Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149

Maxim Masiutin controversial bot-like editing

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

On January 24, I blocked this editor from mainspace for one hour to force them to stop their unauthorized bot-like editing and reply to the four objections on their talk page about WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:FAITACCOMPLI that had gone unanswered for approximately six hours while they continued the same kinds of bot-like edits. The relevant user talk threads are here and here.

One of the behaviors about their bot-like editing that bothered me is that they are mass changing the template {{Cite}} to {{cite}} in articles. While this may seem like a little thing at first, I really dislike seeing this on my watchlist. It is my belief that all template first letters should be capitalized, because the software will not allow someone to create an uncapitalized template. It's Template:Cite, not Template:cite, so why would we mass convert {{Cite}} to {{cite}}?

This editor is back at it again, for example with this edit today.

I also see some other hints of unauthorized and objected-to WP:COSMETICBOT-like editing, for example at User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2024/January#Be careful.

Can we get some kind of action to stop this behavior please? This user is cluttering watchlists, not getting consensus for their controversial edits, and is disregarding users who have asked them to stop. Thank you for your attention to this matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor should be blocked until he promises to stop making edits such as converting {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. His last explanation for this on the talk page was that it was motivated by consistency. That's just inadequate. There is no need for consistency in this area. These are non-constructive cosmetic edits. —Alalch E. 16:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think that replacing Cite to Cite are not needed, I would not do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, great. There is reason to suspect that you wanted to impose this phantom consistency by combining otherwise inappropriate, purely cosmetic, edits with the barest-minimum-of substantive, token substantive, edits, that are not the primary intended change. After I looked again at your recent edits I can not find any edit that consists solely of changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. That appears to always be combined with some other change, a substantive change, making all of those edits (that I've seen), consisting of multiple types of changes, technically okay as a whole. But technically okay doesn't mean advisable.

And, really, I don't think you were consciously trying to create a fait accompli as Novem Linguae has accused you, but the friction arising from the appearance isn't worth it. It's great that you should stop converting Cite to cite, because it distracts editors looking at the watchlist, makes it hard to find the substantive part of your edit in the diff, and makes it harder to understand what your edit is about. Editors see an edit in their watchlist starting with words such as: Used lowercase "cite" template everywhere for consistency ... and they think it's a non-helpful purely cosmetic edit. This type of consistency would truly be a phantom. It's a worthless consistency. It doesn't matter if it's "Cite" or "cite". I don't agree with Novem Linguae that "Cite" is correct and "cite" is wrong. Neither is correct or wrong, they are the same. The variation doesn't affect anything.

I retract the part of my previous comment saying that I think you should be blocked, after reviewing more, and after your commitment to stop replacing Cite with cite. —Alalch E. 01:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough investigation and for your detailed comment. I also sometimes change {{short description|}} to {{Short description}}.

May I propose that each template that allows multiple spelling, such as {{Cite}} and {{cite}} or {{short description|}} and {{Short description|}} to have a defined preferred spelling, for example, in the documentation? I mean that such templates must have explicit mention in the documentation that different case variations are allowed, but the suggested (recommended) variant is ... .

Where do you think is a place to discuss this proposal of mine? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you concerned that I use Citations bot to fix article errors or that I change Cite to cite when there is already the majority of the intances are lowercase and just a few uppercase? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention that I used citation expander which is the standard tool included in gadgets that I added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID?

That article had 52 uppercase Cite and 325 lowercase cite, so I thought all lowercase cite would be appropriate. Would it have been OK if I just added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID but kept the case of the cite? It would have anyway triggered the update in your watchlist. Please let me know what kind of activity would you like me to stop. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think if you did the following 3 things I would be happy and withdraw my objections: 1) Never change {{Cite}} to {{cite}} again, since I feel this is changing correct code to incorrect code. 2) Read WP:COSMETICBOT and make sure the gnoming edits you choose to work on follow WP:COSMETICBOT and are important enough to merit a diff and watchlist disruption. 3) Pay close attention to when your edits are objected to, and immediately stop until you have consensus. Controversial edits should never be done in a WP:MEATBOT like manner. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK! I do (1), (2) and (3). Is that be OK if done a substantial amount of edits to an article on contents (not just technical edits), such as preparing it to a GA nomination, changing Cite to cite should not constitute an (1) event? Are you OK with my edits when I fix errors such as "Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style"? Are fixing those errors merit? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixing CS1 errors doesn't bother me. You can probably keep doing that unless/until someone objects. I will always object to changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}} if I see it, because I believe this is changing correct code to incorrect code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will not be changing Cite to cite if you object, because I have no interest in it, you (or somebody) probably proposed to start a discussion, but I didn't start a discussion because for me it is not an important point; however, if in the future there will occasionally be a discussion and a consensus on the case of templates, let me know, because I sometimes change "short description" to "Short description" template. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I will ask for advise on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy whether fixing cs1 errors constitute a cosmetic change, and proceed accordingly. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1 might be a good place to ask. I'll bet a citation fixing expert such as Trappist the monk watches that page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I asked in the Help talk:Citation Style 1 instead, as you suggested. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether discussions in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would affect my "reputation", i.e. when someone will complain about my edits in the future, will they be able to refer to this incident to reinforce their arguments? Or an incident report may have a short conclusion that will make things clear? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to do the same things, then yes, someone will refer to this discussion. If they have a complaint about unrelated issues, this probably won't matter much unless they are advocating for a WP:CIR block. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you because I take your concerns seriously, i.e. when you first time contacted me about "cite", I stopped replacing "cite" everywhere, and began only replacing it (1) only when there were other substantive edits, and (2) when the majority of "cite" were already lowercase. But after your raised another concern yesterday that you didn't like it, I promised to never change it unless I work on article content, writing stuff, such as preparing article for a GA or to raise a category, such as from C to B. Would you mind in the future to contact me first, i.e. via my Talk page or via an article in concern talk page, and if we would not resolve quickly, write to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, rather than writing to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents straight away? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel that we already discussed this on Jan 24, and I had mentioned escalating to a noticeboard in that discussion, so a noticeboard was in my mind the next logical step.

Even if I am wrong or not in the majority on my template capitalization preferences here (which is possible), the takeaway here should be that bot-like editing must be exceptionally conservative, careful, and respectful of consensus and complaints. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, that makes sense. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with Maxim's response and consider this

Resolved

for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Harassment at page "Anies Baswedan"

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

There is some edit warring and harassment here: title=Anies_Baswedan&diff=1206112505&oldid=1206105651

> political buzzer who is trying to revert edits

> keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me

Please look into this. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring between Natsuikomin (talk · contribs) and Asphonixm at Anies Baswedan. I see Asphonixm's edit summary which includes "he keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me." That is indeed concerning. But the editor interaction analyser only reports interaction at that one article and not even on its talk page. @Taylor 49: Please can you clarify why you say there is harassment here? NebY (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian wikipedia:

ngelawan buzzer tolol seperti anda

meladeni buzzer bodoh seperti anda bodoh = stupid

The accusation of attemped murder is most likely false. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editors are among those editing an article on Indonesian Wikipedia on the same subject, a current candidate for President of Indonesia, and the analyser shows little other interaction there - and of course what happens on that Wikipedia is outside our scope. Why do you call editing on that subject on this Wikipedia (the only one that concerns us) harassment? NebY (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What is it then? The edit summary is unacceptable in any case. User "Asphonixm" repeatedly attacked user "Natsuikomin". Do you claim that there is no problem at all? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it), and I see that a week after you told Asphonixm they were blocked on Indonesian Wikipedia, you've followed them here and raised this ANI report accusing them of harassment. Well. Time to let other editors take a view on this. NebY (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see very rude edit sumaries by "Asphonixm". I was asked by a user on id wikipedia to post this request here. I have no personal need to hound user "Asphonixm" or anyone else. I indeed had informed "Asphonixm" about the block imposed by another administrator, after having checked that harassment/personal attacks indeed had occurred. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And how will you deal with the defamatory (which means containing false information) edit that the user made? He always restored the edit, and here you were saying that I might have breached WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE???
Bruh, you're the one here who ain't neutral. That's even defamatory, and "you suspiciously defended the defamatory edit made by Asphonixm as if it's just a case of breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE!" Natsuikomin (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@NebY, If you're a sysop and rollbacker or any other special statuses other than editor, those statuses of yours would and should be revoked for being frankly and clearly unneutral, that is, breaching WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:DONTHOAX in a row. Natsuikomin (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They haven't used rollback at all in this edit dispute, I don't see what this has to do with revoking an unrelated permission. Being a rollbacker (or a sysop, although they aren't one) doesn't grant any "upper hand" in content disputes, as rollback should be used for obvious vandalism only. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't edited the article or even the talk page, only this discussion plus an ANI-notice on Natsuikomin's talk page. The above vehemence, the claims that I've breached WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:DONTHOAX, and the accusatory edit summary at the article[1] do not inspire confidence. NebY (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad you didn't do (roll back) that. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

said this after defending the defamatory ('defamatory' means "(of speech or writing) intended to harm somebody by saying or writing bad or false things about them"), even without bothering to check the user's edit against the source he cited. Even after I told you that what Asphonixm wrote on the article was different from what CNN Indonesia reported on their article, you still proudly said this. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How was their comment in any way defending that edit? They only said: I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it)
Which doesn't look like defending any of the edits at all, close to the opposite in fact, and wasn't even making an in-depth commentary but just talking about a possibility. A pretty reasonable position to take before assessing the content in detail. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't much care about all the other stuff right now. Unfounded accusations that another editor is "trying to track me down so he can kill me" - used as a reason that the accuser's edits shouldn't be reverted - is blockable. Like, indef with no talk page access without even waiting for an explanation blockable. I'm going to do that now. Any remaining content or behavioral disputes can be handled in their usual fashion. Any *actual* death threats can be handled thru, you know, the police. Not used to try to win an edit war on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fully support this block and the subsequent talk page revocation, that is a ridiculous thing to write to try and achieve a chilling effect on editorial processes. Thanks for your decisive action Floquenbeam. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeed. NebY (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the editor is now using IPs Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1048:35:6985:9A5B:4FC2:6850/64. It looks like they've restricted themselves to editing their talk page and don't seem to have repeated their extreme allegation. Actually they've completely ignored the earlier allegation and the block rationale and instead seem to be ranting about other alleged behavioural problems. However their block was without talk page access so it's clearly still evasion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes I did reply rather than simply deleting as I felt it a better solution in this instance since the editor still doesn't seem to get why we blocked them and how to appeal and so it's likely someone whether UTRS or on wikipedia might need to do something to try and help. And having replied I didn't feel comfortable just deleting the IP comments I was effectively replying to. If someone else wants to just delete their evasion, don't let my comments be a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the user kept insisting on restoring its defamatory edit on Anies Baswedan. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user also made several disruptive edits in which he/she unnecessarily rearranged the layout of sub-sections. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a word of warning, don't post on their Talk page again while they're blocked. The comment you made (under the Shame on you header) can be considered grave dancing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• (crossposting at ANI and user's talk page) While I think this unblock request would probably be better done thru UTRS, if any admin thinks that talk page access should be restored and have an unblock request handled here instead, feel free to do so without talking to me first. I'm not around consistently. However, when talk page access is removed, you can't just use an IP to post on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  further comment (ANI only): do not import disputes from other wikis to en.wiki. We have quite enough of our own, thanks. The only reason there weren't multiple edit warring blocks issued is because one person went so far over the top that there wasn't enough symmetry to do that. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistent copyright violations by User:Mejoel

This user has been consistently making copyright violations even after repeated warnings and notices (4 to be exact). I believe this behaviour will only continue if they are not given a proper final warning or a block. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time one of their drafts violated copyvio. Previous draft deletions were Feb 2022 and Jan 2024, preceded by a warning from Diannaa in Feb 2021. Schazjmd (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Star Mississippi. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP with obvious WP:COI, plus edit-warring

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

This looks like an obvious WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE. This IP has been rapidly spamming a self-published article posted online in December 2023 (this). Every single edit has been inserting this unformatted reference, without contributing anything else, across five articles so far. The spamming is especially obvious in these, where they inserted it three times in a row in the same article. After I reverted them at History of the Quran and gave them a warning on their talk page ([2]), they edit-warred at that article ([3], [4]) and repeat the same thing at Criticism of the Quran ([5]). R Prazeres (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hr. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Salto Loco and continued tendentious editing

Salto Loco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been blocked three times and warned multiple times for tendentious editing (including vandalism) in RUSUKR topics. Now we had this, which is either vandalism or POV pushing borderline vandalism. Probably a long-term block is needed now. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits such as this one suggest perhaps a topic ban is needed as a minimum. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is vandalism, and a long-term block (possibly an indef block) is needed. This is not the first such edit. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The user (to me) seems to be at times productive but at other times a problem. Definitely disruptive and a problem user, but also someone who if improved would be valuable to the project.

I think an indef block (with a WP:LASTCHANCE appeal) would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. If he stops his problem behavior, great, a valuable editor. If he doesn't, its another revert and an extra block. I also support an indef TBAN. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP constantly removing sourced content without explanation

160.39.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Has a history of repeatedly removing sourced information from Greenhill & Co. and Boutique investment bank without explaining why. Has already been warned. Latest edit on Independent advisory firm give me a suspicion user might be trying to remove mention of competitors for various reasons. While user might be using shared IP from Columbia University, it just so happens all these disruptive edits come from this address. AntiDionysius (talk · contribs) seeking your input if any.

I'm seeking a temp block for this IP to see if the message will be understood. If still not then it will be increased to indef eventually. - Imcdc Contact 05:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to add; the combination of unexplained removals and apparently constructive additions is a strange one. I don't know if I think this is a person who is just very bad at edit summaries/general communication, or if there's an undisclosed COI going on. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:GabrielPenn4223

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 began tracking GabrielPenn4223 (talk · contribs)'s contributions after they made this questionable move request last month, and in the time since, I've noticed some behavior that is concerning, to say the least.

They have been combative with other users over edits that are several years old, combative in general, have previously been blocked for inappropriate behavior, has created draft articles in mainspace, was nearly blocked again, nominated numerous articles for GA status despite not being a significant contributor to them, created questionable redirects, made questionable requests for deletion, made questionable requests for page renaming, made requests that would clearly fail, and has apparently done all of these things under the guise of we are not all perfect.

It seems that after being told to stop nominating articles for GA status (and apologizing for their behavior), they have moved on to nominating articles for deletion or redirect, often without any consideration to their subject matter, general notability, or existing references. Ultimately, I believe their intentions, while good in nature, are misguided, and they are creating more and wholly unnecessary work for other editors, and I've seen enough of it that I thought it might be prudent to open a discussion into their editing patterns. Of course, I could be wildly off base here, but as a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I felt like it was time to bring these edits to attention. GSK (talk • edits) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I apollogize and I will promise to improve. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm a fairly brand new editor to Wikipedia so you know I make mistakes at times. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I probably need to stop nominating redirects or pages for deletion/discussion? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, GSK. Thanks for the message, and I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia as you know. and I make mistakes. I've stopped nominating and reviewing GA's nearly an entire month ago and

everyone makes mistakes. I clearly have apologized to users who have gave me negative feedback or I got negative feedback over with. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• CIR block per User:GabrielPenn4223/We All Are Not Perfect. The community should not have to tolerate this much trouble. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to get my best to improve, I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support CIR block the user has done nothing productive for Wikipedia, and has been a massive WP:TIMESINK around the GA process. Many editors have asked that they start making constructive edits, but they continue being disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've stopped making everything miscallenous (GA, moves, AfDs, RfDs, you name that) until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for at least 90 days or something longer, as mentioned at the teahouse. I've started making constructive edits by adding a news source. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  By "constructive edit", you mean adding erroneous text which other users have to clean up? What, do you think you should be praised, as you hoped when you posted your self-flagellating user essay on so many talk pages? What is the purpose of citations on Wikipedia, GabrielPenn4223? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-citing-an-article-in-Wikipedia#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20citing%20articles,accuracy%20of%20the%20information%20presented. This states: The purpose of citing articles in Wikipedia is to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information to support the claims made in the article. By citing sources, Wikipedia articles aim to demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the information presented. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  quora isn't a generally reliable source. we have reliable rules set. see WP:Reliable, and WP:Quora Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh it's not a reliable source, citations are to provide verifiable sources to define claims made in the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Adding CN tags to nearly every single line of an article is also not acceptable behavior. GSK (talk • edits) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alright I'm going to stop. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I added a "unreferenced section" template to a entirely unreferenced section. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, indefinite CIR block, no further questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This seems a pretty clear case of CIR to me, and it doesn't appear the prior block has had the required effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a constructive contribution today. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I have already needed to correct your "constructive contribution" because it added erroneous text. Furthermore, I support a CIR block. GSK (talk • edits) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  How long? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block per AirshipJungleman29 and Chris Troutman Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC

• Support CIR block It is always good that a user is willing to admit their own shortcomings, but when their history is overwhelmingly filled with disruptive behavior, the user should be blocked to prevent more disruption regardless of their intent. The Night Watch (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mostly admit my shortcomings. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @GabrielPenn4223: Can you clarify "mostly", please? ——Serial 15:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Generally I ask on a page or the TeaHouse and get advice, and if I get advice I take it most of the time. I stopped making GAs, AfDs, RMs, RfDs, AfCs, etc. not until I read the rules or understand what these are. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  In case it's indefinite maybe try to wait six months with the standard offer? or maybe shorter block GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think they are lucky to not be indeffed already - Blablubbs used the indefinite checkuser block template but only set the block length for two weeks. I'm wondering if that was a misclick. Either way I would support a CIR block now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if it was a misclick GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am apologizing for my behavior; I'm going to improve articles instead and stop the "we all are not perfect thing.". I am new, and it's a hard task to improve articles. I will not make GA nominations, AfDs, moves RfDs AfCs ever again until I clearly understand what these are and read the rules of these. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Gabriel. This is based on the evidence presented here and my own review of their behavior. However, this is not a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (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.

An editor who contributes valuable content... sometimes

I noticed a newly created category, Category:Pro–nuclear_weapons_activists, with only one BLP entry in it. I submitted it to CfD. The category creator is CJ-Moki. CJ-Moki has a long history of deleted categories and deleted articles. So many deletions and warnings over so many years; however, CJ also contributes good content to the project. Have a look at User_talk:CJ-Moki. I am laughing as I type these examples of problem content: Category:Targets of Gamergate, Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Libya, Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, Template:Nazi discussion, Harriet Tubman folding chair, and Mr. Krabs felllatio. I suppose this could be described as periodic disruptive editing? The problem activity isn't localized to any one topic or namespace, and it is intermittent. OTOH, this is an example of one of many contributions that made it to DYK status by the editor: Behind Closed Doors: Horrible, Filthy, Vile, Disgusting, Inappropriate, Off-Model Drawings by the Crew of a Popular Cartoon Show, so maybe we take the good with the bad? I don't know.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hmm, this seems tricky. I'm looking through their contribs and a lot of them seem to be in good faith, especially the DYK's. However, the unnecessary addition of empty categories, baseless redirects, and especially the attack page you brought up all pull this into a place that is of uncertain to me. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Callanecc said that the newly created category is not an attack page. CJ-Moki (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, I couldn't even see what page FeralOink was talking about, I just saw the warning. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel

Cornsimpel (talk | contribs) is a user who's been active in Armenia-Azerbaijan and related topics since December 2023, being completely inactive for 2 years previously. I’ve noticed their edits in Anatolia article and reverted them because of the extended confirmed restriction on these topics. I have also warned them of the restriction [6] and reverted other edits covered by it. Nevertheless, Cornsimpel reverted me [7] in violation of the restriction, then made a spree of edits claiming “self-rv” [8] when in actuality they still ended up moving the whole Etymology section which covered Armenian genocide, erasure of Armenia mention and place name changes in the aftermath of the genocide, etc, to the very bottom of the article, just like in their original edit that I reverted. Cornsimpel has done the same thing in other articles under the restriction, reverting and restoring their edits [9], [10] claiming "not within ec restriction" (see sections that these articles too are literally under the restriction, with explicit mention of Armenian genocide [11], [12]). And in similar fashion such as in Eastern Anatolia Region, moved down or just outright removed any mention of Armenian genocide, place name changes in the genocide aftermath, see Anatolia.

The user then proceeded to WP:GAME extended confirmed restriction by doing 100+ edits in one day, such rapid activity was never shown before in their contributions history, neither the type of edits like random inconsequential article moves never done before by this user, presumably in order to game extended confirmed faster [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

All in all, it’s safe to conclude the user was violating the restriction while doing POV edits and restoring them, then in one article claims “self-rv” while literally just doing same edit as before (moving info down), and in another claims to not be within ec restriction when clearly the article was under the restriction. Then, presumably in order to justify all of these restriction violations and POV, goes on a 100+ edits spree never done before in their contributions' history, and games extended confirmed restriction. I believe the user should at least be topic banned from Armenia-Azebaijan and related articles simply because they lack the competence and first thing is to revert violating the restriction they've been warned about hours before, edit in a POV manner to begin with, and game the system afterwards. Vanezi (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little take aback by this complaint. Vanezi, you reverted many other editors on the Anatolia article. I did not think that was right and I explained that to you in an edit summary. I asked you to get in touch with me if you wanted me to clean out my own edits. You did not reply to me there or on my talk page where I invited you to raise additional concerns with me. I feel a little bit like you baited me telling me you were reverting because of an EC restriction and then waiting until after I made EC to file this complaint. It's true that I did feel more engaged than after so many of my edits were reverted, but also because I'm very interested in the subject I am working on (earthquakes and geology). I haven't been editing as often because I did a lot of research before making my edits. But, I'm very proud of the work I did today by the way, the tectonic plate articles are very difficult articles and I have been working on them for hours, and all year for the work I did to make today's edits so I don't see it as WP:GAME, I was just very well prepared to make a large number of difficult, substantial edits quickly. Cornsimpel (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel reverted again shortly after gaming extended confirmed by making rapid 100+ edits in one day, never done before in their contributions. Their edit is just a tendentious POV change. They added an unsourced section, but what's alot more concerning is that they tweaked the lead and an already existing section of Etymology, both of which were sourced and covered the article's relation to Armenian genocide, Western Armenia, Turkification and Place name changes in Turkey in the genocide's aftermath. From individual summary of their edits, you can see that the edits themselves don't make sense such as removing sourced content from lead and doing original research changes with bogus edit summary [19], removing sources from a caption then adding the same picture with a completely different caption and unexplained quotations [20].

Same thing in another article, again reverting [21] and restoring mostly their POV edits which again include removal of entire reliable sourced paragraph about Armenian genocide and Western Armenia relation to the name change [22].

I think it's evident that the user isn't concerned about POV issues at all which I already mentioned above, and the first thing they do after gaming extended confirmed status is to edit-war and restore their tendentious original research edits which have no consensus and in several instances are just reliable sources removals and original research rewording. That's why I have stated that Cornsimpel hasn’t shown the competency required to edit in a contentious topic area such as Armenia-Azerbaijan, and especially concerning Armenian genocide. Vanezi (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How can the user just randomly change sourced content and remove sources then reword with their own WP:OR? This is unacceptable. Their edit summary makes no sense. They also remove historical info but now from the body. After changing the lead and body, they then remove vasts of citations from the map, remove the map as "fake", then re-add the same map with pov scare quotes, even putting scare quotes on Armenia.

They then make more POV changes (keep in mind this is happening while the ANI is up) adding additional completely unsourced doubt ("some") and scare quotes to the already obscured lead thanks to their previous OR and removal of several sources and changes to sourced content. They add more "some" doubt and a cn tag to the lead they themselves had previously erased sources from, then add the same Oxford source pretending to add a new citation when they were the one who removed the citation in the first place and obscured the wording in a POV original research manner, then restored the same source but now changed the text to add MOS:DOUBT despite it being clear RS. They also keep adding scare quotes as evident by the diffs. And they added completely irrelevant to the article info to the lead and body that has no connection to Eastern Anatolia region's name changes; this seems like an attempt to push more POV in any ways possible, even if the article is irrelevant to the added info and their added source doesn't make the connection to the Eastern Anatolia name change either.

Can admins take a look at this user's behavior? Despite this ANI case, they are continuing to push POV and tendentious editing. Vanezi (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like my edits. I really am. I try to make high quality edits and I hope that others benefit from that work. I do wish this discussion were occurring on the article talk page so there would be a clear history of talk page discussion and editing. For this reason, I am not planning to make further edits to the article. I simply don't find it appropriate for the edits should be occurring independently of the discussion, and I am uncomfortable with the discussion currently, since you are not discussing anything with me. And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work:

1. Quotes are commonly used for place names in discussions of toponyms for conceptual clarify and the benefit of readers, like most forms of punctuation.
2. Are you accusing me of having a too pro-Armenia POV? I thought that was generally a consensus view on this project but, as I have stated, this is not my main area of involvement with this project. Was it my edit calling "historic Armenia" the "native national home of indigenous Armenians"? Or the part that toponyms were changed "to erase the name and memory of the historic Armenian national home that now fell within Turkey's borders"? I don't think these are "original research". I feel the statements are supported by the citations in the article, if not the exact verbatim words I added. Christ, where did I go wrong. Cornsimpel (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• "And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work"

The user must be trolling at this point. I have shown diff by diff the problematic, absurd and tendentious nature of this user's edits and even edit-summaries in the article, the user's reply is to describe their "work" as "earnest and good faith". I believe an admin action is due for this case. Vanezi (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person. I hope that you are able to find a way to contribute to this project constructively. Cornsimpel (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person.

This is a personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike it, or else you may face sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for the clear personal attack. I further think that between the personal attack and the pretty clear GAME editing, Cornsimpel should be indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. However, as they were not given a {{alert/first}} notice prior to these edits, I do not believe I have CTOPS authority to unilaterally impose said sanction at this time and thus am instead proposing it as a community sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Support tban per the evidence above [23], [24]. Vanezi (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Thomas Basboll

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.

---

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Basboll is continuing to engage in tendentious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and edit warring regarding the Tim Hunt biography. For several years Basboll has insisted on framing a 2015 controversy regarding comments that Hunt made at a conference that were widely considered sexist as an "online shaming" campaign. After LokiTheLiar recently attempted to alter this, they were reverted by Basboll and subsequently made a post at WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt) Over half a dozen people responded, none of which agreed with Basbolls position. Discussion was then opened at Hunts talkpage (Talk:Tim Hunt) which again found against Basbolls position. Basboll is still reverting any attempt to alter the wording in the article despite a consensus against their postion, and has now opened a discussion at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt which is a clear attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Basboll needs to be firmly told to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The admin @Firefangledfeathers: has previously warned them on their talkpage, see User_talk:Thomas_Basboll#Stonewalling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post this over at WP:ANEW, because these three diffs are bright line three reverts in 24 hours:

• 19:00 2024-02-04
• 06:01 2024-02-05
• 06:15 2024-02-05

This is also after a long history of reverting any changes made to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article. See for instance this diff from about a week ago, this diff from 2019, and this diff from 2020. It's largely due to reading the page history that made me jump to WP:NPOVN so quickly, exactly because it was clear that Basboll had a history of stonewalling behavior on the page itself. Loki (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe this should have been raised at WP:BLPN not WP:NPOVN and I said so repeatedly. At the moment the dispute is about including as quotation a disputed report of the most shameful thing the subject of the article has ever been accused of saying or doing. Getting the story even half-way right, will force us to make it a WP:COATRACK for the entire social shaming incident that he was the victim of. This clearly violates WP:BLP and that is the position I'm maintaining. Also, I have said repeatedly that I am reverting only out of caution (again a BLP concern). The disputed section has been stable for several years. A few more weeks of it being (perhaps too) kind to its subject isn't going to make a huge difference in the long. A few weeks of slander, by contrast, can do unnecessary harm.Thomas B (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a lot of discussion at the noticeboard over an issue and consensus emerged, but Thomas Basboll is reverting every edit to effect that consensus. Suggests if this continues a partial (page) block might be the best way to prevent this problem continuing. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  This looks like something of a misrepresentation of the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt, where there were two options, both of which did mention online shaming, while the version that Hemiauchenia last made at Tim Hunt did not. It's certainly not true that TB is the only person advocating inclusion of the words (Firefangledfeathers wrote "I think the online shaming must be mentioned"). The two options were suggested on 3rd Feb, and here we are two days later claiming a consensus on an extremely divisive issue - it needs more time for discussion. Hemiauchenia's edit was therefore not changing an article according to a clear consensus arrived after adequate discussion. It is really, really unhelpful that this content dispute has been scattered over so many noticeboards. Let's fix on one place to discuss, and if discussion fails, go to DR. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty that there's clear consensus for any particular version, but we did have (rough, early) consensus at the NPOVN noticeboard about a better starting point than TB's preferred version. It was apparent very early on in the process that consensus was against TB's version, so TB's reverts to that version are definitely evidence of stonewalling. Some of the strongest consensus items—that the incident should not be presented primarily as one of online shaming and that some quoted material should be included—have been reverted to the point of disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOVN discussion, I agree with what Hemiauchenia, Loki, Bon courage, and Firefangledfeathers said. Thomas B is stonewalling by reverting additions to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article despite consensus against em. And indeed, this user has been removing large amounts of content from that section for 4 years. I'm also under an impression that the amount and frequency of comments made by this user is distractingly excessive, going against WP:BLUDGEONING. Overall, I find Thomas B's behavior rather disruptive.

I suggest for the page protection to be lifted and the RfC to be withdrawn, as I think both are going to be a needless time sink. Given that Thomas B was warned already but continued to revert afterwards and appears to have violated WP:3RR, I suggest to appropriately sanction this user so that the disruption ceases. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who is wright or rong but it's fully protected for a week so it can be discussed without reversions. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a great idea. It's already been discussed, quite a bit, at two different places, for over a week now. We're at the point where there is a clear consensus, and the issue is that the one in this WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY discussion keeps on reverting any change made to that section of the article. Loki (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone, please, decide where this wretched debate is going to take place, so that those of us who failed to notice that a consensus-for-all-eternity was being formed in the last week, can take part in it? Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar comment. The 'consensus for all eternity' being pressed is the the prior one which apparently cannot be changed because it has stood for a while! Remember WP:CCC. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've now made an RfC to hopefully resolve the dispute: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: thank you for this constructive step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have no personal knowledge of events before NPOVN, where I joined the discussion, which moved back to the talk page, but I agree that Thomas B seems very invested in defending Tim Hunt. I understand the BLP concern but accuracy always trumps accusations of libel. If true, the episode is important and Thomas B seems determined to omit it. As I pointed out, if weight is a concern, there is always the option to add favorable material. Surely this is possible when the subject has won a Nobel Prize. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(somewhat later) As an illustration: [25] was written a half hour after the notice of this complaint was posted to his talk page, so apparently he thought it was an acceptable thing to say. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have disengaged with Elinruby. I will not bother this user in the future. Thomas B (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall ask: could you please be clear whether you have any kind of connection to Hunt? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Basboll: what did you mean when you said "I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I participated in online discussions about it on various platforms. Thomas B (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As an innocent coming to this article from NPOVN thinking it a detail about a scientist's bio, I have since discovered it's a gamergate-adjacent culture war battle that sparked interest in the Daily Mail and Breitbart. The attempt was made there to reframe the issue not as being with a white man, but with the black women (Connie St Louis) who reported his comments.[26] It goes without saying Wikipedia needs to be a million miles from buying into that. Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like some others, you're on a steep learning curve about this event. As I've been saying from the beginning, it was a major shitstorm, and once the dust settled there were really only two sentences you could say about it in Hunt's bio without feeling dirty. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, scholarly journals and quality news outlets have managed to cover this quite well, and since Wikipedia only need cover accepted knowledge as covered in quality RS we are good to go. There is plenty so long as one ignores the Daily Mail/Breitbart/etc crap. While searching for sources I noticed you have blogged at quite enormous length about this, about how in your view Hunt was wronged a saint and Connie St Louis was the baddie in multiple ways, and you have vowed to take the fight to anyone who says Hunt is sexist. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to consult the policy, but I think you're violating some sort of rule about referring to my work off-Wiki. Do you want to delete it now, or should we look it up? Thomas B (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is what you want. By all means look it up yourself but I am familiar with this policy thanks. Also with WP:COI, where selective linking to off-wiki content is even sometimes necessary to evaluate a case. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page. I will be disengaging with you for the time being. Thomas B (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm thank you for that very illuminating piece of information Bon courage Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited." (WP:OUTING) Thomas B (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "outed" you I pointed out that you've been banging on about this for years

Really, I am busy and have spent quite enough time on a topic that you are for whatever reason fixated upon. If and when you condescend to let mere mortals touch the topic I may have some suggestions, but meanwhile you might want to acquaint yourself with the recent Arbcom case where Volunteer Marek really was outed and endangered before you wave that policy around. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As for harassment... Am I really hearing this from someone who's painted me as ignorant and incapable of intellectual rigor? Who told me I had no business editing this article? I feel the need to wash my typing fingers now. It's interesting that you mention a name change. First of all it's a good idea, although considering you're still using the exact same phrases, the only embarrassing thing is that you've pretty much obviously already made up your mind regardless. More to the point though, was Bon courage supposed to not look for sources lest it embarrass you??? You aren't making sense. I'm definitely considering changing my name to Thomas, for sure though! It seems to be a free pass at ANI. Do you realize that another editor has taken the exactly same position I have? And it didn't bother you a bit. Guess what that editor's name was. I'm too busy for your BS and Bon courage is doing fine. Ta.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You may have forgotten, but I have not asked for any of your time for a week now.[27] Be well. Thomas B (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for page ban

To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.

Pinging all the talk page and NPOVN discussion participants to weigh in: Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, Bon courage, LokiTheLiar, Firefangledfeathers, Zanahary, Elemimele, JayBeeEll.

• Support as proposer. Thomas B has been edit warring, repeatedly reverting others to maintain the stripped-down version e created even after being warned against stonewalling by the administrator Firefangledfeathers and in violation of WP:3RR. The user has been also posting an excessive amount of comments in the discussions, which constitutes WP:BLUDGEONING. This user's POV is clearly too strong to participate in these pages constructively. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came in here with thoughts of making a similar proposal. This topic is clearly very important to the user for whatever reason, and he has repeatedly said that various editors including Firefangledfeathers [28] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[29] What he said to me imho reaches the level of a personal attack. (see above) But back to Thomas B: He seems, beyond the issues of tone, to feel a strong need to argue individual points made by other editors one by one in favor of there being nothing sexist at all about calling women "girls" or joking that they present a problem. There seems to be no question that he is impeding quite a reasoned discussion of how best to report this because he feels that it should not be reported at all.[30] [31]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[32], I'm happy to disengage from the whole disussion voluntarily until the page is unprotected. After that, I'm sort of assuming that the consensus is so heavily against me that I can't have any say on the article page, given the constraints of 3RR. I had intended to keep offering criticism and suggestions on the talk page, however. I think banning your critics is a bad idea. Thomas B (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

S

• Partial support; I support a temporary page ban but not a permanent one yet. I honestly don't think Thomas B's behavior on talk pages is really that terrible, though it's not great. But his behavior when actually editing the Tim Hunt article has been bright-line edit warring against a clear consensus, in addition to POV pushing. My understanding is that it's very normal for admins to impose temp page bans against users that edit war like this. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary would be OK. It would cut down on the time sink involved in fixing the issue and maybe pierce his utter certitude that the people he is bludgeoning are either acting in bad faith or simply can't or won't read. Permanent is not in the cards anyway for a relative newbie with no prior blocks. If he picks the behaviour back up then a somewhat longer page block would be usual, I think. If I have that wrong hopefully an admin will tell us Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary is OK for me too. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is too heavy-handed. I've looked at the various discussions/talk page and his comments are not out of line. If he continues to edit war at the article in question, then a block for edit-warring is the remedy, not trying to ban someone you disagree with. There is a RfC currently underway, and consensus will decide this content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is already SNOW and was before it started, as noted by Nemov [33] and Bon courage[34]

  This has gone on for four years, I hear, and Thomas still does not see the problems with his editing, which include:

  • Dismissing RS sources such as the Guardian (!) whose reporting he dislikes:[35][36][37]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [38][39][40]
  • misconstruing policy [41] vs [42] and painting other editors as bullies:I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them.

  He isn't here for disagreeing with people, he is here for violating community norms.

  • Assuming bad faith [43]ff

  His love of reductio ad absurdum isn't great either since it results in subtle but important distortions of what other users actually said:

  • [44][45]
  • [46] and doubling down: [47] and [48] Also [49] He further did this here, saying that I think banning your critics is a bad idea when in fact nobody has proposed a ban, and it would not in any case be for a dispassionate critique of the writing of others. Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have to say, the "fun with women" comment certainly struck me as ... quite remarkable. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe go outside and have a breath of fresh air, have a cup of tea, go to some flea markets, distance yourself from Wikipedia for a few days, or in the alternative, just ignore him. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Moot Support as the disruption is ongoing. in view of page protection and the RfC, but further edit warring should probably attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC); amended 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage, I wonder, do you still consider this page ban proposal moot given Hemiauchenia's and Firetangledfeather's recent votes below? In case your opinion changed, I would like to request for you to update your vote. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NicolausPrime yes, it seems I was over-optimistic. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is any sanction to be handed out, it should be to both parties in this content dispute. Having taken the time to look at the edit involved, the so-called quote shouldn't be mentioned for a number of reasons. Firstly, what was actually said was disputed, so putting it in Wikipedia's voice is accepting one version as the true one. That isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Secondly, text is a crap media for conveying nuance, the hosts of the event made clear the remarks were light hearted and jocular and hadn't offended anyone or spoiled the conference. In fact the only person seemingly offended was the journalist who reported them out of context. So those insisting that the quote should be included and edit warring to force it into the article as a WP:TAG team should receive a WP:TROUT. Moving on to the insistence of Thomas this be classed as online shaming. He is actually correct in that this is a view in the literature and Wikipedia should reflect the range of opinions in the literature. He is also correct in suggesting that the BLP article shouldn't be dominated by this controversy and its appropriate to link to the online shaming article. He is also correct in seeking to resolve matters on the noticeboards. Where he is wrong is in edit warring to remove it, though I understand the dilemma of a wikipedia editor being the lone voice. The motion for a topic ban is an example of an inappropriate use of ANI, it seeks to remove one party who has a valid opinion, with the aim of clearing the decks to impose the views of the other side in a content dispute. As such I strongly oppose a topic ban. WCM_email 08:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit too heavy-handed. I think it's important we are able to debate things in which people have strongly-held views. Of course a "lone voice" must be prepared to give way as consensus turns against them, but lone voices can also make valuable points that the rest of us have missed. It's important to Wikipedia that we don't deter those who adopt a minority viewpoint. Bans have a strong chilling effect, and should be used with extreme caution. In this case, TB's most unhelpful action was starting discussions in multiple locations, worth a smallish trout. The focus on his personal motivations by other editors is equally worthy of a small trout. So, distribute fish as needed, and leave it at that! Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for a short page block. Not a ban. Ban is his straw man Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal for page ban is literally the name of this sub-section and the proposal presented - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned. A proposal for a "short page block" is an entirely different ballgame. As it is written, it is not a straw man. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You really want to argue with people about what they are asking for? He is fixated on that one page. It isn't necessary to ban him from other pages, shrug. The people trying to edit the page want to be able to edit the page, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No argument, just merely pointing out what the editor's proposal explicitly stated - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages. That is a specific remedy being "asked for", and the proposer confirms - "these pages" - in his !vote. If it isn't "necessary to ban him from other pages", then the wording of the proposal should probably be changed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And just for the record, I would support a short-page block if he continues to bludgeon the talk page, and admin discretion allows for that remedy without any proposals being presented, but as this proposal is written, I don't support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean here. (And for the record I'm also confused by Elinruby's comments as well, for similar reasons.) The usual difference between a block and a ban on here is that a ban is a sanction that prohibits editing something, while a block is the technological enforcement of said sanction. As such, a block necessarily implies a ban, which is what is confusing me here: it's possible to page-ban someone without page-blocking them, but not the other way around. Loki (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The way it is worded and proposed is a community endorsed sanction banning the editor from editing Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages, which would mean that the ban could only be lifted after a successful appeal to the community, usually after anywhere from 6 months to a year, from what I've witnessed before in these type of similar community proposed sanctions. Whereas, a block and/or page block would be for a set period of time with an expiration date, unless it is indefinitely. I didn't see a proposal for a set period of time, which is why I interpreted it to mean a community endorsed ban that must be appealed to the community to be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have seen three and that is what I meant by "short". But come to think of it, an even shorter block/ban would accomplish the goals of

  1. allowing a return to the reverted consensus version
  2. working out any minor differences over wording that may still exist

  I think that requiring an appeal (isn't that for a topic ban?) would just perpetuate the waste of time that this has been.

  Also, I think the other editors in that discussion are capable of working out a wording that satisfies weight + accuracy + BLP without the suggestions and guidance of Thomas. Oh and if I muddied the waters here by using the wrong word then my apologies to all for that. I read "page" as meaning p-block and assumed that other people would also Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see. I think I have done all I can as a fresh opinion here so I am pretty much out of the discussion, but to clarify my apparently badly-stated position: I am under the impression that the scope of the proposal is this one page, Tim Hunt, and associated talk, and that other editors believe it is the entire project and that is why they think it is too heavy-handed. Hth. It sounds like Isaidnoway and I actually agree, given their last statement and that clarification. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only remark I saw worthy of a page ban was [50] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I would say anyone holding such a fixed view and openly declaring they're not going to listen to counter arguments shouldn't be editing that page. WCM_email 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does he not claim to be misunderstood? Did he not refer to him female co-workers as "girls"? Did he not say that there was a problem with them? As for a page ban for me -- sure, random cowboy admin is always in the cards. But I think it's pretty obvious ti anyone that cares to look that I've never touched the article and not only didn't plan to do so, but still don't.

  So stop with the aspersions please, as I just told you at the talk page. I'm just an editor who commented on a noticeboard and came to a conclusion that you don't like. This is the third time I have happily gone off to other topics. Bye now. You can have the last word if you like. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some of the oppose comments have a tone that suggests they think this is a site ban, when the proposal is simply to restrict editing these specific pages. NicolausPrime's reasons for as proposer are well articulated and persuasive, especially the matter of Thomas Basboll's WP:BLUDGEONING and stonewalling. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I can read, I know it is not a site ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also understand this to be a proposal for a page-specific ban covering Tim Hunt and online shaming and their talk pages. I don't really see how @NicolausPrime's proposal can be read any other way. The aim seems to be to speed the process of implementing changes along the lines of those @LokiTheLiar originally proposed by removing me from the conversation. I do indeed oppose them, and I think that any changes along those lines should be implemented, if at all, very slowly and carefully. I will respect a ban if that's what is decided but I really do think it's a bad idea to remove people who think you're wrong from a conversation about what to do, even (and perhaps especially) if you're very certain you're right. Thomas B (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• By my count there are 193 signed comments on Talk:Tim Hunt, of which 59 are by Thomas B. I see several places over several days in which they've suggested they'll step back, but it doesn't seem to be happening. My first choice would be for Thomas B to exhibit self-control and for other people to stop engaging with Thomas B in order to faciliate that; but since that seems not to be working, a short-term p-block from the page would be a reasonable second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  In light of Thomas B's continuing failure to disengage, I now unambiguously support a block from the talk-page. The discussion is not being helped by the two or three people who evidently are heavily invested in their own individual conclusions about what happened and what it means; Thomas B has had ample opportunity to make his position known. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I had 39 notifications from this page this morning. That's for 10-12 hours , mostly for Thomas or Wee Curry Monster casting aspersions. Revdel may be needed for possible BLP violations with respect to journalists, and yet another editor was told that they aren't competent to edit. That's the news from the front. ThomasB hasn't edited about anything else in months. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Elinruby, I would like to ask you to reduce your commenting frequency as well, both at Talk:Tim Hunt and here. I assume this discussion made you feel insulted at some point, but from my perspective your comments are starting to appear excessive too, and I would like not to make this matter even more intractable. I feel I already messed it up by not narrowing down the time of the original proposed page ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  While recognizing the bolding seems unnecessary and tonally ill-advised, I would add that I think this behavior from Thomas Basboll—repeated expressions that behavior will change, followed by repeated commissions of behavior—is concerning and strengthens the case for the proposed page ban. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nod, you have a good point and I had already said I was out of it, but the 39 notifications and level of vituperation seemed remarkable enough for an update. As for the insult, oh well, but they've started on Bon courage now. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I am walking away from this. My viewpoint is that both "sides" in this debate are letting their personal feelings get the better of them, and are attempting to right great wrongs (just two different wrongs). The result has been a debate that's gone off the rails, degenerated into a lot of wikilawyering, poor faith, and walls of text. I don't feel I can interact with other editors in improving this article in the current situation. I believe it will only be solved by a structured debate, forced to focus on the article rather than the editors, and therefore I strongly, strongly recommend WP:DRN. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended. I had walked away from the talk page, I had planned that I was not going to edit at all this weekend and do something more useful like cleaning the oven. What is desperately needed at this page is an admin with experience of WP:BLP, because the edits being proposed are in violation of our BLP policy.

I realise that ANI is not the place to discuss content and I do not intend to do anymore than is necessary to explain the background but it is necessary to help with BLP. 8 years ago the Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt attended a conference in South Korea. Tim Hunt who is described by his wife as "socially awkward" and "less than wordly" was asked at the last minute to give a toast during lunch. Extremely nervous he gave a 2-3 minute speech that included a self-deprecating joke that was awkward and ill-advised (in that what was said could and was misconstrued). Nevertheless it was well received by the audience; so much so he was asked to deliver a further speech during the closing banquet. A journalist attending the event tweeted a series of tweets denouncing what he'd said as sexist and misogynist, partially quoting the speech out of context and making two false claims. A Twitter storm blew up and whilst flying home his reputation was effectively destroyed and he was forced to resign from several positions. Subsequently the facts of what was said, what wasn't said came out but had little effect on the commentary that continued to be hostile, until the journalist Louise Mensch investigated it doggedly and demonstrated it to be untrue. The accepted view in the literature now is that he was treated unfairly, he is neither sexist nor misogynist but definitely socially awkward and less than wordly.

This is very relevant to the RFC that is currently being run.

1. A loaded question has been made about including a quote of what was said
2. The edits proposed all make the false claim it was his speech that was denounced as sexist, which is untrue, what was denounced as sexist was based on false reporting.

I am extremely concerned by some of the commentary eg [51] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood.". This to me indicate a closed mind, a refusal to accept in good faith that there are other possibilities and an unwillingness to listen to evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs. It seems that some editors have decided Tim Hunt is a sexist misogynist who should be labelled as such on his Wikipedia article. It seems that editors have learned nothing about the damage that a disparaging Wikipedia biography can do and why we have BLP policies. Are we really in the business of pillorying a socially awkward scientist who has been an advocate for women in science? 8 years ago this affair nearly drove the poor man to suicide.

I have to commend Thomas B for his knowledge of the case and the willingness to stick his neck out for our BLP policies, he doesn't deserve the threat of blocks or page bans. To my mind they are misdirected. It seems that 3RR, ANI and various noticeboards are being abused to try and remove an obstacle rather than seek a consensus.

I have no problem with a BLP if it accurately reflects what actually happened but that is not what is happening here. The talk page is toxic, with editors simply not listening or earnestly engaging with the consensus building process. I've given up on trying.

My suggestion is to extend the page lock until editors propose a reasonable summary of what happened that all can agree on via WP:DRN - a very aposite suggestion. I fear that as soon as the page is unlocked, the edit war will recommence. It certainly needs a good old trouting among all concerned. Now rubber gloves and Mr Muscle^TM beckon, I do hope more sensible heads like Elemimele prevail - I would also commend them for a very sensible contribution I can only apologise if your comments were drowned out. WCM_email 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I said I would disengage from this and have, but that isn't a license to misleadingly quote me. I meant that I didn't want to engage in house to house combat over the entrenched establishment circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny. Claims of being misunderstood are completely unsurprising.

The dismissal of anyone who objects to the hagiography as ignorant is apparently being allowed to succeed here. Oh well, another day at Wikipedia. I forgot to unsubscribe yesterday but before I do, I want to day that the remarks in their full context are still appalling and that thinking that they are appalling does not demonstrate that one has not read them. That is the level of bad faith at play here.

The idea that anything less than a complete picture should be reported has been imputed to everyone who thinks that this should be discussed as anything but a terrible thing that happened to a good man. I think that failing a page block, dispute resolution is a pretty good idea, since presumably they won't allow all this mud-slinging. Note that given the RFC and previous NPOV discussions, DRN should not be needed to guarantee that opinions can be expressed without generating aspersions, but that is where this is. The clear consensus is being disregarded with cries of BLP, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE waved off. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Young also wrote a piece in Reason (magazine), calling out the irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy, and how the "narrative [about Hunt] has been falling apart". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that WCM also mentioned this source earlier, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to add this to the article with an attribution, as Reason is considered a reliable though opinionated source. (I think it would be more effective to raise this on the article's talk page) NicolausPrime (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did do, the source was immediately denounced, that apparently is enough to ignore it and continue with the same narrative. Therein lies the problem, this is just me being a "misogynist" "circling the wagons to protect a misogynist" with "shitty sources". Those by the way are quotes from the talk page. WCM_email 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the page protection has stopped the disruption, and I don't see any sign that TB recognizes that his conduct has been problematic. There are people above arguing that a sanction would be moot, but the ongoing conduct makes it clear that is not the case. Above, TB says it'll be ok if he remains unsanctioned because "the constraints of 3RR" will keep him from achieving his preferred version in article-space, and I worry this is a signal that he intends to continue edit warring. The repeated declarations that he'll be stepping back, followed by further bludgeoning and personalization, suggest that TB will continue to worsen the discourse in this dispute. His most recent action is to post a non-serious proposal. He can see no reason that many good-faith editors propose versions he disagrees with, believing they are trying to "vindicate those who originally shamed" Hunt.
  I wonder if those who oppose a pblock would consider a warning, or if they think all this conduct has been just fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a temporary pblock until the RfC is over, but not a permanent ban. The OP was not very clear in their proposal, in my view. And for that matter, a temp pblock for anyone else who is bludgeoning the discussion, regardless of what side they are on about the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I take the point and have withdrawn from the talk page until the RfC is over. I don't know if that makes closing easier. But I think I've taken up enough time. Thomas B (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, consensus is policy, so if your preferred version of the article doesn't make the cut, there really isn't anything more to discuss, is there? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was initially on the fence about this because Basboll wasn't the sole cause of disruption in the discussions, but Basboll hasn't stepped back from the discussion like he promised and his behaviour hasn't improved. His self-admitted non serious proposal at Talk:Tim_Hunt#Counterproposal followed by the comment that my proposal for a consensus version is likewise a completely inappriate humiliation of [Hunt], rehashing the most embarrassing thing that has ever happened to him in painful detail for no apparent reason, other than to vindicate those who originally shamed him is just blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that isn't moving the conversation regarding this issue forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very sorry you got that treatment, Hemi. As best as I can tell, you were uninvolved in the dispute, responded civilly and reasonably to the NPOVN post, then noticed that we were a a standstill and started and RfC. You made a concrete proposal for article content and tweaked it based on TB's concerns, and then you got that uncivil response. It's unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding. I produced a version that was obviously slanted in Hunt's direction in order to show well-intentioned people like Hemiauchenia that explanding it with a bunch of (true) details slants it in the direction of Hunt's original accusers (less obviously to many editors here, it seems). Once we get into the weeds, we in effect have to either defend or attack him. That's why I'm not serioulsy proposing the defensive version. I'm proposing (as I have been all along) not to get into the weeds. Thomas B (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was doing a drive-by looking for the "od" template for a WP:GLI entry, when I had a look. I've had experience of this in the past most recently. It is disruptive when the editor is guarding the article to maintain their own revision. Its form of WP:OWN. I have no time for it. An article ban is ideal in this instance. There is many other areas the editor can work on. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support It has become very clear that Basboll has come to the article to right great wrongs and edit in defense of the subject's honor. That, combined with their desire to frame this situation as a "shaming campaign" combines to make them ill suited for editing these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect righting great wrongs is the motive of some of those editing on the talk page, more concerned with the protagonist in this controversy than the victim. But I am certain that Basboll's motives are to protect wikipedia from a BLP violation not in defence of anyone's honour. WCM_email 08:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol, yet he had already spilled many many pixels at blogspot defending the subject's honor long before this discussion began. To be completely clear, I am sure the man was joking. I also think that jokes like that are a problem. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He also hasn't edited the talk page for 48 hrs so at this stage any admin action is moot. This is the second time you've alluded to off-wiki activities. You appear to be inviting WP:OUTING and you should really stop that. WCM_email 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither have I until just now, since it became clear I was a convenient red herring. I came over to see if the RFC had closed yet. The prior writings merely underline the inability to be neutral on the topic. But that was evident from the start. Meanwhile, strict as the outing policy may be, if it doesn't cover Grabowski and Klein I sincerely doubt it covers the recognizable style of and nearly-identical statements of someone now editing under their own name; I find that your concern is specious and more likely a threat than an actual concern. The fact that I ignore your behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't noted. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, WCM. I have edited here for many years, and at times been involved in very heated disputes, always in my own name. I've never encountered this sort of behavior before. As a result, I've put in a request to have my username changed. Making editors answer for things they wrote online eight years ago is obviously not helpful to the current debate. Especially in the context of a request to ban the user. Since this is ANI, I had expected an administrator to step in already. Things seem to have changed around here. Not a pleasant atmosphere. Thomas B (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking a break from editing the article, especially while an ANI discussion is ongoing, does not mean sanctions are unnecessary. And the repeated claims of OUTING are spurious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

what a mess of a situation Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Lock

Given the bad tempered nature of the discussion, I would propose that the Page Lock is extended until a consensus text is worked out through WP:DRN. Consensus building and cooler heads are desperately needed on this topic. WCM_email 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If we went to DRN while an RFC was on, it would be immediately rejected as redundant. This feels to me like a poor attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Loki (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My take is that we've really made a mess of this and that the page should be locked until a resolution is found. Thomas B (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me that a couple of editors (one of whom was edit warring before to stop any change) are worried the RfC is running against them, and want to prevent the likely WP:CONSENSUS being implemented. Let the community do its thing and it will all work out in due course. There is no hurry. Bon courage (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is a mess:

1. Its a loaded question that should never be used on an RFC
2. The atmosphere is toxic and outside comment deterred by walls of text
3. Anybody who comments is denounced as a misogynist if they contradict the "consensus" circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny [52]
4. Editors in particular are disrupting the RFC with commentary on editors not content needlessly personalising matters [53]
5. The tactic above is driving away editors like Emimele and myself
6. The content for which you claim there is a consensus is simply untrue and doesn't give a reasonable summary of the controversy. It is in violation of WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPPRIMARY.
7. Editors are basing their edit on a personal conviction the subject of the BLP is sexist and a misogynist based on their reading of a quote taken out of context. [54]

It seems based on this comment by Bon courage, editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" and simply not listening. Given the conduct DRN is desperately needed. WCM_email 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the tactic is evidently to kick up as much process sand as possible in an attempt to derail the RfC (which follows an already extensive discussion at NPOVN). Remember we are WP:NOTDUMB. Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. Bon courage (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. I agree. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

nod, my comment about DRN was intended for the event where the waters at the RfC had been sufficiently muddied by the bludgeoning to obscure consensus, as seems possible. In that event a more structured discussion may be necessary for the benefit of those can't quite process that they are misinterpreting policy. But as Loki correctly points out, there is no point in doing that until the RfC runs has its course, and depending on how that goes it may prove unnecessary. I would have thought a page block a week ago would have been better, but apparently the admins do not agree.

And lest I add to the toxicity here, I will now return to thuch me more civil topic of modern-day fascism. Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" Agree - Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

This thread has gone on for long enough, and as Obama once said, it's "shedding more heat than light" at this point. There's clearly no consensus for any kind of action against Basboll, nor for any other kind of action, and has just devolved into angry arguing. Several threads on the article talk page have also devolved into simiar acrimony, and probably need hatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there was never any need for any kind of action against Basboll, they have raised valid concerns but there is a chorus of editors who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I really do think that admin action is required and that is to lock the page for an extended period whilst this is resolved at WP:DRN. Otherwise I can easily see this ending at arbcom, this needs to be nipped in the bud. WCM_email 18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you think elevates this to an ArbCom case? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, it does warrant intervention by an admin experienced in BLP cases. Whilst the discussion has improved in the last 24 hrs and I'm assuming because of the scrutiny here. However, if the discussions there had continued in the same vein it was definitely headed there. WCM_email 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand what WP:DRN is for? It's not just a place to find a mediator for any conflict. It's specifically for resolving small content disputes where no other dispute resolution process is occurring. Neither half of that is true because of the ongoing RFC.

My personal guideline is that an RFC is more appropriate when the dispute is between a few relatively-concrete options, and WP:DRN is more appropriate for chaotic disputes where exact wordings themselves are hard to pin down. Pre-RFC I could see either of those being appropriate, but now that an RFC is happening, we need to let it run and implement the consensus agreed on there, if any, before considering a separate dispute resolution process in a separate location. All taking this to WP:DRN right now will do is get it closed immediately because of the existing RFC. Loki (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that Firetangledfeathers and Hemiauchenia voted just now, I would like to still wait for a moment before closing this and for the closer to check if there's still no consensus or if there's one now. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Basboll has jumped the shark now and changed my vote accordingly. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd also like to see this closed. Thomas B (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm seconding the closure request. It appears there's consensus that imo is now unlikely to change. The sooner this is closed, the less vitriol will continue to spill, and there's still much potential for that. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this end for a while, to be honest. Does someone have to post it at WP:CR? You'll get no objection from me. Thomas B (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll just scroll off if people stop commenting. I think it's best if this is dropped now. I'll give @Thomas Basboll a WP:CTOP alert, and the most efficient course of action, if an editor wants to report a problem in future, is to do so at WP:AE. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I posted a request for closure at WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2024 (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.

Led8000 on Talk:United States

After I saw Led8000 calling other editors "anti-intellectual" in this post, I wrote "Calling other editors "anti-intellectual" is insulting, uncivil, and inaccurate, and only serves to make other people discount your opinion and be more likely to insult you in return. Wikipedia policies require us to criticize ideas, not people, unless we're filing a report at WP:AN/I or other dispute mechanism." Instead of agreeing to follow these policies, Led8000 in response to this and some arguments about content called me "a very confused and misled power-hungry person" in this post. I let that go and tried to refocus on sourcing and content. But then in another thread I see Led8000 advised another editor "Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally." in this post. I don't want to suppress anyone's point of view, and Led8000 has made some thoughtful contributions to the discussion, but this habit of insulting other editors in the conversation seems like it could easily and repeatedly derail what are delicate negotiations over wording in a politically charged article. Not to mention reduce participation by editors who just want to volunteer their assistance and not be attacked for expressing concerns or making suggestions. I see warnings all over the place that this is a contentious topic and best behavior is required. I'm not sure what generally happens in cases like this, if editors are typically admonished, or topic-banned, or what, so I'm asking about it here. And obviously leaving this up to uninvolved editors, considering I've been one of the targets of these demotivating attacks. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Beland. I sincerely thank you for your message on my talk page about your post here, instead of trying to be covert or misleading in that way. There are too many things that you have not mentioned and left out here concerning this, and I will not be prompted by you to waste time of my life on a discussion here like this. I only advise people to see all of me and Beland's interactions on that talk page, for now. A question to other administrators, is Beland misusing this page? I was under the impression previously that this was actually a sort of page to let other administrators know about site-wide potential compromises or coding problems with the website. Led8000 (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your final query, you might be thinking of WP:AN; this venue is correct for this kind of issue.

On your main point: I'd advise that if you think there is additional context missing from Beland's report, you should add it now. Right now it does look like you've made a number of personal attacks, and people aren't going to go hunting for reasons why this shouldn't be actioned by admins. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actioned how, exactly? And what have I done? I have now realized, as I should have before, that Beland obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing, as is a completely logical assumption for any of the top 100 Wikipedia contributors. I am not anti-Wikipedia (my third edit , in 2012, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=497932002 ) . I also did not intend to imply, and I would not want any, probably overall positive, significant contributors to be motivated to put less effort or work in to Wikipedia. Beland is included in that group, in my opinion, just like every other of the top 100 or so Wikipedia editors. I do not intend, and I have never harassed anyone on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the internet, or in person, or any other way, also, in my entire life. The 2 or 3 potentially "uncivil" messages on that talk page constitute what? What really happened, is that this post here by him can be explained by this talk page section, which seemingly has emotionally affected him, thinking that I intend to start a series of complaints to oust him as a long-time admin or something, such is addressed earlier here, based on my assumptions of intentions and perceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Extended_confirmed_edit_request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1206868576#Extended_confirmed_edit_request Led8000 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's some of what you have done :UPDATE. —WELL, THANK YOU, bitter anti-intellectuals,..., You are a very confused and misled power-hungry person,..., Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally., and of course in the comment above "obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing," and "which seemingly has emotionally affected him". Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be brief. @Led8000, stop making observations about your perceptions of other editors' states of mind, here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's obnoxious, and actionable. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what Acroterion said. Comment on the edits, not your personal opinion of the editor. If you can't stay focused on the merits of the discussion, and continue with your attacks, you will get blocked from editing. It is unnecessary and unproductive. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the third uninvolved administrator to comment, Led8000. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is policy. This discussion has two possible outcomes. The preferable one is that you follow the policy and agree to stop making personal attacks. The other outcome is that you get blocked from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User: Yotrages

On the article about singer Wizkid, User: Yotrages is purposely altering direct quotes and violating WP: NPOV. Following my correction of his fake altered quotes in the "Legacy" section of the article, he's continuously restoring them despite being notified for it. Even after a lengthy message left by User: Vanderwaalforces on his talk page, he refuses to understand that a statement like “Wizkid is regarded as an African living legend” is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind is editing per his own opinion and violating WP:NPOV, he has removed lots of fairly written and reliably sourced contents without reason. He's also owning the article, he has already changed the article's lead section, in which I didn't revert. So he's also trying to change the whole page without tangible reasons, and based on some rubbish excuses. And he's even accusing me of being a fan of the artist, in which i'm not. Yotrages (talk) 16: 29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

“without reason”? I have written in every single edit summary of the article the reasons of my edits, that are: removing altered fabricated quotes, change the wording per WP: NPOV, and fixing genres per Wikipedia:Independent sources. Everyone can check that you altered almost every quote in the legacy section, please stop it.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

These are your edits. You surely have some nerve accusing me of violating WP:NPOV. This is you, caught red handed altering quotes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: @SarekOfVulcan: has increased the protection level of the Wizkid article to allow only administrators to edit it, which is a prudent measure to end the dispute between you two. As I mentioned here, please initiate a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article and address the NPOV issues, this is a simple matter that can be resolved without involving any administrator who has other priorities to deal with. The WP:3RR is there to advise us, but you both disregarded it.

@SarekOfVulcan please I would suggest that, in the future, the protection level should be reduced as its current level won't allow other productive editors who are not administrator to edit the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The full protection is set to expire tomorrow, so this shouldn't be an issue. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind can you heard that? we both violated WP:NPOV, so don't act like you're doing a good job to the article. And I wasn't caught red-handed or whatever I rephrased those qoutes, and about the first one, I gave you three tangible source deeming him "One of the greatest". so I think you're on your own. Yotrages (talk) 4:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages, no one said that Dolly's edits violated POV, but I'll say that your edits were not productive. Besides the overlinking and the excessive quoting, there's statements like this, "Wizkid's contributions to the Nigerian music industry have earned him several achievements"--no, he did not get a Grammy for contributing to the Nigerian music industry; he got one for best video, apparently. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that @Yotrages: is continuing his editing with personal attacks, removing POV templates to articles with active discussions on their talk pages (1, 2) DollysOnMyMind (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Some more falsified quotes, as noted by @Schazjmd: DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

sneakily removing other editors' comments during active discussions in Schazjmd talk page DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages uses a mobile editor, so I believe them when they said that removal was inadvertent. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

He's still falsifying quotes. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Today you're edit warning over multiple articles. This needs to stop immediately... I've asked for Chris Brown to be fully protected. Moxy- 20:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is not nice for Yotrages to still be making these types of edits and looks like they have a WP:CIR issue. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New articles about political scandals

I have submitted the article Draft:List of state political scandals in the United States which was rejected for being too long. So I shortened the article by breaking it in to fifty individual articles and reducing the contentof each and the number of references used. I then resubmitted. See example Draft:List of Oklahoma political scandals, etc.

These new articles were immediately accepted by an administrator and encouraged. This admin’s decision was then vigorously challenged by a few editors who caused him to reverse his original decision. Each of the new, smaller articles was then rejected by the admin and these editors for being TOO LONG, and having DIFFERING TEMPLATES, BLP, RECENTISM, and ORGINAL RESEARCH. I challenge their reasoning.

• Being TOO LONG is negated by Wikipedia:Special:Longpages.
• DIFFERING TEMPLATES is addressed by Wikipedia:Citing sources:Citation style. “Wikipedia does not have a single house style for reliable sources.”
• BLP violations are easily remedied by multiple references which were discouraged.
• RECENTISM and ORGINAL RESEARCH are such vague concepts as to be irrelevant.

All these issues were discussed in full at Talk:List of federal political scandals in the United States an article in existence since 2004.

I would ask that the reasons for acceptance/non acceptance be examined and the validity of the comments given for rejection be re-considered. And finally, I draw your attention to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marquis de la Eirron who has been mentioned on this subject before.Johnsagent (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Admins have no special privileges in the determination of content matters. You should discuss this with the other editors involved. If you wish to accuse anyone of sickpuppeting you should do so at WP:SPI with WP:DIFFS showing proof of your claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnsagent, content disputes do not belong at this noticeboard. There are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of points to consider here:

• The user who accepted the drafts, @WikiOriginal-9, is not an administrator, although that shouldn't matter either way.
• Your original draft article is as long as the longest of Special:LongPages. The issue is that this amount of text hits the limit in terms of templates able to be transcluded, meaning that some citation templates don't render at all.
• "Not having a single house style" means that different citation styles in use, like Wikipedia:CS1 and Wikipedia:CS2 (used in most {{Citation}} templates) are accepted. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia:Bare URLs like the ones you used are okay, as they are much less informative and at higher risk of link rot. Indeed, your AfC declining message mentions that Links such as this [https://www.nydailynews.com] with no text should not be used.
  • It also doesn't mean that any possible way to cite information is accepted. As written in the Manual of Style, Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an
    article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system.
• Your later individual drafts were not declined for being too long or for differing templates. Rather, as it was discussed here, issues such as BLP violations, recentism and original research were indeed brought up. These are certainly not "such vague concepts as to be irrelevant", and indeed original research is highly discouraged on Wikipedia.
  • If there aren't reliable sources describing specific events as scandals, they shouldn't be labeled as such. That's also where the BLP violation comes in, even if the facts are supported by reliable sources (not any source is sufficient), commentary on the facts is not, and describing factual events as "scandals" is indeed a potential BLP violation if not supported by independent reliable sources.
  • The lead sections are definitely full of original research, using your own specific definition of scandal and asserting things such as Breaking the law is always considered a scandal.

In other terms, declining those drafts was absolutely justified, and I warmly invite you to rework them to remove original research, make the labeling of individual events as "scandal" in line with their descriptions in reliable sources rather than your own definition, and ask further question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need any more information (trust me, it's a way calmer place than ANI).
Also, please don't vaguely hint at people being sockpuppets with no evidence — not only is it bad form to cast aspersions, but it also happens to be useless here as neither the declining users nor anyone involved in the discussions have been blocked as sockpuppets. If you have evidence of any of them actually being sockpuppets, please bring it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than throwing an accusation here without supporting evidence. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow

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

Please look at:

1. Special:History/McAnally‎
2. Special:History/McNally (surname)‎
3. Talk:McNally (surname)
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 9#Supposedly conflicting etymologies & reliability of sources
   • This was responded to in the following way (leading to an apparent consensus: Talk:McNally (surname)#Cont. 2): PamD's edits of March 2023; after that, however, there have been many more inscrutable removals and restorations.

Gaelicbow is apparently facing some dilemmas and is repeatedly restoring and self reverting content on McAnally‎ and McNally (surname). After multiple attempts I have stopped trying to fully understand his reasons for such edits. I request that an administrator blocks Gaelicbow from McAnally‎ and McNally (surname)‎, since text constantly appearing and disappearing in stroboscopic fashion can't possibly be a good thing for our readers. —Alalch E. 12:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• @PamD: Do you have any thoughts on this matter?—Alalch E. 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. I haven't the stamina to plough through all the changes made since I added a paragraph of careful text citing three different highly reliable sources, but it's pretty upsetting to see that it has disappeared completely over the months. The current version of McNally (surname) has no references nor explanation of the name, is just a list of surname-holders, and the only sourced statement in McAnally is "McAnnally is a surname" (sourced to a 1923 work reproduced on a genealogy website), though it includes the unsourced (and cryptic) statement "The death of the eponym is recorded in the Annals of Clonmacnoise in 1316." so neither article makes any reference to my three sources. PamD 20:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Delving further into the previous discussions, I think I may not have noticed the "ping" on 22 April 2023, or perhaps felt I'd contributed enough with my researches.

  If authoritative sources have something to say about the surname origins, it is appropriate to include that in our Wikipedia article on the surname. Yes, most surname articles are lists of surname-holders only, but where there is sourced information and editors with the inclination to add it, it should be added. If the sources differ, we can say so. If there are other reliable sources with other things to say, then we can add those, well cited. But this looks as if content has been removed because Gaelicbow doesn't like it, which is not a good reason to suppress the correctly-sourced work of other editors.

  So it appears that Gaelicbow's editing here is disruptive, with a WP:OWN approach to the two articles, and that a topic ban from these and any related surnames might indeed be beneficial to the encyclopedia. PamD 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've been watching Gaelicbow's edits for a while (they keep showing up on my watchlist all over the place.) Their edits are disruptive, but on the low end of the scale. They don't give explanations for why they add or remove material, seems to be just personal preference rather than encyclopaedic reasons, and are terrible at referencing information. On multiple occasions after they've been warned and have been very actively engaged in disruptive behaviour, they've removed the warnings and stated that they were "vandalism and/or irrelevant" when they were clearly justified. I haven't had the energy to go further on it but it seems clear that their editing is of the "I don't like it" disruptive manner. This conversation is extremely telling of their combative "I don't like it" mentality, and the only time they engage with other editors is in this manner. Canterbury Tail talk 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortly before last Christmas (I left a note on his talk page on the 25th) he started changing people from being Irish in being Anglo-Irish. Without sources. What he defended with: Seriously? They do not need sources when they are self-evident in the content of the article (and the articles of their respective forbears).. So yes, I can imagine that his editing is reason for concern. The Banner talk 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples: this, this, this and [55]]. The Banner talk 22:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow appeared making edits on a small article I created a long time ago, Leonard McNally. There was nothing majorly disruptive about their edits but i did notice that they kept making changes, undoing them then redoing them over again over quite a lengthy period. Some of them were nonsensical. I couldn't really fathom what they were doing. There didn't seem to be a POV at play - just slightly WP:CIRish and, well, just strange. DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article

XMcan (talk · contribs) was page blocked from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk page for disruptive editing. Since then, the majority of their editing has been to James A. Lindsay and that article's talk page. Their focus has been to remove mention of Lindsay's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory([56], [57], [58], [59], [60]). There has been other disruption along the way, such as reverting attempts to add sourcing or labeling edits they disagree with vandalism. I submit that the disruption the block was intended to prevent has simply moved to a new article. Can something be done about this? MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• One thing I want to point out here is that XMcan said, here, on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that it was decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns about that article (in a context where they were generally discussing, and showing familiarity with, decade-old Wikipedia disputes on that topic.) Yet XMcan's edit history has only five edits prior to December 2022, none on that topic. The dispute on that topic a decade ago involved a large number of WP:SPIs, throwaway accounts, and so on, many of whom ended up facing sanctions for the sort of behavior XMcan is exhibiting now; I suspect it's possible that XMcan is among that number and switched accounts to evade scrutiny. Their response when I asked them about this - which I think was a reasonable thing to ask, under the circumstances, in order to give them a chance to explain the discrepancy - was to deflect. --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had never even heard of CMCT/FSCT until November '23 when I first stumbled upon the Lindsay BLP. The dinosaur reference was simply an inartful quip about my age. Can we please refrain from making further bad-faith aspersions? XMcan (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @XMcan:, regardless of your age, how can you have "broached our concerns" a decade ago about something you first heard of last year? Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  What I remember about the post in question is that I had just finished reading the 2014 Slate article, which explains the history behind FSCT/CMCT/CM pages and how they were merged. I was excited to learn that even the great JW shared my misgivings about the CM=CMCT equivalency. In my excitement to show how JW and I are on the same side of this issue, I misspoke. BTW, it was that Talk post that led to my p-block. XMcan (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To state the obvious, there's no guarantee Jimbo was ever on the same side as you, at least in a temporal sense. What Jimbo felt in 2014 might not be what they felt nearly 10 years later, and you didn't feel it until recently. Those of us who are actually dinosaurs in a Wikipedia sense have been on various "sides" of this throughout the years. Plenty of editors still feel the same they did 10 years ago, but some don't.

  Anyway if you had offered this explanation when asked the first time, I think plenty of us would have been willing to accept that at face value. (I mean I think we can all accept you misspoke, but there are various ways that might have happened.)

  But the fact you've been persistently evasive about it and we've had to drag something resembling an explanation out if you, means the existing doubts are compounded. There might not be enough for any sanction, but we're all free to disengage from you when it isn't necessary. In this case, while you seem to have raised some legitimate concerns (without having looked at the sources), I have no desire to help someone who could be a sock; and the BLP issues seem to minor to worry so I doubt I'll look into it further. I might not be the only one.

  Consider this carefully the next time you decide to evade legitimate concerns about your activity. Plenty of us actual dinosaurs, for good reason based on long experience, detest socks, and are very reluctant to get anywhere near anything involving them unless it's to counter them and we feel we can do it fairly. If there are socking concerns and these are unanswered, this might lead to the same result. Sometimes the concerns are great enough that we get involved anyway, but not always. Socks never seem to understand that they're generally achieving the opposite of what they seem to aim to achieve.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To give a different example of what I mean about the temporal issue, let's say an 18 year old, opposed to same-sex marriage says Barack Obama shares the same views as me! In that cases it's an even weirder statement since we actually know he doesn't. Yes when this person was about 2 years old, Obama may have said something similar about same-sex marriage. But by the time this person was about 7, Obama had already came out fully in favour of same-sex marriage Social policy of the Barack Obama administration#Same-sex marriage. So to get so excited about the fact their views matched at different points in time, is just odd. To be clear, I'm not aware Jimbo has expressed any differing views on the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, it's not something I care about. I just find it odd you'd get so excited about something nearly 10 years old, when the world especially the US and Wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure Jimbo Wales has moved on a lot since then. For example, this was before Trump's presidency run and so before post-truth, alternative facts, fake news and the Intellectual dark web took on their modern realities in the US political environment. (For example, consider that Dave Rubin was still with the TYT at the time.) It was also at a time when Fox News caused some concerns but their news arm was often an acceptable source without question especially outside of politics and science since they hadn't yet gone all in with the election results denial angle. I mean heck Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources didn't even exist, and WP:DAILYMAIL style source deprecation had never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether there any reason to believe that extending the partial block to also cover James A. Lindsay would do any good? Having already migrated from one venue to another, taking the disruption with them, it seems likely that this would just be repeated in a third place. Maybe a topic ban from anything related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could do the trick but I am doubtful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

XMcan's reverts here are not disruptive. This article has a blatant BLP issue, and XMcan has challenged content that I have also challenged, within a WP:BRD process. What's being attempted here in this ANI is to silence and minimize dissent through sanctioning. This is a move we've seen many times before, and it's the reason we have a huge bias problem across Wikipedia when it comes to politically-charged topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As Jweiss11 correctly points out, this is first and foremost a content dispute. Editors can scan through the current Talk discussion and assure themselves that my posts are civil and on-topic, unlike some other posts, which have, in some cases, focused on the messenger rather than the message. Whenever I mentioned the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory in Talk, it was solely in relation to the BLP and not as a soapbox about the CMCT article. (e.g., [61]) I’ve learned my lesson from Valereee’s ban not to soapbox in Talk, a fact that they can hopefully confirm in this ANI.

Meanwhile, Aquillion and MrOllie have been repeatedly trying to add new controversial material to the BLP without addressing already raised problems with the existing statements/sources. (e.g., [62][63][64] ) When challenged on policy grounds such as WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and in contravention of consensus from prior discussions, and in contravention of WP:BLPUNDEL, they still restore this content falsely claiming consensus or asserting that there is no need for further discussion.[65][66][67] This approach is not helpful on any article, let alone on a BLP, where the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

In summary, rather than solving this content dispute through Talk or bringing it to the appropriate venue, such as the BLP noticeboard, MrOllie and Aquillion are attempting to silence and intimidate dissenting voices. This constitutes a misuse of the ANI process. Therefore, a boomerang for both parties should be considered. XMcan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. XMcan, it's completely appropriate to call out an editor's behavior in a content dispute; that's not focussing on the messenger. It isn't inappropriate to ask about a statement you've made that implied you might be a returned editor using a new account. It's also completely appropriate for someone to bring what they in good faith believe is a behavior issue to ANI.

That said, at a BLP, continuing to argue against content when there's not clear consensus to include it is something we should encourage. Especially when it's at articles about US conservatives. We do in fact have a tendency to treat such subjects less neutrally.

That said, XMcan is a bit long-winded -- XM, I'd definitely recommend you learn how to write short -- and it's very hard to tell whether there's bludgeoning or sealioning going on. I just brought a case of very clear sealioning here, the worst I've ever personally been involved with, and only two admins apparently were willing to read the diffs because proving sealioning requires so many of them.

Is there any reason one of you hasn't opened an RfC or taken this to BLPN or NPOVN or whatever's the most appropriate noticeboard? Valereee (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question and comment Question: was the tban for a specific article or a topic. If an editor is tbanned from article A then they aren't allowed to edit the article or the talk page. If they are tbanned from the topic A then they can't edit article A or content about A at related articles. I would not view an article ban as a topic ban. Comment: I don't see any clear examples of problematic behavior at the BLP in question. I do see an editor who perhaps should be more brief/selective in their replies but that is about it. Certainly nothing that requires intervention or blocking based on what seem on the surface to be legitimate BLP concerns. Note that one may ultimately not have consensus for their BLP concerns but that doesn't mean their concerns were without merit. Springee (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was no tban, it was a p-block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edit warring continues while this ANI is open [68]. This includes deleting a newly added cite to a peer-reviewed journal under the false claim that its use is SYNTH - please, read the [69] article in question and do not be taken in by the misleading summaries offered in this thread. Promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory by Lindsay and the other figures examined is the main topic of the citation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that content is in dispute and given this is a BLP and NOCON it's probably best to run a RfC to decide if the material should be included. Springee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edits like these really make this feel like sealioning. A simple search for "cultural marxism" shows that it's mentioned in the article. There are several other examples including edit with misleading edit summaries. I think it's worth noting that after being banned from editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory wikipedia page, the first thing XMcan did was to attempt to remove any mention of CMCT from another page. I don't think reaching consensus will be possible as long as he is able to edit the page. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing that's confusing a lot of people (and giving the false impression that XMCan is "sealioning") is a failure to differentiate between 1) "cultural Marxism" as an observation about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly and 2) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that a bunch of Jews somewhere are secretly plotting to destroy civilization. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no difference, it’s just that modern mainstream discourse doesn’t bring up the Jew thing because it looks bad and stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) What? There's a significant difference. The former is Marxist cultural analysis, the latter is the unfounded conspiracy theory based on Jews taking over the world via socialism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) An observation [by the right] about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly is certainly not Marxist cultural analysis.  Tewdar  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "The term 'cultural Marxism' is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an 'antisemitic conspiracy theory' (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish)." - James Lindsay in Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish. They aren't "against the west" because they are Jewish, they're against the west because they want a communist revolution. It's a conspiracy and if not antisemitic on it's face, then it can still be used by antisemites due to it's close relation to the original antisemitic conspiracy theory. A claim can be antisemitic without the claimant knowingly being antisemitic or a self proclaimed antisemite. It's a distinction without a difference (at least in Lindsay's case). Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tewdar, that's an observation that been made by many centrist, moderates, and liberals as well. Pokerplayer513, that's a misreading of what Lindsay is saying. He says more on the topic here: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-marxism/. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Can you give me an example of any centrists, moderates, or liberals using the term 'cultural Marxism' to describe what contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly? The OED says 'cultural Marxism' is used chiefly among right-wing commentators, but I don't really see any use of this sense by anyone I would describe as centrist.  Tewdar  05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Any RS that say something similar Jweiss? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I don't want to get drawn into an argument about content here, but for the record here is the quote from Lindsay that Jweiss11 says we are 'misreading' - The term “cultural Marxism” is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish). It seems to be that Pokerplayer513 paraphrased it accurately. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Pokerplayer513 said "Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish." What Lindsay actually says is: "The most apt meaning of “cultural Marxism” is that the underlying oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context (see also, conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism)." This is not a "conspiracy theory" nor does it have anything to do with anyone being Jewish. This is a description of leftist political beliefs held by some number of people. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tedwar, I think you are correct that the term "cultural Marxism" is explicitly used mostly by conservatives/right-wingers, but there are centrist, moderates, and liberals who criticize the contents of "cultural Marxism", as defined by Lindsay, e.g. "conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism." Sam Harris, John McWhorter, and Steve Pinker immediately come to mind. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I’d like to see any of those guys use the term “cultural Marxism”, never mind that Sam Harris is only a few steps away from Lindsay and his ilk. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Those are two different quotes. The more relevant quote here is obviously the former. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I think the most relevant quote about what Lindsay believes obviously starts with "the most apt meaning..." Jweiss11 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) No, the most relevant quote is the one where he admits it’s a conspiracy theory. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, a political critique is not a "conspiracy theory" merely because one disagrees with it. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Is it a conspiracy theory when Lindsay calls it one in his own words? I really don't like to discuss content in ANI threads, but this has been a helpful demonstration of what it is like to discuss with XMCan and/or Jweiss11 on Talk:James A. Lindsay or Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) You can argue against cultural Marxism being a conspiracy theory all you want but the point is that this isn’t about you, this isn’t about your opinions, and your opinions are based on a questionable reading of an extremely unreliable primary source that is clearly outside your area of expertise (I’m not insulting you— you edit almost exclusively about American football, not political theory) Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) MrOllie, Lindsay explains that "Cultural marxism" is used differently by different people and then goes on to describe what he things is the "most apt" meaning. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, I'm confident in my reading here. That I edit prolifically about American football here doesn't obviate my ability to understand other topics. A lot of people are offering their opinions here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) If you want to keep arguing about this, the talk page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is thataway and full of editors who have heard these arguments a million times. Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) What I'm arguing about, fundamentally, is that MrOllie accusations toward XMcan are flawed, and that XMcan is correct in that we have a BLP violation at the Lindsay article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) By "That it is possible to see “cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory—both legitimately and not" Lindsay means there is a legitimate conspiracy by "cultural marxists" to "achieve some form of communism" and there is an illegitimate conspiracy theory "by (evil) Jews to destabilize Western society for their own gain." Both conspiracies, both led by jewish theorists, but one of them apparently isn't antisemitic because it doesn't blame Judaism. Also Jweiss11, I don't think that quote can be used in isolation. If it said something like "oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is covertly re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context by it's adherents without the knowledge of the general public" it would be more fitting, but that is something garnered from context. Also RS > primary source. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Lindsay is not asserting that the "legitimate conspiracy" of cultural Marxists is led by Jewish theorists. While Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, as were a majority of the core members of the Frankfurt School, their Jewishness was orthogonal to their ideas and beliefs, and, more importantly, those advocating for culturally Marxist principles and policies in the current era are not overwhelmingly Jewish. He would point to thought leaders like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Ibram X. Kendi. I don't believe any of those individuals happen to be Jewish in any way, ethnically or religiously. Also, the extent to which the efforts of such people can be considered a "conspiracy" is questionable. Is every political project involving more than one person a conspiracy? Any political campaign for public office is going to involve two or more people coordinating their efforts in service of private, often secret, strategies. So is every political campaign a conspiracy? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Talk page thataway Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) In fact amateur philosophy department thataway, off the site Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to highlight some recent contributions I've made to the Lindsay BLP that are unrelated to the FSCT/CMCT issue:

1. I identified a missing date of birth in one of the sources.[70]
2. I corrected an error regarding Lindsay's undergraduate degree, which had been incorrectly listed since “forever”.[71]
3. I eliminated duplicate citations.[72]
4. I attempted to improve BLP tags and LP descriptors, although I ultimately abandoned this effort due to a lack of consensus.[73]

In contrast to my contributions, it's worth examining the efforts of those who advocate for my ban. Have their actions truly enhanced the quality of the BLP? Upon reviewing their recent contributions, it becomes apparent that their focus predominantly revolves around portraying Lindsay in a negative light. XMcan (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m done standing off to the side on this: XMcan should be topic banned from modern politics. Jumping from an article you were blocked from for pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning to a directly adjacent one is pure system gaming. I’m also calling out Jweiss11 here for defending XMcan by baselessly claiming Cultural Marxism is not a far-right conspiracy theory but rather some moderate mainstream opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could Dronebogus kindly provide evidence where Valereee stated that I was p-blocked for “pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning”? It's important for discussions to be based on factual information rather than mischaracterizations and aspersions. Additionally, your comment directed to Jweiss11 feels to me like potstirring. XMcan (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/XMcan states you were blocked for “disruptive editing”. All I recall you doing during that discussion was not taking a hint that your opinions were solidly rejected, so I’m making an inference here. It’s hard to find the block notice when you’re constantly deleting your talk page entries with no archive. But the point isn’t the specifics, it’s the fact that you were blocked for disruptive editing about a particular topic on one page, then moved on to another page on the same topic. Either you stop dancing around the edges of your editing restriction, or you will eventually get some kind of stronger sanction. Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The assertion that I am “constantly deleting my talk page entries” is another gross misrepresentation, easily disproven by reviewing my Talk page history. Unfortunately, Dronebogus persists in their months-old campaign of distortions and mischaracterizations.[74] XMcan (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I delete some messages, especially if they look like canned warnings (which I think you understand are often considered patronizing to experienced users). I never delete block messages from admins, in the spirit of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

as i opined a few days ago there, a page-ban from an article should be considered a de facto ban from the topic in any other article. if we aren't willing to extend the blocking rules in that direction then a formal discussion of topicbanning XMCan from Cultural Marxism should be initiated here. ValarianB (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban for XMcan regarding cultural marxism. I'm not sure if this is the right venue for this, but seeing more experienced editors like Dronebogus say the same thing and that XMcan continues to sealion on the James Lindsay talk page then I also agree. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban for for XMcan regarding cultural Marxism. The repeated harping on XMCan alleged "sealioning" is an obvious example of failing to assume good faith by editors who are frustrated to have their opinions challenged. XMcan is fundamentally being punished for vocalizing a minority opinion, specifically a minority that challenges a leftist orthodoxy that is widely entrenched across Wikipedia in topic areas related to contemporary politics. And part of the reason his opinion is a minor one here and now is that other editors that might agree with him have been sanctioned in the past after having similar Kafka traps applied to them. Do we want to rinse and repeat that history or strive for a future of Wikipedia is that fairer both in treatment of it editors and its presentation of content? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure does feel like The Trial. XMcan (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about “leftist orthodoxy” being “widely enforced on Wikipedia” I’m just not gonna take your opinion seriously. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, I’m afraid. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I agree that reality has liberal bias. But the bias I'm talking about is leftist, not liberal (i.e. left of liberal), much like many of opinion sources that have been cited in the Lindsay article, e.g. Current Affairs, Jacobin. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) There is not an overwhelming number of “leftist […] opinion sources” cited in the article, even for “cultural marxism”. I’m seeing academic papers and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Plus I don’t think citing a leftist critique of someone misconstruing Marxism is necessarily a bad thing. I’ve seen right-leaning opinion sources cited for some topics as well— it’s just that this shouldn’t be one of them because serious academic literature strongly disputes their conclusions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) @Dronebogus, @Jweiss11, @Pokerplayer513, @MrOllie, @XMcan, anyone else I'm missing. Please stop arguing content here. It's absolutely 100% counterproductive to getting admin eyes on the issue. Could someone please collapse all this content stuff, I'm getting like 30 seconds of connectivity at a time. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it's probably time to consider some CT editing restrictions for James A. Lindsay. XMcan has made a suggestion that seems helpful. Perhaps a consensus required restriction for sources? (FTR, I am not closely following the entire huge discussion there; I'm out of town with spotty access and am only editing sporadically, I don't actually want to become the enforcing admin myself right now but would support someone else setting it.) Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need some sort of extraordinary solution implemented across any topics that could be construed as adjacent to “Cultural Marxism”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This might qualify for WP:CTOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirukz

This user initially wanted to promote a Chinese tech product. After that was speedily deleted, they are now posting random content in their talk page while linking a Thai casino site in some of their edits. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirukz (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NairaKanakMeera

The NairaKanakMeera (talk · contribs) appears to be sockpuppet of User:Kairakairav (who previously had 21 other puppet, all either containing "Naira", "Kuhu", "Kaira"). (Filed for investigation)

Constantly adding uncited information to articles Karna, Chandragupta Maurya, etc., Replacing sourced information with original research. Multiple warnings given by different users. No action taken and keeps doing disruptive edits without consulting.

.245CMR.•^👥📜 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians

Resolved

 – Reported user blocked indef and article listed at AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:YaquiWoman Has threatened legal action at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. They said "That is completely fine as we are having the Texas Band of Yaqui tribal attorney Mia get involved and we will be reaching out with a Seaze and desist letter." here. I've already reported at WP:AN3 but thought I should post here as well due to the legal threat. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by @Firefangledfeathers. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to overlook the circumstances that led to the legal threat. Will other editors and admins please take a look at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians? There are reasonable grounds for concern, as the article has many things to say about the group that will be interpreted negatively. The cited sources are not great, being mainly primary/government sources, a couple databases, and one news source that doesn't mention the group. This all may be fine, but I think more eyes would be good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Firefangledfeathers very much. I only saw what was being added but after reviewing, the article does appear to have issues that someone might be able to correct. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lodged an AfD on that article. From my point of view, no independent/reliable sources are provided, likely fails GNG. CSMention269 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@CSMention269 Closed as speedykeep. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Right of reply

Does a visitor leaving a comment on my personal talk page and subsequently erasing the reply function count as a cause for uncivility and ANI? I have had one user doing this in the past few hours during an argument with me twice on my talk page but am not sure whether I can file a report.

See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1207388774
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1207377589

Borgenland (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's odd behaviour, but I don't think they're attempting to remove a "right to reply". You don't need to use the Reply function to reply, you can just edit the section like any other on Wikipedia. I don't think personally I've ever used the "Reply" function so don't actually know how it works, but it looks like it's triggered by a four tilde signature insertion. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It just feels suspicious why they need to. Not to assume total bad faith but I do wonder the deliberate urge to make life harder on the part of the respondent by removing the tildes. Thanks though for the insight. Borgenland (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting their own signature in a subsequent edit is a common error made by new users. Please assume good faith, and keep Hanlon's razor in mind. They almost certainly did not mean to do anything malicious. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In all likelihood, they don't even realize they're doing it. At first glance it looks to me like they're just copyediting their comments, and affecting the notoriously buggy WP:DiscussionTools is just an accidental side effect. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll 5: Rio Heist

(Yes, my bilateral relations troll ANI messages are Fast and Furious references. Previous discussion about them here.)

So I once again caught the bilateral relations troll trying to make junk edits to see also sections... but this time, not bilateral relations pages, but rather "X in country" articles. IPs I've reverted so far are 50.48.224.60, 50.48.236.154 and 45.53.108.230. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP and admin involvement

There is an ongoing BLPVIO that have a large number of people, potentially including admins. Doug Weller (talk · contribs) for example warned me for 3RR while the other editor did four reverts and the admin can be seen coordinating with them. In addition, I think I was temporarily blocked but I don't see anything in the logs? This is WP:BLP territory with potential INVOLVED admins that needs other admins to investigate. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Forgot to put a section title on the talk page. Did not mean to delay, obfuscate, or annoy. Sorry. 🤦‍♂️ int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Int21h, you were last blocked in 2013, and that block was removed as it was in error. There are no recent blocks of your account. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Int21h, Doug Weller gave you a detailed response to your concerns, explaining that he is not an involved administrator in this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have the ability to purge logs? (It came up with my last block-in-error.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The log makes it clear that the 2013 block was an error. Nobody acting in good faith could possibly hold that 11 year old mistake against you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Int21h:, I'm sure int21h was blocked recently, they're just confused over the details. User:Doug Weller did block Special:Contributions/89.10.174.232 for 72 hours [75]. int21h if that was you, you're not allowed to use an IP to make edits in the same dispute per WP:LOUTSOCK. The editing patterns makes it hard for me to imagine this was an accident but in any case even if it was an accident you are responsible for any edits you make be they with an account or IP so pay attention to whether you're logged in or not. Note that it was an anon only and account creation block. So this block would not have affected any editing from your account, so you would have only seen that you were blocked when you tried to edit from the IP (or make a new account). If you want to continue to edit from your phone or tablet or whatever that IP is using, please log in to your int21h account. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And whatever any other editor is doing, I note that User:Int21h brought this here minutes after continuing a slow edit war.[76]., basically promoting the subject. Ironic that of my two edits there, one reverted the IP back to Int21h's version. The other was my reverting the IP whose edit summary said fixed typo while, as the later IP edit, changed "pseudoscience" to "science". I would like Int21h to justify their claim that there is a BLP violation in the removal of their edits. My view is that this is likely to end up, and probably should, with at least a partial block for promoting pseudoscience. Or at AE, I gave them an alert a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What of the four reverts and coordination with said editor? This concerns the Harold E. Puthoff article as an WP:ATTACK page. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Int21h Please answer my question about a BLP violation - and if the Puthoff article is an attack page, add a speedy delete tag to justify your claim - if it's deleted, as we do with attack pages, it will justify your claims. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, two way street; answer all these question without evasion. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how often does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? Totally get that woo woo or magic or whatever is your thing, what gets you going, but you are abusing your admin rights. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Derision is not going to help your case,please drop that. Warnings or sanctions may not be distributed according to your particular liking, that is not a cause for grievance, and this is not an example of administrative involvement. The IP was clearly being disruptive. You are editing in a topic related to pseudoscience; are you contending that energy extraction via zero-point energy is not pseudoscience, or at least a fringe topic, or that the use of that term is a BLP violation? I have left a CT notice on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion In fact I didn't have to give int21h a warning as they were taken to AN3 before, although no action was taking. Then of course there was the obvious editing logged out where the block of the IP made int21h think their account was blocked. User:ජපස certainly needs no warnings, they are aware of editwarring. I did post to their page but only to point out that their ct alert was made after mine and thus redundant. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice topic change on a reply. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how often does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I am not "contending that energy extraction via zero-point energy is not pseudoscience, or at least a fringe topic". I have been explicit about this multiple times and it's cluttering up multiple talk pages by woo woo and magic aficionados. And that wasn't a term that was an entire sentence. And it's a BLP article. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If it makes things easier, I warned myself about edit warring just in case the asymmetry felt unfair. jps (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Could people please take a look at this user talkpage?

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 talk:Jcheckler contains some extraordinary content and attacks on Doug Weller and myself, posted today. The post is a response to a warning from myself 12 days ago, where I asked the user to stop misusing talkpages and boards for political speech about things like the "Communist Total Enslavement Agenda against Humanity", or Wikipedia being an "untrustworthy bastion of special interest Leftism/ Liberalism/ neo-Marxism". I also called them out for antisemitic dogwhistles about the Rothschild family, international bankers, and "globalists". Their reply today states that, on the contrary, politics and religion ought to be discussed anywhere and everywhere at all times. Wikipedia has become "a Political, Religious and Ideological Bastion of Anti-American/ Anti-Human neo-Marxist Propaganda due to the Censorship of so-called power hungry authoritarian leftist "Administrators" who want to enforce their Agenda on Society as "Reliable Source" referenced fact". Specifically, Doug's userpage and mine, with their "juvenile authoritarian nutcase bizzare radical content" show our "brainwashed irrational immaturity". In fact, the two of us are probably the same person. When I warned Jcheckler a couple of weeks ago, I had doubts about their being here to build an encyclopedia; now I have more. But I don't think I'm the best person to sanction them. Could ANI readers please form their own opinion? Bishonen | tålk 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC).

• I have removed, and revision-deleted, their attacks, and warned them that any future attacks of this type will immediately lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• It must be exhausting being this guy. Just pedal to the floor, dialed up to 11 on the outrage meter (sorry, I meant Outrage Meter), 24/7/365. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  There might be more going on here than just the attacks. Edits such as this accusing family members of murder conspiracy and accusing the treadmill repair guy of intentionally sabotaging his treadmill are not the signs of someone who should be writing an encyclopedia. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• The subsequent responses to the removal (1 and 2) show no signs of understanding as to their disruption, and in effect equal a doubling-down. I have indefinitely blocked for being not here to build an encyclopedia, and I'd suggest that talk page access should be revoked should the generic ranting continue post-block as I expect it likely will. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would also have indeffed them for their misuse of capitalisation and capital letters. Why do these people always do that? Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The sad part is that he literally replied to the ANI message Bishonen sent by asking if he's supposed to be scared or if we're framing him of something he "didn't do." NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the cause comes partly from their dear leader's own erratic use of capital letters, and partly is an echo of the sovereign citizen belief that capital letters harbor secret and baleful powers. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the rants come across as if he is paranoid that everyone is out to get him (a common thing from those with extreme views). Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I always just shake my head every time I know someone is out to think that the world revolves around them and that they have power by putting capital letters. It just makes me... lose brain cells. Ugh. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I EnDoRsE this block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

.kcolb siht EsRoDnE I LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

i SeCONd ThAT Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Odd thing here is their editing history doesn't show any evidence of this. Has the editor just had a change of how they edit? Have they been hacked? It's rather odd to come back after a 6 month break and launch into long rants and accusations. They've only edited talk pages and went right to particular people and boards. They've barely used a talk page before this so it's very different behaviour from their previous edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They told me that they never sleep and are dying. But given their other comments on my talk page I don’t know what to believe. I was asked earlier if they should be blocked for their own sake. I couldn’t at that point but I think that being blocked is the best thing for them. See [77]. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There was this, eight years ago. Not with quite the same fervor, but something was showing, already then. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 14 February 2024 (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:Bobbylonardo not providing edit summaries, questionable edits

User:Bobbylonardo was created on September 10, 2023; their first 5 months as a Wikipedia editor have included nearly 2,000 edits, most of which are creations of redirects, additions of categories, or other minor and constructive revisions to the encyclopedia. I bring them up here because of a few concerning behavioral patterns:

1. They have never added an originally written edit summary to any of their edits, even after being asked on three separate occasions, by three different editors, including myself (1 2 3), to do so
2. They have added and removed the "Featured article" icon to several articles without following the procedure to do so (additions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11)
3. They have, on at least two occasions (1 2), added material to a talk page with the signature of another user.
4. They have been warned twice, by the same editor (1 2), about their additions of copyrighted content to an article about a television series. They have already been blocked once, on January 27, 2024, for "persistent addition of unsourced content".

I believe that this user can be a productive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and at the same time I am very concerned about their repeated failure to take any kind of feedback from the community, or to abide by the community's standards for edit summaries and cited information. White 720 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Two examples of content that this user added that likely violate copyright, and that the user has not yet been warned about:

1. This diff is copied from this IMDb page
2. This diff is copied from this DIRECTV episode guide page

White 720 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I investigated what was going on with their edits using other's signatures:

1. <This edit> was an almost exact copy of the top of another article's talk page as it is right now(Talk:Rosie's_Rules), with the signature replaced (original comment was added in <this edit> in 2022, which is a different name in the original because that user changed their username)
2. <This edit> was a copy of a previous warning on their page, by the correct user this time, but with some alterations: <original>.

Not sure what to make of this.

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC))

You must leave a notice on the talk page of an editor when you bring them to this page. (I have done so for you). ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobbylonardo&diff=prev&oldid=1206365293 White 720 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm used to seeing such warnings in sections on their own, and missed the one you placed there. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries! My edit is easy to miss, especially because I removed a duplicate comment that the user had added in that section at the same time as I issued an ANI notice. White 720 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is still not providing edit summaries White 720 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Admins lied to me and should be sanctioned for bad behavior

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.

---

Rant.

I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was very appalled with the unprofessional way that the users on that talk page conducted themselves. So now that my ip block has been lifted, I want to file a complaint on the matter and call for the users involved to be sanctioned. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page. My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla blatantly lied to me. My ip was banned from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my account. They were clearly on a power trip by making up this easy to debunk and obviously false lie. They clearly just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of that unjust block, so they tried to gaslight me. Shame on them. That behavior is unacceptable and is clearly worthy of sanction on its own. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page where they essentially admitted that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. This was a complete lie, I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for a completely fabricated reason. It was obvious that all 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. They clearly viewed me, as an ip editor, to be inferior and not worth dealing with in good faith. This behavior was absolutely disgraceful on their parts. Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla decided that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, but that was of no concern to Gaelan. He just wanted me gone, so he made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. This was another extremely flimsy excuse. I had made some mistakes on the talk page, but all of those edits were already undone and I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. And it was all on my own talk page, I was not vandalizing anything. Since that issue was already resolved, it’s clear that was not a good reason to have me blocked and was just another flimsy excuse. Again, these admins just didn’t want to deal with an ip editor. They wanted me gone. I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter decided not to remotely engage with any of my arguments, and instead just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. For no reason at all. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block. They completely ignored me. Once again, I was a mere ip user they didn’t care about. Of course they had no desire to deal with me. So, my request is that @OhNoitsJamie, Yamla, Deepfriedokra, Gaelan, and Berean Hunter: all be blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, the same amount of time my ip was wrongly blocked for. They blatantly lied to me and ignored my fair reasoning and requests I gave. They showed utter contempt for ip editors in the way that treated me. Since they wanted me unfairly blocked for 5 months, it’s only fair that these people all be blocked for 5 months in return. I very much hope getting a taste of what they have subjected ip editors to will help them learn to treat ip editors with actual fairness and respect in the future. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter hasn't even edited in 3.5 years. This block was 5 years ago. This is absurd, and I can only guess, a troll. I'm blocking the IP for 30 days. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown This OP IP is part of the BigBuilder1755/EpicTiger87 sock farm. They've posted this nonsense here multiple times under a range of accounts and IPs, e.g. [78]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, EpicTiger87 has previously tried to start a fight with me at DRN over trivial edits to John de Lancie, so if I assume this is the case (and it seems to be) then by all means, other editors/admin should review this block, as I might be considered "involved" even though I had no way of knowing when I made the block. Still looks like a troll to me, although *101's info might explain what flavor of troll they are. Dennis Brown 2¢ 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Solid block. I've also had to deal with this sock farm/LTA myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I remember seeing them talk about this same issue about a couple of weeks ago. I think Bbb23 had removed the topic or something??? I don't know. But yeah. I told the user that the admins were just trying to do their job. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm especially feeling really bad for Jamie since a couple of months ago, a disruptive user named Garrybcoston was making unconstructive edits to other pages and Jamie politely warned them not to, in which the user rudely responded back. That user has thankfully been blocked by PhilKnight but it still makes me feel guilty that someone would blame Jamie like this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  They are either trolling (likely) or they are so incompetent that they can't tell reality from their own thoughts, so pity them. Admin are used to getting blamed for obviously false things, no worries. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  True. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2024 (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.

(Courtesy link purely for archival purposes: Bbb23 removed a previous version of this thread: Special:Diff/1205555010). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination as hispanic

OP blocked and talkpage access removed for disruption and gross incompetence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editor @Netherzone has made a discriminatory question to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnovoa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) FYI  – Signed what appears to be an additional report made simultaneously with the one below. Remsense诉 03:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) No, that is in regards to a different user. Here is the questioning I am being asked by @Netherzone @Fjnovoa, based on your long messages here, I'm wondering, respectfully of course, about your English competency and ability to understand what is being said to you. May I please ask you why you have chosen to write these articles on English Wikipedia rather than on Spanish Wikipedia? Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] My respose Because I only used Spanish until I was 14 years old, and was sent to a boarding school in Gainesville, GA (Riverside Military Academy) due to the civil war that was going on in El Salvador. My Spanish is basic, used mainly for my research. I have resided in the USA since 1978, and used English for the last 46 years of my life, as my primary language. My daughter undergrad is a BA in English and assists me reviewing my articles. I have an undergrad BBA in Finance from the University of Texas @ Arlington, if you doubt my English comprehension and competence.  Why am I having this line of questioning? I can assure you I am not using any machine translation, Wow! Fjnovoa (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The above is a copy/paste from User talk:Fjnovoa#WP languages and English comprehension (permalink) where Netherzone asked whether Fjnovoa's contributions would be better on the Spanish Wikipedia. That kind of suggestion is needed with some contributors from time to time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Being yell at Header adjusted to level 3 to be within preceding topic, also created by the same user. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Wikipedia. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) No, a single word like that in all-caps is for extra EMPHASIS, not yelling. Like that. Zaathras (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) There has been multiple actions that can be reviewed in the Draft:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera article. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Fjnovoa, you have provided no diffs or pages, and any hardly any context so that others may easily understand what has happened. Here is the complete interaction history between the two users. Remsense诉 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong With regards to your comment "zero evidence of passing WP:NWRITER" Mr. Pedro Núñez Martínez, (https://urukeditores.com/autores/pedro-nunez-martinez/) a writer, went to the Costa Rica National Library to search and research about the subject. There he met with the director Ms. Laura Rodríguez , who referred him to Ms. Xenia Fonseca Quirós. The latter provided the copy of the cover of the subject's book "El Alma de la America Latina", and probably the library (Biblioteca Nacional "Miguel Obregón Lizano")there has copies of the other two books, "Colombia Autógrafa" and "Album de Autógrafos Hispano-Americanos" or the National Library of Colombia. You are welcome to contact them directly for your verification process. These are the three published books that support the evidece that the subject was a writer. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are STILL completely miss-understanding how Wikipedia works, we don't require verification or evidence as such and we certainly don't need any emails please remove them, we requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Wikipedia. Please do not attack me personally and let's stay focus on the article and the subject. In the recent past, I have expressed my exception to your subjective message labeling the article “family history project” and I stayed focused on my COI disclosure. I did not appreciate you erasing all my edits, regarding the subject's daughter’s donations when I was working to mitigate recommendations made by @Netherzone. I have apologized to you directly, for the minute-long mistaken edit I made to maintenance notes, in my attempt to produce a clean pdf copy for review support from history and writer academia scholars. And now your new response yelling and attacking me for my understanding level. Per your request, now I have removed the email addresses provided for additional verification of the subject’s three published books: "Colombia Autógrafa", "Album de Autógrafos Hispano-Americanos" and "The Soul of Latin America". Moreover, I have provided secondary citations and reliable sources regarding the subject published books with references #10, #11, #12, #13 and #14, which stands in juxtaposition to your message stating “zero evidence of passing WP:WRITER” Kindly and respectfully, it is my personal opinion as a contributor, that perhaps Wikipedia would be better served if you recused yourself from any further reviewing, if you have developed a bias against me and I am not feeling the impartiality coming from you and allow other fresh eyes to continue the review process, with regards to the subject's writer qualifications. There is an abysmal difference in the spirit and style of the constructive and guidance messages received from @Star Mississippi and @Netherzone in contrast to yours. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This report has absolutely no substance. A WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted, given that Fjnovoa appears to be a single-purpose account (and they have already been blocked on eswiki for this). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) I have been blocked unjustifiably, and have requested review and a user deletes my requests to keep me blocked. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Categorically, vehemently, and unequivocally, this is not a single-purpose account. 5 of my articles have been published and this is the six. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This appears to concern Draft talk:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera#zero evidence of passing WP:NWRITER. @Fjnovoa: You are wrong—the use of "STILL" was for emphasis and Theroadislong was merely trying to help by explaining basic procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. COI and CIR issues combined with unwarranted belligerence against editors who put a nontrivial amount of work into trying to help them. And it seems that they were already blocked for much the same on es.wiki, from their block log there: Cuenta con propósito particular: Lleva más de 10 años tratando de insertar a sus ancestros, aunque sean relevantes, asume una pertenencia falsa a los artículos (Single purpose account: Has spent more than 10 years trying to insert their ancestors, even when relevant they assume a false degree of importance to the articles). signed, Rosguill talk 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Unblock request declined and TPA removed. This was never going to stop, based on previous interactions across multiple wikis. This can probably be closed as resolved. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:山登 太郎

• 山登 太郎 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user seems to be causing some problems with articles about paleontology.

• Being single purpose account: All of the their edits are mostly about Satoshi Utsunomiya, a Japanese science writer and paleontologist. Satsuma-utsunomiya-ryu, Satsumayokuryu and Draft:Satsumamukashiumigame are all his discoveries. It looks like this is just promoting him.
• Machine (AI-using?) translation: Additionally, these pages are all machine translations of Japanese Wikipedia pages by the same user, probably using a GPT-type service. This results in disjointed content and mistranslations of researchers' names. (For example, Yasuhisa Nakajima is mistranslated as "Yasutoshi" or "Hoju")
• Reverting articles: Nevertheless, this user seems to have a tendency to revert to his version when his page is edited. [79] Similar behavior was seen on the Japanese version of Wikipedia.[80]
• Copyright violation: This user has uploaded an image that copyright is fairly unclear.[81][82] When I removed the image from the page, the user claimed that he owned the copyright to the image. They do not wanted to provide any proof of that.[83] At least this user doesn't seem to understand the guidelines for uploading images to Commons.
• In the Japanese version of Wikipedia, they caused problems such as deleting page maintenance templates, altering/removing other user's comments, and posting articles in other languages ​​to Japanese Wikipedia.[84]

For the above reasons, I believe that some treatment should be taken against this user. Some of the articles created by this user seem to be noteworthy, but even if I try to improve the page, this user will revert it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I myself take sanctions such as blocks seriously, but there is no crime in the article. 山登 太郎 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User: DaDefeender constantly making disruptive edits on the Asim Munir page.

• DaDefeender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asim Munir (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@DaDefeender has been making multiple disruptive edits on the Asim Munir (general) page over a series of weeks. He has been warned and notified several times, and attempts have been made to communicate with him on the talkpage productively, but to no avail. Multiple other users have also taken note and asked him for his reasoning which is often the same repetitive argument of removing bias despite the information he’s removing containing verifiable sources.

Examples of his disruptive editing:

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] VirtualVagabond (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Having made one revert of a removal by another editor on that page recently, I should probably not act on this myself, but it is clear that DaDefeender is edit warring on the page and is ignoring invitations to discussion. The edit summary name correction when removing multiple sections of cited information is also a likely indication that further action is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 13:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for edit warring. Only 24 hours for now, but was tempted to also block from that page. Lets see where this goes as they have at least found their keyboard based on edit summaries, even if they haven't understood what reliable sources means and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request not appeaing on list

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.

---

YoloMc8562 has had an unblock request open for over a week, but is not listed at Category:Requests for unblock. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And responded to -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2024 (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:Phrasia

• Phrasia (talk · contribs · logs)

User was given a 1RR restriction when unblocked a month ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive358#Unblock/unban request from Phrasia, and has restored the same content (a list of songs sourced to fansite ddrfreak.com) twice to Music of Dance Dance Revolution today. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• • Just to give my side of the situation, to my knowledge, the restriction was not breached. The restriction is geared towards edit-warring, which isn't the case. It is a list article, and the article is very much incomplete/missing content (there is even a template notice which I didn't even add mind you, which explains this). Dance Dance Revolution is a complex subject, (there are thousands of songs that were featured in the series, and that's just the Arcade/amusement side of it, not to mention console and home releases and other event editions such as Disney versions etc.) It seems fan sites, video game blogs, message boards aren't reliable sources. However, maybe an exception should be made, because a similar series Pump It Up has sources from music game fan sites. etc. I did one revert, and that is my only revert, and if my edit was reverted again, then so be it. I'm now looking into getting further help, so my contributions are included on that article, if there is still controversy/discrepancies (which I mentioned on the articles talk page). Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    This first edit could also be understood as a revert, as, even if some parts were technically slightly different, you brought back the vast majority of what the previous editor removed. This, along with your unambiguous revert bringing back the same content minutes later, could be seen as breaking the 1RR. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    Only technically different in one part: their first edits today added 12k of songs sourced to TV Tropes, YouTube and ddrfreak.com. When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added the same content back minus two reference tags (see a diff of their two edits). When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added it back again. Belbury (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    The fact that these long lists of information on other music game articles are sourced to fan sites, etc. does not indicate that we should continue to do so. I've asked folks over at WP:WikiProject Video games and gotten similar criticism for doing the same on different individual entries of Beatmania IIDX. Reconrabbit 13:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Phrasia is a net benefit to the project. Their editing since being unblocked has been riddled with problems. I'm concerned that even after years of editing Wikipedia they do not seem to grasp basic principles like verifiability and reliable sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User resorting to insults

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.

---

After creating an attack page which was speedily deleted, @Femzino Must Go is now trying to defame me, stating "Get off my d--k, b---h!" and threatening to ban me when I linked Wikipedia:No personal attacks to him. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's bad. Oh well, they got indefed by Stwalkerster for WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:54, 14 February 2024 (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.

My edits are always reverted in List of X-Men members page.

My username is @Ringardiumleviossa and I am here to seek advice and do complaint regarding an incident. I have been trying to edit List of X-Men members page from last week but one @hotwiki keeps reverting it. I gave all the reasons and I even backed off when I was informed of the certain rules. I "indirectly" got to know that every single of my edits need a refences or talk discussion even if it is a grammatical correction edit (while others don't). And I was made to talk in talk page for even editing a grammatical mistake. I was made to ask to consensus in the talk page for my reverted edit, where mostly this editor decides what is going to be in the page and what not. And whenever I mentioned them, they started calling that I am personally attacking them, by simply mentioning what is happening? Please see/read this Captain Krakoa and Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members. These talks are effecting negatively to me as because of that, I left editing for a day but now I am on the verge of leaving Wikipedia. I can't even think enough what to write in this report because it is too much, I can't even think what is right and wrong while contributing in Wikipedia pages. I need an administrator for HELP regarding this incident and take some action whether on me or on that editor on the basis of rules and regulation only or resolve this issue. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you've encountered ownership of Marvel/DC-related pages? It's definitely a thing... welcome to Wikipedia. My sympathies. It's definitely an issue on pop culture pages, and comics pages seem to be the worst. I've recently been told that the WP:MOS instructions on words and phrases to avoid doesn't apply to superhero TV show pages. /shrug. Not an admin, so I'll wait and see what advice you get. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You were reverted simply because of unreferenced edits. You made a dozen of edits in that article without leaving a reference in the article. The article is already tagged for needing reliable sources in the first place. Then when Ringardiumleviossa was asked to provide a reference - their immediate response was "look up the Wikipedia article of those articles". How is that complying to Wikipedia rules about posting reliables. Then questioned me in the talk page of the article, if they should always add references whenever they make an edit (such as adding "nicknames"). Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what happened, that is why I added the talk pages in my report. I can't do this anymore, not with you (sorry). After this article, I am going to retire from Wikipedia. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also if you check Talk:List of X-Men members, I took my time and discuss things to Ringardiumleviossa as civil I could do. The user was throwing personal digs whenever I had an disagreement with their edits, stating that I wasn't letting them edit the article which isn't true. There was also a time in the talk page when the editor, called me bias, simply because of the content posted in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because every edits of mine were reverted, even the ones done separately, even grammatical corrections, even reliable sources were not accepted. I kindly request administrator to check the talks and resolve this situation and let's not get this discussion too long and wait. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like inform that a lot from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal in the talk page (Talk:List of X-Men members) were implemented in the article (List of X-Men members in the past few days, such as adding nicknames to characters, making sub sections, Wikipedia links to comic book titles, etc. So its not true, that the user's changes were simply reverted and discarded. I personally took my time to read the editors' long proposal in the talkpage. Out of all the members that were pinged by the editor, I was one of the only two editors who responded to the editor's proposal. The things I agreed with, were discussed and later implemented in that article. When Ringardiumleviossa asked me directly (in the talkpage of List of X-Men members) to remove certain things (such removing characters), I communicated back and removed those certain things per the editor's request in the talkpage. So its not true that the editor's edits were just simply reverted. A lot of recent changes that remain in the article, came from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal in the talkpage, which went to extensive discussion between me and that editor. Hotwiki (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hotwiki only added names and linked pages because another editor responded positively to that proposal. You were against it before. For example, just like you are against and revert every update on the current X-Men lineup like when I did bold face on Polaris (while other editors' edited reverts can be seen in the history). I know when to back off but you are controlling this like it is your own. I am going to semi-retire now so I won't be able to answer anymore for a day or two. Administrator also check the references provided above mentioned talks and once again I request @Hotwiki to not get this discussion long like we did in the previous ones. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I also added sub sections per your proposal in the talk page. You've directly asked me in the talk page, to remove certain characters in the article, which I did right after you gave me a reference which I asked. So I was cooperating with you in that article. You are painting me as if all of your contributions in that talk page/article was ignored/reverted which is false. Your edits today were reverted simply because they were unreferenced, and I immediately brought it up in the talk page to resolve. Yet you still haven't provided any references to back up those changes. Hotwiki (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I just want to point out before this is closed/archived, that @Hotwiki had left another reply here, but it got deleted ~4 minutes later(diff) when Ringardiumleviossa edited this reply. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:38D2:9DB2:69B3:BEE3 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've restored the comment. Schazjmd (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this is an content dispute, and this is an area that focuses on behavior not arbitrating what content is preferable. While there can be a lot of problems with making significant changes on an article with a lot of vested contributors, you also proposed a huge list of things and gave very little time for a discussion, so I can understand editors like @Hotwiki getting annoyed. And some of the changes have problems, like introducing a whole bunch of MOS:QUOTENAME awkwardness into the mix. Not all the arguments that you've made have been helpful, either; you got testy very quickly about being asked for sources, for example, and did not always react well to pushback. It's not helpful in a conversation to in multiple places directly or indirectly declare that the discussion and the page aren't worth your time.

I know you're making a good faith effort to improve this page, but it would be helpful to take the temeprature down a notch. There are no deadlines here and you proposed a lot of massive changes on a mature, stable page. I would suggest taking a break from this area, and if you're still interested in improving the page, focus on a smaller number of well-sourced edits, rather than a wholesale restructuring that doesn't have support. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Ringardiumleviossa blocked as a sock puppet of Nekivik (talk · contribs). It's kind of obvious from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa that Nekivik decided to create a sock to double-vote in AfDs and "win" content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

IPs seems to be WP:NOTHERE

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

---

These IPs, who seem to be associated with each other, struggle with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. They also edit war frequently, and throw around baseless accusations.

2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0

• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]

107.10.129.126

• [97]
• [98]

-- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A previous discussion at Ritchie333's usertalk page: User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#Help! may be relevant to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(I've assuming the two IPs are the same editor given the same ISP and geolocation, which can be fine, IPs change.) On the plus side, on both of the current articles (Blue discharge and Shenna Bellows) they appear to have stopped at three reverts. On the other side, I'll share a few diffs that involved me (may be some overlap from the original report). I believe I had reverted a single edit of theirs on Blue discharge, with the edit summary of seems well cited in body (also use T:CN to tag inline in future) diff, and they responded on my talk page with Edit war. You vandal. diff. After they attacked another editor on their talk page (lol you dorks are too funny diff and a new section named Being a fake republican said doesn't help. diff) I decided to issue a warning and after I shared diffs with them upon request, they responded with You are a vandal. That isn't an attack. It is a matter of fact statement. It would be an attack if it were untrue, but you are vandalizing my talk page right now. You don't seek to make wikipedia a better place, you don't follow policy, you vandalize and deceive. diff. I want to WP:AGF but honestly I nearly reported them to AIV or ANEW when the bulk of this was happening. Skynxnex (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more diffs: IP 2603:6011 blanked the ANI notice at their usertalk at 01:27, 16 February 2024 [99], reverted at the Shenna Bellows article at 01:29, 16 February 2024 [100] (previous reverts were at 17:43, 15 February 2024 [101], 05:53, 15 February 2024 [102], 05:38, 15 February 2024 [103]) and then commented at IP 107.10.129.126's usertalk at 01:30, 16 February 2024 lol, nice vague threat. [104] beneath the ANI notice.

Also, I posted a request at RFPP based on the persistent disruptive editing by various IPs over the past month at the Bellows article; the page is semi-protected for 1 month and 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 is blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. Beccaynr (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

|}

Disruptive editing of disambiguation pages

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: has been engaged in the mass "drive-by" tagging of disambiguation pages. I was prepared to accept this as in good faith, but recent events indicate that it is not, and the editor is not listening to advice. As context, in November 2023 the editor tagged hundreds of pages that he had found with a report, tagging them {{One other topic}}: there are 687 left in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic from November 2023. This is all very well but was done indiscriminately without regard to what a better alternative might be. Most of my editing (hundreds of edits) in Dec 23/Jan 24 has been going through these pages and cleaning up dozens of these pages and removing the tags. I'd say about 75% were tagged legitimately as pages that could be deleted, the others should have been improved, not tagged. I reverted only two cases, discussed at User talk:NmWTfs85lXusaybq#Edit reverts, a discussion I decided to walk away from. So far so good, and not actually disruptive.

The editor then set about redirecting hundreds of disambiguation pages that contain two entries, but one of which is a redlink. This has created dozens of problems and at my rate of progress it will take months to resolve. @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse: notified me of a list of such edits: [105]. Among the issues are:

• The blanking and redirect of WP:SIAs and {{shipindex}} pages are incorrect because these pages are not disambiguation pages. I have not had time to go through them, but from the contributions above, those that involve the names of ships are wrong and need to be reverted. A selection: [106], [107], [108]. All of this is disruptive and will take time to manually revert if that is appropriate.
• The blanking and redirect of pages "Foo" citing WP:PRIMARYRED has left behind dozens of cases where there were incoming redirects of the form "Foo (disambiguation)". Dozens of the entries at the report here here are caused by NmWTfs85lXusaybq redirecting a page but not tagging the incoming redirect as WP:G14. Not in itself disruptive, but deleting my note on their Talk page here [109] indicates bad faith.
• In many cases where a page had two entries, one blue link and one redlink, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has blanked and redirected to the blue link. This doesn't necessarily improve the encyclopedia because it deletes entries which with some improvement are legitimate. In many of these case I have reverted, and instead improved the page by finding a blue link to match the redlink. One egregious case is Tullycarnan. It is blanked and redirected here [110] to Tullycarnan (Ardglass). This in itself is wrong because if there were only one Tullycarnan, Tullycarnan (Ardglass) should have been moved to "Tullycarnan". It's also wrong because the associated incoming redirect Tullycarnan (disambiguation) was not tagged G14, and so a bot erroneously redtargeted it to Tullycarnan (Ardglass). I come along, revert the blank and redirect, and improve the page here [111] by finding a blue link to accompany the redlink. My efforts are rewarded by a revert [112]. There might be a primary topic, but the situation is now doubly wrong: Tullycarnan (Ardglass) is at the wrong title, and there is no hatnote or indication of the existence of "Tullycarnan (Witter), a townland in Witter (civil parish) in County Down, Northern Ireland". My edits to other pages, which I consider improve pages rather than blanking and redirecting them, have been reverted: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]

A third party may consider, as I do, that these latest reverts are ill-considered and consistent with an attitude of mass-tagging without properly thinking through and following up actions.

All of this seems like gnomery, and I've learned how to do it properly over many years. I have tried discussing with NmWTfs85lXusaybq but twice my Talk page comments have been blanked. I am now of the opinion that they won't listen to me and, on the whole, this editor's mass tagging of pages is not making the encyclopedia better.

Perhaps I should try harder to communicate, but I prefer to spend my time editing rather than dramatising, and this editor isn't listening. What would I like? An independent review of those latest edit reverts, and for this editor to slow down, stop mass tagging, and instead apply a tag only where it makes the encyclopedia better and the page cannot be otherwise improved.

(I'm going to stop editing for a few days and quietly do something else instead, so please ping me, but note I'm taking a break.) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have time today to get too deep into this, but on the surface, this looks like a problem, erasing a lot of db pages without discussion, and doing it at a pretty fast rate. Too fast to be manual, and I'm not sure what tools they are authorized to use. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Although I have tried to discussed with Shhhnotsoloud here, but the response only states that they intentionally refused to "get the point": It doesn't say that, and it doesn't mean that. It just says there's no agreement. You don't agree with me. That doesn't mean you can delete my work. Therefore, I can't see this as in good faith any more.
• The issue of mass blanking and redirect of SIAs has already been discussed, please see these archives: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_74#SIA_pages_-_G14_deletion and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_86#Was_there_an_unintended_change_in_scope_of_G14?. I can't believe most of edits are still there but I'm willing to revert them myself.
• The discussion of involved automated edits was Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully_automated_edits_without_BRFA_-_Request_for_assistance.
• As for the primary topic of WP:2DAB, there's an argument against WP:NOPRIMARY that was used by Bastun on Stardew and was also supported by Pppery: Disambiguation pages should only exist where we have articles on all of the entries. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I’m meant to be on wikibreak right now due to my mental health so I can’t get too deep into this, but for reference for admins reading this thread, see also a section I opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard about this editor - Special:Permalink/1206975100#Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance (Permalink is to the revision of the page before the section was automatically archived). Given I opened that thread, I consider myself an involved editor with regards to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, but I really think something needs to be done here. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have self-reverted WP:BLAR of SIAs as per

  the update on WP:G14. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• As I'm mentioned above, note my involvement on Stardew was part of New Pages Patrol, where it had showed up. IIRC, it had previously been (correctly, in my opinion) a redirect to Stardew Valley, and was turned into a disambiguation page to that article and to a relatively obscure album containing a non-notable song by the name of Stardew (so no link to anything called Stardew). I think I linked to WP:NOPRIMARY in error, and should have linked to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bastun: I reverted those WP:2DABs with only one extant article to a primary redirect per your note. If this looks good to you, I may consider swapping them back to their base name and cleaning up the related hatnotes per Shhhnotsoloud's request. However, according to the comments they left on my talk page, they tried to force me to do that without a firm consensus which is against the guideline WP:PAGEMOVER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not interested a bit in technical stuff and in "Wiki trials", but NmWTfs85lXusaybq has edited in a haughty manner that has unnecessarily created lots of waste of time for me among several fellow editors. I mean this move here - no explanation, no ping, no arguments. N.B.: I did of course offer an explanation in the edit summary for my own move when I made it, and editor Aintabli, who is very familiar with the topic and the region, has went along and just added parantheses ("Horon dance" becoming "Horon (dance)"). NmW... then went on to practically set the stage for the removal of Horon (disambiguation) by decreeing here the dance to be the primary topic - again: no ping, no arguments, just stating it's a "cleanup per MOS:DAB" - and then slapping a "one other topic" tag on it. It's like in the joke with the cowboy who shoots everybody at a wedding and then asks the bride: "All by yourself, pretty lady?" There is imho NO self-evident reason why a deity whose name shows up in the Bible should be a lesser topic than a dance from northern Turkey, but that can be discussed, of course if allowed by NmW. I managed to fix it, but it was a clear waste of time better used elsewhere, as is this whole message here. To me it looks like NmW is on an unrestrained crusade, my way or the highway, focused on one narrow aspect, w/o accepting the basic superior principle of "making Wiki better", nor of discussing rather than making all by himself final pronouncements based on little or nothing. Arminden (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Are you trying to complain about everything here? It's Amakuru who reverted undiscussed change of primary topic on Horon made by Aintabli (see Special:History/Horon (dance) after the swap). Thus, I have to swap Horon (dance) back to the base name per WP:MISPLACED. As for the dab, I didn't make any revert. Have Amakuru ever left you a ping? If this dab is so important to you, just add it to your watchlist instead. In addition, Shhhnotsoloud are complaining for not cleaning up the pages related with Tullycarnan but you're trying to do so for cleaning up the pages related with Horon. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I don't want to comment on anything related to behavior but just wanted to correct something. That article was actually titled "Horon (dance)" for quite some time until "I" requested its renaming to "Horon" at WP:RMT in December last year. A few days ago (exactly 2 months later), Arminden readded "dance" (the disambiguator), because Hauron is commonly spelled as "Horon", which I was initially unaware of. And then, I have readded the parentheses. Overall, this was kind of a revert of the initial move I requested back in December which removed the disambiguator. There wasn't a thorough discussion about the primary topic. I hope this clarifies the possible misunderstanding at least partially. Aintabli (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Aintabli: Should you make an RMT requested that the disambiguator "(dance)" be added back? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  It will probably be moved to the contested requests section given that it has been moved for multiple times and there is an apparent dispute here. I suggest that a move discussion is started at the article's talk page to save us time as it will be the inevitable outcome of RMT. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• NmWTfs85lXusaybq, those discussions weren't exactly widely attended, so they are not at all convincing that this is with consensus. I'm not taking a side on whether or not they should have been made, I'm just saying there is cause for alarm here. That doesn't address one concern I have, which is the speed of which you are making changes. What tools are you using? I asked this before, but you didn't say. And if you ARE making edits against consensus, this would be a worse problem, as you are doing it at breakneck speed. You have racked up a lot of edits in the short time that you have been at Wikipedia, which makes it very time consuming to check your activities. Dennis Brown 2¢ 23:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the tool WP:PAWS I used (but not using any more), both a smart kitten and I have already cited the discussion Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully_automated_edits_without_BRFA_-_Request_for_assistance (later unarchived). If you want to get a little deeper into this, you can go through that thread and raise any further issues there. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Trolling of various articles by HelperHelper1 after last warning

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.

---

HelperHelper1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [124] [125] (both of those after final warning), almost all of their contributions have been reverted and are about 21st-century politics, NPOV violations [126], clearly NOTHERE and probably a troll. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2024 (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:NorthCheam

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.

---

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

This user has been vandalising, inserting POV, and adding unsourced content across several articles, despite warnings to stop.

I first noticed when they vandalised the article for the founder of Parkrun, Paul Sinton-Hewitt, by changing his name to Andrew Tate. They then left an edit summary saying "bring back the Parkrun statistics". For context, Parkrun has recently removed some statistics from their website, which this user is clearly agitated about.

Following this, they then introduced unsourced POV on [[Parkrun]] by stating that Parkrun had removed the statistics "without consulting participants" and that the move was "widely condemned", all without a source.

A discussion ensued on the Parkrun talk page about the suitability of mentioning a petition about the issue. NorthCheam engaged in the discussion, but prosecuted their opinion in the edit summaries of their replies, and when editing the main article as well. In one diff, they left the edit summary The petition now up to 15000. Bring back the stats parkrun. God bless parkrun volunteers and participants. Peace and love. When replying on the talk page, they replied with My aim is not to vanadlize but to put in the (well referenced) major story., but left as the edit summary Clarification. Bring Back the Stats. Parkrun HQ (salaried team) did it without consulting event directors or runner on the proposed changes. Claimed it was for inclusion reasons even though no one complained about the statistics according to Paul Sinton Hewitt. This is a disconnect between saying they are only acting to put in notable content, but then clearly prosecuting their own POV in edit summaries.

NorthCheam has also left unsourced inappropriate POV on other articles. On the A219 road, in this diff, they added text about the speed limit, saying it was "a ridiculously low 20 mph (after being 40 15 years ago),.

Most recently, they disruptively edited Andrew Tate, changing "criticism" to "strong praise" in the lead. They then made it even worse, changing their own edit to "strong praise from an enormously wide array of advocacy groups, parents, teachers and world leaders.".

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. GraziePrego (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked NorthCheam as not here to build an encyclopedia. Deliberate and malicious vandalism of a biography of a living person is unacceptable, as is axe grinding and POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2024 (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:Yamanhunyaar persistently making disruptive edits

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

---

• User:Yamanhunyaar has been making persistent disruptive edits to the Gondi people page, as can be seen in its history: [127]. This user has been warned more than once, to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked índefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. See also their hoax userpage which has several times been deleted, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Hirai Atram, an article created by Yamanhunyaar and now deleted as a source-free hoax (full transparency: deleted by me). And various warnings on the user's page. Bishonen | tålk 01:55, 16 February 2024 (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 - Repeated use of bare URLs, use of fake citation titles and lack of communication

I'm reporting 80.192.53.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because honestly I'm at a loss with this IP... they have been providing useful edits for a while under a couple of different IPs (which is of course normal), but have consistently either used bare URLs for citations and other times made up fake titles for sources... examples are below. I've tried multiple times, from November 2023 to today, to engage this user on their talk page, but have not once received any kind of acknowledgement. They have only once left a message on my talk page, about an unrelated issue - and I prompted them to read their messages on their talk page... but nothing has happened. Is there something that can be done to get this user to communicate, instead of other users having to tidy up their edits every time?

Bare URLs:

• [128] - bare URL with title "6435 gets new owner", requiring manual removal before a bot like ReFill2 can be used
• [129] and [130] - both bare URLs with custom title, again requiring manual intervention instead of a bot
• [131] - Again, bare URL with title

Examples of fake titles:

• [132] - IP used "45690 to visit EOR" when the article linked was titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced"
• [133] - IP used "5593 On sale" with an article titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced". They also used this in another article with the titles "5593 On sale" and "7760 On sale", and another with the title "7760 On sale".

Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I haven't linked each and every issue... In my eyes this is more a lack of communication than a behavioural issue - I would be more than happy to show the user how to easily add citations properly, but I can't seem to get through... Danners430 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to prevent LCSB archiving the discussion before someone is able to weigh in Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Danners430, bare URLs have some problems, but adding them isn't actually a violation of any policy or guideline. Editors, especially inexperienced editors, need to do their best. Sometimes their best is a bare URL. Wikipedia:Citing sources says that "what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed." If you don't personally WP:VOLUNTEER to be one of those "others", then that's 100% okay, but this is our standing offer to editors: Do your best to tell us what the source is, and we'll help. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means we help each other out.

(Also, the first diff isn't a bare URL. Perhaps you pasted the wrong diff there?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s fair… I understand if it’s not against policy, that’s just how things are - is there a way to get them to engage and respond to messages left on their talk page? I was under the assumption that WP:COMMUNICATION was a policy.

Also, where do we stand on the fake titles? Danners430 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fake titles are a bit complicated, because sometimes you see one headline in the news app, a different one on the website, and the title displayed on the webpage is different from the one displayed at the top of the tab/in the HTML. And that's assuming the website doesn't change the title. So sometimes what looks like a fake title isn't actually fake.

That said, these particular titles feel to me (subjectively, based on my own experience) like something that was just a simple description made up by an editor. Although one might be able to argue that they are what Wikipedia:Further reading describes as "brief notes about the sources" (which "may be helpful"), we don't usually encourage people to make up descriptions instead of pasting in a real page title. The page title is far more useful for combating link rot than a made-up description.

WP:COMMUNICATION is, as the tag says at the top of the page, an essay. But it's still a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What can be done then? Editors are constantly having to tidy up after this user, and they consistently ignore any and all attempts to communicate… how is this a user that’s participating constructively? Danners430 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Constantly tidying up after each other" is what it means to volunteer in a collaborative project. If this particular bit of tidying up irritates you, then leave it for someone else.

Of course it's frustrating when you think that a quick message would change their behavior into something more convenient. But sometimes I think that what we get is already the best people can realistically do. Someone who can't figure out how to talk to us (something that took you eight years? Your first edit was in September 2012, and your first edit to a Talk: page was in December 2020) is not necessarily someone who's going to be able to handle complex formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, and very much understood… it’s not necessarily annoying for me to make these edits to improve the cites, the annoyance is just the lack of communication. I do see your point about user ability though. Life goes on :) Danners430 (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98/Archive Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see the link… although that could just be my caffeine-lacking brain first thing in the morning! Danners430 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

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

---

A person with user name User:Vikepro is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference. In his profile earlier he praise BJP and scolded Congress by citing fake scam and corruptions. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. Please take proper steps against him. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you are required to notify editors when you open a thread on them. As per the top of the page. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment two steps above appears to be posted later than the comment below, who appears to be the actual OP. Of course, Vikepro didn't notify this user either. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Might have been my issue in merging the sections. But there's also the empty section, so not entirely sure what either is up to besides edit warring. Star Mississippi 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

A person with user name User:Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference.I am continuously adding citations about the added article and this user repeatedly removing my article without any proper reasons. Evrytime i am giving proper reasons for my act but this user never bothering fo give reasons to remove my article. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. This user is new in Wikipedia as this user joined this platform 26 days ago. I think this user is paid that's why he is spreading fake information.Please take proper steps against him.Vikepro (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have full-protected Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance for a week. You're both edit warring. If the disruption continues to move elsewhere, you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sir, i have added the valid citations so wheres my fault? The other editor who is removing my content is not giving any reasons and valid citations. Its mean the ither user is doing vandalism. You can research the news articles which i have given in the citations then you will realise that who is correct. Vikepro (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Can I ask for a favor? @Vikepro created a user page at the other user with a WP:PA in edit summary. Could you delete the page as it wasn't created by them [134]? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done @DaxServer. That's unsurprisingly, what lead to the prior block: User_talk:Vikepro#November_2023 cc @UtherSRG Star Mississippi 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  This comment of theirs is concerning aswell. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  On second look, both are still edit warring. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours and @Vikepro for two weeks following an earlier one week block. Leaving longer form notes on their Talks. Star Mississippi 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi The user is just editing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a political party only, [135] Please have a look to this link at last he has written (जय भारतीय जनता पार्टी means Hail Bharatiya Janta Party) and also please see [136]and [137] Here Congress Mukt Bharat is political slogan which denotes end the Congress Party from India. He has defamed a particular party and promoted another political party. Please check his userpage history which is full of promotion and defamation. And many of his edits were disrupting other political alliances by removing some strong parties from it or decreasing its seats tally. And he was increasing seats tally of his favorable alliances. His given sources were not conveying the related claim.

• [138] He is also calling admins "stupid" and "leftist" on @Shaan Sengupta's Talk page. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is now WP:NPA. Admins, grab the mop. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  He has already been blocked. Star Mississippi 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  There're some blind BJP supporter users like him. Who're continuously doing such disruptive edits. Spread wrong information. They use to attack INC and INDIA related topics. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Great person he is. All admins are communist. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (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.

Lightburst at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

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 feel like this needs no introduction since it's been the talk of the town, but Lightburst's conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb has been bad, to say the least. From threatening to oppose for tampering with the vote to actually doing it, to saying Amanda's action of striking the mother of all aspersions was out of process, I think it's beyond unacceptable. Thus, I propose a topic ban on requests for adminship for Lightburst, which has been a long time coming since weird RfA conduct has happened at multiple RfAs (and there was one on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2 that I can't access because it was oversighted), only culminating in this "protest vote" today. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Lightburst RfA TBAN)

• Support as proposer. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Upon reading the diffs and thread, I'm seeing what LilianaUwU means about disruptive behavior. The behavior seems contrary to the purposes of the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Tampering with votes is disruptive (senseless votes should be ignored, not removed). If all involved simply ignored the lone oppose vote, there would have been no drama in the first place. Pavlor (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lightburst's conduct has been less than ideal and I hope they take heed of this before sanctions become inevitable. But casting unpopular !votes is not in itself disruptive. I believe that WP:Thank you for your vote should be standard practice and that violating it is far more disruptive than protesting its violation. Oppose-badgering is the most disruptive thing that happens in a typical RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support The RfA vote in question was not based on sincere concerns about the actual candidate's fitness to serve, but was rather a pointy protest vote that functioned only to get people further riled up. It also served to draw more attention to an evidence free (so far) personal attack on the candidate, giving the nasty aspersions undeserved credibility. That vote was either trolling or the functional equivalent of trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that this conduct has been less than ideal, but c'mon, folks: RfA has been broken for twenty years, and people have been allowed to get away with far more disruptive and specious voting over long periods of time (Kurt Weber, anyone?). Beyond that, stop and think here: are we really analyzing an editor's voting record to ensure they're doing so for the "right" reasons, and place restrictions on them if we don't like what they have to say? Ravenswing 08:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I see this similar to Thebiguglyalien and Ravenswing. Disagreeing with an admins/bureaucrats decision isn't against policy. And their vote is just 1 out of 250. If you want to warn them for tampering with the vote and for the language they used, sure. But their votes are fine. Nobody (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - over-reaction or what? This is an attempt to police !voting and as such is unpalatable. Ingratis (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the behaviour is disruptive but did not brake the system. A good troutingwhaling will do to. The Banner talk 10:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His right to be point-y, having a less-than-stellar rationale is hardly grounds for a TBAN. AryKun (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if anyone should/have been sanctioned, it's Homeostasis07 who made the original unfounded allegation of one of the worst thoingbs an editor can do, and then lied about having evidence. For various reasons (mainly due to only a minority of crats having the resolve to do anything about it, while others seemingly believe either that was acceptable behaviour or that it's not their job (!!!)), Homeostasis07 has, of yet, received no sanction at all and yet created the drama in the first place. So those who posted because of it can hardly receive a greater sanction, whatever they may/may not have done in the past. ——Serial 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose everyone made their Point there. Let's move on. Star Mississippi 14:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I really couldn't care if they threaten to move to oppose: there are already over 225 supports. One oppose does not matter, I would need to see a lot more than that to have a TBAN. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose but agree with Serial that Homeostasis should have received a sanction, and that the ability to make such accusations without evidence or consequences is one of the reason why RfAs are the hellscape they are today. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, "even more votes must be removed/prevented" is the wrong lesson to take from this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the need for sanctions here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floquenbeam. The Night Watch (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above. It's a slippery slope. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The posting of voting rationales in the support or oppose sections should be banned, but for everyone, not just for individual editors. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Lightburst has been vocal about (known) issues with the RfA process, and also been concerned about striking of votes. (In the latest example, Amanda could have struck the aspersions, warned the editor, and left the actual vote. And we wouldn't have had this blow up quite so much). I see no need for a ban. ResonantDis_tortion 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hardly TBAN-worthy. Suggest that this be withdrawn. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:51, 16 February 2024 (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.

Proposed blocking of User:Ілля_Криворучко

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.

---

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

On their talk page, – there is a pattern of articles being moved to the draft space among other disruptive work. They were also warned for potential blocking due to being engaged in an edit war. Recently, I moved their article to the draftspace as it had no content. There is a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue, so I'm proposing a temporary block. TLA (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a proper edits to the draft. Thanks for your redirect to draft and recommendations. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For Draft:Inna Makhno and Draft:Alina Chaplenko, both were moved while @Ілля Криворучко was actively working on them and before the recommended hour, per NPP guidelines. Inna Makhno was created at 11:11 with ongoing edits until 11:19 and moved at 11:21. They immediately recreated Inna Makhno which is a fully formed article (created 11:22, editing until 11:56). Alina Chaplenko was created at 9:27 with ongoing edits until 9:35 and moved at 9:37 so it appears reviewers are not giving enough time to develop the articles before moving them. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the user being reported has racked up an astonishing 5000+ edits since November of last year. I believe he is editing in good faith and is working on an area that doesn't get much love. The issues with his editing perhaps stem from the sheer volume of contributions - maybe rather than a temporary block (which I don't see helping and risks alienating a potentially valuable contributor) he could be instructed to go through WP:AFC for a few months? That should slow him down a bit and help him polish his editing style while not preventing him from contributing. Ostalgia (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a couple suggestions on their talk page but I don't think any restrictions are warranted at the time. They have created 43 articles and only two so far have been deleted, one was at their request (Yevgen Koptyelov). The other, Yaroslav Lavreniuk, was deleted 5 minutes after creation for being blank but subsequently successfully recreated. They did a have stumble around the January 28th time frame for edit warring and couple other issues but nothing since that time. From what I can tell, they do act on feedback. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a new page patrol, didn't realize that it is recommended to wait an hour before "patrolling". They have good contributions, yes (though a good chunk of it stems from publishing every edit), It was completely blank, though, and doesn't that still warrants some kind of a recommendation to incubate articles in the draftspace, at minimum? In creation template would also work. Thanks all. TLA (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are not an NPP reviewer, I suggest reading WP:New pages patrol to ensure your actions are within general standards. The moves to draft and the deletion were not in-line with those standards. Outside of egregious violations, like an attack page meeting G10, editors should be given an hour to develop a new article. So no, there is no supported action to take and I suggest you withdraw your complaint. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been a learning experience, for sure. But @S0091, I believe there still should be some kind of instruction to the user as @Ostalgia pointed out as well. Unsourced, blank, among other issue BLPs aren't too great. TLA (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla as I stated above I did leave a note on their talk page with a couple suggestions but to be clear, they are not nor should be required to follow them just like any other editor is not. Experienced/autopatrolled editors start articles directly in article space regularly with no sources or maybe just one source. It's not a big deal if they continue to develop the article within a short period of time. Take a look at WP:A7 for example, which states as long as there is a credible claim to significance even with no sources it cannot be speedily deleted, including BLPs. The lesson to take from this is give an editor at least an hour. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Ah, I see the talk page message. Thank you for that. Really strongly suggest @Ілля_Криворучко to consider working on a draft, as I believe other editors/"patrollers" will also have concerns. TLA (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You got the wrong message. TLA. Ілля Криворучко has done nothing wrong. You were incorrect with your draftication along with your other assumptions. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Guidelines at WP:BLPPROD came into my mind, but the article looked promising, so that's why I did the draftification so Ілля_Криворучко could work on it before it's in the mainspace. TLA (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2024 (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.

Harassment by Skyerise

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.

---

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is harassing me; I have twice requested Skyerise stop writing on my user talk page (diff, diff), and he has stated he would continue (diff, diff). It started after I made a single edit (diff) in good faith to List of Thelemites which he reverted. I really couldn't have cared less about the reversion, but what I didn't expect was a berating on my user talk page which included almost 3 dozen edits in rapid-fire succession while I attempted to respond but had difficulty due to numerous edit-conflicts.

Instead of complaining about that edit on the article's talk page, Skyerise had brought it to my user talk page (diff) with a vengeance. Per WP:REFACTOR, I moved the comment to the article talk page (diff) where I planned to respond/explain (eventually did), but he deleted it (diff) and brought the issue back to my user talk page... additionally angry that I moved "his" comment (diff).

He has used inappropriate edit summaries including "I'm angry at you" (diff) and "bwahahaha" (diff). He twice called me "rude" (diff, diff), and challenged "Who do you think you are?" (diff) Several times he used the language "you don't get to" (diff, diff, diff).

He repeatedly accused me of violating talk page guidelines while he has ignored and repudiated the 3 wiki policies WP:REFACTOR, WP:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and WP:Talk page guidelines § Personal talk page cleanup which explicitly give me the right to remove comments from my own user talk page. He even ordered me "You do not have my permission to move this comment" (diff).

He has escalated the harassment by twice demanding an apology [for moving his comment] (diff, diff) and threatening me with ANI (diff). He insists the discussion "belongs on [my] talk page where [he] started the conversation" (diff), and finally accused me of gaslighting him (diff). Though I have muted him (minimally helpful), I am at a loss as to how to keep him from my user talk page or get the harassment to stop. I appeal to the ANI readers.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 12:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My pronouns are "she/her". I've got no desire to get into a pissing match with you, I just want you to acknowledge that it was wrong to move my comments to another talk page without first asking and receiving permission. I'm not watching your talk page, I'm only replying when you ping me. Pinging someone who you don't actually want to reply could also be considered harassment. I have already agreed not to post on your talk page as long as you don't ping me there. See also WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So, I will briefly weigh in because I think this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Grorp, I do believe Skyerise is correct that you should have received permission before moving the subject comment, per WP:REFACTOR. That said, Skyerise, this actioon strikes me as more of a venial sin, since Grorp would have been well within their rights to simply erase the comment without explanation. The issue, then, is posting to the article page. You correctly cite to WP:TPO and the language never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page, but I don't see the move as changing the meaning in any way? It does change the audience, but this all strikes me as having been done in good faith. Finally, while I think it is more a matter of etiquette than policy (though anyone should feel free to prove otherwise!), I agree that pings invite replies. Perhaps this is just me, but I am inclined to say that one ping with a 'stay off my page' message is appropriate. It would be after that when pings would become problematic. Tangentially, Skyerise, while not a violation, a review of the history of Grorp's talk page does leave a bit of a bad impression.

So, TLDR: does Grorp owe an apology? Yes, I think so--they made a minor error. Skyerise's reaction, however, strikes me as a bit much. I'd say apologies should be exchanged, but more realistically, perhaps the editors should just agree to avoid one another in the future. A Happy Friday to one and all! Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"I'm only replying when you ping me" is a falsehood. I pinged Skyerise exactly once. Skyerise made 7 more edits on my user talk page after, and 22 before that—that's 29 pings for me (because it's my user talk page). And that is no agreement to not continue posting on my user talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am allowed to copyedit my responses. Sorry you don't like it, but there is one reply by me per ping. Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For those not familiar with WP:REFACTOR, Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved ... Refactoring has a number of uses, including: ... Relocating material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate. ... Material can be ... moved to a different page where it is more appropriate. The words "permission" and "ask" do not appear.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See the "Pruning" heading - Pruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy. One example is "Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I appeal to the ANI readers I really wouldn't do that. The last people you want examinining your edits are ANI readers. ——Serial 13:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Checkusers would be worse. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

arbcom would be pretty bad too I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please shake hands, go to neutral corners, and edit until you both find the legendary "perfect edit", spoken of in Wikibooks of lore. Anyway, both seem to have edited in good faith and now with some steam blown off, maybe this can be closed with no harm done and a lesson or two learned. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to @Grorp: for overreacting. Skyerise (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, even IF the act of moving a content-comment to its related article talk page was against policy, it would neither warrant nor excuse the barrage of abusive language and personal attacks that followed from Skyerise. One would be an error, the other is deliberate and knowing disruptive and abusive harassment, which has continued even after I twice asked them to stop. I have not responded in kind. Skyerise has been brought up at ANI several times for harassment, and also been blocked for the same (the last time just a few months ago by Doug Weller). I have not.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Grorp, you brought this complaint to ANI and it received attention from other editors including some thoughtful words from Dumuzid. Skyerise has apologized. This would be the time ordinarily that this discussion would be closed but it seems like you are looking for something specific to happen next. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, thank you for asking. I don't expect an apology; I do expect action. This is not Skyerise's first rodeo for harassment. They've been sanctioned prior (last time blocked for a month), and it obviously has had no lasting effect on changing their behavior. Indeed I want them sanctioned with whatever the next level is.

Dumuzid's comment is the only one above which supported my action to have moved a comment, "Pruning text – should only be done ... with good cause under policy. One example is "Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate." I did nothing to escalate Skyerise's bad behavior, which started before I moved the comment. I brought this to ANI so an admin can DO something about Skyerise's atrocious actions, but instead I got further harassed by the victim-blaming peanut gallery whose attention somehow got stuck (incorrectly) at one point in the middle of a series of events—no doubt courtesy of Skyerise's immediate response which focused everyone's attention on that one point.

No, Skyerise did not apologize. Coupling the words "I apologize" followed by a 'feeling' they had (Skyerise's impetus for their actions) is not the same as apologizing to me and the community for the damaging actions they did, have done, and will do again. There is no element of contrition, no sense that they actually understood what they did, or that it was wrong, or that they would stop doing it in the future. Every element of an apology is missing except vacant words. It is no different than saying "sorry I got mad" or "sorry I hate you" or "here's your pretend apology so we can go home". Worse, their "apology" edit summary, "now see if Grorp can acknowledge", is just a snide repeat of their several earlier demands for me to apologize to them. Hardly an apology.

Skyerise started the fuss, continued it over several hours, derailed this ANI off focus, then deleted my ANI-notice to them with the mocking edit summary "thanks, that's just what I wanted you to do".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp There is no consensus for any administrative action to be taken against Skyerise. You need to drop the stick, or else you might find yourself subject to sanctions instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300: You are not an admin, 24 hours hasn't even elapsed, and the discussion was sidetracked. ANI is not a game to see who can sway or manipulate the gallery. It is a tool for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You know that nothing in this noticeboard requires that only admins reply to your queries, right? I'm sorry, but you do not get to ignore the point I've made just because of one false "gotcha" moment. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, comment all you want, but I don't think you get to "declare" this discussion over or resolved. There was no gotcha moment, just Skyerise trying to justify their actions ("hE mAdE mE dO iT") and some of you falling for it. But there is still no legitimate reason to act aggressive and harass another editor.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just accusing me of something I never did. I simply advised that things likely won't end the way you think they will if you keep flogging this dead horse. Whether you take it or not is up to you; but don't be surprised if you face a disruptive editing block for ignoring it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that admins do not have "command authority". Grorp, you need to drop the stick as TheDragonFire300 has pointed out. At least give some rope to Skyerise. If they are acting in bad faith, they'll repeat the behaviour. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:06, 17 February 2024 (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.

Soapboxing acc

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.

---

Calebman127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A few months old account, looks like all the activity is soapboxing in Ukraine war - related pages [139] [140] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

His contributions (besides 1 in a talk page) have been reverted. Clearly NOTHERE as well. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Calebman127#Indefinite block. El_C 06:50, 17 February 2024 (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.

Spam-only sockpuppet accounts need taken care of

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 bring to administrators' attention, these two spam-only accounts:

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

I highly, highly suspect that Karkiwiki is a sockpuppet account of Sachinsuper, created to attempt to avoid scrutiny. Sachinsuper has been involved in adding the same 'cinemakhabar.com' and 'gamekhabar.com' spam websites across a variety of articles (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4), and I've given that user a final warning today. Well guess what happens several hours later after that final warning? A newly-created account, 'Karkiwiki' comes and adds the same spam website to the Sarfaraz Khan (cricketer) article, added as an inline external link to 'Romana Zahoor' once again like with the previous account (diff).

Even if they aren't sockpuppets of each other, they both seem to be only interested in adding the same spam external links to Wikipedia articles. I have informed both user accounts on their talk pages of this ANI report. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (both). El_C 06:42, 17 February 2024 (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.

Quintus rex

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.

---

Quintus rex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Edits are full of juvenile personal attacks and evidence of a battleground mentality, including this vulgar insult. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(I am being genuine when I say that it speaks to my feeling of true belonging in this community that it took such a long time for someone to throw a homophobic remark at me. Shout-outs to all the friends I've made here that I'm gonna keep hanging out with after this person is INDEF'd.) Remsense诉 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Quintus rex#Indefinite block. El_C 09:00, 17 February 2024 (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.

Racist vandalism-only account

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.

---

As of the time I am writing this, all four edits by Whentheimposterissu (talk · contribs) have been vandalism. Their first two edits were adding racist comments to the Chip (snack) page, and their last two edits were adding the date of the September 11 attacks to the Undertale Soundtrack page. Whentheimposterissu appears to be a vandalism-only account. CJ-Moki (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Clear cases of vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV instead of here. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2024 (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:Amaury needs to go

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

---

This user has had a history of reverting user's edits without explanation whatsoever. Like, for example, he will revert edits for companies that are unsourced (take Kickin' It and Raven's Home as examples). He is also notable for listing "only editors for films" on pages that he has involvement with. And finally, he is recently getting heat over the Template:Nickelodeon Movies page for restoring an edit that is a "last good revision". He is nothing but a power-hungry tyrant. We need him kicked out as soon as possible, that way we can start fresh without any of his controversies plaguing us. 2001:8003:1D9D:3B00:1007:F1DD:AE39:2822 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not going to respond to the WP:TROLLING IP directly here, but note that this person is abusing multiple IPs. Amaury • 10:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP, you neglected to notify the user, as required per the big red notification at the top of the page. I have done that for you. You have also failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing, so I expect this will go nowhere except into File 13 where it probably belongs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at contribs, maybe the /64 of this IP needs to be blocked. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a long-term abuse IP editor who has been around for at least a year now. That editor has been making nonstop disruptive edits to various TV series articles such as Fantasy Island (2021 TV series), as well as constantly harassing users who revert them such as Amaury and YoungForever on their user talk pages, resulting in User talk:Amaury getting indefinitely semi-protected. The aforementioned Fantasy Island article is also indef protected because of disruption from this same user too. I think this ANEW report is where it all started (or at least, that's my first encounter with this clearly unwelcome, highly disruptive editor).

Maybe we should create an LTA infopage for the people unfamiliar with their behaviour? — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I had a look at the block log of the /64 range of the original poster IPv6 address here, and it's been blocked four times in the past, the last block being three-months. And well guess what. A person from this IP range is returning to apparently harass or troll Amaury just within two days after that last three-month block has expired. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Bye bye IP. 6 month block this time. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to see User:Amaury does not necessarily need to go, just as they're getting trolling from ip socks. Must be doing something right. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2024 (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:LingoSouthAsia's behaviour on 2024 Pakistani general election

LingoSouthAsia (talk · contribs) has been persistently making problematic edits on the 2024 Pakistani general election page, despite warnings on his talk page which he repeatedly ignored and deleted. He is continuously deleting properly sourced content using invalid reasons like copyvio, commentary while adding his own commentary to the page.

For instance, today LingoSouthAsia removed sourced material about rigging in the election with the edit summary "Copyrights issue" despite there being no evidence of copyright violation. When Discospinster (talk · contribs) reverted his edit, LingoSouthAsia restored it again with edit summary like "WP is not a news paper". LingoSouthAsia then added a chunk of OR without citing any reliable independent source which also include his personal commentary.

Similarly yesterday, LingoSouthAsia repeatedly added and added then again the same personal commentary which was later removed but instead of listening, he opted to add it again today.

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Pinging Borgenland who may also have something to say how LingoSouthAsia's use misleading edit summaries to remove sourced content. --Saqib (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Despite the filing of this report, LingoSouthAsia persists in removing sourced content and adding OR. --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In just few days this is second time this politically active PTI supporter Saqib is here on Admin notice Board. Admin may consider following facts 1. All changes in LEADE has been explained on Talk page [141] still six times [142] he has approached my Talk page to warn me and avoid any usefull discussion on relavant articles talk page. I am feeling harrased and has repeatedly requested him to not intimidate me on my talk page and discuss in a positive manner on the relevant article's Talk page. LEADE has been balanced by me and after changes it covers everything, First detailed electoral process, Second results national as well provincial, Third controversies (Allegations of rigging) and Last Govt formation . Over emphasis of one point agenda has been nuetralized, I mean it was like an official political news paper page with no election information but rigging allegation with words like most rigged election in the History of Pakistan This is subjective commentary. History is compared on WP article ? I request Topic ban on Saqib. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My edits are always based on reliable sources. I recommend retracting your accusations that I am a politically active PTI supporter, which I perceive as a personal attack. And do not forget you are already partial blocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#LingoSouthAsia) for making false claims in talk page discussions by Black Kite, and for harassment by Bishonen. --Saqib (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we use a punishment to repunish ? Yes I have been punished with edit ban on a single WP page Saraiki language but please remeber I declared before the ban that I will not edit that page in future and positively accepted the punishment. This amounts to good behaviour not any weekness which user Saqib wants to expolit here. Please stay with current topic. All Saqib's edits on PAKISTAN GENERAL ELECTION 2024 are example of the fact that he want to use this article as newspaper by labelling elections with subjective wordings like most rigged election in the History of Pakistan. I have not removed rigging stuff which is 70% of the article thanks to Saqib's continious agenda driven editing. I would request Admin to visit that article history and article content. It looks like a rigging PTI rhetoric newspaper which termed Supreme court justice as controvertial showing biaseness and non nuetral point of view. Then check my edits. Saqib also removed four sources of recent surveys by top Pakistani surveyors Gallup Pakistan, IPOR and IRAS just because they pionted out PMLN lead in Punjab province. I accepted it with patience but now I am surprised and feel that Saqib is not here to improve WP with nuetrality but one sided wishfull editing. A topic ban on Saqib is requested. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yap, yap, yap. You are not proving anything here except that you are good at making false assumptions against other editors that disagree with you. Also: I am surprised and feel that Saqib is not here to improve WP with nuetrality but one sided wishfull editing. Surely you meant yourself in that statement? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry editing without logging. I am Lingo south asia. Corvette had I been such then would have left no traces of rigging allegations on Leade. Saqib is all about rigging chery picking. Hope you check edit history and my talk page efforts before giving your valuable statement here. 116.71.187.210 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User ShirtNShoesPls, Blatant Months-Long Disruptive Editing, Multiple BLP Violations, and Now Openly Vandalising Pages With Manufactured Quotes/Claims by Misrepresenting Citations

Bringing this here after advice received from admin.[143]
ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Over the last few days/week or so I've come into repeated contact with the named user above. This emerged out of a report I made about their edit-warring on the article for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.[144]
• They have a habit of creating very basic draft-level articles with little to no sourcing and abandoning them immediately after (some of these I've moved to draft[145][146]) and making larger edits likewise with relatively poor sourcing for what's claimed.[147][148]
• However this behaviour has now moved on to BLP articles, which raises the scale of the problems they cause.(new article:[149])(edits to Joe Biden article:[150])

While I don't believe much if any of what they've done is nefarious there seems to be major issues with their ability to usefully edit and understand policy, and therefore stronger action likely needs to be taken as a result.Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to make a new section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, added it in. Silly error on my part. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You're good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Update, 15/02/2024: After further consideration of the matter and further actions by the user I'm changing this report to being one of deliberate policy breaches and frankly WP:NOTHERE.
On the above cited article they've created for "Ageism against Joe Biden" they have repeatedly reinserted BLP violations, claiming the removal of this material is "vandalism" [151], [152].
They have since moved on to removing reliably sourced information claiming that it is instead WP:OR and BLP violations (almost seemingly parroting back why their own material has been removed to try and sound credible)[153], or just removed sourced content based on absurd and obviously false reasoning.[154].
They have also engaged in obvious use of talk pages to advertise their own article.[155]

I see no potential for a change in this behaviour and therefore ask for swift action by an admin to resolve. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that user is not here after removing sourced content and engaging in disruptove editing. They also are logged in (i suspect) with an additional IP: @208.102.167.48 - idk if they understand the 3RR but if it is the same user then then they are avoiding it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if they're that IP, but they're certainly aware of the editing warring policy given they've been warned by several users on their talk page and have been blocked for it once, and every time they've been warned they've stubbornly refused to take the hint and insist they're right (WP:IDHT). Even at the block for edit warring I've diffed above they repeatedly insisted WP:ONUS suddenly applied to the removal of content rather than inclusion and seemingly invented "other editors" who agreed with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Further Update, 16/02/2024: Following discovery of what appears to be examples of manufacturing quotes from supposed cited sources and asking for advice from an admin I have put this issue in to the Vandalism noticeboard, leaving this here for now as it should probably still be archived. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Righty ho, now getting told at the vandalism noticeboard that it should be on this noticeboard. Anyway here were are, user manufacturing quotes to POV-push, namely inventing quotes from "medical experts" regarding the health of Joe Biden ([156]), and in the United States article just going to town spreading false claims that the US deliberately committed a "campaign of extermination" that killed 100 million Native Americans (edits, investigation). Can an admin please step in and resolve this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See [157] Note the deletions, eg first landing on the moon, etc. Let's look down the article to where they add " According to historian David Stannard in American Holocaust, this is the largest genocide in world history, and led to an estimated 100 million deaths",. You'd think that the US did that. given the new section heading and the sentence before that says "The campaigns of extermination prompted a long series of American Indian Wars west of the Mississippi River.". But American Holocaust (book) says " The book surveys the history of European colonization in the Americas, for approximately 400 years, from the first Spanish assaults in the Caribbean in the 1490s to the Wounded Knee Massacre in the 1890s--the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America have suffered dispossession, oppression and exploitation. During that time the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people.," Note that the article already said " The Columbian exchange was catastrophic for native populations. It is estimated that up to 95 percent of the indigenous populations in the Americas perished from infectious diseases during the years following European colonization;"

I'd argue that's deliberately misleading especially given other edits by him. Eg the addition of "Through its policies of settler colonialism and white supremacy," without mentioning that "Settler colonialism was especially prominent in the colonial empires of the European powers between the 16th and 20th centuries. The settling of Boers in South Africa, British, French, Portuguese and Spanish expansion in the Americas as well as the settlement of the Canary Islands by Castile are classical examples of settler colonialism."

Then there's "By 1900, rapid industrialization " to which was added "achieved through the exploitation of labor". When was any industrial revolution achieved without the exploitation of labor? I think that the edits in this diff are misleading and attacks. and violations of NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The worst thing is that none of his edits look to be supported by any source whatsoever, with them almost insidiously altering existing sourced statements radically to say something completely new and hope no one checks that the citation no longer supports the new claim. There's zero possibility that this is anything but deliberate at this point.

Also if you look at the edit warring notices on their talk page (of which they have several) and the edit-warring discussion I've linked near the top there's just a general pattern of behaviour where they'll seemingly just make stuff up and then when called out on it just full on deny anything they've done is wrong, in fact everyone else is the problem, and several supposed users supported them (though I've yet to find a single person support any of their edits). Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:TylerBurden habitually overly aggressive, assuming bad faith and incivilty on CT talk pages

Special:Diff/1207413857 - That last sentence is needlessly aggressive
Special:Diff/1208223248 - needlessly aggressive tone in ES
Special:Diff/1207824422 - putting words in my mouth in ES
Special:Diff/1208228313 - Trying to start a back and forth argument on a talk page, when I made a single comment without further involving myself in a single dispute while reviewing his behavior. I honestly tried to avoid getting into a back and forth with him the best I could.

He's been involved in previous disputes as well where people have taken issue with his tone, looking back through his talk page, and almost always has an extremely aggressive tone about him.

I've unintentionally come off as rude or confrontational without meaning to a few times, but I always try to apologize for it. For him, this is a pattern of behavior where he doubles down on the aggression.

Thinking a single, short, agreement someone left in a dispute he hadn't replied to yet after leaving a polite request to be civil, while checking to see if it was a pattern, is hounding is well, it shows an "elevated emotional state", to put it nicely. Hounding requires ill intent, this is assuming bad faith. All I wanted to do was see that dispute in there resolved that hadn't been replied to, but he kept on re-reverting the other editor without discussing. This feels like WP:BATTLEGROUNDing to me. I wanted to not involve myself too much in the dispute, just give my short "i havent heard his side yet" message, waiting for further explanation, with my honest opinion. It was entirely in good faith.

I don't want him blocked or TBANned, I just want him told to take a chill pill and not be so overly confrontational. I don't know any admins personally (and therefore don't know who would be willing to act outside of ANI), and I don't want to take it somewhere so public but really, I have nowhere else to go. There isn't a content dispute ongoing, so I cant take him to 3O or DRN. :/ DarmaniLink (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

pages by a blocked user

Globally blocked user Special:Contributions/Mykytal (bodiadub's sockpuppet) has created many spam promo pages, which are eligible for deletion under G5 speedy deletion rule. Here are some of the latest pages:

Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group Daria Zarivna Viktor Andrukhiv Viktor Andrukhiv Andriy Smyrnov Yulia Yanina 2A02:810A:8E3F:FAA4:D45C:1A7E:10F2:80DD (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Get the bad ones with CSD I'd think, I'll start with these ones. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. This is clearly not wanted. @Bbb23, you seem to be connected to this. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

G5 only applies to articles created after the block, and only if there are no significant edits by other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

58.176.1.159

58.176.1.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Nationalist POV pushing IP, already warned 13 times on the talk page. Half of the edits have been reverted. Edits consist of asserting Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (#1, #2, #3), over Hong Kong; removing sourced material related to 2019 Hong Kong protests (link); and sometimes just really obvious POV pushing (the protest's goal is that "China fall completely into the abyss", adding scare quote to pro-democracy camp) or adding questionable or conspiratorial claims (#1, #2, #3). Probably not here to build an encyclopedia. NM 07:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Northern Moonlight. All the diffs you have provided are from the first half of 2023, and this is an IP we are talking about. Please refile your complaint if you perceive there is *recent* disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ed, for what it's worth, the IP has already edited disruptively several times this month, and I highly suspect that this will be a continued pattern into the future. They come once every few months to sneakily push a non-neutral POV, then disappear, etc. I have taken the liberty of reporting them to WP:AIV for more immediate intervention. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Supporting an indef ban until this user can demonstrate neutrality (unless community consensus isn't welcomed/necessary, in which case, I can remove this comment). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @That Coptic Guy, IP users are usually not indefinitely blocked. See WP:IPBLOCKLENGTH. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see, thank you! Well some sort of block is nonetheless needed here I would think. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Stale. I'm wary of blocking due to collateral. But feel free to relist if and/or when recent violations occur. Which looking at the nature of these, will almost certainly amount to sanctions of considerable severity. El_C 08:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet disrupting pages

2001:D08:D8:D574:A406:46BE:3755:1247 has been making unexplained and unsourced changes in multiple pages and is also a possible sockpuppet of @Earth6282. Probably not here to build an encyclopedia. As of now his last edit was on the page Malay-Portuguese conflicts, which has been subject to many disruptive edits which I believe come from him. It seems that every time he gets blocked he creates another account to continue disrupting this and other pages. Javext (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this belongs on WP:SPI? (This seems like LTA)

Either way, it's WP:QUACKING pretty hard to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for replying. I am fairly recent to wikipedia and I apologize I didn't know WP:SPI existed. Like I was saying, he keeps disrupting pages every time he creates a new account. It's pretty clear to me it's the same person. There are many factors like, editing on similar subjects, same grammar errors, making the same edits as the previous accounts. Let me know if I have to do anything or move this to another page in order to report him. Thanks. Javext (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP 122.161.65.115 continues to remove sourced content

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

---

On the page Institute of Chartered Accountants of India an IP address continues to remove sourced information disruptively and I have undid it three times. They did not give a single reason why in the edit summary either after the page was covered by copyright violations. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No warnings? I agree their deletions without explanation aren't helpful, but this seems a bit premature for AN/I. --Onorem (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have warned, but this discussion may not continue, so okay. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2024 (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.

Greyplod

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 making political propaganda, adding irrelevant sections to various articles with explicit promotion of politicians' names. He also added a fake redirect in Guaçuí, also politically motivated. Goldencerebro (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2024 (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:Rimonslamaa22

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 @Rimonslamaa22 has been undoing my edits on Shams al-Baroudi without providing sources to back up his changes. Unlike me

Instead of addressing the issue on talk page, He resorted to personally attacking me by calling me a refugee (cuz I'm Syrian)

Special:diff/1208004397 Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA. What a bother/ I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: yeah, that attack was over the top. I realize they are very new, but they'd need to provide meaningful assurances if they are to regain their editing privileges. HTH. El_C 07:33, 17 February 2024 (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.

Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND

Greetings! Please review the behavior of Alexiscoutinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• [158] removes academic estimate from the infobox, returns Prigozhin claims into the lead infobox, [159] again returns Prigozhin
• [160] removes academic journal while keeping Prigozhin claims in the lead infobox
• [161] equates academic journal estimate with Prigozhin claims, [162] returns edits again after the partial revert

After being reverted, removes academic journal estimates [163] after being warned [164] on WP:BATTLEGROUND.

In talk, advocates for "WP:DUE weight" while ignoring that it should be achieved using reliable sources, academic sources preferred.

Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gilbert W. Merkx and the Journal of Advanced Military Studies seems relevant. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's starting to look like you're on a mission to suppress Prigozhin's estimate and force push those bold Western estimates. I would also point out that this accusation is distorted. As such, I'll try my best to show the full picture because this is a long story...

1. Regarding the first two edits, there has already been a long discussion at WP:RSN which casted a lot of doubt on the adequacy of including that JAMS estimate. The citation was dubious as the original author of the estimate isn't clear at all (LCU even suggested not citing it and other uninvolved editors seemed to point to the argument that all are simply estimates and reliability should be checked only for the publishing source, which was fine for Prigozhin), yet for some reason, ManyAreasExpert insists that it should be included and that it should override Prigozhin's estimate that was in the article for a long time. If ManyAreasExpert is bringing this issue back up again, it seems he isn't satisfied with the discussions. Let me also point out that it was ManyAreasExpert that connected these two topics.
   1. In this edit sequence, ManyAreasExpert removes Prigozhin's estimate in favor of the dubious estimate he insists is academic. So it appears like he's in favor of something, not me, I reacted to his original actions.
   2. I obviously partially reverted these new edits in 2 parts, [165][166], because they never had consensus, and then extensive discussion in RSN and the talk page highlighted those problems.
   3. Then I adjusted/fixed the new citation to highlight the concerns we were discussing.
   4. Then he arguably edit warred and removed Prigozhin from the infobox yet again. I didn't check the timings, but I guess we were already discussing in the talk pages when these happened.
   5. I responded in kind and restored the original version that had Prigozhin's estimate properly attributed in the infobox for months.
   6. Then he edit warred, removing Prigozhin from the infobox yet again, arguing that he's not reliable. An argument which was not inline with the discussion at WP:RSN. There, LCU said that Prigozhin is reliable for statements for the Wagner group and recently Alaexis said this "It goes without saying that each side of a conflict has many reasons not to be fully truthful about their own and the enemy's losses. In this case the question is whether these numbers are cited by reliable sources. I see that the Jerusalem Post cited Prigozhin's estimate of the Ukrainian forces (80k) [194]. Are the losses numbers also cited by RS?" Which shows that the reliability discussion is deeper/has more nuance than simply saying Wagner's leader is unreliable.
   7. He fixed the {{vs}} tag here, cool.
   8. Then I responded in kind and restored to the "status quo" version. I also asked him to not edit war in the edit summary and said some other things. I recommend you check the edit summary.
   9. We stopped before reaching the 3RR.
2. Regarding the 3rd edit ManyAreasExpert linked, it's an example of seeing patterns where there aren't any. He provided a better, more recent estimate by a think-tank similar in tone to that dubious JAMS, but this time properly attributed. I had no problems with it. I only pointed out (not necessarily then, but also in subsequent edits) that it was important to use WP:INTEXT attribution to explicitly show where the estimate comes from and to not use wikivoice to cite it as a statement of fact (something estimates aren't by definition). I thought it was the perfect opportunity to solve the previous big problem and get rid of the burden of that dubious JAMS citation. I substituted the dubious citation with the better one (he provided that new citation by the way). There should have been no problems, the new citation had similar numbers to the problematic one. It should have been a win-win for us. But no, ManyAreasExpert, out of the blue, draws the connection with Prigozhin yet again and reverts the edit. That edit had nothing to do with Prigozhin, but unfortunately he did not WP:AGF and drew incorrect conclusions. I must also point out that I suggested more than once to remove all the multiple estimates from the infobox and put them all in the casualties section. Cinderella157 was also inline with this. If I remember correctly, ManyAreasExpert never commented on it (correct me if I'm wrong). It should be of his interest to do that. Doesn't he think that Prigozhin's estimate isn't worthy for the infobox, but ok for the article body? I'm not obliged to implement that. I gave him the greenlight to do it and potentially solve the issue. It is not of today that I try to minimally edit in Wikipedia. It consumes a lot of my time, thus everytime I see an opportunity for someone to make an edit I support, I let them do it. I only push myself to make edits that maybe no one else will do, or when I have to counter edits and try to reach a compromise on changes I see as inadequate. Therefore, I view that second indirect accusation as disingenuous.
3. Regarding the 4th and 5th links ManyAreasExpert provided, I don't see any real issue. If I recall correctly, somewhere in the long WP:RSN discussion, someone suggested using estimate ranges, I think for the infobox to summarize the different estimates. I agreed with that notion and thought it was very applicable to that statement linked by ManyAreasExpert. That statement is in the Aftermath section and talks about the casualties of the battle. It is used to give context to future statements that argue that the battle was a pyhrric victory. Most of the statements ManyAreasExpert wrote in that paragraph I thought were quite good and balanced. However, I thought that statement about casualties was unbalanced. How would it not be? It only voiced a single estimate and the most extreme in favor of Ukraine on top of it. Even if it's a more recent estimate by a Western think-tank, it's not the "last chip in the bag".
   1. Initially, ManyAreasExpert wrote that statement without inline attribution. I found that inadequate as wikivoice was being used to make a statement that seemed like a statement of fact, but was ultimately not. It's simply one of multiple estimates, albeit one of the better ones arguably, and should have proper attribution.
   2. Instead of plainly reverting that statement arguing for "no consensus", I decided to fix it/reach a compromise and added intext attribution to that and other statements, among other things. See the edit summary. So far so good.
   3. But then I also remembered and thought that it would be even more appropriate to show an estimates range (as was probably suggested in the RSN discussion) in that casualties summary statement. Once again, attempting to improve/reach compromise. Although, the principle/idea was good, the execution of the edit, in the first instance, wasn't ideal. I wrote the estimates range, but without attribution. As such, ManyAreasExpert's argument of equating Prigozhin's estimates with the IISS one was valid.
   4. ManyAreasExpert reverts my change to that statement.
   5. I acknowledged the mistake and decided to readd the range, but properly this time (with attribution). There's no stubborness or edit warring, only an effort to reach compromise and do the things right. It is only an expected coincidence that the lower bound for Russian casualties would come from Prigozhin himself. So what? That statement is a summary of the casualties section. It's only adequate to fairly represent it with WP:DUE weight and WP:INTEXT attribution.
   6. Then at 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) ManyAreasExpert created a new topic in the talk page.
   7. Despite saying "Greetings!" and "Thanks!", his frivolous accusation of please stop pushing Prigozhin claims with edit war angered me since I wasn't doing edit war (I've explained the latest events above, I was trying to reach a compromise and fix the estimates range statement, Prigozhin popping up again was an expected coincidence) and he himself participated in edit war in the past (that first engagement about Prigozhin and JAMS). I naturally started the replies with the left foot, not particularly amicable. Between 21:34 and 21:42 I replied this. Yeah, I was annoyed.
   8. But what made me even more annoyed was his revert at 21:46. At the time I discovered it, several minutes later, I found it quite provocative, because I thought we were trying to discuss the matter in the talk page before deleting stuff in the article. We had already exchanged several replies (between 21:49 and 22:01) in the talk page, before I noticed the revert in the article. Needless to say, the discussion was unconstructive. I viewed the concerns of that discussion a done deal (from the previous discussions) and understood that, for ManyAreasExpert, those two estimates could not coexist and no compromise would be reached. We both exchanged deflective replies, as if we weren't on the same tune. He also brought up some conduct links like BATTLEGROUND and "strawman" which I found quite inadequate as his conduct as a whole wasn't exemplary either.
   9. Well, and then, as I said before, I noticed he removed the lower bound of the Wagner estimate and argued for "no consensus". My subsequent action at 22:03 speaks for itself. I thought it was kinda dirty for him to ask for talk in the talk page but at the same time revert the edit he disagreed with. At the time, I didn't know that he first reverted the edit and then replied to me in the talk page. However, that doesn't diminish his unfortunate mistake, he should have checked the talk page first, especially because he created that topic more than an hour before. Finally, as show in the last edit summary, I used the same argument of "no consensus" he used to remove the entire contentious statement about casualties.
4. And this is where we're at. After my final revert in the article, I made two more replies which were left unanswered, by him. Sure an IP editor did chime in there but that's beside the point.

So this is my defense. I know I haven't acted perfectly along the way, but the motivations and principles were legit and my actions were reasonable overall, given the circumstances (considering ManyAreasExpert's conduct wasn't exemplary either, prior discussions, etc). As such, I would also suggest others to weigh in on ManyAreasExpert's conduct when analysing these several events and also the context in the multiple relevant discussions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• May I also point out that ManyAreasExpert created a topic in the Battle of Bakhmut talk page that publicly linked to this ANI request. While I genuinely believe that he did that in good faith, I found it extremely inappropriate because he had already correctly notified me in my talk page and I had already explained all my actions above. That situation felt somewhat like the classic scene where the boss of the office "tells off" an employee in front of all his coworkers. It's embarassing. That's why I believe ANI notices are made in private. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  created a topic in the Battle of Bakhmut talk page that publicly linked to this ANI request
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 20:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't heard it's forbidden. I need to link to this ANI for the reason I stated there that you provided no arguments regarding IISS removal in this discussion here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't heard it's forbidden. Yeah, I expected you wouldn't think it was a problem. That's why I made sure to "assume good faith". But keep that in mind in the future. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  He resolved the problem. It's fine now ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. This should be on the article talk page or at WP:DRN, not here. voorts (talk/contributions)

• There is more to this than what is evidence by the OPs links. One needs to look at the fuller context of other edits to the article page. As Levivich notes, this discussion at WP:RSN is also relevant as are this and this discussion at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. There is also this discussion at the article's TP, initiated after filing the report at ANI. This report appears to me to be an attempt to weaponise ANI to resolve what is essentially a content dispute that should and can be resolved through consensus building discussion at appropriate venues. What do you call a stick that comes back and hits you in the head? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mewyprime

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.

---

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

An account created solely for vandalism and spreading POV. All its editions are falsifications of data regarding Russia and the USA (favors Russia, attacks the USA). I am calling for an indefinite ban for this account. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:02, 18 February 2024 (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.

Insults 2

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:Baba Mica has seemingly learned nothing from the previous discussion about them and has just gone on a massive rant on their talk page referring to numerous WP editors, including me specifically (I am the one who initiated the deletion discussions regarding the Alley of Angels article originally), as "a bunch of degenerates", "evil idiots", "not human", and "demons", as well as making racist comments referring to editors as "Anglo-Saxons" that are "racist by birth". This is not anywhere near the first time they have done this, as demonstrated by the previous discussion + many other comments. I do not think this user is going to learn from their actions or change their behavior - they've been on the site for over a decade and have continuously been disruptive and uncivil, intentionally ignoring clear consensus for deleting/merging articles when they don't like it ([167], [168] [169]) and showing disdain for policy and other users when challenged ([170], [171]).

I am not very knowledgeable about ANI procedures so I deeply apologize if I am interpreting the guidelines wrong, but I have to assume an indef is warranted here because it seems to me that this user is not interested in engaging with the editing community, consensus, or policy. HappyWith (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2024 (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:Kason12271

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.

---

Kason12271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Constant all-caps incivility to other editors, and edit warring over a COI template on their draft. Also threatened to hack another editors account? "I TOLD WAXWOKER IM GONNA HIJACK EVERY ACCOUNT IF I GET BLOCKED FROM EDITNG! PLEASE LET ME EDIT THINGS RIGHT NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOOOOOWWWWWWWWW!!!!!" Telling editors to shut up too.

GraziePrego (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed without talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2024 (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:Munkhin gal persistently removing content from Kumis page

• User:Munkhin gal has persistently been removing content from the Kumis page without proper justification apart from personal opinion, as can be seen in its history: [172]. I have issued the user several warnings: [173]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:AIV would be better for this, I've already posted there for you. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you meant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring board instead of the vandalism board. But Revirvlkodlaku, you are also edit-warring and in that case you need to stop. It doesn't matter that you are returning to the "right version" you are edit-warring and in that case both parties can be penalized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong board. Whoops, I've really only been AIV and ANI I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Chavurah

Hi! JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 are tag-teaming [174] [175] to add an advertisement for an art collective and its magazine to Chavurah, an article about Jewish fellowship. This includes two external links in the body. As an IPv6, I am, of course, automatically assumed to be a vandal and being told that removing spam is not a valid reason for removing spam. Can anything be done? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:E532:22ED:9050:A469 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This assumption is quite obviously a WP:AGF violation. 2003 LN6 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The alternative being just that you are incompetent? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It's not an advertisement, it's just a reference to the contemporary usage of the term "Havurah" primarily among religious Jews in NYC. I'm not sure how this source is seen as an advertisement considering it's from an independent Jewish news organization. JewishArtnik (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason there are two external links is because there are no wikipedia articles referring to the contemporary use of Havurah yet. I know it's being worked on but until then where should it be linked? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If the organization merits its own article (i.e. it is notable), then it would have one. Until then, every instance of a chavurah does not need to be mentioned in the article. Please see WP:Write the article first. ... discospinster _talk 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am working on creating its own page as it is quite notable in the Jewish community. I don't, however, understand why the organization would not also be mentioned in the article for the term "Havurah". Other organizations and movements are mentioned in the article, not just the literal translation of the term, so why should this not be referenced as well? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The only other organization mentioned by name is Havurat Shalom, and it has got an article. ... discospinster _talk 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The process here would be to create the article for the organization (assuming it meets Wikipedia notability requirements), and then it might make sense to add a "For the art collective, see Havurah (Art collective)" note at the start of the Chavurah article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! JewishArtnik (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I would remind JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so things that share a name have separate articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and doesn't belong here. See dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me as bizarre that you could read all the above, and look at the diffs, then come to that conclusion. Unless you did neither and came to that conclusion anyway. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There are two diffs, both of which show users separately adding content back into the article. The discussion above is an argument about whether that content is promotional or encyclopedic. Nothing in the above speaks to user misconduct. Ironically, the complaint filed here and the assertions of lack of competence and spamming advertisements are user misconduct, in that they are personal attacks that cast aspersions. :A469 and .199 should be warned, this discussion should be closed, and the editors involved should be directed to DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by CodemWiki

Noting this was spotted on User talk:DementiaGaming by me, a TPS and I haven’t interacted with this Wikipedian on this issue or actually ever I believe.

• Talk page discussion started with a title of “A message you may not appreciate” which goes into a paragraph detail of a personal attack. This includes: “I am really happy the Wikipedia community doesn't let the encyclopedia be vandalized and destroyed by malevolent actors such as you. I appreciate that your vandalism was undone by consensus and hope that it serves as a lesson for you to never take destructive decisions for this marvelous project again. If you still feel pulsions to destroy parts of the encyclopedia, I suggest more standard ways like blanking content under an IP address.”
• 33ABGirl replied with a warning to CodemWiki to basically withdraw that entire statement towards DementiaGaming due to it being a blatant personal attack.
• CodemWiki then replied that reporting would be a waste of time, before doing a new edit on their reply doubling down on it.

The personal attack has not been removed/struck yet and the current replies by CodemWiki doubled down on it, even after being asked by an outside-dispute editor (presuming 33ABGirl is not involved in what led to that PA) to strike and withdraw it. As a very-much outside-dispute editor who doesn’t even know what caused this type of talk page comment [Legitimately, I don’t know. I can’t even tell these editors interacted with each other in the last month], I think the administrators should be aware of this prior to an escalation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Collapsed at the Talk page. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think that a warning is appropriate at this point. CodemWiki should strike their comments and apologize. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring & refusal to communicate

This is long term issue with editor User:Angryskies having an obsession about adding UK to infobox fields incorrectly. Multiple editors have pointed this out to the editor over a number of years and have tried to counsel on their talk page, e.g. in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but in each case editor refused to communicate and just deleted without replying and carried on [176], [177], [178], [179].

Other examples where this has occurred are at BBC, Deloitte, NatWest Group and TSB Bank. Editor was blocked for one month in November 2022 for some of the same reasons, but seemingly has not learnt from this. I did take this is to the edit warring noticeboard, but was declined and deemed that it should be dealt with here. Arebeebank (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, Angryskies did respond in 2020. At this point, I think the 2023 warning is a bit stale, and I recommend attempting to discuss this with Angryskies one more time; if they blank their talk page again or let it sit for a week, then I think coming back here would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Therealmaddude

Therealmaddude (talk · contribs) seems to be WP:NOTHERE: abusive/agressive language towards other editors (1, 2), and all their mainspace edits are basically vandalism ( 3 - biography vandalism, 4 - false information, 5 - BLP false information, 6 - BLP false information, 7 - BLP false information, 8 - BLP false information ...). Warnings & discussions on their talk page have not helped, requesting an admin take a look at the appropriate measures. Thanks, Shazback (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. The "kys" comment alone from them is virulent enough. NM 00:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that should even be revdel in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE and for personal attacks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nauman335

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.

---

• From14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JeanieLo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grove567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last week I requested help with a DUCK to this UPE sock farm which was then blocked. In classic fashion, new accounts were created and are back to disrupt, picking up right where the others left off. Can someone assist and do a quick check and block the new accounts per DUCK listed at the new SPI filing (above accounts)?--CNMall41 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fact that multiple users from the same country are working on the same shows is that they are popular and Wikipedia has no article on them. Just Google Khaie, Serial Killer and Other shows I've edited on Google and YouTube, these shows are popular and infact have million of viewers on Youtube. They have been covered by international media outlets too but User:CNMall41 has been so skeptical regarding these articles that he thinks every other editor who edits on these is a sock. User:Qwef1234 is one of those examples. As long as his claims to be paid editors is concerned, do you think the popularity of the shows need them to have paid projects to create articles about them on Wikipedia. It's sheer discrimination by User:CNMall41. I'm strictly against WP:sockpuppetry and available for help in that case. I would like to express my gratitude to User:Liz for reverting User:CNMall41 baseless allegations. JeanieLo (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks! Anyways, @CNMall41 suspected you were a sockpuppet due to the fact that your account was created soon after @Nauman335 was blocked. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Odd...It doesn't seem that Liz reverted any of @CNMall41's edits. Could you provide a diff showing that? ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Flux55, this link is what I reffered as reversion by Liz. And what evidence do you have that I'm User:Nauman335 sock? If you are also suspecting than you should know that I would not have edited Siyaah (TV series) as User:Nauman335 never showed his interest in that article but I did. If that's the basis of the judgment, than why same pages of interest are taken into consideration and why other article edits are not taking into consideration as I stated above. JeanieLo (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Liz stated that the page creator was not a blocked sockpuppet. You haven't been blocked yet since no clerk has checked if you are indeed a sockpuppet. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55:, they are in fact the same sock. Logged in to the JeanieLo account just to comment here at the ANI thread. Also they are now recreating previously deleted pages under disambiguation titles in an attempt to avoid detection. Also have to love the attempted shaming in order to get sympathy, a common response from this farm. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

They have attempted to recreate Khaie now at Khaie (2024) and Khaie (TV series). They obviously have monetary interest in getting these pages live. At this point, I won't AGF with anyone from that farm. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of which farm this is emanating from, Khaie (TV series) was a CV. There was a clean version. I've rev-del'ed it. I'd have G5'ed it as well if not for Liz's decline as it's a clear sock disruption even if the creator is blocked for a different reason. I'm not going to semi it since they'll just create alternative titles Star Mississippi 23:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm! These seem to connect to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANASKHAN777/Archive. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Due to these accounts suspicious upbringings, are you intending to block them if they keep creating those articles. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup, all three of them checkuser blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I got all of their creations. If I missed any, feel free to hoover behind me. Thanks for keeping an eye on the mess @CNMall41 Star Mississippi 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for saving my sanity (for now)! It's been a rabbit hole that I can't seem to get out of. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2024 (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:Softwarestatistik and WP:COMMUNICATION

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.

---

Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs · count · logs)

• Warned 25 times on the talk page for a variety of issues (WP:EDITSUMMARY #1 #2 #3, WP:CITE, WP:CWW, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:WAR #1 #2, WP:COMMUNICATE #1 #2 #3, WP:MOS) and has not responded to any of them.
• Previously blocked 24 hours for lack of responsiveness to warnings and no use of talk page in 2021. (ANI). Already warned they will be indeffed if disruption continues. Did not respond either.
• Zero edit in Talk: namespace and zero non-automatic edit summaries.
• And more recently, I removed the vocabulary list on Comparison of Indonesian and Standard Malay for WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:SIZE. I pinged and offered to discuss on both the article talk page and User talk:Softwarestatistik, who ignored both of my messages and reinstated their rev multiple times.

NM 03:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Softwarestatistik#Indefinite block. El_C 04:37, 20 February 2024 (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: Yotrages (2)

Shortly after this noticeboard, that led users like @Vanderwaalforces: suggest that @Yotrages: has a WP:CIR issue, Nigerian user Yotrages came back even worse! With these edits (1, 2) by Nigerian IPs, Yotrages Is voluntarily abusing of multiple accounts to restore his content (edit history of the page says it all, @Schazjmd: said that one if the two “seems to clearly be Yotrages”). He also repeatedly continued his pattern of addition of false content with his main account (1, 2). I've been checking his edits for these last weeks, and I can firmly say that to me Yotrages is clearly a Vandalism only account that adds fabricated content on purpose DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Baseless accusations, those 2 IP's ain't mine. Cuz you traced they're from Nigeria doesn't mean I own them!! My IP address is 105.115.1.25 so it's different from them, and I've never used it to edit (you can cross check). The articles are for Nigerian artists, so Nigerian IP's are going to edit it. Per your logic, I can accuse you of using any South African IP's that edit on Wikipedia. The second case @DollysOnMyMind: removed a content that an RFC has been reached for [180], which is bad and can deprive him of editing privilege. The third case is that, he has been adding unnecessary and unreliable content to Chris Brown's article. Using Justin Bieber as a critics, and calling me a troll on his talk page, while reverting me and other editors on the page. Yotrages (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind reverting everything you dont like on Wikipedia, is not a good way of editing. That IP has edited Rema's page a day before I saw it. After checking both the opinion on the RFC and his or her trims, I closed the RFC. But [he deleted it to the way he wanted, even though other editors opined it must be trimmed to a paragraph. You really need to change. He accused me of sneakily deleting Schazjmd reply, in which [181] I apologized and told him what happen. Yotrages (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that an IP from your same area has restored the same fake content just hours following you doing that identical disruptive edit is not “Baseless accusations” (1, 2). Stop trolling please DollysOnMyMind (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There was almost a day speration between those two edits. And are you implying an IP from your State in South Africa, can't edit a South African page 22 hours after yours? cuz that's a rubbish explanation, for accusing me of something outrageous. Also after reverting my edit on TTPD another editor added and qoutes it, cuz it's not wrong, it sticks to the source. Me and @AlHazen [182][183] did the same thing within an hour, in the same article. Does that mean I owned both accounts. Yotrages (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

IP 116.90.110.

The IP range 116.90.110.0/24 is spamming and generally disrupting (see also deleted edits). Based on this, it seems they may be Bestcomics, which would make this block evasion. Any chance of a block of some duration? (I've notified the most recently active user, .117, of this discussion.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is close to IP, which has made a "unblock request" on the talk page of Bestcomics. I suggest this IP and the range are blocked, and then we should get on an WP:SPI case for the future. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for 180.28.59.165

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

Looks like this user just goes around reverting edits warning people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.141.16 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

As you are more than well aware, I am busy reverting vandalism to this site. Your whining about me here says a lot about your motivations. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making legal threats when reverting vandalism a change in capitalisation, like you did here. Warning templates are enough, and this was absolutely uncalled for. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops, my bad! 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, vandalism has a precise definition (edits deliberately made to disrupt the encyclopedia), and you shouldn't call any edit you disagree with "vandalism" and revert it without giving an explanation. Something like removing outdated tags is not vandalism, it isn't a magic word allowing you to revert anything you don't like.
If someone asks you why you reverted them, replying It was vandalism and you well know it. Cease and desist or you WILL be blocked from editing for a very long time. And a very well deserved block it will be too! is not an acceptable explanation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, your replies to User talk:83.168.141.16 and User talk:2601:646:9982:E590:167:B8F1:6FAB:E93 are unacceptable! Please stop with that kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, this IP address clearly does not want to cooperate. this edit is the last straw. Also, any admin patrolling, please look at this madness at User talk:2601:646:9982:E590:167:B8F1:6FAB:E93's talk page. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Thats not cool. Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping this @Ad Orientem. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you know why they are doing this? 67.161.66.16 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

People who do this have nothing better than to ruin others people lifes. 172.56.51.188 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I should point out, now that they are blocked, that this user has had their behaviour pointed out to them in multiple of their IPs before, including these ones which are currently blocked:

• 223.136.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 223.140.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 111.82.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 111.83.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 66.11.61.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 2804:F14:809C:9001:B8FE:28FF:9611:DEC8 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [184]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [185][186] [187]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [188] [189]
• Removal of edit warring notice [190]
• Removal of ANI notice [191]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [192] [193] [194]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [195]
• Personal attack [196]
• WP:PA against Leventio [197]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [198]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209])
• Erroneous material ([210] [211])
• Readded boosterism ([212]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)^{retracted after seeing new evidence}

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink, as an editor who cleans up such mistakes, I find this an infuriating take. No, we don't just block someone who makes such errors, but it's not okay for users to create error-filled edits on the assumption "someone else" will come along and clean it up. WP:CIR is a metric for whether someone should be allowed to edit the site, not the bar for whether an individual edit should be accepted. It's perfectly acceptable, even preferable, to revert "productive" additions that introduce a bunch of errors rather than to ignore them and expect other editors to clean them up.

An editor edit-warring to maintain such edits may not be a WP:CIR problem, but it's perfectly reasonable for OP to include edit-warring over them as part of the behavioral issues at play. Grandpallama (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The linked warnings (ignored ones?) are just someone asking the editor to participate in his own ANI case, not adding links, and not chirping into talk page disputes.

Sorry, but where are the warnings for the editing mistakes, and the instructions for correction? I don't see them in your case, and all I see on their talk page is a generic template warning for edit warring.

How do you feel about a two-way WP:IBAN if you do not want him reverting your edits, and he doesnt want you reverting his? Some edits such as Special:Diff/1206704749 appear to be constructive and good faith to me. (This would require his agreement as well)

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. ^{retracted after seeing new evidence}DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they'd also benefit from not summarily deleting all or most of the messages left at their Talk page and choosing not to engage in this conversation. While it's certainly their right to do so, I think it's fair to say that it's coming across as a disinterest in collaborating with their fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've only encountered Summerdays1 in the last few days at Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. I hadn't until now spotted that this thread was open but having now seen it I'm surprised Summerdays1 hasn't received some sanction for WP:PAs, WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just from that talk page alone the most egregious examples are:

1. Look, you are easily exasperating. Why do I need to give you any reasons? I choose not to for the following: you are difficult and I really don't wish to converse with you on here or anywhere.
2. Because you are ridiculous. I'll say it, you are nuts.
3. They deleted an article talk page reply to them with the edit summary "unwanted expl.".
4. and again with edit summary "asked for another opinion, not yours"
5. "stop talking...You are deluded. I will not answer further."
6. 5 repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post.[213], [214], [215], [216], [217].

DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see all those.

Yeah, definitely deserves a sanction. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing which isn't easily summarised in a diff but which can clearly be seen from reviewing that article talk page is that they don't feel the need to justify their policy-free opinion and being challenged on that results in an extreme WP:BATTLE reaction. Unless they shape up this is not someone who can collaborate here. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think indef blocking them first and asking them to explain how they'll cease being disruptive might set them off. A month (with appeal), for them to contemplate how disruptive they're being might be good though. If that doesn't work, indef them again DarmaniLink (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I support a block here — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I also support a block. GuardianH (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are bad enough. Deleting other editors' posts on talkpages, that aren't theirs? crosses the line. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I support an indefinite one-way IBAN for whoever has been repeatedly harassed and a one week block for personal attacks, harassment, deleting talk page posts, and battleground behavior to deter future misconduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  seconded DarmaniLink (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: After having a close look at some of Summerdays1's contributions on various articles, I found some striking similarities in edits and behaviour between Summerday1 and an older account, AloofAnteater45. I have filed an SPI report, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45. Thanks — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Malicious editing by Pankeyk / 2601:646::/32

A few days ago, I was reported to this noticeboard due to my attempts to patrol new edits and revert vandalism/warn offending users. In doing so, I drew the wrath of someone using a number of IPs from the same range (2601:646::/32) who then proceeded to create an account, both os which they have since been using to taunt, goad and harass me. Some background on this as follows:

2601:646:9982:e590:167:b8f1:6fab:e93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes an unnecessary grammatical change for which they are warned (by me) here.

The next comment on that talk page is from 2601:646:8003:6b20:c1b6:8b6f:ec48:af47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the same range, but is constructed to look like it's come from a different user, who accuses me of having an angry attitude

The next series of edits on that talk page are a hostile exchange between me and yet another IP from that range 2601:646:8003:6b20:249b:3c4b:3c0e:5089 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [218], [219], [220] Also on my talk page, the same IP gets annoyed with me for attempting to revert vandalism [221] before they finally create an account and login as Pankeyk

On reviewing Pankeyk's contributions, it seems clear they have an obsession with me, baiting me [222] and calling me a fraud [223].

Later on, I posted a request for unblock on my talk page which was denied, at which point this user's editing pattern starts to become troublesome....

In this comment, despite the fact that everything that needed to be said had been done so already, Pankeyk was so desperate to taunt me and get the last word in that they posted an extremely patronising message, thinly veiled as "advice". As is my right, I then remove the nonsense added by Pankeyk, first restoring an old revision [224] (I did accidentally remove a comment from the blocking admin, but this would not make sense out of context anyway) and then explaining why I was removing them

At this point, yet another IP from the previous range 2601:646:8003:6b20:a12e:56c0:777d:e05f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already self-confirmed as Pankeyk) jumps in and makes a series of edits:

1. Explains that the messages are "reminders" but also claims they are from a different IP when it is clearly the same person [225]
2. Even worse, this same IP then engages with other users on my talk page to paint me in a bad light [226]
3. More goading [227]
4. Yet more goading [228]
5. Again refers to Pankeyk in the 3rd person when they are clearly the same user [229]
6. Unhealthy interested in the outcome of this case, clear evidence of WP:NOTHERE. [230]
7. Restores the pervious condescending comments I had already explained I wanted removed [231]
8. Follow up comment to the excessive interest in the outcome of this case. [232]
9. Even has the audactity to respond to a comment they made from the same IP as if they are different users! (Someone left the burner on?) [233]
10. And has further audactiy to warn me for removing comments on my own talk page [234] (removed by blocking admin here)

The blocking admin had to step in twice to ask them to desist: [235], [236]

In conclusion, this pattern of behaviour is every bit as bad as actual sockpuppetry, and in my opinion should be dealt with the same way - i.e. the sock account Pankeyk should be indef blocked, and the IP range mentioned above hard blocked for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.28.59.165 (talk)

A lot of what you call "goading" or "trying to paint you in a bad light" is people reminding you that you shouldn't call anything you disagree with "vandalism" and threaten users over it. I'll also add that you have repeatedly been making personal attacks, including in edit summaries here today (saying remove more shite from WANKyk). Given your recent block, I think you should really be more careful with this kind of behavior. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Pankeyk as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I suggest also looking at the behavior of the IP who brought the case to ANI, and their habit of making personal attacks and threatening blocks against any editor they disagree with. Whether or not Pankeyk is indeed a sock, some of the personal attacks against them and others were pretty unacceptable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: I feel like there is more going on here than just Avelina and Pankeyk and the IP being the same person, this ip (2601:64...98:774C), in the /64 range that you just blocked, had previously tried to appeal what seems to have been an autoblock, which unfortunately they did not elaborate on. Although absent of any other evidence I don't want to speculate and cast aspersions.

  -

  The OP, as I have pointed out before* is also someone who has used multiple IPs before and is currently blocked in a few ranges: permalink

  (*I didn't give any diffs then, but their general attitude in talk pages and reverts are all the same type and all happened recently)

  That said, @Bishonen's 10 day block on the OP feels sufficient for now, it's a different IP range anyways.

  – 2804:F14:809C:9001:DDFB:94F6:6529:2AC0 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• OP blocked. The start of this conflict by the OP, as described by themselves above, is very strange. Immediately on the expiration of their block for disruption towards other editors, especially for labeling innocuous edits "vandalism" and bothering and threatening the users who made those edits, they pick another fight in exactly the same way, ignoring everything they had been told. The diff they "warned" the IPv6 about was clearly not vandalism - the worst you can say about it is that it was indeed "unnecessary". All the unpleasantness following, as detailed by 180.28.59.165 (most of it from their own battleground attitude), stemmed from this original "warning". 180.28.59.165 obviously learned nothing from their first block, nor from the advice they received during it. I'm trying a block of 10 days to see what that can do. Bishonen | tålk 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC).

• Bad close Still ongoing discussion closed only a few hours after the latest comment, with questions still open about the IPs mentioned above. Also uncomfortable about having a user blocked on suspicions of sockpuppetry provided by someone clearly acting in bad faith (and now themselves blocked). This case should have been given a little more time to review the situation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping: TheDragonFire300 ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 03:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, what do you think still needs to be resolved? It seems like there was some bad behavior all around. Are you critiquing Bishonen's decision to block? It seems justified to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I was talking about the decision to block Pankeyk as a sock of Avelina only based on the evidence provided by the blocked IP, although maybe there's some evidence that I missed or misunderstood. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The user was socking, most of the IP addresses point to the same location. Are you saying this may not be a sock of Avelina specifically? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the OP never mentioned Avelina at all, so these blocks were clearly based on at least some evidence that Bbb23 observed on his own.

As to if the IP was indeed Pankeyk, that's something that Pankeyk themselves admitted to, at least to one specific IP in the range of these IPv6 IPs: <here> (seemingly talking about <this edit>, not that the Pankeyk account even existed when the edit was made, but whatever)

– 2804:F14:809C:9001:DDFB:94F6:6529:2AC0 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it was more about being a sock of Avelina specifically (the IP part is pretty clear-cut as you mention), but you make a good point that there has to be evidence Bbb23 observed separately. Sorry for bothering with this! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by Jollybobwrinkleheadthethird

The user Jollybobwrinkleheadthethird is making various vandalism to various page (particularly City of London School) , the user has been warned but there appears no change in his behaviours . Harvici (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) They have been indefinitely blocked. Please report future vandalism to administrators noticeboard AIV — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta perhaps you meant WP:AIV? That's the place for reporting obvious vandalism. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:DDFB:94F6:6529:2AC0 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

lol, and this is when my trust for autocomplete in the "add a link" function ends. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive User

Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk · contribs · logs) WP:NOTHERE user. He's still contuining his edit war with misleading edit summaries [237] after final warning [238] and being repeatedly warned [239], [240][241] and keeps ignoring talk page discussions. They are also resorting to personal attacks and threatening to keep edit warring regardless of the ongoing talk page discussions and warnings and is incapable of how understanding how consensus works [242] Codenamewolf (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This user is also using false summaries to edit war as I've already responded and explained to them why their lead images can't be used the second time today [243] before they went on their revert spree again which is WP:IDHT behaviour.Codenamewolf (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

you did not notice them as instructed at the top of the page. i did it for you. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Codenamewolf: Almost a week ago, that user started a discussion at Talk:Partition of India expressing concern over your edits. You're supposed to discuss article content concerns at articles' talk pages, not user talk pages, but you haven't replied to them there. Any passing admin ought to have a look at the condition of User talk:Captain AmericanBurger1775 since you started warning-bombing it and but also a message where they called you called them "uneducated" and told them you to "shut the fuck up". City of Silver 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I had already discussed the whole thing on their talk page, and told them to take the matter to WP:RSN or dispute resolution. [244][245] It is after that they posted this on the article talk page which is I guess to get other people's comments. The content dispute is over two things, but it is the lead image mainly, which is what they keep edit warring over, ignoring that they don't have consensus. And that "uneducated" insult was actually directed towards me (by Captain American Burger), not made by me. Codenamewolf (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said, "You're supposed to discuss article content concerns at articles' talk pages, not user talk pages." You both should have stopped editing the article and discussed at its talk page.

Before you posted this, I corrected that mistake. I apologized in that correction's edit summary but I'll say again, sorry about that. City of Silver 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've now moved the discussion there. Codenamewolf (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Codenamewolf: I saw that; thank you. I gave that user a final warning for personally attacking you so do you think this discussion can be closed? City of Silver 22:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me for now, but there is a pattern of WP:IDHT behaviour with this user and beating about the bush, which would probably land them here again if they don't mend their ways. Case in example: [246] After being linked to the detailed policy pages like WP:ONUS (not for the first time) they respond with troll comments like "Speaking in English would be preferable" Codenamewolf (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't ignored any talk page discussions. Infact, you ignored my talk page responses for a couple days, and I decided to just add my edit as you seemed to have shown disinterest in continuing the edit war. There has been no valid explanation for why my lead images should be discarded and Codenamewolf obviously has an agenda. He was angry over a single image of some damage from a riot, as a lead image. Due to that, I followed a middle ground solution and added a collage of images. Yet he still is reverting my edits. All my edits have had great information that helps readers understand the contents of the article.

And I didn't go on any "reverting spree". I reverted 1-2 reverts. That's all. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

By "ignoring talk page" discussions, I meant continuing to edit war and trying to ramrod your edits in despite an ongoing discussion and having received multiple warnings why this is wrong. And I never ignored your talk page messages, it is just that this is just you personally attacking me and threatening to edit war by saying "I'm going to go through with that regardless what an uneducated person like you thinks". I had already told you why your version of the lead image violated MOS:LEADIMAGE over and over. Codenamewolf (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bobbylonardo

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.

---

Created an autobiography at Bobby Lonardo, and has previously been taken to ANI for a total lack of communication and adding copyrighted materials. Mach61 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bobbylonardo Mach61 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61: That just links to this discussion. I believe you meant to link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#User:Bobbylonardo not providing edit summaries, questionable edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Have Draftified. Qcne (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

…That was a mistake, this absolutely should have been speedied Mach61 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least its out of Mainspace now. Feel free to speedy it. Qcne (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It was already tagged & being speedy'ed when you moved it. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne: Sending to draftspace was absolutely a mistake! Draftifying should *not* be a backdoor to deletion per WP:DRAFTIFY. You should be patient and wait for an admin to delete a page in mainspace. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please also delete this Draft:Bobby Lonardo? It was sent to draftspace by mistake and should've been deleted in mainspace under A11 or even G3. Thank you! CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They have also since created Stephanie Lonardo, Linda Lonardo and Andrew Lonardo. Seems like we are working on the whole family tree here. Obviously this needs to quickly stop. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted the draft under A7, indeffed the account for persistent disruption with a total lack of responsiveness. @Qcne: Please do not draftify pages that have zero chance of ever being valid articles; tagging these in article space as A7 or another rationale is usually preferred and makes them easier to monitor/tag. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:32, 20 February 2024 (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 from Rockchalk717

• Rockchalk717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Travis Kelce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rockchalk717 has engaged in disruptive edit warring on the Travis Kelce article. When a talk page discussion was opened up over whether to add his altercation with Andy Reid during the Super Bowl here, he has since refused to participate after true allegations of WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL. This is not his first ANI, similar issues of ownership have arisen within the past 5 weeks. I propose a topic ban from any article involving the Kansas City Chiefs broadly construed. 2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs showing the edit warring? —Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

[247] [248] [249]. To be fair #1 isn’t directly about the issue at hand, but it does show his edit warring attitude.--2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to go off-topic but can I talk you into signing up for an account? Your first message on this thread is the same IP as your last message at that talk, your second message here is from a different IP, and I can't tell which, if any, of other the anonymous editors at that thread are also you. City of Silver 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

All the IPs should be the same /64 - 2603:3003:4802:5f00::/64. 2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for an IPv6 address, the first 16 characters matching means its from the same connection. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The second diff which shows the Reid reference being removed was actually done by a different editor. As for the talk page discussion, WP:CONSENSUS doesnt require unanimity. If you can establish consensus on the wording to add, and if another editor with permissions doesnt add it, you can make an edit request on the talk page, referencing the consensus established. —Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

We aren't going to topic ban Rockchalk717 for disengaging from that thread. This is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. If you want the content included in the article, you can write a draft paragraph and then open an RfC on whether it should be included. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@2603:3003:4802:5F00:28FF:B7F4:3EBB:8078: Edit warring is reverting the same edit. Those are 3 different edits being reverted. Removing myself from a discussion doesn't violate a policy. It's a little frustrating to be reported to ANI twice by (who I assume) is the same person hiding behind an IP and for some reason refuses to create account and be accused of disruptive editing because they disagree with something I've said. Disagreeing with a proposed addition isn't stonewalling either. Please stop falsely accusing me of stonewalling.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an editor to create an account, though there are benefits for doing so. —Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Rockchalk717, just a reminder that per WP:3RR,

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

I have not looked into the details here, but if you think edit warring requires reverting the same edit, you're mistaken. If there are intervening edits, then reverting different edits still counts towards the 3RR limit and therefore may be considered edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's worth reiterating that WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL is an "explanatory essay" and not a policy or guideline of the project.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The point remains, I wasn't edit warring. Only once did I have more than one revert within a 24 hour period on that page, and the 2nd one was right before I began discussing the edit dispute with the editor. The point also remains that I've done nothing wrong. This person hiding behind the IP address appears to have something against me for just disagreeing with them on two separate occasions as this is the second time they've created an inappropriate ANI report about me, both of which where thinking an edit dispute was a violation of policy.--Rockchalk717 07:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Point remains; you like to take OWNERship of articles, make accusations, edit war, etc. A topic ban from the chiefs is lenient; I’d personally advocate for a topic ban from all of the NFL.96.231.203.242 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is tantamount to a personal attack. We are not going to topic ban Rockchalk717 from anything. Again, this is a content dispute that you need to resolve via RfC. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Rockchalk is refusing to discuss, and an RFC cannot be attempted because someone is going to claim WP:RFCBEFORE wasn’t followed. Also, do NOT accuse someone of personal attacks without substantial evidence; that is a personal attack itself. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You could absolutely start an RfC on the article talk page if you wanted to. Rockchalk's withdrawal from one thread will never be enough to warrant any sanction, let alone a topic ban, in the eyes of any competent observer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) Numerous RFCs have failed before due to RFCBEFORE requirement. (2) “any competent observer” that’s a personal attack. (3) This isn’t the first time Rockchalk has engaged in disruptive editing. The previous ANI showed them refusing to add a maintence tag for unsourced material on 2023 Kansas City Chiefs, and most editors agreed that the tag was appropriate at the time. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted at the article talk page to turn the discussion back to content. If you can't be bothered to start an RfC, maybe I will. At any rate, the previous ANI + your scurrilous accusations here are not nearly enough to warrant a sanction; it is time to disengage before a bent stick is sent your direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we just close this discussion? It's been made clear to this editor I've done nothing wrong and no disciplinary action is necessary. I even have personally agreed to a brief comment about the incident the editor wants included. The editor just keeps personally attacking me with false accusations of edit warring, stonewalling, ownership of articles, and inappropriate usage of ANI directed towards me. The situation is nothing more than an edit dispute and the editor has taken what I would admit is a little stubbornness on my end the wrong way. I will apologize for the stubbornness but me being stubborn on here at times is not against the rules.--Rockchalk717 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

LTA MakaveliReed: seeking a larger rangeblock

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• 2601:240:CD00:0:0:0:0:0/46 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

MakaveliReed has been active recently on a number of /64 ranges in the Chicago area. He got blocked yesterday at Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:F7A4:0:0:0:0/64, but was active before that and after that on other /64 ranges. Today he re-appeared on Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:22E6:B455:12A9:7A68:25CC.

I would like to propose a rangeblock on the /46 which covers the last month of activity. Larger ranges have more collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: expanded current block to the /46 range. El_C 06:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOXING, edit warring and POV-pushing in Pakistani election articles

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

---

Bolt Kjerag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been imposing POV edits using a website they claim to be a reliable and “official” source self-proclaiming electoral fraud in 2024 Pakistani general election despite multiple warnings by other users over its provenance and partisanship. This led to the election page being protected to prevent them from hammering down their source, whereupon they moved to Electoral fraud in Pakistan to impose their exact same edits again with disregard for concerns raised by editors over the same reasons and even going as far as to place highlights on their citations in a bid to WP:SOAPBOX, claiming it to be not ordinary and even official data from a “reliable”, “well-researched” website that screams ELECTORAL FRAUD at the very beginning and was created for the sole purpose of disseminating such ideas. Furthemore they have sidestepped wiki decorum by demanding all discussions be held in their talk page rather than the page they’re tampering with. As of now they are currently edit-warring despite two warnings on their talk page.

See:

• [[250]]
• [[251]]
• [[252]]
• [[253]]
• [[254]]

For reference, this is the so-called source that they have been parading around as “information”: [[255]], which is a virtual copypaste of this website from one of the affected parties in this election. [[256]].

Request immediate action to deal with this before the credibility of said articles becomes compromised. Borgenland (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Just want to note that their behavior is persistent and similar as Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOUPBOXER - The answer posted on Administrator page concerning your complaint.

Thanks,

Bolt Kjerag Bolt Kjerag (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Multiple IP addresses making unexplained edits in Seberang Perai

Calling for urgent intervention on the multiple addresses (suspected sockpuppets of the same editor) making unexplained edits on Seberang Perai without WP:ES and potential edit warring behaviour by said addresses in spite of warnings.
114.142.173.45 ([257])
116.206.15.31 ([258])
116.206.14.18 ([259])
116.206.15.31 ([260])

hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Mandsford. One year protection hopefully will do the trick. El_C 01:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:HundenvonPenang

As a beginner on Wikipedia using the internet in my office, I tried to edit and develop the article on the neolithic history of Seberang Perai, also changing a picture in the infobox because there are similarities between the city skyline and central terminal with a image. But a User:HundenvonPenang always disrupts my edits with his assumptions, even though I only want to develop this section. Can the admin here warn him? because almost 90% that article dominant by him, judging from this history. Thank You 116.206.14.19 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet another IP address, a sockpuppet of the above mentioned issue. No explanation at all from said IP addresses. Edit-warring & treating WP as a battlefield. Just another classic case of assuming bad faith. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• To hundenvonPG, protection has been added to limit registered users has been placed for the next 12 months. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• To User 116.206.14.19; I suggest that you register as a Wikipedia user. After you register, you may consider creating an article about prehistoric discoveries in Seberang Perai, in that it appears that you have substantial sourcing, and then create a link to that article.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• To both users, if correct, the additional information relating to discoveries in Seberang Perai does not appear at first glance to be irrelevant, and reverting edits, if substantiated and relevant, is not encouraged.Mandsford 14:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

CIR and persistent addition of unsourced content by User:Salfanto

Salfanto (talk · contribs · logs) has had a persistent issue with adding unsourced content (and OR that is not adequately supported by the cited sources), [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] and has been warned for this behaviour numerous times. When warned in the past, as visible on their talk page, their response typically involves saying "ok sorry" in response to these issues, and then essentially ignoring them completely and not actually changing their behaviour in any way at all. This most recent diff [269] leads me to believe that this is a CIR case, if not outright disruption - deliberately lying in their edit summary, in which they say they "added sources" but only added more unsourced content, which is not something I can find any way to construe as the actions of a good-faith contributor. Loafiewa (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours: User talk:Salfanto#Block. El_C 01:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Loafiewa: I saw your report here, considered the final warning you left this user all the way back in November, and this was the obvious next step. Please keep an eye on this user once their block expires because any further violations should go directly to WP:AIV. City of Silver 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting here again is also fine. Or if I'm around, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. El_C 01:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

JoaoSPinto18

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.

---

JoaoSPinto18 (talk · contribs)

This user has a number of warnings for adding unsourced content to BLPs, from multiple users. Last night I reverted them - their reaction was to call me "Führer" and then re-add the content (now sourced) whilst acknowledging that it was unsourced first time around. I was 50-50 to block but thought I would raise here in case I was viewed as involved given the personal attack. GiantSnowman 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support, has received a lvl 4 warning, and the personal attack shows serious WP:NOTHERE behavior on top of that. Geardona (talk to me?) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support indef ban per @Geardona. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support indef sounds good. They are always apologetic about any disruptive editing they do and promising to do better, but failing to do better. Then, when Giant Snowman gave them the lvl 4 warning, they escalated it too far with the personal attack. Conyo14 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. That is an awful personal attack, notwithstanding the other issues. Daniel (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment The personal attack is inexcusable and deserves a block, though I do want to point out that they did add a source (in the re-add edit): <diff>. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:202A:C641:EC4A:1518 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake regarding the reference in the infobox which I did not see. Now re-added. GiantSnowman 20:20, 20 February 2024 (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:Awiy

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

---

This user continues to remove sourced content from articles, in these revisions [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], and keeps repeating the same edit summary with "fixed typo". TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Awiy#Indefinite block. TheGreatestLuvofAll, mobile diffs hurt my soul. El_C 10:26, 21 February 2024 (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.

Jonharojjashi; concerning edits and suspected meatpuppetry

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

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I made two SPIs which go into a lot more detail about this [276] [277], but they were mostly fruitless. Which leads me think this surely must be meat puppetry; one thing is that two similar users emerge around the same time, but several? (even more have emerged since the latest two SPIs) No way.

Jonharojjashi is still continuing these problematic edits. Besides creating two poorly written non-notable articles to get a cheap "Gupta (Indian) victory" (Gupta conquests of Bengal and Extermination of Nagadhatta), they're making a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [278], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Remember the meatpuppetry I mentioned earlier? Well, just coincidentally not long ago one of the users that Jonharojjashi was suspected to be connected to in the SPI, also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [279]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like Jonharojjashi is now attempting to retaliate against some of those users who have shown concerns with their edits, including me. They made a poorly made SPI, trying to connect me with random users from completely different backgrounds and interests... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImperialAficionado HistoryofIran (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I have even more compelling evidence that there is ongoing meatpuppetry - the evidence certainly explains the bit about the random new users pretty much working together. Don't think I can post it here per WP:OUTING - I'll gladly email it to a interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have found more compelling evidence of meatpuppetry by me then please go to SPI as you have done earlier [280][281] and I haven't retaliated to this ANI instead I had already told you that I'm getting links or in other words I'm getting your connections with other users, so it was obvious that I would go for SPI [282] and I have explained there that how some of them are coordinating with you or grouping with each other in order to bite newcomers.

You are again demeaning Gupta conquests of Bengal, please go through the sources before making such allegations. [283] I have explained that how this article is notable. And again please don't pass such judgements here [284] if the draft is still in development. Jonharojjashi (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me? Please refrain from suggesting that we are colluding to "target newcomers" by lumping everyone together. I specifically addressed certain accounts that were engaging in edit wars for a specific agenda. Additionally, I pointed out the creation of articles like "Battle of X" and "Siege of X" without proper sourcing, relying solely on invented names. While there's no issue with creating such articles if reliable sources mention them verbatim, here we've observed multiple articles being created with invented names to favor a specific perspective. When concerns are raised about these articles, they are met with coordinated pushback and even the removal of AFD tags [285]. Many newcomers contribute constructively to contentious topics, and their efforts are valued. However, creating articles with less notability and inventing names for battles and sieges are discouraged. It's crucial to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project aimed at expanding knowledge, not for personal agendas or gratification. I recommend submitting your drafts for Articles for Deletion (AFD) review instead of moving them to mainspace unilaterally, especially since multiple concerns have been raised. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you should look into yourself as you have removed sources before proposing AFD many times [286][287]. I have given substantial evidence for Tag teaming [288] and can you elaborate by what you mean by certain agendas? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave proper reasoning in the edit summary, and it is a good faith edit. Non WP:RS will be removed. And the reason for removing the template from Extermination of Naghadatta is given in its edit summary. Why didn't you participate in those AFD discussion, and now talking about it? And I don't know anything about the "Tag teaming" talking here. The "Agendas" are clearly mentioned by HistoryofIran in your earlier SPIs [289] [290]. I made the earlier comment to make clear that we are not "targetting the newcomers", and I will not be lengthening this thread by baseless arguments. Waiting for the conclusion of the ANI report. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And the "Agendas" which were earlier mentioned by historyofIran was proven to be nothing but an unrelated call [291] and three different peoples [292] by the SPI clerks.

As you have previously made personal attacks on me by calling a good faith edit as "vandalism" [293] so I will again warn you to not portray me as a sockpuppetier anymore and do not use words like "agenda" and "vandalism" and "to gain some pride points" (obviously referring to historyofIran) when I wasn't guilty. I don't want to overreact as ANI is still ongoing but honestly this feels like WP:HA and WP:HOUND so this is it, I will just stop replying from now. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, if you have evidence of off-wiki canvassing and/or meatpuppetry, you should send it to ArbCom. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just send an email to ArbCom. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP user 2600:1002:B032:CF57:0:13:274D:4A01

2600:1002:B032:CF57:0:13:274D:4A01 (talk · contribs · logs) inserting unrelated video games sections in various film studio articles. Continued beyond final warning. Barry Wom (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in WP:AIV? Flux55 (my talk page) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55: please do appropriate research before commenting here. A cursory check of Barry Wom's contributions would have found the edit prior to reporting to ANI, they did report to AIV, where they were told to report at ANI. Daniel (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Flux55 (my talk page) 18:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor has returned under a new IP of 2600:1002:b0c9:a6a9:0:1c:a7df:cf01 (talk · contribs · count) [294], [295]. Barry Wom (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Canada convoy protest

The article has seen a revert war that went to a bazillionRR, with an IP /64 range removing content and an inexperienced editor with an account countering them revert for revert. I don't have time this morning to fully sort it out,but I think admin eyes are needed in any case, since it appears to me that there's some off-wiki organizing going on to insert a POV at odds with sourcing. The talkpage is seeing some soapboxing and the inevitable "watch this video to see the truth" recommendation. The article probably needs semi-protection for a longish term. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection at RPP. Remsense诉 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion This would fall under WP:CT/COVID and so could be protected as an AE action? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To an extent, but I don't have time this morning to fill out the paperwork or to pursue due diligence with all of the edits, unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I did the thing (AEL diff). El_C 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

49.130.129.116 cheerleading terrorism

Just this bit of editing at Talk:Mumtaz Qadri. Yikes. PepperBeast (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked and revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Clear username violation, clear block evasion and likely sock

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

---

This account BIock evasion clearly violates the username policy and the user creation log also indicated that this account was created at the exact same time as Evading my blocks which has a similar username. Also likely to be a LTA as well. Snices (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Snices (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (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:MMRafez continuously edit warring

Hello, administrators. So I have come to raise concerns about the Sydney Sweeney page. This user is continuously adding an image (in which previously they stated to "reflect her true beauty"). We have repeatedly reverted it, telling them not to do so without giving any adequate explanation or even taking it to the talk page, and this user refuses to listen or heed by the comments I put in my edit summary. I would like for someone else to talk this through, since I'm getting very exhausted from trying to convince them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a clear copyvio of this Getty Images photo. In fact, both of the uploads at Commons are copyvios, as the photo they keep adding at Sydney Sweeney is cropped from this one. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged one of the images at Commons as an obvious copyright violation. I've indefinitely blocked the user for the edit-warring, the copyright violations, and being a WP:SPA fan. NoobThreePointOh, you really should also be blocked (for a shorter period) for edit-warring. I'll let another admin decide whether that's necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's my fault. I shouldn't have done that. But to be honest, I tried to control myself, and... I just couldn't. I admit my mistake too. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically, I think 3RRNO#5 applies; although I don't think N3.0 actually knew that at the time. Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to block them for that now that the copyvio is known. Hopefully, this can be a useful reminder that when you get to the "I tried to control myself, and... I just couldn't" stage, it's probably time to walk away. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that NoobThreePointOh has acknowledged he made a mistake and accepted responsibility, I think we can just let it remain a "don't do that again" instead of issuing a block for those reverts. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I hope this is indeed a lesson I can learn. Gotta do some breathing exercises. Thanks for reminding me all about this. I deserve a slap on the wrist for that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

User 86.124.188.86

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.

---

its pretty apparent that this user doesn't have the ability to post constructively, at least an admin warning could be beneficial in my opinion [296] 83.168.141.16 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's just the usual reply on any talk page that's Facebook-related, where some people think the Wikipedia page for Facebook is the website itself. I see no reason why this should be at ANI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:15, 21 February 2024 (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.

Vandalism by user @TimothyBlue

@TimothyBlue

Hello, I would just like to report one user who has recently taken a very strong stance on my articles. He has been bashfully marking articles written by me as unreviewed, despite the fact that they have been previously verified. He deletes my entries despite the fact that I have added references to them to verified sources. He accuses me of plagiarism, unprofessionalism and using bad sources.

Here is a small outline of the whole situation:

1. it all started with the fact that this user added hundreds of notes to the article ''List of wars and conflicts involving Poland'' under the title ''citation needed'' even to those that already had their own separate article. I reminded him of this and we began to discuss the issue on the ''talk'' page of the article, after a short discussion the user in question was unable to present credible arguments and his only goal in my opinion was to vandalize that page.

[297][298][299][300][301][302]

2. So he began to take revenge on my articles by marking many of them as unreviewed despite the fact that they had been previously reviewed, he began to slander my articles as if they were of poor quality and I should not write any more, he added many notes to my articles that were intended to get rid of them.

[303][304][305][306][307]

3. Although our main dispute was about the article "List of wars involving Poland" which this user vandalized, he claimed that Polish uprisings, invasions, rebellions, raids, civil wars, coups. and many similar entries had no place there because, in his opinion, they did not belong to the ''war'' category, I tried to explain to him that these entries fit there, and that every single article titled ''List of wars'' is structured similarly, although I partially helped him and started adding appropriate references to all entries that did not yet have their own website. Polish medieval chronicles describing specific events in detail, historical books etc. To which the user replied that I was still wrong and started adding a 'verification failed' note to them.

[308][309][310][311]

4. Yesterday, despite my assurances and warnings, this user went all out and deleted half of the entries from a given article, which made me angry and I decided to write to support for help.

[312][313][314][315][316][317][318][319][320][321][322][323][324][325][326][327][328][329][330][331][332][333][334][335][336][337]

When it comes to my articles, I have absolutely no problem with criticizing them because I am not flawless and I can make mistakes, however, when someone vandalizes them in a certain way, I cannot turn a blind eye to it and pretend that nothing is happening over each of the articles. I worked many hours, donated a lot of my free time to create them, and now one user who decided he didn't like them decided to vandalize them, which really upset me. So, coming to the point, is there any chance to minimize the damage that a given user commits to my articles, especially the article ''List of wars involving Poland''? Would it be possible to block this user's access to editing a given article, I work very hard to improve it, every day I add new pages I create to it, and this user destroys all my hard work with just a few clicks... Thanks @SebbeKg SebbeKg (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, you didn't leave a notice at TimothyBlue's Talk page, per the red banner at the top of the page. I've done this for you this time, but please do remember in the future. Woodroar (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar, thank you very much, i overlooked it. SebbeKg (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• User:SebbeKg, I suggest withdrawing this topic and returning to the discussion at Talk:List of wars and conflicts involving Poland before you're hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. You should also avoid words like "slander", which approaches a legal threat (see WP:NLT) and "vandalism", which has a narrow definition on Wikipedia (see WP:VAND). It's clear that TimothyBlue is engaging in good-faith editing and cleanup of List of wars and conflicts involving Poland; this is not vandalism. And after reading through the article, it does need cleanup. I mean, you're citing Jan Długosz, someone who's been dead for more than 500 years, rather than contemporary sources. Two editors have pointed out to you that your sources don't verify the claims being made. This is a very big deal on Wikipedia, as verifiability is one of our core content policies. My advice is to listen to TimothyBlue and Annwfwn, who have much more experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please show which select handful diffs clearly indicate the problem you're having with @TimothyBlue. No one is going to review this many examples. Star Mississippi 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Woodroar, yes, you are right, this article has many pages that do not have their own pages, and some of them need cleanup/their own page or appropriate references, although this is what I am currently working on. Yes, of course, Jan Długosz has been dead for 500 years and many chroniclers are not 100% reliable, but I wrote to this user that in the next few days I will be adding references to these entries also to other works, not only Długosz. However, as I wrote, my problem is that the author deletes entries that already have their own pages discussing specific topics in detail. Please see the links I provided in point no. 1 of my comment. What is the reason for quoting or deleting Polish military operations during World War II, Polish uprisings, civil wars that already have their articles? If TimothyBlue wants to clean up this article, let him delete or add notes to entries that do not yet have their own article, and this is mainly the ''Piast Poland'' and ''Feudal Fragmentation'' sections, although there is no need to delete entries that have already been extensively described in separate articles and as shown in the links in no. 4 of my comment, the author deleted all very important for the Polish Wikipedia community, Polish uprisings and almost every conflict in the 20th century... SebbeKg (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I mainly mean adding 'citation needed' notes and deleting articles that already have their own pages. See links from no. 1 and no. 4 of my comment. SebbeKg (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a dispute about the inclusion criteria at List of wars and conflicts involving Poland. Acceptable entries in such lists must either have their own well-referenced articles, or a reference to a reliable source must be provided for the entries. It should be obvious that modern scholarship is vastly preferable to a 500 year old source, because if that old source is useful, it would have been checked and analyzed by modern scholars. SebbeKg, I recommend that you apologize and withdraw this report, which amounts to an extended personal attack on an editor trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your hostility and false accusations of vandalism are particularly disturbing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

After all, SebbeKg, writing of Jan Długosz, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said his strong personal bias must certainly be taken into consideration in any critical estimate of that famous work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328 i mentioned that in my previous comment, the reason I used his chronicle was because it was the easiest to navigate, after all I wrote that I would also add other references in the next few days. SebbeKg (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

SebbeKg, do not use poor quality 500+ year old sources as references with a promise to add better sources "in a few days". Add high quality sources when you add new content, without exception. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang

• I've tried discussing sourcing and list criteria with this editor to no avail.[338], [339], [340]
• List of wars currently with their additions: [341]; version partially cleaned up by me: [342]
• Many of new articles they have created have substantial amounts of unsourced or poorly sourced material: [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350], [351], [352]
• This morning they made an undiscussed move intended to change article scope of List of wars involving Poland: [353]. Someone with needed permissions should undo this undiscussed move.
• I think the ping spam here shows their attitude towards working with others: [354]  // Timothy :: talk  18:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  Just stop deleting entries for websites that already have an existing article, this is my biggest problem in our dispute, if you want to clean up this article, remove or add 'citation needed' notes to articles that don't have their own website. The "Piast Poland" and "Feudal Fragmentation" sections require partial cleaning, but there is absolutely no need to remove Polish uprisings or conflicts of the 20th century, which are some of the most important wars in Polish history.

  We can discuss this separately if you want my discord is: sebastian.1100069 just write me there. SebbeKg (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am not going to message you in a video game. This suggestion is ridiculous.  // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  All discussion of this matter should take place openly and transparently here on Wikipedia, not on some random Discord server, SebbeKg. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Cullen328 well, no problem, I suggested discord only because it is a very convenient platform for writing. SebbeKg (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @TimothyBlue if you want to clean up this page, please do not delete entries that already exist on Wikipedia, and only do it with those that have neither references nor articles. Many entries that you deleted today are of great importance to Poles and deleting wars such as Polish uprisings, 20th century conflicts or Polish military actions during World War II is simply inappropriate. SebbeKg (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  SebbeKg, will you be withdrawing your false accusations of vandalism against TimothyBlue? Please be aware that that editor and others will continue to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you object. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  People have already tried to tell you this multiple times, but it is not acceptable to lean on other pages for purposes of verifiability. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. Reliable citations should be provided for every contestable claim in every article, and the WP:burden is on the person adding the claims.

  You do not have a leg to stand on here, you being annoyed at people asking you to cite claims according to site policy is overly possessive, even if you worked hard on the content under scrutiny. you do not have ownership of any articles, and do not get to decide unilaterally why material is fine or not fine. Remsense诉 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  SebbeKg is still struggling to understand list criteria and proper sourcing. From today:[355], [356]. Annwfwn (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Problem continues

• I thought the above and the talk discussion resolved this issue with @SebbeKg: but it has continued. See [357], [358], [359], [360]. This editor clearly does not intend to respect guidelines and policy.  // Timothy :: talk  18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue, why are you removing those entries when i am currently adding references to them??!! SebbeKg (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you ignoring the LISTCRITERIA?  // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  This situation is simply abnormal. Yesterday we had a long discussion on this topic, after all, I add references to these entries not from the chronicles of Jan Dlugosz but from books by professional historians. And you, by deleting these entries, are making my job more difficult. SebbeKg (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you ignoring the LISTCRITERIA? You have not improved the article, just made it a larger mess.  // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  You can't delete entries with already existing separate articles discussing these wars, you also can't delete entries that have a reference, after all I started today to add references to history books that have nothing to do with Dlugosz, so why are you deleting them? SebbeKg (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue

  Btw. lets discuss it in the talk page of the article and not here. SebbeKg (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the appropriate place. And you still have not replied to @Cullen328: above.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi SebbeKg, you absolutely can delete already existing articles that do not meet the list criteria. For example, you added Naval battle near Hel to List of wars involving Poland. This is not a war, thus it does not meet the list criteria. Plus you did not add a source. [361]. Annwfwn (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  And a quick look at List of wars involving Poland#Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) section will show the mess this has become.  // Timothy :: talk  19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  He is doing his best, he is really doing a lot of good for Wikipedia, and a few Wikipedians even congratulate him for that. Yes, some of his references and sources may be very old, but it did not make sense for me to put so much pressure on him. Also he adds current references. Please be patient, he will fix everything. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Vbbanaz thank you very much for the kind words, several other users also thanked me for my editing of this article. SebbeKg (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Editor seems to be under the impression that adding any reference will make something a war, when the entry clearly shows it does not meet the article LISTCRITERIA. [362], [363], [364], [365], [366], [367], [368]. There are more, see article history.  // Timothy :: talk  03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

SebbeKg has been warned by several editors [369], [370], [371], [372], [373], [374], [375] here and on other talk pages but is refusing to get the point. I propose the following:

1. A block from the article List of wars involving Poland, they can make edit requests on the talk page.
2. A warning against creating new articles until the ones they have already created are properly sourced: eg: [376], [377], [378], [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385]
3. New articles they create should go through AFC for a review of proper sourcing and original research.

This will allow them to both contribute and solve the issues.  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would need to see some—any—acknowledgement from them that site guidelines exist or apply to them before I support a limited solution like this. As it stands it seems like a WP:IDHT case bound for an INDEF, unfortunately. Remsense诉 03:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Indefinite but not infinite block for I didn't hear that, indicating possible lack of reasonableness, noting that the editor can be unblocked if they agree to discuss guidelines, and recognize that Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute is not collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support pending a change in attitude, per above.

Remsense诉 01:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked SebbeKg. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, WP:CIR issues, no communication User:Larabdodoo

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.

---

Editor User:Larabdodoo only seems to work on the Larisa Akrofie article. As well as adding unsourced content and external links, linking social media, the editor has now put a link to whatsapp. Can you believe. Seems to think its a blog. I've warned the editor until I'm blue in the face and there has been no change and no communications. I must have cleaned that article about 4 times now over the last couple of years. I suggest a indef block. Time waster. scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:06, 20 February 2024 (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.

DaRealConMan persistently adding unsourced content and original research

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.

---

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

I think this report was long overdue; DaRealConMan has a lengthy history of adding poorly sourced content (if sourced at all) and original research to numerous articles, primarily those related to public transit in Southern California. Aside from instances of just plain-old adding unsourced content and OR, more egregious examples of their disruption include restoring a bus roster without addressing concerns regarding sourcing and original research, removing valid maintenance banners without explanation (twice), and using self-produced images as sources. They've been warned plenty of times regarding this (see their talk page) over the past few years but seem to ignore them, so tacking more of them on their talk page seems to be out of the picture moving forward. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree. Every edit of theirs that's come across my watchlist has been unsourced cruft. It's time for a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:DaRealConMan#Indefinite block. El_C 01:36, 21 February 2024 (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.

WILLIAM AFTON 947200

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.

---

WILLIAM AFTON 947200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A WP:NOTHERE block may be required, 3 edits all nonsense. WCM_email 13:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 14:19, 21 February 2024 (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.

Unconstructive edits from User:KusumaSPMTickford

Due to WP:PROMO, commercial team entrant names (e.g. "Shell V-Power – The Bend Manthey EMA") are not used in articles under the jurisdiction of WP:MOTOR, with the teams' recognised/registered official name or names (using the above example, "Manthey Racing / EMA Motorsport" as it is a collaboration of two teams) used to comply with COMMONNAME - exceptions are given to the likes of WPS Racing where the team was an extension of a For-profit corporation.

On the 2024 Bathurst 12 Hour article, User:KusumaSPMTickford twice made sweeping edits disregarding the above. Having reverted the first set and provided reason through the edit summary, the user then reverted my edits. Following this, I warned the user on their talk page about their behaviour in an attempt to avoid 3RR; however, the user then subsequently made another unconstructive edit.

As this user has been warned four previous times for misconduct (here, here, here and here), has been warned twice over copyright infringements (here and here), and has been banned once (here), it is clear that a more permanent solution needs to be put in place. MSportWiki (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for one week by Orangemike. If the disruptive editing resumes, the next block will be much more stringent, I expect. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Compromised account?

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

This is a newish account, but I see somebody giving them advice on their talk page, using their own account.[386] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is an instance of a compromised account but rather a new editor mistakenly using the wrong talk page to address other editors. - Aoidh (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Lukt64

Repeatedly creating poorly sourced or misleading articles despite a final warning not to do so. I have noticed this while nominating a recent page created by the user for deletion, which was linked to the current events portal. Administrator intervention might be necessary since editor warnings have been futile. Ecrusized (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Lets see how true this is.

"Repeatedly creating poorly sourced or misleading articles"

[387]

Taking a look, I have created :

2023 dengue outbreak in Bangladesh, an event that has had over 1,700 deaths linked to it.

Tashkent explosion, an article that is sourced fairly well with an event that i think might have been nominated for ITN

2023 Venice bus crash, an article that got on ITN with editors describing the article to be in "good shape" and "well cited"

Oaxaca migrant bus crash, a relatively well sourced article about an incident that killed over a dozen people.

Ardamata massacre, a well sourced article about an event that killed over a thousand people in the midst of ethnic cleansing.

2023 Brazzaville crowd crush, another well sourced article about an event killing multiple people.

Battle of Wad Madani, an article that is well sourced, with an image and infobox about an event of the fall of the second largest city in Sudan.

2023 Plateau State massacres, an article that made it onto ITN.

List of engagements during the Myanmar civil war (2021–present) (self-explanatory)

Siege of Babanusa, an article about a relatively well-documented siege.

2024 Maco landslide, an article about a landslide that killed 98 people.

While I was typing this, the page for the 2024 Iraq clashes was turned into a redirect, a decision that I personally dont agree with but am willing to respect. This "incident" was NOT given after multiple warnings, as this is the first time something like this has happened.

I'm not even going to mention my Contributions on wikimedia commons, as thats a different wiki. Lukt64 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lukt64: I’m sure you have created good articles in the past. The problem is creating single sentence articles and linking them to heavily active pages such as the current events portal. Which lowers the overall quality of Wikipedia. The fact that you have been warned by several users about this, including one with a final warning template, but continuing to do so prompted me to open this notice since users warnings have proven futile. A stern administrator warning may be preferable over a block if you agree to stop creating low quality or incomplete articles. Ecrusized (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I will agree to do so. Lukt64 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Reporting about a User that uses profanity

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

---

Hello I am KhantWiki, I usually edit famous individuals from Myanmar and I have edited one general from Myanmar who is Zaw Min Tun. From that history view of the article, someone with a IP address name called "180.183.230.178" used profanity about my edit on the edit history of the individual that I edited from Myanmar Zaw Min Tun (general). Please warn him to stop using profanity and be respectful and if he continues to do so even if he don't, he will get banned forever. Even if he don't like my edits, he has no right to curse and use profanity freely and comfortably on Wikipedia, let alone say it to a user which is me. Here's the proof. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaw_Min_Tun_(general)&diff=prev&oldid=1199181330&title=Zaw_Min_Tun_%28general%29&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaw_Min_Tun_(general)&diff=prev&oldid=1199181656&title=Zaw_Min_Tun_%28general%29&diffonly=1

This is his account. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A180.183.230.178&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhantWiki (talk • contribs) 07:12, February 22, 2024 (UTC)

The first diff isn't really profanity - it isn't clear what the edit summary in the second diff is saying.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, In the first one it's profanity because it's a cursing word "wtf" which is inappropriate to me. And the second one might not be profanity, but it's just to show you that he's overly critical and negative of me and my edits and also used profanity but only in the first one. KhantWiki (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Wot does "bar tway yay htar tar all", in the next summary mean? ——Serial 12:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And if you are using AI to write content as you seem to suggest here then that needs to stop. And edits like this saying "If You don't like me or my edits, you can screw off." are hardly civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Even though my words may be 'hardly civil' but I may never use profanity even when I am angry like that user. Hardly civil vs profanity which one's more inappropriate? In the second one in my language Burmese "bar tway yay htar tar lal" means "What is written?" This one may not be the profanity but the first diff is profanity. I got angry at his profanity at the first one which I already shared with you guys. My bad for that hardly civil attitude and words, but he started it with the profanity cursing. KhantWiki (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I use AI because it helps me with thinking more clearly. I write most of the content by myself, and AI by little bit. It's not really a problem if I'm helping Wikipedia and instead of saying profanity around and doing bad deeds. The problem is the profanity User. I would like to suggest you admins to put a warning on that user's talk page and warn him to not use profanity again and if you do you will get banned from Wikipedia for inappropriate profanity terms. When I see that profanity message of that user anytime, I immediately don't feel good and I have a reason why I got 'hardly uncivil' in fact most will react the same like me. Anyone will get angry at profanity. But, even when when I am angry I don't use profanity I just say "if you don't like screw off" and he uses "wtf" which is a cursing inappropriate profanity word. See for yourselves.KhantWiki (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no difference between your "screw off" and "wtf." If anything, the reverse. Cussing is not unknown, and within reason, isn't sanctionable. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@KhantWiki: Please stop writing "screw off": it's a profanity in the English I speak. "wtf", on the other hand, is not a word but an wikt:alphabetism used as a euphemism. Bazza (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Guys whatever his using of profanity still offends me. Just put a warning on that user's talk page. If you guys can't sanction him that's you guys choice. Personally his profanity of using "wtf" still offends me. I don't wanna use it myself but here's the example it means "what the fuck" "fuck" is a 100% inappropriate profanity word. Screw off might be also inappropriate but to me it's not as inappropriate and profanity as the word "fuck" or "what the fuck" KhantWiki (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They mean the same. And I suggest you drop this before the boomerang hits. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There are no rules against using profanity; I don't see why they should be warned. Bluntly, if you're offended, that's really a strong you problem. — Czello ^(music) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Merely using profanity is not a problem; only if it is a personal attack is it a problem, as with any personal attack. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In that sense, The profanity User is Personally not against me, but personally against my edits that he had to use the profanity word "what the fuck" abbreviated "wtf". It still offends me everytime I read it. So I just don't felt good about it, that's why I wanna report it here. If you guys don't wanna ban him or anything just put a warning on his user talk page "Please refrain from profanity and curse words" that will teach the user to not use profanity again. That user will probably get used to it and will keep using profanity in the future and disrupt the other user's with the negative energy he carry with profanity if you guys don't warn him or ban him.

To you guys, "what the fuck" and "screw" (in this sense) are both swear words, but "screw" is not as strong. "Fuck" is one of the strongest and most offensive swear words in English. KhantWiki (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, using profanity is not against the rules. The only time someone would be warned about this is if they were being uncivil, but I don't really see that here. — Czello ^(music) 14:21, 22 February 2024 (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.

62.4.44.220

62.4.44.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pretty much has just posted PA's against me (and possibly others) over at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut [[388]] [[389]] [[390]] I asked them to stop [[391]] and as I said on their talk page they seem to very much be a SPA that is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to my warning them about this is this [[392]], which is a clear statement they are not going to stop disrupting talk pages with comments like this the first one I link to. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion, fwiw, is that you both need to calm down and stop engaging in petty disputes. Ultimately I'll leave it to other more established users to decide what action they think should be taken here. 123.226.224.217 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I see unsubstantiated demands and discussing editors behaviors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP and non EC users AFAIK are not allowed to post on TPs in and around that area unless they have something constructive to say. This does not appear to be the case. RUSUKR is a shitshow and this sort of behaviour doesn't help. A "pipe down" temp block should be administered promptly and I don't foresee anyone objecting to that. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

RUSUKR TBan definitely needed. _Dial^mayo 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

And they continue to make everything about me [[393]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Prety clear. SPA WP:NOTHERE. WP:GSRUSUKR applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Per past individual sanctions, the IP should be warned, rather than blocked. I would also support a brief topic ban (one month at most) in RUSUKR as a less restrictive alternative to prevent disruption. In any event, I encourage IP to edit in non-ECP areas and help improve Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And it continues [[394]] Slatersteven (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Allow me just to observe one thing. Its just so happens, that the 3 users who are active on the mentioned Battle of Bakhmut talk page, and happen to be the vast minority who keep pushing this agenda that the battle is not over, is a Ukrainian victory, and other stuff that is clearly not true, also just happen to stumble upon this here, and ask for my ban. Interesting. Unlikely I would call it, but ok.

Both Slaterstever, ManyAreasExpert and Cinderella157, only one of which I have ever directly adressed, all prefer the article to not state the result of the battle, which is clearly infuriating everyone who has any integrity whatsoever.

The RfC results currently has 16 votes, 14 of them want it called a Russian victory. 2 of them don't. Slatersteven and ManyAreasExpert, both of which happen to want me gone. The third one, Cinderella157 added another option to the rfc, which is another way to not say its a russian victory. No one voted it, including them. Guess they don't like losing.

In total, I don't mind getting banned. I probably deserve it, and its not like I edit anything anyway. I never edited a thing on the page either to be clear, nor have I ever intended to. I only left comments in the talk page, because, just like dozens of others, I was stupefied by what these people are doing with their agendas. They are intentionally distorting the truth, through "fair" wiki mechanics, but its outraging everyone who comes across it.

Just becuase they are polite, doesn't mean their intentions are good. They are clearly leaving the article in a state that no one except for them wants (going off of the RfC results, but also common sense).

Again, ban be sure, but wonder why a battle for a town taken in May 2023 took 6 months to get an end date on wikipedia, and why it still has no result of the battle stated? The answer is these 3 users. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You will find that I, too, called for a block for you and I have not edited that article (or any other article pertaining to RUSUKR, for that matter). This is not due to animosity toward you, or because I agree with your "opponents" (I do not believe I have ever interacted with these users at all), but rather because you are breaking the rules in pretty blatant fashion and being disruptive in doing so. You said that [j]ust becuase [sic] they are polite, doesn't mean their intentions are good. We can flip that around and say that just because your intentions are good (or because you're right) doesn't mean you get to be impolite. You can get your point across without breaking the rules, and that you chose to lash out is particularly puzzling since, according to you, there's a current RfC where your preferred position seems to be prevailing. Oh well. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I never disputed me deserving a ban.

Just pointing out, that the emergence of people like myself, along with the behavior, is triggered by Wikipedia giving 'editors' like the couple of them on the Battle of Bakhmut page safe heaven to push political or ideological agendas.

Why did that battle take 6 months to get an end date, even though the end date that is now shown was clear the day it was proclaimed? You could maybe argue about 1-2 days up or down, but all the news, all the media stated that Bakhmut was lost in May 2023. And they, these editors, took all the available tools they had, for it to remain as 'ongoing' for as long as possible. After they exhausted their options with that, they turned to the result, and suddenly, its 'unclear' who the winner is, even though one side clearly took control of the town during the battle. And they are, again, using the same modus operandi, just dragging this process, for reasons known only to them.

And if you look at the talk page, you will see its not just me, its dozens of users who are expressing all kinds of issues with the page being bad. Most of it is instantly closed and archived ofc, by said editors.

You can debate things that are debatable ofc, but when something is so clear, as the result and duration of this battle is, having it lag for what is gonna be probably a whole year, to reflect on Wikipedia, is really just hurting Wikipedia as a whole, FAR more than my, I will not fight you on that, rude outburts on the talk page.

These lengthy processes on Wikipedia (such as an RfC), that a user can just start willy-nilly, clearly have an abuse angle. And RfCs have been abused in that way on that page many times, several times by the same user. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs regarding people inappropriately closing discussions or other talk page chicanery. In any event, as Ostalgia said, being rude and personally attack others is not the best way to win friends and influence people. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as Im recall the removed or closed threads were either A, attack pieces (aimed mainly at me) or B, related to then RF, and by users not even allowed to comment there, as the IP is not (and which they continue to do) [[395]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting that so many random users are attacking you, isn't it?

But when you spend 6 months delaying an article about a battle having an end date (which it clearly had), and after that you continue to dispute the result of the battle with the exact same means (which you are clearly doing), yeah, some people might start to get annoyed by your actions.

I do not buy for one second, the idea that you thought your stance is gonna get any support in the current RfC. Its an indefensible stance. And other editors called you out on it, days before you initiated it ("Guess, you'll force us to make another RfC to deal with this... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)")

You took the article about (in terms of life loss at least) the biggest battle since WWII, and decided to make it a stump of an article (which it still is), that shows nothing and says nothing. You pushed your agenda how the battle is not over until you exhausted every possibility you had, and without ever saying sorry for wasting months of the article being in that state because of you, you just went on from the ongoing/over discussion to somehow its not a Russian win, but loss one, with arguments that, I am sure, not even you believe in.

I strongly suggest, if you want to avoid being attacked, is to stop intentionally disrupting important articles on Wikipedia from being complete for months on end. 62.4.44.220 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I really have nothing to add to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I plead you to read WP:NPA if you don't want to be blocked! Flux55 (my talk page) 03:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

They have been asked to, told to and I suspect ordered to, and the above is a clear (well not only) refusal (but also a statement they will continue). Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This [[396]] maybe related. as this is the only place I can find any discussion of my behavior. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Recommend that all those disruptive IPs be blocked. At worst, they appear to be seeking only to entertain themselves. That's assuming they're different individuals. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF you (or may not) be violating policy. 97.103.129.121 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You stated you have reported me, this is the only report I can find where I am talked about hence why I assumed this was related. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are mentioned in two recent Reddit threads regarding Bakhmut.[397][398]. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have only just seen this edit by the IP where they would imply bad faith editing by myself, Manyareasexpert and Slatersteven. For my part, I was the editor that opened the recent RfC that altered the scope of the article and argued for the change of scope that has led to the battle being considered to be over. The closer indicated there was nuance to the result. Nuance cannot be captured in an infobox but should be discussed in the aftermath section of the article that did not exist. I have only ever advocated that the result should be vacated until the aftermath section is reasonably developed and is supported by the aftermath section. I have never advocated a Ukrainian victory. See my comment in the result RfC. I have never advocated a Ukrainian victory. I have no ideological agenda to push save that WP articles should be circumspect, apply academically objective rigor and be written at arms-length from the subject. I have had cause to disagree with other editors who appear to edit with an apparent bias. I would see that the IP is going off half cocked and barking up the wrong tree. Casting aspersion about my integrity without substantiation is a personal attack. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Redit is not Wikipedia, and has no relevance (and I do not have an account). Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I was only explaining (possibly) the source of the comments targeting you, which I also see as unsubstantiated attacks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Peter Duane Deaver

Need some admins to look at this--as a possible BLP vio that may need to be disappeared. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• They have a copy in their sandbox as well. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • G10 was declined by Voice of Clam. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

DarknessGoth777 and CIR, possible troll

DarknessGoth777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Serious possible trolling behavior, constantly linking common terms on Litter boxes in schools hoax [399] [400] [401] several warnings on talkpage about various things over the years, several warnings about categorization, poor communication, various edits reverted... this is an intractable behavior issue and thus this is the right place to post. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Therapyisgood, could you provide some diffs of when the user has beenn warned and the behaviour has continued? You have provided three links for WP:OVERLINK, but I can't see any warnings for that in the user's talk page history. You warned them about vandalism today, but didn't say what edit or article the warning related to. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Previous warnings about categorization were left on DarknessGoth777's talk page on 15 Febuary 2023 and 27 January 2024. I just left another warning this morning after seeing that the editor placed Carrie (novel) in the Category:Novels based on Cinderella and in the Template:Cinderella despite there being no sources cited supporting that claim, or even any mention of Cinderella in the Carrie article. Donald Albury 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Insults 3

User:Baba Mica continues to slander and harass me on their talk page after being blocked ([402] [403]) calling me and the larger editor userbase all sorts of extreme vulgarities and accusations. I believe this is the kind of situation where a user has their talk page editing access revoked. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Note they also asked for a permanent ban in the first diff. Conyo14 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access removed, and PAs removed as well. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing incivility by Peter Isotalo

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:Peter Isotalo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vasa (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see any need for technical action, but if someone could talk this editor down a bit and convince them to strike their incivility it would be helpful. I think there's a bit of ownership going on at Vasa (ship) after their hard work getting it to FA, but it's becoming toxic.

[404], [405], [406], [407], [408].

Notified: [409]. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the incivility in those diffs? I see a WP:CITEVAR dispute that's getting a little heated. It appears there's a content dispute over WP:CITEVAR and the extent to which that policy and WP:FAOWN should put the onus on others to produce a positive consensus for a change. Looks like an RfC will be necessary for such a change without significant additional participation. Regardless, I see allegations of subpar behavior from multiple parties and nothing particularly egregious from anyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, these[410][411][412] and especially these[413][414][415] were quite disconcerting. Peter ^Isotalo 00:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either set of links that actually violates policy but it's pretty clear that unless something changes, you aren't going to be able to collegially edit alongside each other. Per Rhododendrites, an RfC might do the trick so @VQuakr and Peter Isotalo: are either of you willing to start it? City of Silver 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Yes, I had suggested a RfC earlier. I'll likely defer to the individual proposing the changes on its actual writing but there seems to be broad agreement that this is a molehill not a mountain and that a RfC is a good path forward. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr's interaction with myself or Vasa (ship) have been limited to the last 24 hours and have in my view not helped in any way, only worsened the dispute.

The larger issue here is a single other user interacting with a few maritime history articles I've worked on a lot, including galley and more lately Vasa (ship). Their approach is very much hit-and-miss because they lack experience with the topics and their surrounding literature, but approach the topic with the vigor of an inquisitor. For example, there was just recently a very unproductive debate about the English translation of a word in Swedish despite the user not knowing a word of Swedish. There's plenty of other friction caused by the user not being able to fully differentiate between neutral synthesis of sources and their own opinions.

The whole process is just exhausting because it feels like I can't do anything right. VQuakr's behavior has dispirited me greatly because I feel they are ignoring and belittling me. If I make arguments, they're dismissed as subjective. If I provide links to specific threads, I have to specify diffs. When I post diffs, they're all irrelevant.

I've completely lost all joy in editing at the moment and feel embattled and exhausted. Peter ^Isotalo 06:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a spurious report, because from what I can see, the filer is no less uncivil than the person whom they are reporting (in both cases of the mild variety). Both disputants should seek assistance with the content dispute, like a Third opinion, rather than argue about WP:OWNERSHIP versus WP:STEWARDSHIP (ship!), and so on. HTH. El_C 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of a side topic but there's no difference between {{sfn|Doe|1999|p=11}}and <ref name="Doe-1999-p11">{{harvnb|Doe|1999|p=11}}.</ref>. The {{sfn}} template is easier to type and the {{harvnb}} template is more versatile and works with the VisualEditor. The issues raised on the talk page about this are likely based on a misconception. Both of those templates use the same module and work in similar ways, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I found this dispute from the 3O board, admittedly, it was the first third opinion I tried to do, so I may not have given it well enough. I tried to gently say that I agreed with peter, but that if he wants change, he should open an RfC. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: I thought it was a pretty good 3O response. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keeping WP:FAOWN in mind, this whole thing seems nonetheless kind of unnecessary and sad for everybody involved. The issue seems extremely minor. The complainant and complainee both, based on their talk pages, seem to be quite skilled professionals (as well as grown adults who've both spent more than ten years on Wikipedia) -- surely there is enough brain power in the room that this can be resolved amicably? We can open an RfC if it's that big of a deal, but I think ANI is unnecessary here. jp×g🗯️ 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: This discussion is going nowhere and should be closed with no action. An RfC is both an excessive escalation and the fairest, quickest way to put a stop to the dispute at Talk:Vasa (ship) which is also going nowhere. City of Silver 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since my actions have been mentioned, I feel obliged to comment. Peter Isotalo seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding any point made by another editor. The translation issue of the meaning of Vasa is mentioned above. The point was made that the major source (Cederlund and Hocker) gave a different meaning – which gave the astounding and unexplained assertion[416] that they were not an RS on that point (despite clearly being used as an RS on the historic changes in spelling, as discussed in the article). We also have a failure to understand what was going on in Talk:Vasa (ship)#Unreferenced concept and the older discussion on Talk:Galley#Referencing displayed a massive inability to understand that there was clearly a simple referencing error. We also saw an simple lack of knowledge about lateen rigTalk:Galley#Propulsion section (fundamental to most galleys, which actually spent the majority of their time sailing). There are other examples, but with further attempts to explain an issue, they are all lengthy to read. In trying to rationalise why it is so difficult to work with PI – and despite whatever failings I might have shown, I really have tried – the only explanation I can find is that he does not understand points made by other editors. Hence everything ends up as a big dispute. (He does have knowledge of value, having recently pointed out a good source of copyright free pictures from the Vasamuseet.[417] – "DigitaltMuseum") I offer no solution, just a bit of exasperation that an article that needs improving is suffering. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Worth adding that[418] is, in context, odd behaviour. I introduced {{sfn}} with [419], which appears to have already been accepted with [420]. There was no other short form referencing template in the article. This grew to 15 usages, which have now been arbitrarily and without discussion, changed to a different template. What was the point of this other than to irritate other users? (Perhaps there is one.) At a minimum the edit summary ("starring [sic] to converting to harvnb for consistency") is misleading: consistent with what? In the context of a possible RFC, it approaches the definition of disruptive editing as mentioned in WP:RFC. On its own, this is very minor, but it is part of a bigger picture ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2024 (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.

Murshad87 supporting terrorism

Just this one edit, calling terrorist and murderer Mumtaz Qadri a 'brave Muslim'.PepperBeast (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this as an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem" for ANI. It seems like garden variety trolling. Unless there's a pattern of this user trying to whitewash terrorist incidents, just give them a warning and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

OK... will do. PepperBeast (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That edit is unacceptable on various levels and it warrants a block. I have blocked Murshad87 for a week; any admin is free to modify this block in either direction. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A good block. Any instance of supporting terrorism and terrorist organizations warrants an immediate block, in my opinion. JM (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a good block on multiple levels IMO; the way I read the edit at first was it was praising this terrorist's bravery and adherence to Islam *because* they were a terrorist. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:AdamBlack89

User:AdamBlack89 has been persistently uncivil toward me at Talk:Montacute House, for example in the section Talk:Montacute House/Archive 2#Publicising discussions. The most recent incident was today on their talk page, in response to a notification of a dispute resolution discussion.

The fact that AdamBlack89 has made no contribution to the Montacute House discussion except to insult me makes the incident seem particularly personal. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's almost surprising how shockingly overt AdamBlack89's behavior is:

• Calling A.D.Hope a bad loser and adding Some might even say troublemaker. [421]
• Accusing A.D.Hope's contirbutions being the equivalent of driving by the talk page of a strange neighbourhood, parking one’s car badly, annoying the local road users and then sounding one’s horn relentlessly until one garners sufficient attention that people give in because they can’t bear the relentless noise.
• Continuing to accuse A.D.Hope of bad faith using mocking language: Now, when it seems you can’t get your own way, you decide to stamp your pretty little foot to attract even more attention to yourself. One despairs, one really does. [422]

Treating other editors with respect and civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, and the violation is obvious here, from the mocking tone and personal attacks. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:AdamBlack89#Block. El_C 05:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing User talk:Bnnat30

User talk:Bnnat30 is disrupting pages without any sources. In January there was 1 warning and in February alone, there were 4 warnings given on the talk page] but Bnnat30 continues to disrupt pages by changing boxoffice and budget numbers without any sources. RangersRus (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Bnnat30#Indefinite block. El_C 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

AudiGuy-1204 and me

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

---

My friend, which uses the User:AudiGuy-1204 account, has been editing very weirdly before I even started to edit, and after he got blocked, by repeatedly resetting my modem, he started to vandalize articles of mostly anime, music or car-type articles. This lasted for more than a year.

Last day, AudiGuy reappeared, this time thinking an typo was an different name of a car, then added swastikas to AIV and an admin's talk page, but I entirely took over internet access of my friend. He can no longer edit.

I am not AudiGuy. I will create an new account, which is named identically (despite being not him): ToyotaGuy8811. I don't like Audi, as it moves forward to having an range only featuring electric vehicles.

Now I have edited some of AudiGuy's redirects to be targeted to more relevant articles. AudiGuy started editing in August 2022 as IPs, before creating the account in October and getting blocked mid-November. After that, he continued to edit as an IP until he repeatedly got blocked for block evasion, and the vandalism starts here. The first sock of him as far as I know, was Bucks Meet Weebs, which is an anime-related humorous backronym of the Bavarian Motor Works.

He has repeatedly harassed the anime article editor, Harushiga, creating impostor accounts of them.

He recently started to add swear words and Nazi swastikas, and the vandalism has gone multilingual, vandalizing mostly the Turkish Wikipedia, but also the Japanese, German, French and Dutch Wikipedias.

I am not AudiGuy, nor even a block evasion of him.

Thank you for all your response.

My friend is also an huge car guy, and he created numereous accounts and harassed admins, and I keep getting blocked and all of my constructive edits get reverted, and whenever I post an unblock request, the admins simply think I'm lying or trolling, when it is the fact that I'm closely related to him. 95.70.138.236 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have now created my account. I am still a car guy, but different than that AudiGuy. This damn AudiGuy made me unable to edit for one year. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmm... — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not him. Still not a block evasion, but I never used that account. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll send ANI notices to every sock of AudiGuy I could ever see. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) If this was a court of criminal law with the power to take away your life, liberty or money, and so with a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof, I would probably believe you when you say that you're not him. As it is all we can do is take away your right to edit one web site, so we subject ourselves to the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally I'm free. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I misread it. You say "take away your right to edit one website". Do this means I'm going to be unfortunately blocked? ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving WP entirely. Rest in peace. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

But not leaving as an IP. I'll continue to edit as an IP. Thanks. 95.70.138.236 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked both the account and the IP address. This is the typical approach AudiGuy-1204 takes these days, along with trolling WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2024 (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.

Gresha Schuilling

Can I have some eyes on Gresha Schuilling? We've got a couple of socks (Gresha Schuilling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2402:d000:8138:13a0:5071:b6b8:cb63:512b (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Dylan Yadhati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) turning stub into a full-blown hagiography. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. She is actually part of the church I go to, so I'm trying to contribute some more recent information from her website since the current details are from 20 years ago. Dylan Yadhati (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed for a week, which unfortunately locks you out as well IP 81. All are welcome to use the Talk to determine whether she's notable and, if so, what should be included. Star Mississippi 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll survive! ;-) Thanks for this, Star (and also to Bbb23). 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

and thank you for flagging it, IP 81. Have a great day Star Mississippi 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed article-space block Greghenderson2006

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.

---

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was p-blocked from article space in August 2023: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12#August_2023 and unblocked in December: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted for UPE and problematic sourcing. However their promises less than three months later are resoundly and regularly broken: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Please_stop_the_COI_editing You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. might be believable with a new editor, but not with someone of Greg's history. User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Hazel_Watrous, immediately after the block was lifted shows their ongoing issues with sources have not improved and there's more of the same at: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Draft:Santa_Clara_Verein. Too much editor time and energy is spent trying to fix Greg's content when it's clear he has no interest in changing his behavior. This is especially problematic when he's paid and volunteer time has to be spent cleaning up. I believe it's time to re-instated the p-block which will allow him to use edit requests and article talk pages to propose his edits as well as improve his articles in draft space, which has been suggested multiple times.

Note I'm not going to ping anyone but the un/blocking admins as there are fewer editors supporting Greg's reinstatement than opposing and I want to avoid any indication of canvassing. I will of course notify him directly on his talk. Thank you! For the purposes of disclosure, I'm noting I did just !vote delete in an article of theirs at AfD but my proposal would allow them to continue participating there so I don't think there's an issue. Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COurtesy pings to @Drmies and @PhilKnight as noted Star Mississippi 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging Graywalls too, who deserves a medal for their work cleaning up. I know this is from last year, from before the block, but still. Who'd have thunk that a longterm editor would write like that? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - In my own defense, the above statements are not correct regarding no interest to change my behavior. I do have a keen interest in changing my behavior! I am not doing any paid editing. I have written over 400 articles and have been helping to cleanup articles with tags. Since November 2023, I have written 11 new articles, 8 have been reviewed and accepted into the article space. In January and February 2024 alone, I have cleaned over 30 articles. I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing and have worked hard to earn trust again. I have consistently used the review process and have responded to requests from my fellow editors. An article-space block will limit my ability to help cleanup articles and make improvements to existing articles. Wikipedia should be an open collaborative place where our editors are supportive of one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any paid editing. Then what about Nyombi Morris, Jin Koh, Zearn, Robert W. Smart, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, and Gary Hugh Brown? On the lattermost two, you directly reverted to restore disputed material on your paying clients' articles as recently as January 28th, which one other editor said was "rather objectionable" while another simply called it "outrageous". Left guide (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any paid editing since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023. Since then I have followed the guidelines and heped write Wikipedia articles, update existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. Yes, I did try to update two articles with inline "requested better sources needed" edits, not realizing it would be a conflict of interest. I realize now that it was not OK and have since use the Edit Request process. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

and User_talk:Greghenderson2006#January_2024? You should not be directly editing anywhere that you have a COI given your ongoing misunderstanding of primary, secondary and reliable sourcing. It seems you continually need to toe the line. Also, your comment below re: AfD (although I'm not proposing a block from there) is disingenuous. People should not need to repeat themselves or cite a policy. You have a COI and are a paid editor. Of course you have a vested interest in keeping the article. It must be disclosed. Star Mississippi 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How did you not realize it would be a conflict of interest to restore validly disputed material by making direct reverts on articles you are being paid to edit? If somehow that's actually true, that raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment re-reading Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 where Possibly noted They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting. and Greg followed up with I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future when Left guide had to make this disclosure for Greg today. Further to my thinking that they have neither the intention nor the willingness to follow our guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Untrue, I am willing to follow the guidelines. In the above case, I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. If this is the policy, I will follow this in the future. Please understand that I am willing to follow the guidelines and appreciate the freedom to edit and write articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment, Greghenderson2006 has said here I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. But in July 2020 he was specifically asked Why is it so hard to disclose on AFD pages that you have a conflict, or give us a list of articles you have a conflict with? and replied These rules of WP:COI and WP:AFD are somewhat new to me. I am still learning. So bear with me.] [423] It was also pointed out at the time that that was seven years after he had first been warned about COI editing. And yet now he is saying that 3.5 years later again, after dozens of back and forths on this topic with multiple editors, that we should still WP:AGF that he was not "fully aware" of this. I also note this discussion from August last year about paid editing where he said The omission of disclosure concerning payments and conflicts of interest appears to have endured for the past year until you raised the matter here. Frankly, I had concerns about drawing attention to the articles, which led me to avoid addressing the issue altogether. Moving forward, I commit to strictly following the COI guidelines. This reads to me as demonstrating clear awareness of the guidelines but a decision to deliberately "avoid addressing" them, and again came with a clear commitment that the guidelines would be strictly followed, yet they have demonstrably been ignored again and again. I'm sorry to say I have very little patience or good faith left here. Melcous (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel you are rehashing old issues and that since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023, I have followed the guidelines and have written some decent Wikipedia articles, updated existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. I am not perfect, I realize I should always disclose my COI and not edit pages or vote on Afd without disclosing this first. I feel these incidents do not warrant blocking me from writing on the main article space. Look at my user page and you will realize I am making an honest effort to write and update articles and have a long history of contributions to this wonderful encylopedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Given the evidence of chronic ongoing competence concerns raised at Talk:Joseph W. Post House, I believe the behavior of this user should continue being reviewed and discussed here before this archives. Pinging @Graywalls, Melcous, and Netherzone: who are involved there, and have been tirelessly cleaning up after (and trying to mentor) this user. Left guide (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

my Joseph W. Post House article was peer-reviewed and accepted into the article space on February 13, 2024. The questionable edit came from two sources: here and from the Posts, California article. I do not think this edit warrents an article-space block. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally missing the point, that comment was never meant to zoom in to that one individual incident as the sole basis for sanctions, but rather to show evidence that the bigger overarching pattern of chronic competence issues still persists, even after you were made aware of this discussion. Left guide (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a very general statement. The point is I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia that should be reognized and not punished. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You have made significant COI and UPE contributions to Wikipedia that are certainly being recognized in this discussion (as of now, 8 of your top 12 most-edited articles are COI/UPE). If you wish to argue that those significant contributions shouldn't be punished, you're welcome to try. You also promoted your non-notable paying client across other articles without coming clean about it, which is yet another UPE violation. You failed to mention them even though you were inquired about conflicts of interest on your user talk page numerous times since those edits. Left guide (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your conduct has gone far beyond one individual edit but a long pattern of disruption, COI and messes for other volunteer editors to clean up for your paid clients. Star Mississippi 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The oldest warning about COI actually goes back 14 years to 2012: [424], the first warnings about UPE go back 12 years to 2012 regarding a since deleted article: AFD [425]; follow-ups by closing admin: [426], [427], [428]. And the first warning about removing maintenance tags goes back 17 years to 2007: [429]. I don't have the time to into the incompetent sourcing that has cost volunteers hours of volunteer time. I am sorry to say that do not think that Greghenderson2006 will ever change his ways, as he has been apologizing for repeating the same behaviors for over a decade. Heartfelt sounding apologies or acting clueless should not be a strategy to game the system. Just weighing in here because I was pinged. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Instead of criticizing past behavior, let's focus on finding solutions to prevent similar issues in the future. I am commited to providing WP:RS and following the WP:PILLARS. Since October 2023, I have written 10 new articles that have been peer-reviewed. Since January 2024, I have contributed to and helped clean up 50 articles. My commitment to Wikipedia guideines and desire to improve my editing skills is important to me. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment May 2023, WP:OR that goes along with his pattern of writing in hagiographic tone. On December 22, 2023, I removed pay to play Lynn Momboisse's voicemap.me walking tour Greg introduced into the article. On January 10, 2024, Greg removed Lynn Momboise blog, but left behind contents sourced to this blog causing the prose to appear as it is reliably sourced and this required additional reviewing time. Then as recent as February 14, 2024, Greg introduced personal website/blog as a source into an article. Graywalls (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite mainspace block. I do not find Greg's explanations convincing. He has repeatedly affirmed that he will abide by the rules for COI editing, but he claims to not have an understanding of those same rules every few years (per Melcous). On February 9 in this discussion, he claimed I am not doing any paid editing. Yet, on January 28—less than two weeks before he made that claim—he added improperly sourced material back to two articles he wrote for paid clients (per Left guide), and he now claims that he was unaware that that would constitute COI editing. Greg has already been blocked from the mainspace for UPE and sourcing issues, and he immediately continued the same behavior when the block was lifted (per Star Mississippi). At this point, an indefinite mainspace block is needed to prevent continued COI disruption; Greg should still be allowed to make edit requests and discuss other issues on article talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, strong oppose site ban as excessive and bordering on punishment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite mainspace block, or indefinite block in general as this behaviour is well beyond what usually rates just getting kicked off the encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite mainspace block. Looking at just his talk page I stopped counting the number of times editors have patiently explained why not to do something, Greg has agreed to not do that thing, and a very short time later Greg is found to be doing the thing again. The commitments and promises are unfortunately not something we can rely on any longer. Greg may be genuinely forgetting or misunderstanding, but CIR and I don't believe his actions live up to his words. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite mainspace block or indefinite sitewide ban. I just spent some time looking at this, examining numerous edits not mentioned here, and I see that their behaviour has not changed much at all since they were unblocked in December 2023. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - an indefinite mainspace block or an indefinite site ban. This is based on all of above and the vast number of concerns on his talk page and archives (and article talk pages). The behaviors still exist today even after multiple concerns being communicated over the years, a block, and many editors devoting time and attention to trying teach and mentor this editor for longer than a decade. It's a huge time sink for the community. Problems persist re: COI, UPE, repeated use poor-quality sources and writing puffed-up or promotional content that is an exaggeration of or doesn't exist in the sources, or is original research. It seems clear that CIR and IDHT are also relevant. Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support for mainspace block but Weak Oppose sitewide ban - despite this really crummy (hope that is not too uncivil) behavior, I still would argue the vast majority of this user's edits are constructive, but obviously the COI issues cannot be ignored. Because of this I think allowing the user to submit edit requests on talk pages as well as create draft articles if the editor still wants to contribute. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have demonstrated improvements to my editing skills. Since Ocotober I has created 10 new articles that have peer-reviewed, and contributd to 54 existing articles. Since I started writing for Wikipedia, I have created over 400 articles and made contributions to over 300. I am a valuable asset to Wikipedia and deserve to be treated wtih respect not a mainspace block. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

:*Don't write about yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for indeff block- I've reviewed a couple of Gregg's articles via AfC and they are generally well written, constructive, and a probable net gain to the project. I have real concerns about the CoI editing, so would Strong Support mainspace block. Qcne (talk)
• Support main-space block and/or TBAN (subject area ban) on broadly construed: 1: Henderson and their extended family members 2: People, organizations/companies and buildings related to Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey County area, broadly construed. Graywalls (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support mainspace block. Having read with incredulity Greg's responses to the questioning he has been getting on his talkpage, I don't see that he has much left in the way of a defence of his cause. Seemingly an able editor, his slow grasp of the COI issues at hand are his downfall. Many of his draft articles are accepted, so there is hope for the near future. Seasider53 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Update The basic premise “Greg’s ongoing issues with sources have not improved” is not true. I have improved and my recent articles and my updates show this improvement (see my user page for current articles created and updated at User:Greghenderson2006). Per WP policy WP:INDEF an indefinite block is “usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.” I have improved Wikipedia and added value. I believe the articles I have edited or created are examples of expanding the scope of Wikipedia. My article El Castillo de Monterey was recently peer-reviewed and accepted into the article space. I enjoy making quality contributions. I admit to making some mistakes when articles were subject to Afd or tagged with not being notable. I have learned from these mistakes and will not make them again. If a block is put in place, please add a time-limit, per WP:BLOCKLENGTH. Having edit privileges is important to me so I can maintain the 400+ articles I have created in the past 20+ years. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Having edit privileges is important to me so I can maintain the 400+ articles I have created in the past 20+ years. says so much and I have learned from these mistakes and will not make them again. is absolutely meaningless when you've continued to make these mistakes while this discussion is open.

  Peer review is not what happens at AfC. Star Mississippi 16:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that I've made mistakes, and I take full responsiblity for them. My recent articles and updates show my initiative and willingness to change. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Greg, this or the variant of this is what you say every time. Graywalls (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand you've heard this before, but I meant it sincerely in this context. My intentions and contributions to Wikipedia can be seen in the articles I have created and edited. Although, they are not perfect, they are improving over time, and helping to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I am constantly trying to improve myself to make my articles the best they can be. You and other editors have been a great inspiration for me. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  None of that addresses the bigger COI/UPE issues (which are considered to be significant disruption and major breaches of policy) germane to this discussion and most of the vote rationales supporting the proposed indefinite mainspace block. So I don't see how that explanation has much value in your new goal of negotiating for a temporary block; you've deflected the main reasons why the community is supporting the proposal, and instead pushed your own preferred narrative. Left guide (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your concern and belive there are other factors to consider as well. Perhaps we can find a solution that addresses your concern without an indefinite mainspace block, which seems too severe in this case. The articles I have created speak to my willingness to make quality contributions. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2024 (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.

Template:Navbox top / Template:Last word vandalism

Looks like an admin's gone postal, I'm unable to revert this. — east718 | talk | 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Special:PageHistory/Template:Navbox top and Special:PageHistory/Template:Last word since it lags my browser.

Also perhaps this should be posted at WP:AN. Edit: Nevermind, it was not an admin. – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:883F:AC05:C289:2CD4 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the templates and blocked the account. Any more anywhere? The word 'compromise' springs to mind, though I don't have a lot of data to go on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I figured they'd be protected due to high visibility, sorry for the false alarm. — east718 | talk | 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It was EC-ripened, probably a sleeper. Also, hi East718. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've upgraded both to Template Editor protection, they really should have been using it already with how many transclusions they have. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"<redacted>"

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.

---

(Redacted)

A pretty egregious violation of WP:ATTACKNAME, looking into their contribs its a fresh user making very rapid, random edits. Edits in general are disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Redacted, redacted, redacted — all redacted (including the logs). El_C 05:34, 23 February 2024 (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.

Addiction of unsourced content, blocking bypass and sock

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

---

User Satanichellmaster666 (Special:Contributions/Satanichellmaster666) is clearly a blocking bypass of the banned user Greyplod (Special:Contributions/Greyplod), who also created the Uttorks account (Special:Contributions/Uttorks), i.e. using sockpuppets, blocking bypass and adding unsourced content. Goldencerebro (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, both reported users (block evasion). El_C 05:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Gotta watch out for those unsourced addictions. EEng 00:38, 24 February 2024 (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:Bobak

I've never interacted with this user before today (that I know of), but they are verbally attacking me over essentially nothing, tripling down on it, and now attacking User:Drmies as well (see Bobak's talk page history). A quick check shows an ongoing problem:

• "Take your straight-up internet bullying harassment and go tell someone who cares. This is why good editors don't want anything to do with you lifers." (Special:Diff/1209629879/1209694975)
• "who, specifically, was I attacking? LOL." (Special:Diff/1209612188/1209618671)
• "what a waste of human effort" (Special:Diff/1209304146/1209394924).
• "who the hell cares" (Special:Diff/1207122171/1207138340)
• "I love how this indicated that someone had no idea "California State University" is a 23-university *SYSTEM* with nearly a half-million students. Do any of you check your work? Then think "hmm, I bet google would give me a little additional data" -- no? Not any of you?" (Special:Diff/1207992908/1209395413)

This started when they verbally insulted me out of the blue over what was essentially a minor typo (calling me "incredibly lazy" Special:Diff/1206450949/1209494134). Other editors have noted their snark is uncalled for (User:TAnthony: "You don't get to be snarky about perceived laziness when you don't bother formatting your citation" Special:Diff/1209395413/1209406940).

I don't see prior history of this kind of behavior, in ANI or their talk page, prior to about 2 weeks ago. Has the account been hijacked? Bobak has been an admin since 2007, they clearly know better than to behave like this. -- GreenC 05:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with talk page access revoked. Reminder that indefinite does not mean infinite — I just didn't know how to time the length of this block. This will almost certainly end up at ARBCOM, so this is a stop-gap measure. As mentioned in my block notice, being an admin does not allow one to attack others with impunity. El_C 05:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously an exceptional block since it involves an admin. Accordingly, any admin may adjust it as they see fit, including by lifting it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C 06:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

El_C, that this editor is an administrator, that was news to me. I'd never have thought it. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Non-involved comment: Maybe WP:XRV could be the venue for discussing your action? I have seen admins use it before when making a potentially controversial block.

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No one has raised an objection for this block yet. If El C feels the need to get reassurance or a concrete conclusion on whether this block is appropriate and justified, they are free to create a thread there themselves. Right now I don't see a need to review this action. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no WP:FORUMSHOP, obscure or otherwise. I'm good with here (or at RfAR). El_C 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a bunch more questionable and rude edit summaries going back years, though not as bad as the current ones. [430][431][432][433][434] It doesn't look like a compromised account, since the language is similar in some places. It could just be a stress or WP:EUI incident, wouldn't be the first and it doesn't necessarily need permanent consequences. Endorse block at least until we can figure out what's going on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I've restored talk-page access (with El C's permission above) in case Bobak has any response to give; anyone is welcome to re-revoke it without consulting me if it's used inappropriately. But yeah, unless there's a very good explanation forthcoming, this is on the fast track to WP:ARC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Endorse block, it will have to be an amazingly good explanation. And being under the influence would be the worst possible ones. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, Extraordinary Writ. I revoked TPA because the tirade was happening an hour'ish prior. If it would have happened something like 24 hours earlier, as was the case with the AdamBlack89 NPA block directly above (damn, many blocks last night), I likely wouldn't have touched talk page access. But this seemed like more of an urgent, in-the-present thing. HTH. El_C 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom appears to have started the process for a speedy WP:LEVEL2 desysop, so I don't think there's a need for a full case request at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: I think there is a need if people would like to see this admin desyoped. I see no urgency that requires LEVEL1 or LEVEL2 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, according to reliable sources, he seems to just swear a lot without any intended malice, so this may just be a situation in which a prolific user from the early 2000s who's been relatively inactive in the last ten years is due some reminder about the changing nature of discourse and language — namely that the "In which there is epicly random cuntwaffle douchenozzle chimpfuckery" era of the web has passed, and we are currently in the "Hey! I’m so glad you reached out. I’m actually at capacity / helping someone else who’s in crisis / dealing with some personal stuff right now, and I don’t think I can hold appropriate space for you. Could we connect (later/date) or time instead/ Do you have someone else to reach out to?" era. jp×g🗯️ 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  First bullet point above is his response to such a reminder - to blank it and make more personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, maybe a sequence of increasingly heavy reminders, delivered with greater velocity. jp×g🗯️ 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was surprised that this escalated to an indef so rapidly. Obviously Bobak's behavior is not acceptable and it needs to be addressed, but jumping straight to indef for an editor with no apparent history of sanctions seems harsh. On the other hand, I'm also not comfortable allowing Bobak to retain access to the blocking tool. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am satisfied by Bobak's explanation at his talk page. The block should be lifted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's their prerogative to make a convincing unblock request. Mach61 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note that Bobak has now responded on his talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• This went 0 to 100 (blocked with no TPA) very quickly. Are experienced users who violate WP:CIVIL usually responded to in this way? I was under the impression that the community often dithers on civility blocks. In this case, perhaps the response was too strong? We also now have an explanation and apology on the user talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I think the quick indef was appropriate only because there was concern about a potentially compromised account. The edit summaries looked a lot like ones that banned editors leave when they have an axe to grind with Wikipedia. Now we know that isn't the case, and Bobak has apologized and agreed to tone down the edit summaries. We can discuss civility issues, but I'm fully convinced the block is no longer needed to prevent ongoing misconduct so I'm lifting it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, The Wordsmith, I appreciate you. El_C 00:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I explained why indef was used rather than timed and about TPA, if some fail to read it, there's really not much I can do about that. But I'll reiterate that there were a couple issue raised (at different levels of probability), including as the OP asked: Has the account been hijacked? Anyway, Bobak seems to have calmed down, so I'll be unblocking. They are of course welcome to engage the discussion directly, though obviously civilly is a must. El_C 00:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, they were already unblocked. Sorry, I missed The Wordsmith's note about that (due to ec). El_C 00:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As an uninvolved user, it's good to see Bobak has offered an apology, but a statement like Frankly, I believe the Wikipedia block function should not be weaponized by users who are simply annoyed by another [435] is concerning. This statement suggests a belief the block happened for some kind of personal reason rather than a recognition that the block happened for two reasons: because there was concern that hijacking was at play; and because such behavior violated Wikipedia policies. Civility is one of the five pillars of the project. Bobak's history of contributions is a great thing, but I hope there's understanding that invoking such history isn't exculpatory and that being an admin does not allow one to attack others with impunity [436]. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm all for indefinitely blocking the legacy admins, but this did seem to escalate rather quickly. If you think an account is compromised, you could just ask me to look into it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

OR/POV issues

User:Orunab has continually inserted OR into the F35 article, continuing to do so after their level 4 warning: [437] [438] [439] [440] [441] [442]. Further, the comment on their TP, "Note: Please accept the Turkish Defense Technology reality, and give up the US Defense's Global Monopoly" indicates to me that this is a pretty obvious case of POV editing and WP:NOTHERE. Loafiewa (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them from Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for a month. There are other problematic boosterish edits on other topics, that may warrant a broader block if they continue. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Indian IP disruptive editing

Indian based anonymous IP editor is unfortunately being a broken record and repeatedly trying to re-add in his same uncivil reply to others multiple times, despite being reverted on it. I request looking into him and blocking him as best you can as it seems he is just unlikely to stop.[443][444][445][446] HarmonyCrusador (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Long shortdescs from User:Transport 2005

• Transport 2005 (talk · contribs)

Either a competence or WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. This user has been adding adjectives and trivia to shortdescs (for example [447] today) since joining last month, despite nine user talk page messages asking them to stop doing this, up to and including a final warning. Belbury (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

User is also totally unresponsive. Has now started adding superfluous links (overlinking) to articles. For example here. The Banner talk 16:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Would suggest blocking from article space to force a resolution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. The Banner talk 18:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Transport 2005 from article space. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And now a sockpuppet is blocked too. I guess the message was not registered. The Banner talk 13:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Report against Fred Zepelin for censorship, bias and vandalism on Al-Duraji

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.

---

Page: Al-Duraji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Reported Editor: Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reporting Editor: Elijahtree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fred Zepelin has been purposefully hounding me and removing my sourced content from this page, claiming my edits as "suspect", suspect for what exactly I am not sure. Attempting to condense me and this user's history is as followed:

• I have been making genuine, useful contributions to this page for roughly a week now, and have made 21 edits thus far. I cleaned up, added information, and removed hazy information made my prior contributors without bias, for instance I removed a not so notable tribesman from the Notable's list seen here. And rewording some fairly opinionated language, seen here.

• Problems arose when this user first began to edit the page, you can tell by the demeanor and clear biases in his edits that he was not trying to make relevant, useful edits to this page but instead the opposite:
  

Extended content
Bombardment of edits

• He made a one or two good edits, such as removing the YouTube citations (which where not added by me), and removed the Kuwait section due to these citations. Although he could have searched this information up to verify it's authenticity, to which I found that it is, as mentioned on known Arabic media outlets, but I chalked it up to this user being not knowledgable in the Arabic language and just wanted the satisfaction of ruining someone's work and research.

• Problems arose when he took it upon himself to "remove non-notables", where he took it upon himself to judge who was well-known enough to stay and who had to go. I began to question this user's underlying intentions when I found that he removed arguably the two most known people on the list. One of them even having roughly 4.5 million followers on Instagram. I then formally warned him over the cont. comments saying:

"re-added Hafid, and Abdul-Jabbar to the Notable Clan Members list. Please do not remove anyone from the Notable Clan list if you personally do not know them. This is an Arab tribe and these people are a lot more known compared the the other two in the Arab regions. If you do not come from an Arab background please do not assume you know best and just remove people for not having a Wikipedia page on the English directory"

• I do not know how I could have made it more clear that I skimmed through his logs and found that he has no connection to this region and should not make any haphazard edits which ruins the page. I did find other behaiviour which I wanted to raise to the Wikipedia administrators which I found to be against the Project's fundamental principles, which I will get to next. User responded by reverting back and ignoring my warning, further commenting:

"Lots of problematic additions. Most of the sourcing looks suspect (Getty Images, e.g.?) reverted, take to talk page, please"

• This is where my clear red-flags appeared, I knew this user was trying to sway the information of the article to something which suits him. The "problematic" additions was referring to the 'Victims of War' subsection I added, which was fully cited and syntaxed in a professional manner. No reason to suggest this to be problematic unless to quietly censor information pertaining to a specific narrative. He then further goes on to suggest that "most" of the sources are suspect. Most of the sources are in Arabic as you see, and I assume this clear unusual user is suggesting anything in Arabic is suspect. He then justifies his actions by bringing up the sole one Getty Images citation. This either shows he is being manipulative since this information was already mentioned in the previously cited source, and I just added the Getty Images citation for some extra information and a visual. Or this user did not even go through the informaiton and just wanted to find any reason to justify reverting back.

Extended content
User purposefully clogging logs with useless edits to either obfuscate his clear vandalism, or make it seem like he is providing the page with plenty high-quality edits.

• As seen above, to cut a long story short, he further ignored my requests for him to stop removing information from the page for no reason twice, making it three times he vandalised the page, and to rub salt in the wound he claimed that I was disrupting the page and claimed that if I revert back to the original uncensored page, an Admin will block my editing privilages. I assume he thought since I am a fairly new user I wouldn't know how to escalate this user for review and would just keep quiet. I would like to also pay close attention on his editing style, being that he populates the log with a rapid burst of substandard edits in quick succession. Described in the extended content above.
  

Extended content
User began warning me in an attempt to getting me banned from the editting the page. Seemingly ignores any communication with me and just waits for me to revert back to warn again minutes after re-reverting. Extremely manipulative behaiviour, seemingly targetting what he thinks is a new user to forcefully stop them from editting?

I hope the admin's notice through this detailed report and screenshots what this user's main undertaking behind his aggressive interference against my edits, and clear attempt of suppressing my future edits from, ironically, the page which I contributed most to in recent days and they contributed nil. It is a smart yet extrememly disingenuous approach in censoring views which differ with his. He was extremely quick to send me the three warning when I reverted his removals, yet ignored to all my responses on my talk page; even when he verbatim asked me to respond to him on it, twice. This would leave me, or any other victim, with no other choice but to keep reverting his vandalism, until they had enough warnings to get the original editor blocked from future edits. This would have probably worked if I was new to Wikipedia and had no idea about how to complain, unfortunately for him that isn't the case today.

This type of manipulation should be looked into from this user and why he was showing a clear bias against showing the IDF in a less favorable manner? The reason why I donate to Wikipedia and take my time researching and writing edits is due to this project's commitment to spreading genuine information. This user's censorship truly rubbed me the wrong way. Thus, looking through his logs to confirm any suspicions I gathered from this user's edit history, here are screenshots arguing the following agendas/behaviours shown by this user:

toxicity, disruptive user:

Extended content
Previously told off for falsely accusing other for vandalism.

Extended content
has had previous involvment in edit wars to push his narrative above the rest, yet blame me for inciting an edit war?

Extended content
censors, more than contributes.

chauvinism, general political activity:

Extended content
the only page I saw him actively working on, didn't check if these were edit wars, but he seemed to be editing the Sound of Freedom a lot, and mentions QAnon a lot too, etc.

Extended content
calls another user disruptive for adding more detail differentiating. he seems to find a lot user disruptive.

other users complaints of his bias, aggressive editing, and pushing a one-sided narrative:

Extended content
banned previously for personal attacks towards other editors.

Extended content
another user calls his wording "so obnoxious in its haughtiness".

Extended content
an editor claims that he unfairly removed the entire 'accuracy' section from the Sound of Freedom wiki. more political bias, censorship, and narrative-pushing

Extended content
another user claiming he is hounding, and reverting edits, without even reading the sources.

Extended content
more claims of him hounding other users to stop/change edits, again, referring to the Sounds of Freedom movie. To which he professionally responds "oooo, "final warning"!!! Scary threat, making me so scared."

lastly, and most relevant to this page, Israeli/Judaism leaning bias; partial anti-Arabism:

Anti-Arab Phraseology

1) he wasn't a fan of the slighlty optismistic language describing a notable fact about the pyramid at Abu Rawash, and reworded the entire paragraph to sound monotone (which is good, yet there is a clear contradiction below).

2) funnily enough, a little more than 10 minutes later he decides this reworded piece doesn't fit and claims that since this (his reworded version) is about the pyramid and not Abu Rawash, I don't think it belongs here at all. This could be argued against, since stripping pyramids from Abu Rawash is like stripping water from a fish. And he further changed the interesting fact about the area regarding the pyramids, to a monotonous fact which seemed out of place. looks even a little purposeful from a third party spectating.

Jewish-Bias Phraseology

Alas presenting all this information of this user's behaviour, and returning back to the main issue with Fred Zepelin disrupting my edits on the Al-Duraji. I kindly ask for Administrator to look into this user and his aggressive reversals for no reason.

If it is possible to place a protection against this page please let me know. Of course please do also check through the citations/information looking for any problematic additions as this user claimed, since he did not expand nor explained what the problem was.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahtree (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't pretend to have read all of the above, but simply note that neither party to this content dispute has posted at Talk:Al-Duraji. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

i see, is that my responsibility or his? since I wasn't the one with the issue. He did post on my user talk page. Thanks for the heads up, and respect the honesty lol. Elijahtree (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It is both of your responsibilities. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be plain, there is no use beating around the bush here.

1. The contributions Elijahtree has made are wrong for the reasons Fred Zepelin pointed out, they are not in accordance with Wikipedia content guidelines and policies, the ones they've linked and that that Elijahtree makes no mention of whatsoever, and they were right to revert them how they did. They should have posted on the talk page sooner.
2. Fred's tone in each example you've posted is snippy at best, but is usually totally ordinary. They largely commented on the content, and Elijahtree decided at every possible opportunity to take it as a personal insult. I am not sure how it would be possible for Fred to raise their concerns without Elijahtree doing this, which means that they are likely going to have trouble collaborating with anyone that has different views than them, which is required on Wikipedia. Fred's comments elsewhere are variously less acceptable.
3. Elijahtree's multiparagraph, multimedia post here is pure polemic and a completely unacceptable overreaction to the issues above. They have cast an aspersion on Fred for every 4 edits they've ever made. A low edit count is not a disqualifier from having grievances, but the fact that Elijahtree's has so quickly posted something like this in response to ordinary editorial remarks is telling to anyone with experience working in group settings.

The snippiest remark Fred made to Elijahtree is not worth bringing up in any ANI theoretical discussion. Again, they should have posted on the talk page sooner. On the other hand, Elijahtree has convinced me in the span of one edit that they are WP:NOTHERE, unfortunately, this is a WP:BOOMERANG case.

Elijahtree, you do not WP:own or have rights to any particular page, even ones you have personal feelings about. You have not been acting like this is the case, and as such, ordinary edits are personal insults. At no point have you assumed good faith from anyone who you haven't been using as evidence for your case. If you can't do that, then you will not find other editors to be more acceptable to you. Remsense诉 12:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

remsense,

I see that kindness isn't really important in your response, so I will take you advice and respond snippily to attempt to understand what you are attempting to tell me. You have decided upon a few, weird, conclusions to take away in your assessment, and I can infer that you are not looking at this report from a neutral lens, and seemed to side with the reported user at all times; This response fits the role of Fred's defense attorny moreso than it does a nonpartisan moderator, not very just of you. The implication that my contributions are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines is portrayed as an opinion rather than me breaking rules, you and Fred have both not given any specific examples or policies that I broke to substantiate such claims, which I could use to improve my edits and stop this user from censoring me. I am an Anthro. major at a great school, so I would hope I know how to cite correctly and I believe I ensured that my edits are well-researched and fully cited. Again, you have failed with showing me what policy I broke, merely saying this user is right isn't enough to prove what content guideline I broke. There are no YouTube articles, nor is the Getty Images reference being used as a primary citation and can be removed if need be. Those are the only two examples they have managed to point out and you saying "they've linked and that that Elijahtree makes no mention of whatsoever" is just nonsensical jargon which doesn't make sense.

1. The assertion that I have claimed ownership over the page is unfounded. You are falsely putting words in my mouth, please point me to one place where I asserted ownership in anyway since the word 'my' is not found. Enhancing an article with useful information is not equivalent to ownership; it is a contribution to the collective knowledge base that Wikipedia represents, I would assume you would understand that being an authority figure at Wikipedia. The reasoning behind the reversions made to my edits have been extremely vague and unexplained, which is counterproductive to this editing process. If there are concrete reasons for these reversions, they should be clearly articulated, allowing for a constructive dialogue. You stating "contributions Elijahtree has made are wrong for the reasons Fred Zepelin pointed out" is not helpful at all.

2. My concern has never been about the tone of the discourse against my edits nor do I care at all; rather, it is the unwarranted reversion of my contributions that is at issue. I am focused on content, not personal sensitivities. The lack of clear communication as to why the edits are considered problematic is the crux of the matter. If you are referring to me simply pointing out this behaiviour going on in the past as me being emotional, then you are wrong. I just wanted to show that I am not the only one having this issue with this user.

3. Mentioning the user's history was intended to shed light on a relevant pattern of behavior, and make it easier for the moderators to find all relevant information, not to provoke or overreact, and definitely not to "cast an aspersion". I have never reported anyone before and looking through some posts, I see I may have written this a little too professionally, yet never once was I disrespectful in my report, just pointing out what is public domain. If you see that as "completely unacceptable overreaction", then what do you consider your rage-filled response, a mental breakdown?

simply looking at your final paragraph shows you either a. didn't read my report, b. are twisting what the report entails. here is bullet points:

. "you do not WP:own or have rights to any particular page" = falsely accusing me saying such a thing. Do not make assumptions.

. "even ones you have personal feelings about" = what? I am not a tribe member my name is Elijah. Nonsensical claim.

. "You have not been acting like this is the case, and as such, ordinary edits are personal insults." = That made absolutely zero sense again, acting like what?, what case?, how did you derive this random conclusion. I have no idea where youa are getting the idea I am reporting my feelings getting hurt as opposed to censorship, did you read the title at least? More baseless assumptions?

. "At no point have you assumed good faith from anyone who you haven't been using as evidence for your case" = What are you waffling about lol? good faith? the guy is reverted my edits, why are you making this all about emotions. I do not care about emotion, simply reporting exploitative reversions!!

. "then you will not find other editors to be more acceptable to you" thanks for the random dig lol, you are very emotional which is very weird since not once did I mention insults or emotions or anything of the sort, your seemingly twisting it in such a way which I will not let you falsely do. Simply his censorship of cited data is the issue! and his history of doing this as shown above. I didn't ask you to ban him from the site, and if you seriously even suggest that your response is written from an impartial neauttral perspective such claim would be laughing. As I said, you did a good job acting as Fred's attorney, this was the most one-sided thing I have ever seen, You almost fully fabricated, twisted, and ignored every single point I brought up, and made this an emotional issue, when you seem to be the only emotionally charged person in this thread. I will request arbritration in hopes of showing this clearly corrupt, one-sided response. I literally even say he made two good edits in the beginning, but you are making it seem like I hate the guy. Wikipedia truly have to reconsider you having such a role in the community, since judging from a nonpartisian perspecting should be the most imporant this for such a role. I wish you well for your future endeavours. Elijahtree (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Single-purpose editor not engaging in discussion at Pitof

Last fall, I came across Pitof, an article about a French film director. It had a fair amount of unencyclopedic language, overdetail, unverified claims, and in general, possible promotionalism. I cleaned it up, but since January, Oscarwings has repeatedly re-added some or all of the removed material. They are a WP:SPA with an exclusive interest in Pitof and his career. I'm happy to discuss the changes with them, but per WP:ONUS the material should stay removed while we discuss. Repeated comments in edit summaries, talk page pings, and messages on their talk page have failed to garner any response. Oscarwings has never edited a talk page or any page not in article space. It's possible they simply are unaware, or they could be deliberately trying to fly under the radar. Not sure what the next best step is, but will go notify them on their talk page now per ANI rules. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely a SPA. I removed the dob as being unsourced for at least 15 years apparently, and removed some other original research and IMDb and Guinness. If they don't engage on the article talk page and continue adding crappy sources and original research, I propose a pblock to get their attention. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Oscarwings#Indefinite block. El_C 05:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

RD55555 persistent unsourced editing

• RD55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent unsourced edits (primarily to Indian cinema actors' filmographies): [448] [449] [450] [451] [452] [453] [454] [455] [456] [457]

Multiple warnings: Dec. 8 Dec. 13 Dec. 13 Dec. 17 (final warning) Feb. 15 (final warning) Feb. 21 (final warning) Feb. 24 (final warning

Previously reported in December at ANI with no action: [458]

RD55555 has no Talk or User_talk edits. Can we get an indefinite block to prevent further disruption and to encourage them to discuss on their talk page their editing behavior?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Long time false numbers insertion into Ukrainians article

Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - IP editors are persistent to change population numbers contrary to what sources say [459] [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] and so on. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be different IPs each time, perhaps page protection? Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

On the other side, I see many good IP edits in article history. Any solution other than long-time page protection? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Perhaps pending changes protection? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert, the most recent of those edits was made two months ago. This is neither an urgent incident nor a chronic, intractable behavioral problem as described at the top of this noticeboard. I suggest that you keep the article on your watch list, and ask for help from an administrator if active disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The edits are chronic and the last edit was today [465] but yes, it's not urgent. Maybe more editors will add the page to their watchlist as I may come and go. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent case for pending changes. Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

[466] now it's 2 days old acc. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week and applied pending changes for an indefinite duration. Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I applied for a pending changes reviewer. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Promoter generates online coverage in real time

• Shviki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Мкдвики (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hristijan Kicho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On February 8, 2024 Star Mississippi posted this final warning on a user's talk page. The following is my reasoning for why an administrator should follow up on that warning by applying blocks, as the behavior has continued.

On February 16, the same user has created and continued using another account, which is made plain by applying the duck test to this discussion: User talk:Alalch E./Archive 2#Thank you.

The user is aware of the latest content to be published on the fairly obscure and blog-like news website ekran.mk, which is operated by two people (see here). They have been reacting to changes in the draft in real time by notifying me that a "latest" or "new" content has been published on said website, that incidentally offers solutions (superficially so) to the sourcing/notability deficiencies identified in the Draft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski. There were two instances of this.

• In the first instance (see the first ekran.mk link on my talk page), after the draft was declined, a "news article" was published containg verbatim copies of a book's blurb and foreweword (предговор), written by the book publisher's editor-in-chief and technical editor. The content that is published is incredibly non-newsworthy to the point where one wonders why would this uninteresting and non-news-resembling content be published at such a random time. The user notifies me of this, describing this off-wiki spam as "a full critical look at Macedonian poets about Trajkovski's poetry". I wrote about this in an AfC comment, and got the following (20:01, 17 February 2024) reply on my talk page. I was informed that I will be given "all the necessary information".
• In the second instance, soon afterwards, following my 21:33, 17 February 2024 edit that removes an unverifiable claim that the writer's story was published in the book Different Worlds, I am informed (08:47, 18 February 2024) that a source that purports that the writer has something to do with the book ("his first book anthology project") has just appeared—on 18 February: https://ekran.mk/aleksandar-sasha-trajkovski-so-nova-kniga-antologija-razlichni-svetovi/ ... clearly in response to my edit.

There is off-wiki-coordinated promotional activity that generates off-wiki spam in response to what is happening with the draft.

There are other accounts in this COI cluster, noteworthily, the draft creator. See this for some background, which connects the draft subject as an autobiographer, the off-wiki spammer, and the draft creator: mk:Special:History/Разговор:Александар Т..

All this is really incredibly banal, and it would be possible to ignore it on the side of conduct and keep managing things on the side of AfC (by simply not accepting the draft), but I believe that the pattern should be recognized and recorded somewhere for the future.—Alalch E. 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I got this on my talk page, saying "we have made the necessary changes, we have set with our colleagues a source for each sentence, we plan to set up some more new sources independents" (sic) – I thought by 'sources' they meant referencing in the draft, but based on what @Alalch E. says, perhaps they mean "set[ting] up new sources" in a more literal sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is most definitely what they mean. —Alalch E. 12:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to help other poets and writers have an English version besides their more linguistic. But I see my intention to help, you see it as an intention to help, so I retire, you don't need to waste time on me in discussions unnecessary. Greetings and every good. Мкдвики (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I got another perplexing one: [467]. I will give you another source for the critical look at his poetry from other writers, not From Elija and not by Sonja. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Alalch E.. This probably needs an SPI, but as a first step I've blocked Мкдвики as an obvious sock to enforce their threat to retire. Star Mississippi 14:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

To me Hristijan Kicho is an obvious sock. As is Vladimir.grujeski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another account that has only edited the draft. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Brought this back from the archive since it's ongoing and per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#WP:LOUTSOCK (cc @Asilvering). Was the master IDed or are we still just playing whack a sock?

Star Mississippi 14:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

On Talk:Irena_Jordanova#This_article, @Alalch E. made a comment suggesting this sort of activity could go back a long time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we're just playing whack-a-sock, I'll start an SPI and see if CU turns up any others. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Мкдвики. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

New IP is edit warring in Manifest Destiny

New IP editor (94.204.105.141) is edit warring by deleting content in the WP:LEDE of Manifest Destiny:

1. 2/3/2024 8:44
2. 2/6/2024 0:13
3. 2/22/2024 11:45
4. 2/23/2024 8:48
5. 2/24/2024 12:21

I gave a warning on 2/24/2024 1:52 prior to the last revert. Although it doesn't meet WP:3RR, I find it to be disruptive and uncooperative. I am not sure what the best action is to make sure the editor stops this.
Notice given to IP. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Despite the notice and second warning at 20:05, 24 February 2024 and notice of this action at 20:05, 24 February 2024, the behavior continues. 22:57, 24 February 2024. This may now meet the WP:3RR threshold. I urge the editor be blocked for 24 hours. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User လူကောင်း

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

This user has just today opened an array of AFDs without any discernible policy-based rationale (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Boden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Alemany), draftified articles like Silicon Valley, and proposed articles for speedy deletion that have a clear indication or assertion of notability. I have serious WP:CIR concerns, and they continue to make dubious nominations after a warning on their talk page and as I compose this comment. Jfire (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In clear retaliation for my talk page message, they just nominated for deletion two articles I created, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Karl Hillers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenue of the Baobabs, both with the nomination rationale "Delete, Not valid for wikipedia." Jfire (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, you may have duplicated a thread by mistake. Looks like this one was opened right before yours about 5 or so minutes before. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Boden, which seemed to be the only one undone. If others need addressing, feel free to ping me. Star Mississippi 00:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone move Draft öfgren to Ulf Löfgren? It didn't get undraftified to quite the right page name. Jfire (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Star Mississippi 00:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth closing each one? I was thinking more along the lines of undoing the nominations and nuking the AfD discussion pages they created. Perhaps that's not the way to go about it, though. Tollens (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I restored Silicon Valley. Yeah, this reeks of CIR. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

လူကောင်း and deletions

လူကောင်း (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account in May 2023 and has about 440 edits. They appear to be obsessed with deletion, at least lately. I came across them because they tagged Bank of Balochistan, Octopus Renewables Infrastructure Trust, and Bob Meyer as WP:A7. I declined all the A7s, but the Meyer tag was really over the top. Then, when I looked at their contribution history, they have been cranking out AfDs like a pitching machine (gee, a sports metaphor). Their nominating statement seems to be always the same: "Delete, Not valid for wikipedia." Not the a typical rationale. I have not talked to them. Doesn't look like they talk, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Looks like a duplicate of the above. A WP:NOTHERE block seems more than appropriate to me. Tollens (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the duplication folks. Perhaps the first report hadn't started when I started mine, but, regardless... Anyway, after I created it, I had to step away from the computer (RL intervened) for a couple of hours, hence my failure to respond to the pings here until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to report them as well. User is draftifying articles that do not need to be draftified and is clearly engaging in page-move vandalism. I tried to revert their moves but couldn't (see how they draftified Silicon Valley). User needs to be blocked due to serious CIR concerns. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Just closed a nom for Venmo (you know the drill, any issues with my NACs bring them up here and I'll defend them fully); time to break the glass and block and strip the daily log, as their noms continue now. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I'm hoping they can explain what they are doing in an unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why couldn't you have reverted them? You're a page mover.... Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why, but I've now restored some of them. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the noms from the log. Not sure if it's worthwhile for someone to delete each associated AfD page. Tollens (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

fair enough. I'm G3ing them since none had a valid argument for deletion Star Mississippi 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I believe they can all be done at once with Special:Nuke rather than going through them. I've gotten rid of the notifications they sent to the page creators. Tollens (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh – Star Mississippi, it seems you might not have seen the scale here. It isn't just the nominations linked in this thread. Here is the list. Tollens (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks @Tollens. Special Nuke wasn't working for me. Let me try another browser. Star Mississippi 00:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Might be because I tried closing some discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

LMAO. I missed the colon. They're gone now. Thanks again @Tollens Star Mississippi 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Star Mississippi! There's a little left to clean up but I am able to do the rest. Tollens (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the quick action here, very much appreciated, along with the cleanup of all the disruption so it was limited. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23

I already nominated this user as a sockpuppet here. But no one took action even though its obviously following the pattern of the same blocked user. This sort of behavior was brought up in ANI before for another one of the sockpuppets here. Guy targets some of my articles under different accounts. I don't know how many sockpuppet accounts this guy has but we have to be on guard for all these low activity accounts made recently. 13Joker13 and လူကောင်း have also made a bunch of articles which are just direct copying of google translate of other language Wikipedia articles so I think they should be reviewed to see how many of them meet the threshold to stay. - Imcdc Contact 02:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Report

• 2601:81:8400:910:5C67:F905:209:D37E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Made derogatory remarks as well as told me to kill myself on their talk page after giving warning for reverting vandalism they made on an article. Here & Here

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

...Yikes. Can an admin also revdel [468], please? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is the edit of the IP’s that i originally reverted Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, del'd some revs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Scottish. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for 93.218.55.200

Resolved

User contributions for 93.218.55.200. Can I get a second set of eyes on this. Not sure if this is vandalism or not. here they seem to blank lots with odd edit summary. Lots to review. Moxy- 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what their intentions are, but their edits are definitely insufficiently explained and partly harmful, especially on such a mass scale. After the last warnings on their talk page and since this discussion has been opened, they made this edit at Córdoba, Spain, where they removed reference footnotes and templates from the infobox for no apparent reason, removed some piped links in ways that are not necessarily improvements, and systematically or semi-systematically removed URLs and some other details from citations throughout the article. Some earlier edits have similar problems too, e.g. [469]. Even if there's some constructive edits in the mix (like removing unsourced material), this is by far doing more damage than good. R Prazeres (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

PS: they also haven't responded at all to any reverts or notices on their talk page, as far as I can tell. R Prazeres (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Continued BLP violations by User:Sorry20

User:Sorry20 continues to add unsourced categories to biographies of living people after warnings and a block in July/August last year for this very thing. There was a further very clear warning from SuperMarioMan in December, since when the editor has slowly continued the same behaviour unabated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked them again, this time for a month. With their repeated apology and choice of username, I'm beginning to wonder if we're just being trolled at this point. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Threat or attack by Alexiscoutinho

At Talk:The Vladimir Putin Interview Alexiscoutinho (talk · contribs) first made this reply to @Manyareasexpert:, then after the latter reacted, they made this series of edits. I removed their comment and gave them a warning on their talk page[470] to which they replied.[471] They also restored their "I know from where you're coming from."[472] which sounds like a threat to me (or is it an attack based on Manyareasexpert's nationality which is unknown to me ?).

Let me add that I agree with Manyareasexpert that Alexiscoutinho's attitude towards RS is highly problematic. Examples:[473][474] Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "I know from where you're coming from." sounds more like an accusation, but it is still PA also for comparison look at their changes over at Battle of Bakhmut Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

May I also note that Slatersteven is not the most impartial observer as we already had beef/content disputes in the past, in that same Battle of Bakhmut page. But I appreciate your effort at contextualization. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "I know from where you're coming from." is more a colloquialism to say they believe they understand what perspective you're arguing. They might be incorrect, but it's not a threat, more stating that they think you're pushing a specific viewpoint. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• I know I was previously advised by a wise editor to avoid text walls, but I'm afraid I must make one again to adequately contextualize this issue:

This is harassment by this point. The big problem, Rsk6400, is that you are trying to interfere in the affairs of other editors without having any idea of the context. While your action could be viewed as virtuous as a mediator, you inherently risked a lot by making incorrect judgements based on incorrect assumptions.

This all started with a very long content dispute between me and ManyAreasExpert. We often indicated that we viewed one another as biased as we tried to reach balance in the Battle of Bakhmut page. There were a lot of talk page discussions about sources, estimates, attribution, etc. But after a long time and especially after this improper ANI ticket, the dispute seemed to have mostly cooled off. I even made two humble replies, [475] and [476], in a particularly contentious discussion there, Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#IISS removal from Aftermath section. Sadly, he never answered them. I gave him the best chance to properly "make peace", but at least it was clear (if you follow the edit history of that section) that we had pretty much settled. I don't remember exactly if we talked to each other elsewhere after that episode. If we did, it must have been very minimal and cold, as expected.

That was until the latest episode. I once again repeatedly raised a concern about the neutrality and balance of an article, this time the Vladimir Putin Interview article. I tried to defend my argument of keeping the {{Unbalanced section}} templates in some article sections for longer. I was discussing against 3 other editors. Needless to say, I felt backed into a corner and was nearing submission by numbers. The 3 editors, Rsk6400, Tdmurlock and Asarlaí, had all previously contributed to the article and were giving reasonable arguments, which I partially disagreed with. But then, out of nowhere (it was his first participation in the whole page), came ManyAreasExpert harassing me and "adding salt to injury" by making the majority even more overwhelming and also accusing me of continuation of a pattern of not adhering to WP:RS and WP:BALANCE and diminishing reliable sources in favor of (what?). Then he explicitly linked to the previous ANI ticket, something which I had already vehemently condemned before. And he obviously knew it because in the previous episode he masked the link, as I requested, to not make it as provocative. It's like you're in the middle of a job interview and then comes some random person remembering everyone that I had a criminal record. I view that action as extremely inappropriate.

So how should I reply to someone who clearly comes to a new discussion only to attack and discredit me (and apparently holding a grudge over some unfinished dispute)? Nicely? Give me a break. I even thought about creating an ANI ticket because of it, but I thought it was unnecessary and would consume too much of my time (something [time consumption] I'm trying to decrease recently). So I gave him a very harsh response indeed. You're asking for it!!! was an ANI threat, the most unfortunate part of the reply. I wouldn't have wanted to repeat it if such incident happened again. In general, I tried to be very cautious with personal attacks. I.e. when I said disgusting I was clearly referring to the grudge, not him. I also showed frustration that my apology in the Battle of Bakhmut talk page was not reciprocated. But, most importantly, I gave him an option to de-escalate the situation and make me completely retract my comment: I urge you to remove that link once again. If you do, I'll remove most if not all of this reply. And so he wisely did, and masked the link. As I promised, I completely retracted my original comment and substituted it with a cold but more respectuful reply: [477][478]. The I know from where you're coming from. part refers to the previous content dispute of the Battle of Bakhmut page and has absolutely nothing to with nationality, so control your imagination, please. Though only ManyAreasExpert would know that, hence the importance of him raising an ANI ticket if he felt threatened, not other observers who don't know the background.

The issue was solved, albeit quite bluntly. However, Rsk6400, in good faith, decided to be the sheriff/judge and proceeded with pocking the wound again in my talk page, blindly defending ManyAreasExpert, and also by reverting my retraction of the original comment and then deleting it again. Why?! What were you trying to achieve, seriously? The issue was over, the where you're coming from had nothing to do with personal identity, and the issue wasn't about you. It even feels like WP:BAIT. I then rejected his fragile intervention, the edit summary speaks for itself.

Obviously my conduct wasn't exemplary, but so were the others', and, given the context, I believe my strong frustration was understandable. But, in conclusion, I would like to ask for ManyAreasExpert to stop provoking me and for Rsk6400 to be very cautious when asserting yourself as a mediator when you don't know the context, and could consequently be partial, EDIT: because I can bite, especially if I feel cornered. 😉

Thanks for reading to the end. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

May I also add that I and MAE recently had a more friendly indirect interaction at Talk:Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024)#Many wounded soldiers. Sometimes it feels like a bittersweet relationship, at least for me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• The primary assertion is that the statement, I know from where you're coming from is a PA. Seriously! HandThatFeeds correctly identifies the reasonable meaning of this, particularly in the fuller context of that post: I understand your POV and am not going to engage with it. I am the editor that was canvassed by AC. While others may not, I see this as a request for an objective third opinion by AC. I provided this comment for which I was thanked by AC and understand the matter to have been resolved. The allegation that I know from where you're coming from is a PA is itself a frivolous and vexatious PA that only serves to enliven the dispute and weaponise ANI. The initial post by MAE to Putin's interview is certainly uncivil, if not a PA. It is an allegation of continued misconduct not substantiated by the ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND. The response, You're asking for it!!! can be construed as a threat - of what? - to take MAE to ANI? Neither editor should have posted as they did to an article TP. Both editors made a tacit acknowledgement of this by amending their posts. AC has made a fuller acknowledgement of their error above. However MAE would continue to make allegations of a pattern of not adhering to WP:RS and WP:BALANCE and diminishing reliable sources, that were not withdrawn. For this, ANI must accept some responsibility because it did not provide a close to the incident, Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND. An interaction issue between AC and MAE relating to MAE's allegations is likely to continue unless there is some intervention (not necessarily sanctions) by ANI. It is an unfortunate fact of RUSUKR that a sense of outrage has translated into a mob POV and that any one that does not conform to the mob is against it. There is no middle ground. The issue here is, in my view, a symptom of that condition. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown and timesinks

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 was long due as SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to avoid scrutiny for a long period by choosing not to archive their talk page messages, notices, and warnings. Instead, they have chosen to display only barnstars, praises, etc., creating a false impression for any editor who might have concerns regarding their editing behavior. They have been given enough WP:ROPE to mend their ways and become a productive editor rather become a massive WP:TIMESINK, don a rhino skin as they say [479], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([480]), be uncivil ([481], [482], [483]), pass comments, or just ignore. They passed comment like "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything they would not like about someone" against me on 6 February 2024 to which I asked them to stop [484] (and @Edwardx: who agreed with me by sending a thanks), but they still repeated the offensive comments in an other form and said "You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". on 7 February 2024 in an edit summary, violating WP:SUMMARYNO. I'm deeply hurt by this and felt like they are trying to drive away editors that doesn't agree with their definition of "truth", regardless of what reliable references say or write. I again tried to resolve this and asked them to stop [485] and in reply they said "Please grow up, there is no personal attack in it.". This shouldn't be tolerated and should be enough to sanction them.

User:SheriffIsInTown apparently doesn't care what the community thinks about them and uses sick quotes like "It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail." to describe culture on Wikipedia. It is also unfortunate that they take community sanctions imposed on them as a joke, (like ban on them editing Muhammad (imposed on 16 January 2016 by @HighInBC: and arbitration block imposed by @BU Rob13:), and displays them as some kinds of medals of honor.

Other recent issues in span of a month

• On 18 January 2024, @Jacobolus: raised an issue with them regarding their use of refill script You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results to prop up edits counts but most of them were unproductive edits. Instead of apologizing and helping Jacobolus clean up the mess they created, they wrote an AI-generated rap to mock them.
• On 22 January 2024, someone raised an issue with them regarding the use of WP:LLM ([486]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([487]) and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apparently they also don't know what the spamming is. The issue was regarding their use of ChatGPT to generate a rationale to nominate Wikipedia articles: i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awrangzib Faruqi, generate a lot of law-related articles with AI. It is abundtly clear that they used ChatGPT to do all this and even didn't acknowledge the warning. They just don't care.
• On 30 January 2024, @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: had enough of this (hurt by them like me) and complained to them what is their real issue to which they wrote another a rant and again tried to impose what is their definition of truth. A day ago, they reverted User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's edits without a reason [488].
• On 1 February 2024, they joined unreferenced articles drive to prop up the edits count but soon they created more work for volunteers than they contributed and were kindly asked by @Broc: and @Altamel: to slow down ([489]). Another time sink.
• On 3 February 2024, they downplayed User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's work on a list and claimed that they were already working on that list for a few weeks (without providing any evidence like sandbox) and went on to use terms and sentences like "try to do better job", "It seems you beat me to it by simply creating a separate article that looks somewhat clumsy", "You ought to have demonstrated politeness and respect by communicating with the editors who dedicated hours to the actual work, suggesting the creation of a separate article to acknowledge their contribution", and "there are certain manners we should all adhere to as human beings" See User_talk:Saad_Ali_Khan_Pakistan#1970_members_list.
• On 6 February 2024, they started to edit war with me ([490], [491]) and insists to add a section titled "Alleged extramarital affair" on a private woman's biography based on primary references, such as an interview given by her ex-husband after 6 years when military started the crackdown on Imran Khan. See Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. It is another time sink created by them to waste community's time - I've asked for independent opinion on multiple noticeboards.
• Since 7 February 2024, they are reverting ([492], [493], [494], [495]) well-cited information that summarizes the article in the lead that PTI intra-party elections case ruling was controversial (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and was influenced by the military of Pakistan. They dismiss all the reliable references as WP:FRINGE and cited essay like WP:STATUSQUO when in actual I'm just summarizing the body and citing additional references for the verification. They even moved war when a move discussion is going on [496].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([497]) to which they haven't replied.
• The massive disruptive editing from them is on 2024 Pakistani general election where they are trying to censor anything related to Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as if this site is operated by the military of Pakistan, contorary to the fact that reliable publications in the whole world are describing the PTI-backed candidates as a separate group and a clear consensus on the talkpage is that we should include them, see Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Should_PTI_be_included_in_the_Infobox. They are still edit warring ([498], [499], [500]).

• On 9 February 2024, @Saqib: warned them to stop removing referenced information on Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Removing_rigging_information. That information is from reliable publications such as The Economist, Time, France24, but according to them these sources are "speculative" and "we shouldn't blindly include wild accusations based solely on speculative reports; not everything reported in the media is suitable for an encyclopedia." They are speaking the language of the Pakistani military establishment and attempting to impose Pakistan's censorship standards on Wikipedia which is against liberal norms. War Wounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor who almost always agree with them repeating similar narratives, and is editing from a mobile device like SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that they are either collaborating offline to establish a false narrative on Wikipedia articles or are the same person. I ask the community to review them concurrently with User:SheriffIsInTown as well.

Remedy

All of these concerns converge on a few topics, such as politics of Pakistan, blasphemy ([501]) towards which they have a strong bias and couldn't contribute constructively. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the most precious thing and a deliberative approach to create work for others and waste community's time is a serious issue for which we have to take some kind of action. I'll leave it to the community to discuss the necessary measures, but I suggest the following restrictions at a minimum:

• Topic ban from articles related to politics, blasphemy, and restrict them to use semi-automated tools to do quick edits in general.
• Obligate them to engage in discussion with fellow editors constructively (i.e. cite proper diffs and independent references, rather than making awkward arguments) and avoid incivility.
• Require them to archive all past talk page messages and continue doing so in the future, especially for warnings, notices, and noteworthy discussions.

Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while they didn't double-check or clean up all of the citations they had twiddled – hundreds to thousands of which were never checked by anyone else, with likely a substantial proportion of regressions – SheriffIsInTown was at least somewhat responsive to talk page discussion, and did make some effort to fix edits where the problems and appropriate solutions were explicitly explained. Since then, they seem to have stopped trying to do script-assisted citation changes. If they refrain from further masses of script-assisted edits going forward I won't have any personal problem with them. I can't really comment on the Pakistan politics stuff. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, due to having been away from WP for some time, I'm not familiar with the cases put forward above except that I find SheriffIsInTown's editing approach on the 2024 Pakistani general election page quite amusing. I returned to WP yesterday after hearing reports that individuals were tampering with the election page in an attempt to censor information. To my dismay, I found that it was indeed true. I suggest If SheriffIsInTown or any editor continue with this editing style, I strongly recommend implementing a topic ban. I agree with what User:HistoriesUnveiler said we don't have enough time to keep engaging in pointless discussions/arguments with someone who has clear POV agenda. SheriffIsInTown suggests that the Pakistani military must admit to engaging in election rigging before we can include those credible news reports in the article. Otherwise, there's no point in even mentioning them. It's as if the military has acknowledged in the past their involvement in election rigging. The Pakistani news media is forbidden from explicitly labeling PTI-backed candidates as such, for apparent reasons. However, if foreign media is openly acknowledging them as such, why are we hesitating to do the same? Are we here to serve the Pakistani government and censor information? Is this website run by the Pakistani government, for heaven's sake? --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's evident how he quietly removed Imran Khan's statement [from jail], which was well-referenced and unrelated to rigging. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 Elections PTI gave tickets to its candidates and just before elections Election commission, whose main duty is to conduct "Free and Fair Elections" went to Supreme Court against PTI and Supreme court gave ruling to take back PTI's Bat symbol because PTI party elections were not valid. Another party ANP also didn't conducted their party elections which was only fined PKR 20,000 by the ECP and ECP also ruled that ANP should conduct Party elections after elections of 2024 and their symbol "Lantern" was not taken from them. See Reference[502]

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf being the largest party of the country deserves to be added in election Info box because it received most number of seats across the country and although PTI candidates ran as Independents but they were backed by and supported by PTI party and they received PTI tickets before the SC ruling. Many prominent and Independent news sources of the World and Pakistan stated "PTI-backed Independents" and differentiated them from other Independents. Here in Wikipedia, which is an International and Independent platform we were discussing on this topic to add PTI backed Independents in election boxes but it was opposed again and again. Western World (United States, United Kingdom and European Union) expressed concerns over lack of level plating field, fairness of elections and undue restrictions of freedom of expression. See[503]

Removing Imran Khan's statement from jail is against freedom of expression and showing real information to the readers of Wikipedia because people of Pakistan has given mandate to Imran Khan and his statement should be added with reference from valid reference. Reference from International Media should also be added on election rigging and human rights in the country as well.

It was my first time working on election page of Pakistan during current event time. I started adding election boxes(details of candidates by votes, % etc) which sheriff reverted by saying that it is against neutrality to add election boxes before elections, so I stopped working on it. When I worked on making List of members of the 5th National Assembly of Pakistan and I copied names of elected members from 1970 Elections page and I worked to modify it by adding party colors to the table, adding districts and divisions of East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) at that time, Districts of West Pakistan, separating elected members from members elected on by-elections adding a separate section "Membership changes", adding Members elected on Women seats and also added members names of Patuakhali district. but still he stated "Dummy edit for attribution". Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. The reported editor has a long history at ANI, so others well versed in it are likely to chime in. But my first observation is that OP has a rather precocious editing history, creating articles and initiating page moves within five days of account creation (and within their first twenty edits). Grandpallama (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm a MediaWiki developer, so I'm familiar with the platform. Before the creation of this account, I edited as an IP editor, so I'm familiar with the main guidelines as well. I mainly created this account to create or edit content considered censored in Pakistan, and could have repercussions (see Enforced disappearances in Pakistan), so I don't want to reveal my public location and IP. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoriesUnveiler: It's difficult to grasp how a MediaWiki developer could be so knowledgeable about what's going-on on Wikipedia. You seem to possess more knowledge about SheriffIsInTown than I do, but that's beside the point. It's good to know that you're here to edit content perceived as censored in Pakistan. However, I also feel your attempt to remove BLP on Bushra Bibi is also viewed as censorship, IMO. --Saqib (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge about SheriffIsInTown in form of diffs is public. Any one can access/collect it using the software. I spend a day to go through their history and collect the diffs, just to stop the disruption. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: HistoriesUnveiler and Saqib had content dispute with me which they took to ANI. HistoriesUnveiler, a 12 day account starts changing article content massively disregarding already established consensus, when countered by me, they could not get through their edits due to lack of consensus, Saqib ends their long break and decide to help them out, the content dispute ends at ANI instead of them resolving that on talk pages or engaging official content dispute mechanisms such as WP:DRN. Further than that if an admin finds anything questionable or objectionable, please ping me and ask, and I'll gladly provide clarification. Otherwise, I prefer to dedicate my time to enhancing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of essays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify that despite being on a wikibreak, I've been intermittently active on WP. I'm not here to support User:HistoriesUnveiler or anyone else as you claim without any evidence. I fully agree that HistoriesUnveiler should have sought resolution through WP:DRN instead of bringing the issue here. I've no issues as long you refrain from removing properly sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that users are leaving messages on the talk pages of both Sheriff and War Wounded, asking them why they are actively interfering in the process of inserting crucial information which must be available to the average reader (such as the claims of the military rigging the election, which is true, and the refusal to insert Imran Khan in the election box), but these two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages, thus there is a missing confrontation which further makes it difficult to address these problems. VosleCap (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@VosleCap: Your comment is not clear to me. Who is inserting crucial information to pages and which two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages? --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, disruptive editing and incivility history is too long, which we cannot resolve through WP:DRN. The topic ban on politics-related articles is necessary. They have a long history here: IBAN from Dresser, POV-pushing on Afghan president's WP:BLP, abusing an editor in Pashto, harrasement of @Sminthopsis84: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User_page_and_actions,_User:SheriffIsInTown, attempts to remove word Islamist from a militant's biography, and describe Hussain Haqqani as a traitor and incivility issues with @Kautilya3:. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Because I was specifically tagged here I will respond. This will be my only comment on this issue unless asked for more information. I have 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault watchlisted and saw and edit war taking place between SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler. I started a discussion on the article talk page, something that should always be done before an edit war escalates to the point it did. Neither editor was blatantly adding or removing vandalism. As stated there, Sherriff removed some very obvious misrepresentations when you actually read the source material. The misrepresentations were caused by previous good faith attempts at simplifying the wording in that section. The problem is that the edits changed what was being said. I cautioned Sheriff to maybe do a little deeper dive, it took me less than a minute, to find out the history of that section. The editor that made the edits responded and we are going to both work together on restoring the correct information. I am not aware nor do I want to be involved in any further dispute between these two editors. I only wanted the edit warring to stop. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• If I've previously edited a page, I typically review the edit history starting from my last edit. However, I hadn't edited this page before, and I encountered objectionable text while researching for any existing article on Salman Akram Raja, whom I was planning to create an article about. Raja is known for his advocacy for human rights and women’s rights, but the text in that article falsely accused him of victim-blaming, which seemed inaccurate. Recognizing this serious violation of the WP:BLP policy, I concluded that it had been added by someone to discredit Raja and proceeded to remove it. HistoriesUnveiler had already been involved in conflicts with me on other articles and wikihounded me to the 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault page. They began restoring the BLP violation without consideration, seemingly to prolong their battleground behavior. Given their wikihounding, I didn't believe they would be receptive to reason when it came to this matter, otherwise I would have attempted to engage them on talk. Since then, I have revisited the page and restored the text to its original wording, effectively removing the BLP violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Reading all above details, In short I agree with SheriffIsInTown in a way that Saqib and HistoriesUnveiler both have many behaviourial issues which cause suspision and disruption. I feel both of these have biased views dening nuetrality. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hard to see this comment as anything other than retaliatory for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LingoSouthAsia_reported_by_User:Saqib_(Result:_Declined). Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I was tagged in OP's post, so I will add my comment. SheriffIsInTown participated in the WP:FEB24 drive, adding dozens of dubious sources to pages of villages and railway stations in Pakistan. After it was repeatedly pointed out in the talk page, they stopped using those sources and continued editing as nothing ever happened, without ever looking back on previous edits. The result: 100+ poorly sourced articles that will probably never be cleaned up (I started doing so and it's a massive undertaking). While the user has been responsive, they have not shown an attitude of being able to recognize and correct their mistakes. Broc (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The aim of WP:FEB24 was to diminish the unreferenced backlog, which stretched back to December 2007 (17 years old). My intention in participating in the drive was solely to provide genuine assistance. The village articles pertained to legally recognized locations, and the sources I added were not for contentious material; rather, they simply verified the existence of these places and their population. The population census data is compiled by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics and was copied by a third-party website. By adding sources to this third-party website, I effectively removed these pages from the unreferenced backlog. While more sources could potentially be added in the future, I believe this was sufficient to address the backlog for now. I intend to continue working on articles related to Project Pakistan, and those articles now being on my watchlist will certainly be revisited and improved upon. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  iBetuBet.com - Apostando apenas na Vitórias!