preference
• restoring primary source Wikipedia:Citation overkill
• And then the BATTLE began on the article talk page.

As this is an ip, and the dispute is over a decade old, I requested the article be protected, which was declined [392] with instructions to warn the user and take it to AIV if it continues. The AIV request was declined as a content dispute [393]. --Hipal (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well it is a content dispute, and framing the person who disagrees with you as "BATTLE" doesn't help win it. It seems a fairly straightforward request to show that this is anything other than an error in an article in TIME that has been addressed, and I can understand the frustration of an editor who finds that responded to with a blocking threat and "Let's get you blocked", bizzarre assertions that "splitting discussion isn't helpful" when it was you that split it. It takes two to tango, and in this case you have been doing some fair dancing around for 2 years, too. You could start by looking at the dates on the sources, and stop pointing to an inconclusive discussion between 2 people back in 2013 as if it solved the problem and should silence further discussion. TIME stated 1961 in 2008, Baio said that "the media has always had it wrong" in 2010. It seems quite reasonable to propound the view that this is an old error now corrected, as the editor without an account is doing. But responding to this with requests for page protection, and going to an anti-vandalism noticeboard is exactly why you aren't getting further and are getting another person's back up.

  People trying to settle the facts of an age based upon the idea that a magazine article simply got it wrong (and no doubt the person who runs the Baio website got an earful behind the scenes, too) are not vandals. And there is a wealth of difference between someone arguing a case with sources, and asking for evidence against the idea that TIME was simply wrong about this, and the actual biography vandals that haunt Wikipedia. Go and look at the edit history of Heera Rajagopal some time.

  Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted here because of the behavior.

If you want to address the content dispute, spend some time looking at the talk page. From what I see, the best references prior to Baio's reality shows give 1961, but all four years from '59 to '62 are verified by other references. Baio fairly consistently said '61 in interviews, but '62 in at least one.

The ip's original research and hostility to anyone that he mistakenly assumes has a different point of view are the problems here, but if you want to dig up better refs, that certainly would help. Along the way we are required to enforce the content policy that we have to consider all quality references, not just the ones that favors a certain pov. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be much easier to work out what you take issue with if you provided relevant diffs. As it is, I don't see how the IP is guilty of OR; evaluating which set of sources to trust when apparently reliable sources say contradictory things is not Original Research. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The very first diff above shows the ip's approach: From the ip's perspective, Baio's recent statements that he was born in '60 are to be given priority, any other statement from any other source is to be eliminated (as he did in his this first diff) or downplayed as he's shown in his subsequent edits to the article:

• [394] "restore reliable sources which Hipal inappropriately removed without explanation, which includes Baio in his own voice verifying the 1960 birth year on his official Twitter ("My birthday is September 22, 1960"). If you want to continue this silly debate and restore both years, do it without removing reliable sources."
• [395] Adds additional self-published source
• [396] "Do not remove clearly reliable sources simply to hide evidence from readers that counters your argument that he was born in 1961. A statement on a celeb's official Twitter account, from that celebrity, is indeed reliable, particuarly with regard to a personal issue such as DOB. You are the only editor (also as Ronz) who has been fighting this issue for years and have tried to control it. Baio stated on Twitter he was born in 1960, end of story."
• [397] adds a relatively poor ref that contains no new content
• [398] "Hipal (formerly Ronz) continues to remove reliable sources which provide clear evidence to support the relevant content. The editor has been warned several times now not to remove reliable sources."
• [399] "revert Hipal (aka Ronz), restore/continued inappropriate removal of reliable sources that support content with which he disagrees, which he apparently has been fighting for year. Also refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk page and continues to stand by his claim that Baio is a poor source for his own date of birth ---> https://twitter.com/scottbaio/status/512433275407990784"
• [400] "After hours of searching for and requesting any reliable sources for a DOB of 1961 __in Baio's own voice__, I finally found a solid one. It's from 20 years ago, which is yet more evidence that Baio portrayed himself as a year young many years ago for whatever reason, but then subsequently stopped doing it. I only want accurate content and in a dispute like this, the subject's own voice supersedes all." (Note that we have a ref for Baio stating '62 that this ip chooses to ignore [401])

This is not someone cooperating with other editors, assuming good faith of others, nor following behavioral or content policy. All in a BLP where sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• [402] "rev Hipal. Tag misuse. Slapping on a tag questioning entire article's neutrality bc of your upset over a single issue (DOB refs) is inappropriate, disruptive & damages credibility of entire article. You seized control of article & talk page in 2018. Let go so others can improve. Uncle G addressed your complaint and summed up situation beautifully. You read but ignored it & are now fighting to "win". --> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077692619#Ip_disrupting_Scott_Baio}}
• The one "fighting to win" is the ip. If it's time to readdress the content, the only way to do so is follow our behavioral and content policies to create a new consensus. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I'm struggling to see "an IP made BOLD edits and added sources" as a behavioural problem. When you are citing the IP adding a reference to an interview in which Baio says he was born in 1961 in support of your claim that the IP is inappropriately removing any source contradicting the 1960 birthdate, you've lost me. When I look at the article history and find you making unexplained reversions (in apparent contravention of WP:ROLLBACKUSE) or removing a citation to Baio's own statement on his birth date with a summary that "Baio in not reliable" (despite WP:ABOUTSELF, and your own acknowledgement six minutes later on the talkpage that a statement from Baio might be a reliable source), I'm not convinced that it's the IP who is behaving badly here. Looking at both the article history and the talkpage, I don't see any evidence of you trying to come to any compromise with the IP. I don't see you really engaging with the IP at all – you point back to an inconclusive discussion in 2013, and then dismiss the IP's concerns with "no consensus" despite failing to engage with any sort of consensus building. (Cf. the essay Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A statement from Baio might be reliable. Perhaps not. It was my attempt to direct the ip in a direction that might be helpful. The bottom line is that for most his life, Baio said he was born in '61, and reliable sources published the same information. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The ip removed sourced information, then proceeded to add poor sources to promote his viewpoint based upon his original research. There's no starting point there for compromise when behavioral and content policy aren't being followed. Policy should not be compromised, especially when sanctions apply. Consensus is required per BLP, and consensus is not created by attacking editors, but by cooperating. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuing: --Hipal (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• [403] "This dispute over DOB started 8+ years ago (!) and therefore the number and type of sources is not only appropriate, but necessary. If you felt it was excessive, why did you wait until until now -- while in the midst of fighting other editors on the noticeboard complaint you filed -- to add it? With the inappropriate article-neutrality tag and now this bogus one, you are becoming a significant problem w/ regard to the integrity of the article, so please stop and cool off."
• [404] "per WP:ABOUTSELF -- another unequivocal statement from Baio about his DOB being 1960. It's vital info for readers bc of the dispute. The only source I could find for 1961 that was close to being in Baio's own voice was the AP one from 20 years ago about his 40th birthday, which I added yesterday; if I could find any others for 1961, I'd add them too. All the evidence we have over the past 10+ years that comes directly from Baio says makes clear, according to him, that he was born in 1960.

The ip seems totally incapable of assuming good faith and working cooperatively with me, getting deep into OWN problems now [405]. --Hipal (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• (Psst. A primary source - New York Birth Index 1960 - says 22 Sep 1960. Unusable of course.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:DOB and the linked RfC there says to to include all birth dates for which a reliable source exists, noting discrepancies --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuing: [406][407][408] [409] [410] [411] --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/202.84.42.187

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

I happened to notice from close observation that a majority of these IP edits have been nothing short of general disruption. Examples of behaviour include name calling within own Talk page editing ([412]), general vandalism ([413]), including on others' Talk pages ([414]), bypassing policies on GA and FA ([415]), falsifying deaths ([416]), and more recently, nonsense listings ([417]). Also, I don't believe this user, Jasmine2004, actually wanted to be welcomed by anyone (Request: [418] vs contrary revert: [419]). Not sure whether action should be taken or if I can ask an admin to further observe. Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

This unsourced allegation. I couldn't find any mention on the interwebs. Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 19:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, but as the big red box at the top when you edit says either email Oversight (if it needs to be suppressed), or reach out to an admin in private to have it done. It just draws a lot more eyes here when requested. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I'm on a mobile device so there's no big red box. When you say reach out to an admin in private, does that include a (not so very private) talk page message? I've gone that route in the past but it can sometimes take a while. – ².O.^Boxing 08:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Usually it does take a bit longer that way. I didn't realize the warning wasn't on mobile either, interesting. I just know bringing a RevDel request here gets a lot more eyes on it (including non admins), than a request at an admin's page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Continual re-adding of unsourced material

I've alerted User:Kurisumasen of both WP:BURDEN and WP:DDE, and they continue to simply re-add uncited material. Normally, you might see this type of behavior from someone with 30-100 edits, but this user has almost 10,000. Now as per WP:DDE, I'm asking action be taken against this editor. Not sure what type of action, perhaps a week block to get the point across? Here's the edit history of the page in question. First I moved it to draft, in the hopes that referencing would be provided. It was moved back the same day without improvement. So I removed the uncited material. It was added back. I again removed the uncited material, this time citing BURDEN and DDE. I should have taken this to ANI days ago, but I keep hoping that they will get it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait; so you've been edit warring on an article for the past few days and you want the other guy to be blocked?? If I'm looking at the edit history right you've made almost the same removal five times in a row in the past 3 days. [420] [421] [422] [423] [424] You have not engaged in any discussion on the talk page at Talk:List of Mixels characters. Normally, I might see this type of behaviour from someone with 30-100 edits, but you have more than 500,000. I'd like to see a WP:BOOMERANG block on Onel5969.

Also, you're not allowed to draftify articles that have already been draftified.[425] Take it to AfD or go home. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that "but unsourced content!!" is not a listed exception to WP:EDITWAR unless it's BLP related and you nuked a whole lot of non-BLP stuff in the diffs I had to post for you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969 was also just here last month in a thread about edit warring. [426] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's almost as if when the community enables a policy violator's policy violations, that person will continue to violate policy. Who would've thought? I expect this thread will similarly end with everyone encouraging Onel to continue edit warring. Mlb96 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is one of those rare "block both editors and delete the page" occasions. Levivich 05:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• How about you self-important bunch stop trying to put the blame on the person who spends all their time shoveling crap at the dark end of the NPP queue? There is a fundamental difference between "reverted too often to add unsourced material" and "reverted too often to remove said unsourced material" - that difference being that one of these is harming the encyclopedia and the other is protecting it. A bit of perspective please, and less stentorian "pox on both of their houses" blather. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with you, Elmidae - I was just at his UTP mentioning the time sink that article has become, and mentioned a potential redirect to the company. I look up, and see this block against one of our hardest working reviewers - it's a thankless job as it is. Atsme 💬 📧 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I saw your note on Onel's talk page, recommending a redirect. Had they taken your advice and done that, or put a note on the talk page, or filed an AfD, or otherwise made an attempt to cement a consensus and resolve the issue, then that would have been fine. But they edit-warred repeatedly over the issue, and given Onel's been at ANI for this sort of thing recently, I don't think we've got any choice. I agree that Onel does a lot of work on NPP, and on the occasion we've disagreed (usually over the application of a CSD criteria), it's been polite and fruitful. I think occasionally they just get carried away, and that's why we are where we are in this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

From my end, I appreciate your double page block as an impartial admin's sensible compromise between acknowledging the impetus for multi-reverting this stuff, shutting down the unsourced additions at the page, and upholding basic editing rules. (Sorry, Onel - I've been there too :p) Thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• • I've never done NPP myself, but I'm pretty sure edit warring is not part of the page reviewing process. Levivich 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  We can't just exempt people from policies because they're productive in other ways. Every single time we've done this we end up with editors who feel they are WP:UNBLOCKABLE and get indeffed by Arbcom after really crossing the line. All we're doing by exempting someone from WP:EDITWAR because they're right is creating someone that feels it's OK to editwar when they're right. We've had this conversation before at ANI dozens of times but with different people on each side. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked Onel5969 and Kurisumasen from List of Mixels characters for 72 hours after repeated edit-warring between the pair of them. I have no idea what to do with the article, but if anyone thinks it should go to AfD, I won't object. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am unconvinced about blocking someone for removing unsourced crap from an article, but it's only a partial, so whatever. I do notice that User:Kurisumasen seems to have a WP:CIR issue here in that despite 10K edits they clearly have no idea of the concept of sourcing the trivia they shovel into items, so I've given them a heavier warning for that. Meanwhile, This was the original List of Mixels page they created (sources: two fandom pages) and this was the state of it when they moved it back into mainspace from the draft that Onel5969 had placed it (Only source: an online Mixels game on the Lego website - I wish I was joking). Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It wasn't unsourced, and if it was, then what was left behind wasn't sourced either. Onel's version is no better than Kuri's. How does that video game "source" Onel's version? The source for a list of characters in a fictional work is the fictional work itself. Pretty much every relevant policy and guideline says (a) it doesn't need an inline reference, (b) don't edit war, and (c) even if it needs an inline reference, don't edit war unless it's a BLP. An NPP should know this, especially one who was just at ANI. A non-disruptive editor would have taken this to AfD for notability reasons, or started a merge discussion, not edit war to remove content that didn't have an inline citation (because it doesn't need an inline citation, because the source is the fictional work itself). This is like edit warring to remove an unsourced plot summary only to leave a shorter, still-unsourced plot summary behind. It's a pure content dispute that has nothing to do with verifiability. Levivich 13:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• • • According to this diff, the link failed verification. When you click on it, you're taken to a game. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) ^{Adding: the curation tool shows: Possible issues – Blocked user - This page was created by a blocked user. Previously deleted - This page was previously deleted. Copyvio - This page may contain copyright violations. 13:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)}

      Here are Onel's changes. Onel removed every entry that didn't have an inline citation while leaving the single entry that did have an inline citation. But the inline citation is worthless, it's a video game, it doesn't source anything. Meanwhile, the actual source, for a list of Mixels characters, is the Mixels cartoon series itself. Onel was removing uncited information, not unsourced information, and edit warring to remove uncited-but-verifiable information is against several policies. An inline cite after every paragraph is not required; a general reference is fine; and lists of characters in a fictional work can be verified by the primary source of the fictional work itself. NPP should know better than than to edit war to remove uncited (but not unsourced or unverifiable) paragraphs while leaving in an obvious non-RS source. There are many better options: remove the bad source, reduce the level of detail, add a general reference to the Mixels series, actually find a secondary source and add that, tag it, merge it (which, thanks for doing that), take it to AFD, etc., anything other than edit war to remove uncited paragraphs while leaving behind what's basically a far worse list article than what was there before. BTW you can see in Kumi's edit summary here, "Mesmo is not the only Mixel", where they basically address the issue: Onel removed a bunch of list entries even though those list entries met WP:V, and what was left behind (listing just one character), actually didn't meet V, because there are, indeed, more than one Mixels character (and no source is needed for that beyond Mixels itself). Levivich 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Personally I would have just redirected it or draftified it, as Onel actually did, only for Kurisumanen to resurrect it with even worse sources than it had in the first place. I do have some sympathy for Onel here, but they should have simply done the obvious and sent it to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree, Black Kite - in fact, I wish One had seen my post before the situation escalated. I did the redirect hoping to start a discussion on the TP. Atsme 💬 📧 14:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I notice that Onel5969 has appealed the block. While any admin is free to unblock without consulting me, I am concerned that the unblock request is basically accusing Kurisumasen ‎of vandalism without evidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, calling it vandalism isn't going to fly I'm afraid, and there's no exemption to 3RR for simply removing unsourced material (unless it's a BLP issue or similar). Ironically, it was the IP whose edits are indistinguishable from Kurisumanen's who actually called Onel a vandal [427]. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add on that I don't see Kurisumasen's edits as vandalism. Since the 4th exemption criterion under which Onel5969 is citing says "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism" are not covered under WP:EDITWAR, well-intentioned users disagreeing would be pertinent information to a reviewing admin. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I’m Kurisumasen’s guardian (he is disabled, which is about as much detail as I want to go into here). I’m not asking for special treatment, but you’ll notice from his record that if a consensus on revisions is reached first, these kinds of reverting problems don’t come up. I appreciate that editors doing cleanup are busy, but there is a tendency to swoop in and make a big change, then post a note after. He finds that difficult because he gets very invested; when there’s a discussion beforehand it’s easier to assimilate. It might be worth bearing that in mind. I don’t need a response, but I wanted to add the information to the discussion in case others have similar issues. (PS I don’t think the IP edits are his by the way, he hates to be logged out.) BantamBird (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  "if a consensus on revisions is reached first, these kinds of reverting problems don’t come up" is and should be the default. I don't see why Onel5969 should be exempt from WP:STATUSQUO, which is that in cases of edit warring, the older version should be preferred until a discussion can commence and be finished (although if there's no consensus the material can be removed per WP:BURDEN). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi BantamBird. I think the main problem is that Kurisumasen doesn't realise that when they add material to an article, they need to source it. This isn't something that consensus should be reached on, it is simply something that they shouldn't be doing. If you could help us out here by helping them to understand that, I'm sure the issue won't arise in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PLOTCITE: "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself." Had Kurisumasen added, at the end of every list entry, <ref>"Mixels" (2014-2016). Cartoon Network.</ref>, that would have been sufficient. But it also is unnecessary, because per WP:MINREF, an inline citation is only required for four types of statements, and plot summaries (and lists of characters in fictional works) are not one of the four types (MINREF says "Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards."). Levivich 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• So you're suggesting sourcing an article entirely to a primary source? Don't get me wrong, what you're saying is completely correct for plot summaries as part of larger articles that pass GNG. This one doesn't, because there are no sources apart from primary ones. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  If the article is a list of characters in a fictional work, then yes. Now I'm not saying such a list should exist for every fictional work (it wouldn't pass WP:N or WP:PAGEDECIDE), but to the extent you make a list of characters in a cartoon, you don't need a source for that, because the cartoon is the source. Similarly, if we had an article that was a stand-alone plot summary, it probably wouldn't pass WP:N or PAGEDECIDE, but it would pass WP:V, with no sources other than the fictional work itself. There is no rule against a list sourced entirely to a primary source. (Compare navigation lists, which don't require sources at all, primary or otherwise.) Levivich 19:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Remember: the condition in which Onel left the article was still sourced to the same sources as the article before Onel's edits. So this isn't about GNG, it's not about notability, this is about Onel wrongfully removing content because the content didn't have an inline citation (not because it was unsourced), and then edit-warring to keep that uncited content out. What's makes it worse is that the cited content was cited to a bad source anyway, so Onel in no way improved this list through their edits. Levivich 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at this edit summary from Onel: Special:Diff/1076683343, it's "remove uncited material", not "remove unsourced material". The mistake here is in believing that uncited material must be removed. Levivich 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are lists of characters with no references apart from primary ones even tolerated? They violate WP:PLOT and WP:WAF badly. If there is nothing you can say about a character from any reliable, secondary source, then is it really necessary to have a section about that character? And if there is nothing you can say about any of these characters from secondary sources, then don't create the article in the first place. That the in-universe information can be cited from the work of fiction itself is not an excuse to not have any secondary sources about a character. Fram (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• It seems as if the consensus is moving towards deleting the article. If so, I will suggest that he recreates it in his userspace, where he can edit it to his heart’s content. There are primary sources (the cartoons; the mobile apps; ‘making-of’ documentaries), and some secondaries like news and fan sites, which can be cited, but if the article is going to be removed anyway I shan’t bother putting them in. I will also talk to him about sources again (I am a doctor in research methodology, believe it or not). Apologies for the disturbance. BantamBird (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Fram this is an issue I've been thinking about for a while. I started a discussion at the Village Pump last year which prompted a good discussion, but haven't taken any further action. Perhaps the time is right to think about changing our policies in this area. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Just to wrap this up, we have moved the page to Kurisumasen’s userspace now the block has expired, and left a redirect to the main Mixels page. For the record, I don’t think it need have come to this if Onel had started a discussion on the talk page. I would have been able to engage earlier, and could have addressed their concerns by adding sources to the page. There would have been no need for blocks and administrators, although I believe the administrative decision taken was the correct one following the escalation that occurred. Hopefully this is the end of it. BantamBird (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Goodness! When I asked for the page to be created, I didn't expect it to show up on the drama board! Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    It is even more frustrating to learn that he spent months creating this page at someone else’s behest. Now the page is gone and Kurisumasen has stopped using Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. I just feel that this kind of gunslinging, Wild West approach to page review is completely inappropriate. If there was time to repeatedly nuke and file a long complaint, there was time to discuss in a neutral manner. Anyway, I am just venting now. Apologies. I’m going to keep working on the page, for my own satisfaction, and if anyone feels it may be useful. BantamBird (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

PAs and IDHT from User:Yreuq at Talk:Eugene Parker‎

There is a lot of WP:IDHT behavior and personal attacks going on at Talk:Eugene Parker, as well as a non-neutral RFC with personal attacks in the RFC statement to top it off. Bad RFC, IDHT, IDHT, PA, IDHT. Plenty more where that came from. Can something be done before this wastes any more time and effort? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The case is simply that of global warming alarmist editors ganging up to redact (censor) Parker's statement opposing global warming. Wikipedia does not censor.Yreuq (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Was going to add more to SFR's report but editor's above statement is better evidence than I can provide.Slywriter (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Does that mean you give up the ganging up? Yreuq (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Manifest WP:IDHT, multiple personal attacks, believing (or asserting) that editors showing up from either of two noticeboards is "ganging up", failure to demonstrate competence. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What competence does one need to include a public/written statement by a scientist opposing global warming? Yreuq (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The competence necessary to build consensus for its inclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This began as a simple content dispute: was a particular section WP:DUE in an article? Yreuq's participation at Talk:Eugene Parker has been unnecessarily aggressive. When they began personalizing their comments[428], I disengaged and advertised the discussion on BLPN and WikiProject Physics so other editors could weigh in. Yreuq argued with each editor, and then when consensus was clearly against inclusion, opened an RfC with the most non-neutral statement I've seen in an RfC.[429] They also refactored other editors' comments to make it appear that we were not replying to his comment (in which he insisted that nobody who had already participated in the discussion was permitted to participate in the RfC).[430]

Yreuq has been an editor ~18 months with 200+ edits. They mostly make what appear to be constructive edits to science articles. This is not their first time of accusing other editors of acting as a group when multiple editors disagree with their interpretations of PAGs.[431] They appear to approach talk page discussions in a combative manner. For example, where Jonesey95 wrote Please assume good faith. I read every word of it. What is your goal? Please cite a specific sentence that seems ambiguous to you. I'm here to help., Yreuq responded with Please refrain from accusing others of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs.[432] I think they could be a productive editor, but they need to learn that discussions are not battlefields and how to work with other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I blocked them for a week to stop the ongoing disruption. If any better options become apparent, please feel free to lift/extend/modify the block without checking in with me. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have closed the RfC as failing to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• In retrospect, some of my responses to Yreuq were too aggressive which may not have helped the situation and for that I apologise. However I was and remain deeply concerned about their understanding of BLP or willingness to abide by it. Hopefully someone can get through to them since while it's common for an editor to blow of steam, their comments post block don't look promising that they understand the issues. Anyway, if this continues after the block expires or is lifted, a topic ban from Eugene Parker would hopefully resolve the immediate issue. If problems persist it could be extended to all BLPs. Both of these could happen under the discretionary sanctions process if any admin feels they're justified. (They're already aware of BLP DS, while I prefer alerts come from editors not in dispute with another, I felt it was important so gave one earlier. )Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Gutting of articles at AfD

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

---

Originally posted at User talk:WilliamJE#Syke aircraft shootdown

"WilliamJE, I think it is very poor form to nominate an article at AfD and then subsequently gut it, for whatever reason. If you nominate an article at AfD, as is your right to do so, then you should leave the article in much the state you found it so that editors can put forward their views based on the article as is, or as improved. Copyvios and BLP violations are the only exceptions to this, and may be removed at any time. Your future co-operation in this will be much appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: This is moronic. I removed things that weren't reliably sourced, weren't sourced at all, and a list of those killed in the crash. If you read my edit summaries you'd know that. Demonstrate one thing I took out that doesn't have one of these apply. What you said above is idiotic otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

By leaving the article largely how you find it, it gives editors the chance to look at what is there, and maybe improve it, perhaps by finding references for stuff that is unreferenced. I did read your edit summaries, but it is the attempt to gut the article after nominating it for deletion that, to me, is unfair on the editor(s) that put time and effort into creating the article, whatever flaws it may have. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking this edit[433], the first paragraph wasn't referenced at all, the second had two references neither of which are considered reliable sources. I clean out this shit out of articles all the time, and I take grief for it too[434] when I haven't done anything wrong. If the claims about someone dead or alive aren't properly referenced, they don't belong in an article whether the person is dead or alive and whether its at AFD isn't a factor either. Cite me one thing on Wikipedia that says I did wrong or take me to ANI. Otherwise you're being idiotic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC) "

Relevant AfD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plane shootdown over Syke.

OK, As requested I'm bringing this to ANI. I will state here and now that I am not looking for WilliamJE to be sanctioned over his actions which I have raised with him, and am now raising here. What I am looking for is some clarification, and maybe an amendment being made to the AfD guidance.

I have no strong opinions either way re the merits of the Afd nomination. I can see merits in the arguments for keeping (unusual circumstances of a survivor) and the merits of arguments for deletion (one of millions of combat losses). The AfD nomination is valid.

My objection is that WilliamJE gutted parts of the article post-nomination. I feel that this is unfair because what editors who come across the article via AfD do not see a largely similar article to that which was nominated. Seeing an inferior article to that was nominated may influence the !voting, whereas if an article is left largely intact post nomination, an editor may come along, see the article is deficient in sources, and improve the article with new or better resources. As I stated to WilliamJE, if there are copyvios or BLP violations, there is no objection to gutting on those grounds.

So, moving forward, I think clarification at WP:AFD is needed. Perhaps a paragraph on AfD etiquette saying not to gut article either just before or just after nomination, except copyvios or BLP violations. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The notice on the AFD template says "Feel free to improve the article", which is a good thing. Excess content should be removed if that improves the article. If an editor removes a lot of material, best practice is to make a very visible notice at the AFD to state that they have done so. —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: - IMHO, this edit was not an improvement. The small unreferenced paragraph removed contains information which an editor may be able to reference. The larger paragraph is referenced. The source appears to me to be reliable. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, that deletion removed the article's "claim to fame". Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I still view this as a content issue, not a conduct issue. The list of exceptions in your proposal would need to be very long (removal of howto content, corporate speak or advertising can often lead to article being kept because they have been gutted). —Kusma (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Appear to be reliable you write. Neither source is reliable by any stretch. First is a paid obituary. The second source is a declaration authored by a member of their family. Neither is regarded as a reliable source here at WP. The other thing about Moran's fall, was referenced to something that said no such thing. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: The article's claim to fame is the survival of the tail gunner, sourced to the Kreiszeitung, a news source which meets RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Kreiszetiun[435] says he survived the plane crash, but not that he fell 8000 which is his claim to fame which is what it is being used as a reference for. False referencing is a big problem here at WP[436]. Why am I taking grief for removing this shit out of articles instead of the editors who put it in there in the first place? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a little bit of a moot point now, as the AfD has been closed. Better that constructive comments are made at WT:AFD re my request there. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I agree with Kusma here. Editing of articles should be allowed, and even encouraged, when they are at AfD, but if major changes are made they should be clearly pointed out in the discussion. In the case of large-scale deletion of content that doesn't need to be revision deleted the best way to do this is to link the pre-gut version from the article history. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: - is this something that can be achieved by a tweak to the nomination template? Maybe when an article is nominated, a permalink to the nominated version can be created, giving editors a chance to view any difference between the nominated and current version. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

First, this is the wrong forum. If MJ wants to change AFD policy, he needs to take it to AFD's talk page and start a RFC. Start a RFC somewhere.

Mj leaves something out. That Drmies, not once[437] but twice[438], voiced their concerns with the referencing in the article. Both times after I made the edits I did. @Drmies:

I've been saying for a long time, there is too much shit in WP articles. It is exacerbated by editors, some of whom have made hundreds of thousands of edits here, who then reference it with sources that don't corroborate what is said in the article. This I have discussed at this forum and multiple talk pages and if you read this[439], there is one admin who thinks there can be a ARBcom case about this.

This isn't the first time I have taken grief for removing incorrect info or fixing bad referencing. See this[440]. Bad referencing is what caused the Naomi Ishikawa disgrace[441]. Editors there didn't explore whether the article references said what was in the article. Instead they attacked the editor who tried to remove the lies. A admin even blocked them.

I'm going to be doing things the next few hours but will be back late morning/early afternoon my time (East Coast Florida)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please could someone start a proper discussion in the correct place, e.g. AfD talk, and link it from here (and preferably close this, to avoid the discussion going on in two places simultaneously)? This is an important matter, but it's not an administrator matter. It's something we as a community need to sort out. Elemimele (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WilliamJE, you told me on you talk page to bring this to ANI, and now you complain that I have done so! It's there in black and white, on your talk page and at the top of this thread. OK, it may not be the best venue, but this is something the community as a collective can sort out, and as the discussion has started here, we may as well continue. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, please, not here! This is an Administrator's noticeboard, and a rather intimidating and drama-laden place, and not a place where every editor hangs around. The basic question of whether it's okay to gut an article AND then nominate, or whether it's better to choose at the start between the two options, is something very relevant to all of us who are active at AfD, as well as everyone who's suddenly had "their" article deleted or gutted. With no prejudice against either Mjroots or WilliamJE, let's shift this to a friendly, civil, and generally accessible venue so we can do the basic question the justice it deserves. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this is not the right venue, though I understand why William went this way. Mjroots, I've always appreciated your work, including in this case your desire to solve it in a collegial manner. I appreciate both of you. William has indeed caught a lot of flack for the type of decision that I have made also; in fact, I thought this was about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teal Sound Drum and Bugle Corps, which I nominated and where I (for a second time) removed inappropriate content. I usually place a short note about what's in the history on the AfD--but there is no rule that says we can't edit, or even gut, an article while it's at AfD, especially since often article content is just unacceptable. Thanks, and I second Elemimele's notion. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Putting my hat on as the author of the Project:Guide to deletion: The AFD notice was never intended to be a change freeze, and editors are always supposed to do the basic stuff that they would do when reviewing any article in any other context: look at the edit history, read the article, check out the sources, and so forth. The deletion tool deletes an entire edit history, so one should be looking at the edit history that is being deleted. The limitations are technical ones, where you must not blank the notice (including by redirection) or create attribution problems, and where you must fix up the various bits and pieces on the AFD discussion page to follow up any page moves. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Guide to deletion is linked from {{AFD help}}, which is transcluded on each AfD. The relevant section is WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated 3 long-standing articles in recent days after I gutted them of promotional material. What remained was not fit for an article and a before search seemed to confirm. The idea that I couldn't wander into an AfD and do the same is absurd. After all, any editor can see the history page.Slywriter (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that quite often, an AfD comes down to a disagreement on whether the gutted material should have been removed or not (often a disagreement on whether the sources were truly reliable). Many contributors to AfD don't look at the article's history properly, and during a complicated AfD, the article might undergo 20, 30, 40 edits, meaning that AfD contributors can often find themselves looking at the wrong version when they !vote.

Perhaps a compromise would be that if someone wishes to gut the article and then nominate it, they should state in their nomination what they've done, and give a courtesy-link to the version prior to gutting, i.e. they'd add something like "I have removed all material from the original article (courtesy-linked here) that was based on unreliable sources, and what remains doesn't indicate notability". This then means that subsequent editors know what to check, and won't be misled into !voting "delete" based on obvious lack of notability, while failing to realise they should check the nominator's opinion about the sources.

It would similarly help if anyone who makes a really major edit during an AfD would add a courtesy comment in the AfD discussion. Otherwise anyone wanting to understand the context of AfD responses needs to check the time-stamps to locate the matching version. Elemimele (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I started writing a post about my and Mjroots past history but I accidentally deleted it. To summarize, we have worked together many times on aviation accident articles. We don't always see eye to eye. One of the times we agreed, concerned something similar to my concerns with Plane shootdown over Syke. I was going to bring that up but my carelessness caused my post to disappear. The previous agreement and today's dispute are content related anyway, so this may not be the right place to discuss it. Should anyone want me to post it, ping me. I'm doing things today but I'm home and online so I will get back to any further queries....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment if an editor isn't taking the time to at least scan the AfD-nominated article's history, their vote could probably be better informed. There was a similar recently with different editors about a rename. It's !voters jobs to look into the article rather than a blind vote based on the nominator's statement, which is in most cases an opinion anyway. Star Mississippi 18:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sympathetic to the complaint. Often the material removed is essential to notability, and could quite easily be properly referenced, but many editors at Afd are just not in that game, nor even tagging for inadequate referencing. We should amend policy to discourage gutting. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: which is exactly what happened here. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Of course anyone commenting should look at the article history, but that doesn't happen in practise and anyone pointing out that it hasn't been done is more likely to be sanctioned themselves rather than the offender being told that they shouldn't do this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that this is a persistent problem with AfDs and with source deprecation generally. If an article contains a claim towards notability that is referenced to an impermissible source (e.g., "Bob Smith was elected to the New York state senate" referenced to the National Enquirer), the proper procedure is not to remove the claim, but to remove the source and add a {{citation needed}} tag. Removing claims to notability before or during the AfD process, to me, always comes across as fishy. There should be a rule on this. BD2412 T 20:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've asked at WT:AFD if a tweak can be made so that a permalink is created to the article as it was at the time of nominiation, which would then be displayed with the nomination. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• There seem to be four separate issues here:
  1. Does the content in question belong in the article? Discussion of this belongs on the article talk page, and is subject to normal consensus requirements such as WP:BRD.
  2. Is the article subject notable? Discussion of this belongs in the AfD.
  3. Should large-scale changes be flagged in the AfD discussion? This is an issue for editors in general, rather than admins, to decide, so discussion belongs at WT:AFD or the village pump.
  4. Has anyone behaved so badly that any sanction or formal warning is needed? This is the only issue that concerns admins in particular, so belongs here. My answer to that is "no". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate behavior of Axxxion

User:Axxxion reverted me on Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: [442], [443]. For some reason, he thinks he gets to decide what's important or not.

I decided to not revert him more so there isn't an edit war, but he left an insultive comment against American officials, all because I added their assessment of Russia's campaign [444]. When I warned him about his behavior, he rudely told me to bugger off.

I ask the admins that they at least tell him to be civil, because my words won't have any affect on him. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Axxxion, RE: an american moron′s opinion is of no relevance here (diff) — who? You know unnamed official? Also, American always in uppercase. Please don't make it weird. Eep. El_C 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I never get to have any fun!. (Endorse block oop) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

American moron says what? El_C 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"badda-bing, badda-bang" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please, I'm trying to get to the snacks. El_C 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

you both are mad. 晚安 (トークページ) 06:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait a second! Axxxion is a sockpuppet of Muscovite99~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); formerly User:Muscovite99). See the Russian Wikipedia investigation - ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Axxion and our investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muscovite99/Archive. Should I reopen our investigation or we can deal with this here? --Renat 17:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User 2600:1700:3BD2:8C00:DC6:5242:CD67:D51B's action

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 everyone, sorry to interrupt.

This user 2600:1700:3BD2:8C00:DC6:5242:CD67:D51B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)seemed add a lot of templates to several pages. I'm not quiet sure is him a vandalism. Could any sysop take a look for him? Many thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@El_C @Liz Pavlov2 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Thesickreservoir

Thesickreservoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on several pages regarding Eastern Europe, even when multiple users have told them to stop. Their edit summaries are also abusive towards other users.2600:100C:A211:7C3B:54E6:28F2:8787:DC98 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1076869369 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Thesickreservoir&offset=20220313131310&target=Thesickreservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sochi&diff=prev&oldid=1075906253 POV pushing --2600:100C:A211:7C3B:54E6:28F2:8787:DC98 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

None of those diffs shows any edit-warring, users telling them to stop, abuse or POV pushing. A little abrasiveness perhaps, but not the kind of incident that should be brought here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE sock

Leonardox2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leonardox2002 (pretty obvious from the username). Creating A7/G3-worthy pages and drafts, needs to be blocked. wizzito | say hello! 19:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Has been blocked but is not a sock of who the blocking admin says they are... thanks. wizzito | say hello! 19:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito I’m entirely unconvinced that this needed an ANI report; AIV would have worked for obvious disruption. Not sure it matters terribly whose sock it is either… firefly ( t · c ) 21:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Not sure if this rises to an SPI level or not, but a persistent editor with a thing for disruptive edits on professional wrestling articles has been at it today, and is evading several blocks. User:Jdhfox (no relation) caught my eye earlier for a flurry of articles moving from draft to mainspace to Wikipedia space and all over the place; I pinged the pro wrestling Wikiproject to see if they could assist, only for the editor to be quickly blocked for evading a block issued to Special:Contributions/71.65.161.185. This afternoon, another IP has surfaced to make the same edits. Their edits have almost universally used "Revised" as the edit summary, and have almost universally been reverted by other editors. Current IP will be notified of this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Clear and multiple violations of WP:CIVIL by Thebrakeman2

Hi there.

Thebrakeman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has shown repeatedly that they are not just unwilling to have a normal and professional conversation about the deletion of the David Bennett Sr. article, as well as other but they instead, as shown here, here, and here, have had a lack of civility regarding disputes on this website. They have told people to "fuck off" as opposed to actually talking to them. When @SergeWoodzing: called them out on their lack of civility, they refused to have a sense of humility and try to change the disruptive and frankly immature behavior that they have been shown doing.

Thanks, and Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 14:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And the problem with that is? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thebrakeman2, the problem is that Civility is a policy, and you have violated that policy quite flagrantly. Therefore, I have blocked you for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I support this action. Was quite shocked by some of the terminology. OK, I've see a few others get away with that kind of stuff for years with no action taken, but that does not justify this one. A good example should be set in all (all) such cases so that new users don't imitate people they see and learn to behave like that. Checking a user page to find out that a user behaving like that has been very active for many years can be especially damaging to the work climate of this project. Favoritism needs to be excluded from these cases, and people who report them with clear proof should not be goaded, bullied and ridiculed for doing so, with article content, not user behavior, often taking over the discussions. A very skillful, highly sarcastic and adorable sense of humor should not sweep any such issue under a worshipful prayer rug of clueless guffaws. Sad to say that I decided long ago never again to try to report any lack of civility here, but glad some people still have the courage to do that, and that it does work at times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Plus he overcapped Civil Tone [445], so he better watch it or Dicklyon will be on his ass. EEng 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hacking confession from Raxythecat

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

---

Not sure what can be done with this, but the latest sock of Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just confessed to using hacking techniques that are likely Federal crimes, [446]. Skyerise (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, could we get a block on Janis the Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Skyerise (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an admission of hacking. I see basic knowledge of how to release a DHCP lease, and requests new one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he's probably just trying to create a cover explanation for his actual business travel. Skyerise (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Related question to above discussion

Related question. Am I prohibited from taking the IP data in the checkuser filings directly to the service provider myself? I emailed arbcom several days ago and haven't even gotten an acknowledgement that they received it. Skyerise (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's worth a try, but ISPs have proved to be spectacularly unhelpful in most previous cases; if you are in the US yourself you may have more luck contacting the relevant law authorities in that state (Ohio in this case) if you believe they have broken their relevant cyberstalking/bullying statutes. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you think Ohio? I've got Houston (and another location in Texas), Syracuse, and yes, Columbus, mostly. But their phone seems to be consistently in California. Remote logins? Skyerise (talk)

Ah, yeah ... I clicked on a few of the 107.x addresses from the September 21 SPI and they were all in Columbus, but you're right, the more recent ones are California. Those Ohio ones are interesting, though, as they're with AT&T Mobility, which is a business service and probably owned by a company. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Could be either a rep or a client. Skyerise (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There use to be a project that dealt with filing abuse reports 10-15 years ago Wikipedia:Abuse response. It was closed due to inactivity, AFAIK one of the reasons beyond the amount of time it took to collect evidence was due to the low rate of success being a strong disincentive for participants. IIRC many ISPs either said to just block them or seem to think we should stop allowing anonymous contributions or otherwise were confused over the whole thing. Being a volunteer often didn't help IIRC, there was a thought being an admin even properly disclosing your a volunteer might help but I can't recall if any ever really got involved. To be fair, quite a few of those reports were persistent vandals, if the editor has done worse stuff you might have more chance of success. But while I don't about AT&T, AFAIK even the WMF has had problems getting a suitable response. Hence why some seriously problematic individuals are still bothering us from the same ISPs. There are also some beans issues I won't mention here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this an abuse of CheckUser privileges? AFAIK it isn't meant to be used for stuff outside of Wikipedia. — Jthistle38 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no checkuser privileges being used here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian India

@Bonadea:, @David notMD:, @Blue Star Thing:, This user says that it is non profit org, means he is not a individual who is editing wp rather than WI is a organization of more than 1 man. Is WP allow this, in which 1 account is operated by many folks? He made many pages about Indian Soldier are these pages notable to be on wp? Take appropriate steps on it.Success think (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian India was blocked on 27 February for having changed User name from an individual account to the organization name. The reason for the block is explained to WI in the February 2022 section on Talk page. WI has not complied with a name change and has not edited under the WI name since 27 February. Before and after the name change, WI was attempting to create articles about every person in th India military who died and was posthumously awarded a medal. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

173.54.162.95 removing maintenance templates

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.

---

173.54.162.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new ISP editor, has been removing maintenance templates. No explanation was given nor was any other edit made to these articles:

Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 Diff4 Diff 5 Diff6 Diff7 Diff8 Diff9 Diff10 Diff11 Diff12 Diff13 Diff14 Diff15 Diff16 Diff17

Twice at Checkpoint Charlie: Diff18 Diff19

After a level 4 warning did this: Diff20

To be fair some of these maintenance templates were quite stale, but some were BLP templates. A newbie is unlikely to yet be familiar with Wikipedia policies to know if the issues have been addressed. He/she seems unresponsive to warnings or perhaps has yet to find their Talk page. Blue Riband► 02:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this so fucking important to you? 173.54.162.95 (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked you from the article namespace (but not this page and related pages) for 31 hours to give you additional time to ponder that question. Mackensen (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who asked the question, so ask Blue Riband to ponder it, you fucking retard 173.54.162.95 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Ghhharanosi, NOTHERE, personal attacks, ethnic insults and edit warring

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.

---

Ghhharanosi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) If I was to give diffs, I'd have to link to basically every single edit, so I'm not going to bother. I reverted their unexplained, or poorly explained deletions and subsequently got lambasted with "Kemalist propagandist", "loser", and I think I even got called a "Freemason" at one point. They seem to be intent on pushing a anti-Turkish POV, and I say that from the viewpoint of someone who is hardly a big fan of the actions of that nation.

I'm not going to run Google translate on their edit summaries, but it is obviously not compliments that they are putting there. Clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, indef block. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed some complete nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IM BRITISH AND GREEK. NOT AMERICAN. NOW LEAVE ME ALONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC) DANIEL GIANNIS KARAOGLOU NORTH WEST LONDON PLESAE DONT HURT ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC) FREEMASONS ARE WIKIPEDIA I WILL DEFEND BRITAIN GOD BLESS OURES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC) GHARANOSI MY GRANDMUM NAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I AM FROM CRETE GHARANOSI MY GRANDMUM NAME ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

what the hell? 晚安 (トークページ) 08:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No idea. But they seem to have had trouble finding anything worthwhile or interesting to do today. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Wickelodeon

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.

---

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

[447] 3 March 2022 - Removed sourced information about the Iranian connection of the Azeris, no edit summary.

[448] 5 March 2022 - Altered sourced information about the DNA of the Turks of South Carolina from 'Middle Eastern' to 'Central Asian'

[449] 10 March 2022 - Removed sourced info about the Ottoman Turks allying with Europeans against another Muslim power, calling it 'irrelevant'

[450] Replaced the sourced 'Turko-Persian' with 'Turkic' with no edit summary, then attempted to remove it two times again [451] [452]

[453] 19 March 2022 - Added Modern Turkish with the Latin alphabet in the lede, even though it wasn't spoken/used till many centuries later.

[454] [455] 19 March 2022 - Attempted removal of sourced mention of 'Persian' twice

Last but not last, a typical WP:SOAPBOX WP:TENDENTIOUS forum comment, where he dismisses WP:RS because it clashes with his view, thus pretty much revealing his intentions; "But no, they funded by Turko-Persian goverment unlike our glorious Iranian storytelle.. historians. Also Turkicness of Xiognhu's are fringe theory as Iranianness of Sakas. Its one of the strong theories for predicted race of that state."

Judging by these diffs, this user is clearly on a WP:TENDENTIOUS to Turkify articles and reduce non-Turkic influences, and thus WP:NOTHERE. Countless users have been banned for less. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wickelodeon, it looks like you are removing referenced content or changing the wording in various articles to minimize Persian influences and emphasize Turkic/Turkish influences. That is a type of violation of the Neutral point of view that is called POV pushing, and if you continue, you will be blocked, so consider this a warning. I am also going to warn you against Edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not anything with bad faith. If my changes looked like bad faith edits i will pay attention to it for not do same things. But there is absouletly smallize Turkic impact on every Turkic country that ruled Iran in Wikipedia and also my interest topic is Turkic history and my edits upon related articles for this. But as i said, i will pay attention and i am sorry. @Cullen328: Wickelodeon (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:DBN by HistoryofIran

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

• "Replaced the sourced 'Turko-Persian' with 'Turkic' with no edit summary" What i wrote that ("Persianateness of Seljuks is already written at the bottom of that sentence. Using of it in the first letter is unnecsesarily.") explain to all of my Seljuk related changes and other 60k+ change user agreed to me too.

• [456]. User HistoryofIran made WP:NPA against me and ignored my warnings about wikipedia policy numerous times.

• Edit removals of this user against me includes WP:POV and ignore the policy of WP:DBN in everytime.

• [457] Proposal to deletion of highly sourced article about Turkic history.

• [458] WP:OPINION to removal of template from stable version of article. Wickelodeon (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wickelodeon, you are required to inform any editor that you report here. Because you did not do so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look at your claims. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wickelodeon, are you claiming that the phrase "silly accusations" is a personal attack against you instead of criticism of your edits? Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing here that rises to the level of administrative intervention, or is even problematic at all. I would suggest continuing to engage with other editors at Talk:Turkic History. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

First one is response to accusation to me by historyogyran Wickelodeon (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment User "Wickelodeon" registered on 16 February 2022,[459] which is barely a month ago, yet is somehow able to form complex ANI cases and cite advanced WP policies. Peculiar to say the least. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And all that without the ability to write coherent and rational English language prose. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Cite advanced Wikipedia policies" perhaps the OP just looked at Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines and saw the most important policies we have? Wickeleodon is not really properly citing these policies either, having said someone made "WP:NPA" against them which isn't strictly speaking correct correct as that would mean the person made "no personal attacks" against them. Same with citing WP:OPINION given that it's unclear how this is applicable. They've also created this new thread in response to the thread right above this one at WP:ANI#WP:NOTHERE by Wickelodeon, so it's not like they did this out of nowhere either. [460] If you're implying Wickelodeon is a sock or perhaps not a new editor I don't think them starting this thread actually demonstrates that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"And all that without the ability to write coherent and rational English language prose." Dude, it was harsh. Sorry for my bed england. Wickelodeon (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you find the truth harsh, that's really a you-problem. This is the English Wikipedia, so a competent command of the English language is required. El_C 11:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 11:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User deleting well sourced paragraphs and removes inline citations from the talk page

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

---

Hello, the user @Austronesier keeps deleting well sourced paragraphs, including inline citations and references from both an article and the talk page, seemingly related to personal issues with an alleged sock IP. However, I hardly think that this behavior is ok. Especially the removal of the references and inline citations from the talk page is far from any encyclopedic behavior, because these are relevant for the article and review papers (secondary/tertiary). Regardless of sock or not, the argument that review/tertiary and secondary references have more weight than primary references is a Wikipedia policy, and this specific user has to follow these rules like any other person.

I must ask: What is the sense to remove quotations/inline citations? Does the specific user has personal interests, and simply takes advantage that the IP was once blocked? Currently the IP is not blocked and the SPI against it was closed without action!

Here:[461].

And here the edit at the article itself:[462]

It is an not an encyclopedic behavior, but simply harassment of an IP user, by another user.

I ask again the administrators, how can be the removal of references and inline citations be a good behavior in an encyclopedia? The user must not agree with the interpretation of the IP, but removing references is a no go, especially when he favors primary papers instead of secondary/tertiary ones, which is a violation of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.2001:4BC9:922:A9AD:718C:D5DA:35E7:7626 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It does neither improve the article, nor is related to vandalism or any harm. It is simple dislike, or maybe the user follows some personal agenda?2001:4BC9:922:A9AD:718C:D5DA:35E7:7626 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• IP, you've failed to inform Austronesier of this complaint, per this noticeboard's instructions. How would they know to respond if they don't know it exists? In any case, I have done this for you. El_C 14:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for the ping. I have little to add to what I have written in the last edit summaries, especially here. Our policies about block evasions are quite clear, regardless of the nature of the content that has been to article or talk space. And FWIW, this comment by RoySmith does not mean that the suspicion of sockpuppetry is void (c'mon, it's a big {{megaphoneduck}}), it just means that at the time of the comment, there were no activities related to these IPs. This has obviously changed at the present, and now includes activities like edit warring and filing this frivolous report. I suggest a range block. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User Austronesiers continues disruptive editing, spreading lies about me and does not wait for consensus and results of this report. Here, see this recent disruptive edit:[463]! This shows us that he has no interest in Wikipedia rules, and does not work in good faith, but simply personal agendas. Narrow eyed and ignorance has no place for Wikipedia users. This behavior is not acceptable, and must be sanctioned, according to Wikipedia policies!2001:4BC9:904:527A:9C35:4B1F:64A0:B07 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

M4DU7 reported by Fishandnotchips

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• M4DU7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fishandnotchips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho: [M4DU7's] actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. His AFD record is very strong. From starting he is only nominating the pages, no other participation. This accurate nomination can only be of an old player. He is a paid editor, In Meesho company AFD page he has written keep vote by saying, One of the most downloaded apps in India. & last valued at $4.9 billion although he was already aware that funding and top most download is not the criteria. He nom and deleted few pages due to the same reason [464], [465], [466]. Infact, In many pages he is removed neutral content calling them as promo but using such lang in keep vote and not removing promo language in his own created multiple company pages is again a question. Fishandnotchips (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fishandnotchips: If you have evidence for your allegation of undisclosed paid editing, please read WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE and contact the e-mail address listed there. If there is no evidence, please retract the accusation (WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

AFD behaviour evidence is very strong. With the same language, he is nominating the page while for Meesho he is writing Keep Vote. Fishandnotchips (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Fishandnotchips, no, pointing to AfD votes is not providing evidence for undisclosed paid editing, a violation of WP:PAID and the Terms of Use. Do you have anything to support your accusation beyond what you have already written? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Rinda Fergiawan/Fergiawan Rinda

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.

---

Fergiawan Rinda and Rinda Fergiawan are clearly one editor in the same, editing for a little over 3 years and just a look at their talk page shows a slew of copyright violations and absolutely no engagement or understanding of our policies. Aside from the poorly sourced BLPs (literally, sourced to PHOTOS and other wikis) I've found half a dozen copyright violations today after they edit warred to remove revdel and g12 templates. I think it's time for a block until they can sufficiently demonstrate an understanding of our policies and stick to one account. CUPIDICAE💕 15:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Avilich at Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

I am requesting that Avilich (talk · contribs) be partially blocked from Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) due to long-term disruption there. I have no desire to edit war, but Avilich's recent change is not compliant with disambiguation guidelines. Looking at the history of the article, Avilich has been reverted by four separate editors around 11 times going back to March 2021. The talk page does not show consensus for Avilich's version, and discussion has spilled over to Narky Blert's talk page, A previous ANI thread, RfD, and Avilich's talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• The 'disruption' refers to the removal of entries that are made-up names and do not have articles, as per standard policy concerning verifiability and disambiguation. The heart of the matter is relatively simple, and the reason why the entries are bogus is explained at length in the talk page. The reason for such controversy is probably that I once tried to solve the problem in a non-procedural manner because other parties weren't quite cooperative, and some people took it personally enough that they then aimed to revert everything I did on purely procedural grounds, without ever refuting the core content concern. So now there is an impasse, by which a straighforward content problem cannot be solved (not by me at least) due to a procedural mistake of mine and tagteaming by others, even though the actual problem was barely even discussed. If I do get blocked, it will show how the community is able to rally together over some minor technicality while not being able to solve simple mistakes. Avilich (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You made a controversial change to the disambiguation page, and Narky Blert disagreed with change. I wholly stand by Narky's position and won't belabor that point, but unless there is consensus for your version of the page, further edit warring to force your preferred version is disruptive. Given the voluminous discussion on the issue at hand that I have linked, "barely even discussed" is disingenuous. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The 'discussions' you linked contain false statements or refusals by others to discuss, not genuine content disputes. You and others kept restoring unverifiable content, which is disruptive editing. You don't 'wholly stand' by anyone's position, not sincerely at least, not only because that position is based on a demonstrable lie, but also because your interest as an administrator is purely procedural. Avilich (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Avilich indef p-block. My interest as an administrator is to nip this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND in the bud. El_C 09:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Would you view this case differently if it could be shown that the 'consensus' formed by the opposition is based on lies and tagteaming? I don't see much evidence for 'battleground' behavior in any of the linked discussions, by the way. These are all from a year ago, and all they really show is that I took the issue to multiple venues and nobody did anything. Avilich (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Lies claimed again without evidence? I'm noticing a pattern here. Speaking more on evidence: I don't see much evidence for 'battleground' behavior — the battleground should be apparent even in this very thread. Please note that I'm just about ready to convert your partial block into a sitewide one. You need to dial it down a notch, altogether. The aggression, it's too much. Like the above evidence-less WP:ASPERSION: some people took it personally enough that they then aimed to revert everything I did on purely procedural grounds. El_C 14:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: The issue is explained in the various discussions linked above, which I actually though you would read, but the heart of the matter is that the original editor who contested my edit last year claimed the authority of a source which showed exactly the opposite of what he was saying (1 2). The user talk page linked above shows me trying to show how he was wrong, and him in turn dodging any attempts to face the matter head on. Rather than acknowledge his mistake, he immediately went back to reverting my edits, as the chronology of the revision history in the dab page will show. All in the opposing party ignored most of my attempts to show how they were wrong. I took it to RfD, it ended as no consensus after Tavix (and possibly others) voted against despite him explicitly admitting to not caring about the actual content dispute; I took the issue to ANI, no one did anything; I now remove unverfiable content again (as policy mandates), I get blocked. None of this is 'battleground' behavior, this is just Wikipedia's various venues failing to solve a basic verifiability issue because someone couldn't be bothered with the truth while looking at a source. I just got the blame because a numerical majority termed a 'consensus' kept opposing me even after I showed that there was no basis for their case (so yes, on 'purely procedural grounds'). Again, this is lengthy enough that it warrants some effort to understand before handing out blocks. Avilich (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they thought you were wrong. Maybe what you perceive as their "lies" were good faith mistakes. Maybe you are mistaken on the content. But on the conduct you are very much mistaken. Edit warring against multiple users is a bad idea. Edit warring, period, is a bad idea. Acting aggressively is a bad idea. If discussion concerning sources reaches an impasse, the next logical step would be WP:RSN. The only person making this an admin matter is you, with all of the evidence-less, WP:DIFF'less aspersions you continue to make. Something which I think is plain to all but you, even now for some reason. Please do better. Thanks. El_C 14:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: What use are individual diffs if in this case they lack the context (the talk page discussions as a whole, which have already been linked) needed to interpret them, and you won't believe anything I say about them anyway? The opposing party continued editwarring after I had told them that they were grossly misusing a source, they never bothered refuting this (there are no diffs for arguments that don't exist); one of the editors refused to confront the issue after I took it to his talk page, only to go on editwarring immediately afterwards. Again, you can just compare this diff and discussion with the chronology of the dab page revision history, and you'll see that I did try discussing, and was refused. You're not considering both sides, you're not asking the other side questions or even trying to understand who exactly did what. This isn't about reliabe sources, so I don't know why you linked RSN. Avilich (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I just assumed you had sources to counter those pages / naming conventions. Doesn't matter. It's a content dispute, so there are other dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of. El_C 15:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Would someone already care (no need), my thoughts on this topic are here. gidonb (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This conflict is unfortunately typical of the interactions between editors who specialise in disambiguation pages and those who focus on the content in a given topic area. I wish there was less battleground behaviour by the content editor and a greater willingness on the part of the disambiguation editors to abstain from restoring versions that they should be aware don't meet the guidelines for inclusion on disambiguation pages. I don't see much point in going on with the trench warfare on the talk page; Avilich, assuming there are no remaining fictitious mentions of Claudias Pulchras within articles, I believe the obvious next step for you is to nominate the disambiguation page for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I suggested on my talk page. I do not oppose the banblock. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no ban. There's a p-block on the article only. Engaging the article talk page and other WP:DR avenues remains unrestricted. El_C 17:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. Fixed! gidonb (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict between "disambiguation editors" and "content editors". Surely we should all be just editors who are here to make this a decent encyclopedia? The only conflict I see is between Avilich and any other editor who dares to say that they may have any opinion to offer about Ancient Roman subjects. The partial block simply makes that editor try to build consensus on the talk page rather than edit-war. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"dares to say that they may have any opinion to offer" surely it's not too unreasonable to support a standard application of the verifiability policy and the disambiguation guidelines, and oppose any attempts to invent names in violation of those rules. Avilich (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So do it by gaining consensus on the talk page, rather than by edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Impossible due to stonewalling. Avilich (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly possible if you follow the principles that other editors follow all the time, which involve not accusing anyone who disagrees with you of lying, and otherwise following the general rules that apply to all editors, even omniscient ones like you. I get the feeling that you just don't get collaboration. I can't believe that any genuine subject-matter expert would behave like this, so the assumption has to be that you are merely claiming to be one and bamboozling other editors who might not be as blusteringly confident in their knowledge of ancient history. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• The problem with nominating the page for deletion is that it legitimizes the whole opposition, even if it does get deleted. This is a straightforward case of a single article title that doesn't need disambiguation, so the correct thing is to clear the page of defective entries and then have it speedily deleted. Making this about 'consensus' implies that 'disambiguation editors' can invent or assign arbitrary importance to fake names by negligently or disingenuously citing sources that do not themselves support said conclusions, which is precisely what happened here. Avilich (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I had hoped not to have to post in this thread. However, Avilich has once again accused me of lying and of tag-teaming. I reject both allegations, which I find offensive. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that such accusations are offensive. We seem to have an editor here who is so sure of being right that the usual rules don't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Avilich: "I only argued the DGRBM is unreliable before finding out it actually supports (pp. 761–62) my original point." from ANI@00:38, 7 April 2021. If a source agrees with me, it's reliable; if it doesn't, it isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm reasonably confident it's against the spirit of some rule or other to promote a falsehood not once but twice, to filibuster and dodge the issue when questioned, and then immediately continue editwarring as if nothing had happened. I have never seen this person retract his false statement, by the way, so you tell me if some sort of agreement can be reached. While this isn't possible, I prefer to follow the wider community consensus concerning verifiability and disambiguation, which forbids editors from inserting or maintaining obviously false content. Avilich (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I urge you to withdraw your aspersions, which grow increasingly remote from the historical record with each new repetition. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Avilich I noticed this discussion yesterday and considered replying but didn't in large part because I found you had discussed on the talk page before albeit a long time ago and without a clear result. But your responses here have re-affirmed my original thoughts. When you insist that you're right and there is no need for discussion because you're right, you're going against core tenets here as we're a collaborative project that operates by consensus. In fact, as I told another editors very recently, the fact you seem so reluctant to discuss make me thinks perhaps you're not so sure you're right, otherwise why are you afraid to seek consensus? How on earth does an XfD "legitimizes the whole opposition"? Actually if it reaches consensus it shows these editors were wrong on the particular issue. (They may or may not be wrong on a wider policy issue, that can only be resolved via an RfC or something dealing with the particular issue.) As for the stonewalling claims, one or two editors cannot generally stonewall an AfD unless there's so little participation that it's difficult to see any consensus. As it stands, I only see 3 editors on the talk page besides you, so if you're still at loggerheads nearly 1 year later, some form of WP:dispute resolution perhaps an AfD seems the best way forward and again I'm going to assume any editor afraid of dispute resolution fears they will lose because they're argument isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sitewide block

See User_talk:Avilich#Sitewide_block. El_C 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources marked #1lib1ref #1lib1refcrs

Hello, over the last few weeks a number of users (most notably Man1ofhonour (talk · contribs), Fulani215 (talk · contribs), and Olatunbosun opeyemi David (talk · contribs)) under this project have gone through hundreds of Nigerian pages adding sources at random in the introduction. While some of these references are reliable, the vast majority are not relevant or reliable to the places the users put them. Most have not responded on their talk pages and one (Tolu io (talk · contribs)) has already been blocked but I would really appreciate swift action here because the rapid pace of these lazy edits means that dozens of pages are being changed every few hours making it impossible to fix them all. I don't doubt that their intentions are good but someone needs to stop this or contact the organizer of this project because these users have already added nonsense to hundreds of pages collectively. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Watercheetah99: of note is the 1Lib1Ref project the accounts seem to be referencing. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Like my post here a few weeks ago about w4hrng, these edits are highly problematic, adding nonsense gossip sources to BLPs, unreliable sources, redundant sources (literally identical repeats to existing sources in the article) and unrelated sources. Not to mention the MOS issues which are not easily cleaned up on articles that are already under-watched. CUPIDICAE💕 18:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we want an edit filter tracking these, along the lines of the one for WPWP? firefly ( t · c ) 18:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a perennial contest issue, as the OP opened a similar query a month ago, another was made two years ago, and a discussion was held last year for another contest, which now has a filter that Firefly referenced. I believe the WMF people overseeing the contest are aware of the issue as raised in previous iterations, and there's a Feedback form button at the bottom of their splash page to submit feedback, though a lot of the questions pertain to participants. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What is "#1lib1refcrs"? There's lots at meta about "#1lib1ref" but not this. Even Google is unhelpful. I wonder if something else is going on here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow as I understand it, a lot of these contests have “sub contests” run by local affiliates. So the main contest uses “#WPFOO”, but “Wikimedia Ruritania” has a sub contest for the most entries added about Ruritanian topics, using “#WPFOORUR”. Therefore people entering both contests will use both tags. WPWP certainly had these sub contests. firefly ( t · c ) 21:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can't we just have a rule against playing such games on the English Wikipedia? If people want to actually improve articles then they should just do so, without involving themselves in childish competitions that only serve to disrupt. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• And I remember that a previous such contest was organised by someone who had been banned here, making all the edits proxy edits by a banned editor. I hope that is not the case here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  But 1Lib1Ref isn't a competition, right? At least, there don't seem to be prizes based on volume of edits, which is why the #WPWP contest was so disruptive. Now this #1lib1refcrs (see Firefly's response above) might well be offering prizes, but it's apparently being organized in private, so who knows? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  From what I can tell, it's just an event to drum up hype and encourage editors to add citations to articles that need them; the main page at least links to WP:RS, but maybe it needs to be highlighted more. It seems users can set themselves up as organisers in their community, and an organiser's guide is provided, but there is no link to WP:RS there. What organisers decide to do is probably beyond the scope of any Wikimedia project.

  Anyone know who from the WMF is maintaining it this time around? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamale17

Tamale17 (talk · contribs)

I recently blocked this user for repeatedly adding incorrect stats to soccer players. He has returned and it still at it - the correct edit would have been this (stats verified to a reliable source, date of update completed). Whether they are being deliberately disruptive or simply incompetent, their edits are a nuisance. I suggest an indef. Their response to the block was concerning. GiantSnowman 17:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamale17, I'd like to hear your opinion about this; please provide it before continuing to edit. And I'd be interested in where exactly the "60" in Special:Diff/1078260622 came from. Is there a specific reason why you're not updating the reference dates when updating the stats, as has been requested multiple times on your talk page? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, the user didn't just continue editing without responding to these concerns. Tamale17 additionally clearly continued to add stats not backed by the source, at [467], which failed verification through http://web.archive.org/web/20220321045700/https://us.soccerway.com/players/manuel-estuardo-lopez-rodas/394805// .

Blocked indefinitely for disruptively ignoring community concerns and persistently adding unsourced content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Quintessentquirk and OR at Maria Zakharova

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

Could we please block the user from editing Maria Zakharova? After this edit did not go anywhere (and I blocked them for vandalism), they started to add original research to the article such as this calling it "factual".--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Quintessentquirk#Indefinite_block. El_C 09:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)