Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068

User:World Beating

This user is only deleting German Place names... So no constructive edits, just vandalism. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've given them a somewhat stronger warning. Let's see if they heed that. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess this user don't care. This is the third time on Opole for example [1]. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

World Beating (talk · contribs) blocked temporarily. Hopefully they will begin to communicate. Tiderolls 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Pmffl reported by Alexander Davronov

User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Alexander Davronov

Reviving this from the archive as Pmffl continues to remove my replies without due justification. ANI NOTICE DIFF

WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation

Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."

• 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
• 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
• 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"

• 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"

WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach

Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:

• 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
• 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
• 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
• 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

Here they remove my replies on the talk page:

• 14:28, May 9, 2021 "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind"
• 16:37, May 10, 2021 "exactly, MrOllie, which is why I'm removing this garbage"
• 12:38, May 16, 2021 - «‎Latest changes by Pmffl: removing the smear, as stated before; keep the specific items»
• 17:27, May 17, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023467424 by Alexander Davronov talk) No, not okay to say this as others have told you.»

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Request

• Warn Pmffl of his misbehavior and direct him to WP:HTBC essay and WP:EDITING (WP:PRESERVE/WP:DON'T PRESERVE) policy and impose WP:IBAN. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

There's a reason you got no comments last time Alexander Davronov: no admin thought there was any action to take. Someone using mild curse words in edit summaries is not the kind of dispute that needs admin attention. You don't need all the structure btw, this isn't Arbitration Enforcement. You need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and that does not involve trawling your opponent's old edits for supposed wrongdoing. Fences&Windows 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Am I correct that you're saying that I can remove other's comments, including yours? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Alexander Davronov. Pmffl restored your talk page comment, which is what I was aware of. However, this today was not OK. Pmffl, you must not remove others' article talk page comments. You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example. Pmfll, please promise not to repeat the removal of others' article talk comments unless you are strictly following WP:TPO and please correct your incorrect removals without archiving. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. His vaguely-worded post is merely a smear of me. As MrOllie and others have pointed out, it doesn't belong on the Javascript talkpage. So I keep removing it. -Pmffl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pmffl: Letting everyone to know that I disagree with your edits isn't a "smear" of you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide, Pmffl. Let others do it: don’t edit war with someone who is critiquing you. You didn't reply about your inappropriate removal of old talk page comments without archiving. Will you clean up after your earlier inappropriate edits to create an archive? Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you mean restore Alexander's original post, in which he literally added a support line to his own idea? No, it's better to not have ridiculous stuff like that in a talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pmffl, you missed this: "You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example." That was another example of you "tidying" a talk page, Talk:Browser engine. Please address this by restoring the posts to an archive and please follow TPO and proper archiving in future. If you have concerns about someone's posts, follow WP:DR and don't edit war to remove them unless it is blatant vandalism, a severe BLP breach, or grossly offensive. Fences&Windows 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. From my reading, the parts you highlighted in yellow are indeed Pmfll commenting on content, with some mild language like "sloppy", "crap", "weird", "garbage". The only thing that is nearing a personal attack might be "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind". Leijurv (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, when that comment is "I think the latest edits by Pmffl must be revised and amended. Feel free to notify me of proposals." It does indeed sound like someone who is just against another user's edits, because. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I wasn't able to elaborate because Pmffl has removed it the same day it was posted. The same thing has happened two times a day earlier (8 May) so I decided to fill ANI complaint instead of explaining anything. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: In all three cases he was either editing or removing my replies. In very first diff above he's removed a diff link pointing out to his edit. That's what kind of "content" he has called a "weird crap". All these highlighted summaries are only about my replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, The way you format your talk page entries, with all the subsections and templated diffs and such, is fairly unusual. People who mostly read talk pages by looking at diffs are going to be confused, and it does tend to make for alerts that are difficult to understand. "weird crap" isn't a very charitable way to describe it, but I do understand what Pmffl means. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The following should clarify why MrOllie is making remarks like that one above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Canvassing in Malassezia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a history of using ANI to try to win content disputes, thank you for pointing that out. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia) However, the reason I'm commenting on this dispute (and on Talk:Javascript) is that I have had the Javascript article on my watchlist for years. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Just saying. I don't want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, bit late for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Palithanimala ref spamming

Palithanimala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding lovidhu.com to various articles as a reference. It seems the website is a travel blog, therefore cannot be considered a WP:RS. Furthermore, the user is connected to the said website, therefore, it is sort of spamming. Once he added a WP:FRINGE theory and cited it from their website. The user is not responding well to previous messages. Kindly do the needful here, Regards.--Chanaka L (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

While it looks a lot like linkspamming, I haven't reached a conclusion about the references - they're not the usual sort of tourist board bloggy spam, and it's a part of the world that wouldn't have a lot of high-quality English references to work with. However, Palithanimala blanked this report and has been uncommunicative. I will leave them a note about that and look through their contributions. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on discussion on their talkpage, it's the editor's own website, and it seems to be ultimately sourced from a particular book, presumably written in Sinhala.I've advised them that they need to cite the book for content, and not launder it through their personal project. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I simply googled "1967 Sigiriya frescoes", and it yielded a number of reliable sources reporting the 1967 vandalism incident. Hope they add an English source. Thanks Acroterion for mediation. Cheers.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Their response to me isn't terribly encouraging, and their attitude toward you isn't any better. We'll see how they go. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not offended, I was once a clueless newbie. Just hope they come around and keep the promise they made to you.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Disruptive Editing (Original Research)

2409:4043:2D1F:FBBF:BAFA:74B7:C259:E08B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly making changes to airport related articles, even after letting them know that they need to link or cite sources. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

WkpdEditor2

Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place (often in favour of Pashtun). This is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Here are some examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

After I warned him, this was his response; Ethnic make up of some provinces is completely worong I will contineu my struggle for improving and to become weki pedia more relible --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's just vandalism, frankly. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disrupting the Ref desk

186.92.231.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This IP is posting obviously inappropriate content on the reference desk. Does it warrant a block or rev-del? aeschylus (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruptions by Mark P. 8301

For a long time now, Mark P. 8301 seems to introduce deliberate but hard-to-detect factual errors into Wikipedia, and refuses to engage with other users. Here is a number of recent cases of vandalism: all of the following are factual errors, yet not obvious to non-experts; this makes them even worse, as it's more likely that these factual errors are not reverted [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. The list could be made much longer. Confounding the problem is that the user categorically refuses to use edit summaries. Despite close to 2000 edits, they have never used an edit summary. Several users (myself included) have encouraged them to use edit summaries, but to no avail. In addition to refusing edit summaries, they also refuse any talk page activity. In short, this user is completely unresponsive, has a long history of introducing subtle factual errors into articles, and refuses to explain their edits. All of this make them a highly problematic user. Jeppiz (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content. Do we think that it's a sock puppet of Peterjack1 (talk · contribs)? DrKay (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The overlap is gigantic, DrKay. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

These two editors have had some of this same behavior in and around New York road articles a while back. I would not be surprised if they were socks. –Fredddie™ 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

user Dvgardens20

Dvgardens20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Would appear to be a spam-only account. Every edit I've checked plugs Designer Vertical Gardens directly or indirectly. The last was to Dr Pepper Adakiko (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Indef spamblock by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin closes by Buidhe

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.

---

In a little over a week, Buidhe (talk · contribs) has racked up five challenges of her RfC and RM closes on her talk page:

• User talk:Buidhe/Archive 17#Improper Move for Pennsylvania German language (original discussion, now at move review)
• User talk:Buidhe/Archive 17#RfC Battle of Vukovar (original discussion)
• User talk:Buidhe/Archive 17#Your closure at DNSSEC (original discussion)
• User talk:Buidhe/Archive 17#Early European modern humans (original discussion, now at move review)
• User talk:Buidhe/Archive 17#Your closure of Elon Musk as engineer (original discussion)

Without getting into the specifics of each one, the frequency of these challenges on its own is a strong indicator that Buidhe is not following WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC, namely that discussions where the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial should be left to administrators. I also see two common threads to be found in the examples above. The first is Buidhe purporting to find a "clear" consensus in discussions with low participation and/or tight vote margins. The second is her not engaging with the argument that the close was incorrect: there is a quick response dismissing any fault, then silence, forcing the challenger to either drop it or go to move review etc. Indeed her response to the latest discussion seems to indicate that she does not think it is important to respond to those "dissatisfied" with her closes at all. This strikes me as Buidhe trying to have her cake and eat it too: if you're going to ignore the advice that non-admins should not make "close calls", fine, but you should then be prepared to be responsive and accountable for objections like an admin has to.

I haven't looked beyond the last week to see if this a recently-developed habit or a longer trend. Either way I think Buidhe's closes ought to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings for those involved in the above discussions: @Rosbif73, Kashmiri, OyMosby, Vaticidalprophet, TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, and Nardog: – Joe (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just a comment: the reason WP:BADNAC exists is that for deletion discussions, where a discussion is on the verge of keep or delete, the large number of non-admin eyes verses the relatively smaller number of admin eyes would bias the outcome to almost always be "keep" - since non-admins cannot close as "delete". Such is not the case in any of the linked RfCs, which are not XfDs, but content disputes. Buidhe is an experienced editor - and I'd rather hand her the mop than prevent her from closing such discussions - though as a technical user right, it shouldn't be relevant to her closing ability. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NAC and its subsection WP:BADNAC are an essay about XfD closes. None of the closes brought up here were made at XfD. The relevant essay-ish-thing (it's not strictly clear what tier it's actually in) at RM, if we are to treat essays with such importance, is WP:RMNAC, prominently bearing the line Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. RM is also essentially unworked by admins, giving it the significantly different NAC attitude to AfD seen at e.g. TfD. The community of active participants at RM, including its admins, are quite confident in Buidhe's closes (pinging Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, and Wbm1058 due to their interest in such discussion) and hold her as its pre-eminent discussion closer. Buidhe's primary issue, as it is, is that her closes are followed by {{nac}}; I entirely concur with Elli that they shouldn't be. Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) Buidhe is an experienced, excellent closer of discussions. This complaint reads like an attempt to forum shop because the move reviews are on course to endorse the RM closures. The solution to the issue raised is to make this red link blue. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two move reviews above. One I have absolutely no involvement in. The other I opened 30 minutes before this so it's probably a little early to call the result. I think it would be productive if we could focus on determining whether Buidhe's closes are correct, rather than making bare assertions of her good reputation amongst RMers, or casting aspersions about what ulterior motives I might have for making that request. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps I shouldn't have focused on the NAC aspect. I do agree that it's only the quality of the close that counts, not the closer's bits. The problem is that Buidhe does not seem to be making good closes. Five challenges in a week is an alarming rate for anyone. That said, WP:NAC is not just about deletion; it refers to just "discussions" and we have a separate policy specifically for deletion-related NACs (WP:NACD). WP:RMNAC also specifically says that NACs of RMs requires that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything to focus on here but the NAC aspect, realistically speaking. I think having that on her closes inspires challenges to them that wouldn't otherwise occur. (As for Black Kite's comments, she is indeed a highly prolific discussion-closer -- I keep planning out a close for (simple and uncontroversial) RMs to find she got there first.) Vaticidalprophet 10:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Indeed, WP:NAC is not only for XfDs - I'm specifically referring to The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. My interpretation of why this is the case is as I listed above. There is nothing inherent to admins about a better closing ability, the concern here is bias. As for challenges - anyone can challenge a closure, and seeing one is is a nac makes one much more likely to do so. Are Buidhe's moves getting overturned? Not seeing evidence of that. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If you've got five complaints in five days about your closes, this means;

• (a) you're closing many dozens of discussions
• (b) you're specifically closing contentious discussions where there is more likely to be a large number of disgruntled editors, or
• (c) you're closing discussions badly.
• I'm not convinced by the two I've looked at so far, btw. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I've looked at them all. The first two I looked at, I would probably hve closed differently, but neither is completely out of range. The other three I would probably have closed similarly, if not the same, and the same applies. I've commented on some below. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment All five of the listed closures provide not only the outcome but a brief and succinct explanation. This is good practice, and should be encouraged. Sometimes closes are tricky, and whether or not someone is an admin will not change that. Agree with many above that the number of raised discussions doesn't say much about the quality of closures, if they are overturned that would be another matter. CMD (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The examples above are from the last seven days, so it's too soon for any of them to have been overturned (unless Buidhe did so voluntarily, which is part of the issue here). However looking back just a bit further I found e.g. Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_January#Admiralty_(United_Kingdom), where there was a clear consensus that Buidhe's close was premature, found consensus where there was none (note the parallels to the complaints above), and should be overturned. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That particular close isn't really a cut-and-dry "bad nac". Buidhe closed the original move as (paraphrasing) "consensus exists that 'Admiralty (United Kingdom)' is not the primary topic for 'Admiralty'". Given that both commenters agreed, that's not an unreasonable close. She particularly said a further move clarifying the eventual location of the British admiralty may be filed if desired. Looking at the further discussion - while some people said it was closed too early (I disagree, seven days is the length of the process, and there was no active disagreement on the point Buidhe closed on), the next RM did lead to what she closed in favor of - that said article was not the primary topic of "Admiralty" - being kept. Should she have moved it to Admiralty (United Kingdom) instead of British Admiralty? Perhaps, but given that no one suggested it in the discussion, I feel like that would've been a more controversial close. If this is the most recent example of a bad Buidhe close, I don't think we have a problem here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Buidhe is, in my experience, one of the more experienced regular closers at RM. She's willing to close discussions that stay in the backlogs for a while, or are otherwise controversial and people don't want to touch. In the past, whenever I've reviewed one of Buidhe's closures, for example in the situation Vaticidal links, my opinion is that she closed the discussion correctly. First some general points: WP:NAC is just an essay and for good reasons. The closure of content discussions is not an administrative matter, and the community affirmed this here. WP:NACD is a guideline which applies to deletion discussions, because deletion (and some other areas, like conduct) are exclusively in the purview of administrators. Still, WP:NACD does not accurately describe practice at all XfD venues, for example it does not accurately describe practice at TfD. Another general note is that sometimes involved parties who are upset with the outcome (or believe the 'policy' wasn't 'weighted' correctly) like to appeal on the closer's talk by virtue of the 'WP:NAC'. I understand the temptation, having felt it before. This is to say that volume of complaints alone can't be considered a problem IMO Unfortunately, the reality one has to accept is that sometimes consensus just sucks. NACs can get a harder time over it than admins, and the solution for Buidhe is turning this blue.
  On this specific ANI: of the discussion Vaticidal links, I think it reflects more poorly on the involved parties than on buidhe. Of the discussions linked in the opening comment, I think the Elon Musk one was closed correctly, with almost 75% opposed to the perennial proposal on reasonable policy grounds. However, the Early European modern humans concern seems reasonable, and if it were me I'd unclose and relist. The DNSSEC concern seems to be a matter of semantics ("consensus for current title" vs "no consensus to move"). There is a distinction between the two, yes; the term buidhe used could be intentional, if Buidhe determined the discussion showed explicit consensus for the current title. But even if we assume it didn't then it's still a minor error, and admins make far more impactful errors than this and nobody bothers point them out or complain about them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) e: 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I must echo the above sentiments that Buidhe run for adminship, and do it as soon as possible. Buidhe, my friend, you are disadvantaging yourself and this project by not running, as this ANI thread shows. So I will bold this: Buidhe should run for adminship. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am more concerned by the hounding of Buidhe and forum shopping exhibited both here and at WP:RM talk pages when closures don't go the way involved parties wanted them to go. Buidhe has far more experience than many admins in closing RM discussions so the idea that admin closures are better than NAC ones is wrong. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• I've looked through all five discussions. There's not a single close that I thought was incorrect, and there's no reason to avoid NACs in these specific circumstances (XfD is different), especially when the closer is clearly competent. Would support closing this discussion with no action taken. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NAC explicitly states that discussions should not be reopened just because the closer is not an administrator. I take that to mean broadly that only the quality of the close determines the quality of the close, not the status of the closer. So let's just look at the closures, shall we?
  • Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch language#Move to "Pennsylvania_Dutch"?: Personally, I would have relisted this, but Buidhe's close was well-reasoned and within discretion. The move review is informative here.
  • Talk:List of military disasters#RFC on Battle of Vukovar: There's at least one editor in here who is probably a VJ-Yugo sock (they haunt Balkans military topics) but Buidhe isn't expected to know that, and their comments probably didn't sway the discussion. I would have dismissed the main opposition argument that an event has to be described using the specific word "disaster", and not any of the supporters' noted reliably-sourced synonyms, in order to be included in the list, especially since the opposer who kept writing that comment clearly has poor grasp of English. But that's bordering on supervote territory. Otherwise I would have closed no-consensus rather than consensus against, but I can't call this a bad close.
  • Talk:Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#Requested_move_31_March_2021: This challenge is a good example of why counting the number of times an editor's closes are challenged is not good evidence whatsoever that the closes are bad, it's just evidence that our checks and balances work. The challenger's entire argument was that the head count in and of itself demands a no-consensus close, but that's not how closing discussions works at all. Consensus was clearly against the move and the close was excellent.
  • Talk:Upper Palaeolithic Europe#Requested move 9 May 2021: Personally I agree with Joe Roe here to the extent that the title should refer to the people and not the geography, but I did not participate in the discussion and he failed to convince a single other editor. I don't see how the discussion could be read any other way than "consensus to move". Joe hasn't really provided any valid rationale to overturn at move review, either, having commented only on the head count and closer's status.
  • Talk:Elon Musk#Should Musk be called an engineer?: How does one read a discussion with 22 opposes versus 6 supports as anything other than "consensus against"? The challenger again didn't cite any issue with the close other than the closer's status, and the fact that other challenges exist (which, as noted, is not evidence of anything).

I've noted some criticisms of these closes, but don't consider any of them to be inappropriate, nor do I find Buidhe's responses to the challenges lacking what we would expect from WP:ADMINACCT. Accountability requires responding to valid concerns; it does not require responding to endless gaslighting from editors who disagree with you. Good work, Buidhe, and I would also support if you choose to run the gauntlet. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. The simplest explanation here is that Buidhe is a prolific RM closer who shows an admirable willingness to tackle difficult discussions that have been languishing for a while in the backlog. If multiple of the cited RMs end up being overturned or relisted after making their way through MRV, then maybe there would be a case for asking them to cool down their closes. But until then, this feels premature. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• While I agree with those stating Buidhe should be an admin, I don't like the idea that contentious RfCs or RMs should be closed by admins at all. Buidhe has more experience with RM than I have, why should she not work on difficult closes? —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Two things 1) The NAC issue is a nonstarter for me. Only closures that require, or may require, the admin toolset (block, delete, protect) should have any restrictions on who can close them; for discussions where the outcome could be enacted by a non-admin closer, ANY closer will do, with no special preference to be given to admins. WP:NOBIGDEAL is apt here: Administrators were not intended to develop into a special subgroup. Rather, administrators should be a part of the community like other editors. Anyone can perform most maintenance and administration tasks on Wikipedia without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. (bold mine) 2) The five contested closures all fall within normal discretion, and none is particularly problematic. I'd go through and provide additional notes, but that would be redundant to the excellent analysis from Ivanvector's Squirrel above. I concur materially with every one of those results, and I found none of the challenged closures to be problematic. On the issue of Buidhe applying for adminship, I am going to buck the trend of the several earlier commenters and say that I find no reason to encourage them to apply. They are doing a find job as it is, and unless they want to be able to delete or block or protect, there's no compelling reason to get the toolset. I would support such an application, but if they don't want it, I feel no need to push them in that direction. Being an admin is only about access to tools, not about having more rights to have one's decisions respected. Buidhe is doing a commendable job, and I encourage them only to continue to trust their instincts and work in good faith to keep making Wikipedia better in their own way. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Largely per Jayron32 and Ivanvector. These being NACs doesn't matter here. I would not recommend anyone (admin or not) make 5 controversial closes in a week, but several of these should not have been considered controversial. I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe move discussion (the 3-1 vote being insufficient when several of Joe Roe's arguments had not been addressed). The other closes look fine; several of the objections seem no more substantial than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Looked at the diffs provided (guess I'll never get that time back). I agree with those above (such as but not limited to: Jayron, the Squirrel, and power-enwiki (sorry, that key's not on my keyboard.:)). I guess my response would be .. IDK Thank you Buidhe for all your hard work. — Ched (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Your keyboard doesn't have a tilde (~)? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NAC is an essay. It does not enjoy global consensus. I'm not the only editor here who gives that essay zero weight. If you want to make the case that an editor is making too many bad closes, show us five overturned closes, not five challenges in progress. Joe shouldn't have started an MR and then also taken the closer to ANI; at the least, wait and see if you win your MR first. My thanks to buidhe for her volunteer work. I'd also support buidhe's nom, but I see no reason to suggest that buidhe running for admin is a "solution" to any "problem," because there is no problem. I know we want to encourage editors to run for admin but we shouldn't make editors feel obligated to do it, or feel bad for not doing it, or suggest that it's a step that the editor must take. The only valid reason for anyone to run for admin is if they want to; we should never treat it as an obligation. I'm all for enthusiastic support for a run, I'm just saying it's also just fine if she chooses not to. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure why I was pinged. I have no issue with @Buidhe:. Yes I came to them looking for somewhat of an explanation for their reasoning. I even reached out to a few Admins who aren’t involved in Balkan articles who are mainly admins or like Buihde very active and seasoned editors. Most of them felt that the closure decision was okay. One felt they would close the opposite. But the one agreeing with Bhuide’s take better explained the reasoning and I stated on her talk oage all is good and I agreed. I did not participate in “shopping” as some accused here. I find it ofd how it is frowned upon to have more eyes than one on a topic. Especially a highly contested one where even another admin voted to keep Vukovar. I don’t get the issue. Also I don’t understand why Bhuide is being reported here. Being I was pinged I wanted to make my stance clear. I stood in opposition on Bhuide’s stances on Balkan discussions of yhe past on sources but I know she does it out of good faith. At least I would hope. I don’t know them that well compared to others here. Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe one, as there was very little participation and no-one had refuted Joe's argument (and the close looked a little supervote-y). The Elon Musk one suffered from a surfeit of terrible non-policy compliant Opposes, but I can understand how a closer (even if they're not counting votes) could look at it and assume the 22 v 6 were right, even if they weren't. The rest look OK to me. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Same situation with the Vukovar one, where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. OyMosby (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, now that you've explained it I can see the problem there (and this is exactly why I wouldn't have closed that particular one, but waited for someone with more familiarity). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I see no issue with Buidhe's closes other than them not being an admin, and I concur with others that they should consider an RFA soon.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• When it’s five different editors having the same issue, all of them, best I can tell, long standing contributors, I’m sorry but that strongly indicates that there is indeed a problem here. Don’t know how serious it is, but it does seem to be a pattern. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's nonsense. If you do a lot of closures then statistically there are always going to be some fraction of users who are unhappy. So that's your pattern. Polyamorph (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  As I and others have said, the frequency of challenges is not necessarily indicative of a problem with the closes. One of the challenges in this case was an editor upset that Buidhe didn't count votes, and another was based only on the fact that there were other challenges. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not nonsense. If five different and unrelated long time editors in good standing complain about the same kind of behavior within a week that's not just a "statistical anomaly". How many closures overall did Buidhe do in this same period? What percentage is this? Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? You can't hand wave away what seems like a legitimate problem which is being brought up here. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Meh. If we're going to cut the numbers, then an equally un/useful comparison could be between number of complaints brought against Buidhe here (five) and number of editors incl. admins dismissing said complaints here (~13). Man, thems some sweet sweet numbers. ——Serial 19:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? it's not like there is any difference between an admin closure and a non-admin closure here. Are her closes bad? Or are they not? General consensus seems to be that they're acceptable. She does indeed do quite a lot of closes - find the ones that have been overturned to actually make an argument here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

the non admin angle is also nonsense.Polyamorph (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Quickly looking at the examples of closing at the top of the thread, only Upper Palaeolithic Europe seems to be an incorrect closing and should be relisted. Just relist it. That does not seem to be a problem, and the matter is already under discussion on another noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Why not the Vukovar one as well being the same scenario? Where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. Had the same discussion with Black Kite above. I agree that these RfCs are a bit tricky hence why others are intimidated to close them. I applaud Buidhe for taking on the grunt work. OyMosby (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that all contentious, difficult or close discussions should be closed only by admins. This should be written in the rules somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's true even the very best will tend to get quite a bit of criticism if they have a high work rate. And I agree Buidhe is to be commended for taking on much difficult work, which she mostly does to a high standard. On the other hand, most of the RfCs do seem to have been close calls; as other are saying it probably makes sense for even an admin not to close too many tight RFCs in quick succession. Personally Id only take issue with the Musk close. Musk is shaping up to have more impact on human civilisation than even Cecil Rhodes did in his day. He's Tony Stark with a 007 twist, and his girlfriend is Grimes. Someone like that warrants the full 30 day discusion. Closing discussions prematurely is to be avoided. Still, no case for even a mild sanction, IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh. This seems like a good illustration for my mini-essay: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_why_so_many_admin_heads_are_seen_sticking_in_the_sand_when_push_comes_to_shove. Anyway, the sample discussed here is useless. Unless someone feels like analyzing ad least few dozen, preferably over a 100 closes, this is all noise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• The problem is not that Buidhe does close discussions but that she believes there is "consensus" (to move, rename, merge etc.) when there is obviously no consensus among the participating editors (like in the Upper Palaeolithic Europe case or the DNSSEC case), and that she closes the cases when the issue is stil being hotly debated and should preferably be left open (like in the Musk case). To put it simply, too often she is too quick to close and misjudges between the consensus and the lack thereof. Maybe she should spend more time carefully reading each discussion? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don’t think the Upper Paleolithic RfC is a different example from the Military Disasters one. OyMosby (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry but this assertion cannot reasonably be made. Had I voted in the DNSSEC RM I would've also voted support (for DNSSEC), but the consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the current title. Other than the nominator, no supporter provided evidence for their COMMONNAME assertion, and the nominator only used ngrams. Keep in mind that it also takes less consensus to do nothing than to do something. I wouldn't say it was an amazing quality discussion, all in all, but many consensus discussions aren't evidence-finding missions with a logical progression towards a conclusion. Closers have to do the best with the discussion they're given, and that's the way any reasonable closer would've closed it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Joe Roe - from reviewing this discussion, I'd say that there is consensus that there is no problem in need of any action here - I'm minded to close this thread, unless there's anything more you want people to consider? Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think overall consensus is there isn’t a major issue concerning Buidhe. The issue is more with RfCs themselves I’d say. Probably for a different discussion. OyMosby (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  support @Girth Summit: - This is safe to close. I've boldly reopened at least one challenged at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_May#Upper_Palaeolithic_Europe request so things move forward. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I've encountered buidhe several times, but AFAICR we've never crossed swords. I've disagreed with some of their actions, but that is neither here nor there. I have no doubt that buidhe is WP:HERE, and is willing to make difficult decisions judiciously. Others in this thread have suggested that buidhe apply for a mop and bucket, and I endorse that idea. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Idahocool30 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They claim they're "trying to fix and add valuable information that will help other article seekers to find information they are looking for." All they're really doing is spamming the article KTVA and my talk page. See this diff: [17] I reported them at WP:AIV but got rebuffed. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also a personal attack on my talk page. [18] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

24 block by C Fred for edit warring, but they are a they". It's a group account.. See also UTRS appeal #43644. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage of talk page as a forum

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.

---

Since they joined about a month ago, User:Blamazon has almost exclusively used the talk page of tank and firearm articles as a discussion forum, despite being given a first warning on 30 March, and a final warning yesterday. Their behaviour includes responding to discussions which had long been resolved, such as this question asked in 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1919_Browning_machine_gun&oldid=1014016005), as well as starting their own sections, most of which have little, if any, pertinence to developing the article. I have linked them to WP:NOTAFORUM on multiple occasions, and yesterday I explained on my talk page the purpose of talk pages, that they are not to be used be for general discussion, and that they should use the RD or another site if they'd like to ask questions of this nature, but they've gone straight back to it today. I somewhat get the impression that they're WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia, instead being more interested in giving their personal opinions about things, i.e. original research. Their comments are often replete with "in my opinion", or "I think", and rarely, if ever, supported by any sources. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chauchat&oldid=1023168262, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_I&oldid=1020378014, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FG_42&diff=prev&oldid=1015161749&diffmode=source

One of their few edits into mainspace was this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M1_Garand&diff=prev&oldid=1022467104&diffmode=source, which shares most of the same problems: OR, where they mention how certain things "might have been better", and "probably did not happen". After I reverted this edit, they took it my talk page, and asked me if I knew about the Garand ping myth, and once I said yes (but not actually prompting them to talk about it), they gave me another OR wall of text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loafiewa&diff=prev&oldid=1022991563&diffmode=source

There are also signs of WP:IDHT, on my talk page, after explaining that using talk pages as a forum is against policy, and they may be blocked for it, they seemed to completely disregard it, on account of the fact that other people have also used the talk pages to ask questions in a similar manner, a complete refusal to learn or change. Loafiewa (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I contribute to this discussion?Blamazon (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Put forward your response. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I want to point out that I agree that talk pages are not forums. I want to learn and I want to follow the rules.

On Loafiewa's talk page, I arrogantly said that I have not edited any talk sections that have been officially closed. And I said that I thought it was weird that I was being called out for my edits because a large portion of wikipedia talk pages are not about the article itself. In retrospect, I admit I shouldn't have said this because I was bit aggravated about Loafiewa reverting so many of my edits. I felt like I was being targeted and my mood reflected in my posts.

Second, I am not a long time user. Loafiewa said at the beginning that I joined about a month ago. That said, I don't know much about wikipedia's rules. And I am not trying to break them.

I want to use the talk pages for their intended purpose. And I also want to answer the questions that people post on talk pages. But most of all, I want to learn. If there is something I can do to be a better user, I would like to know.Blamazon (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages should only be used to discuss edits or potential edits to the article. If someone, in contravention of that, posts a general discussion point on the topic, it doesn’t mean you should answer. They should be reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If they are not reverted it still doesn’t mean that you should engage. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Should I delete/revert content(made by me and other users) on talk pages that is not related to editing the article?Blamazon (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Blamazon, meh. I just reverted some stuff on Talk:Panzerfaust, but it's not a huge deal. We're more concerned, I think, with whether you understand what all this was about, and it seems to me that you do. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand what I did wrong and I am doing my best to improve.Blamazon (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Super.mix5101 edit warring and IDHT behavior

User:Super.mix5101 is a relatively new user here who edits mostly in Egyptian topics. As one can see at User contributions for Super.mix5101, an unusually large portion of their edits have been reverted. I encountered them at Egyptian–Libyan War in late April, where they have repeatedly tried to alter the "result" parameter to basically show Egypt's position in the outcome more favorably. As per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, I have been reverting them for trying to make the result more detailed and complicated than it should be. One other user has also reverted them here. I have asked them to use the talk page but they have not engaged in any discussion, showing WP:IDHT problems. User:Vif12vf has posted two warnings on their talk page which have elicited no response. They have a history of simply reverting reverts of their edits without providing any explanation in the edit summary of what they're trying to achieve, such as here. Admin assistance would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

And despite this ANI report they are continuing to edit war with no communication. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Now the guy literally just insulted me on the talk-page of Sinai insurgency‎, literally the first interaction me makes with any of us! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Um no one has edited that talk page since December last year. Can you provide a diff? Canterbury Tail talk 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops sorry, that should have been Talk:Egyptian revolution of 1952. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:George Vu

Please block User:George Vu for this: [19] Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit summary containing a personal attack is particularly nasty. In fact, I think it should be RD3'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) — Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Note as well: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George Vu Laplorfill (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Very uncivil behaviour from user 2600:1000:b012:918e:98d5:804f:72c0:b94d

Greetings administrators

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:USCWWeapons&action=history

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

Also its I.P. seems to change every minute

Thank you 4noname4 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare just now saw it, great thanks for the kind words to the talk page, appreciating it 4noname4 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: the whole range Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B012:918E:943:B609:D117:499B/41 is making personal attacks and vandalising. Their personal attack allcaps edit summaries should probably get revdel'd dudhhr 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I've expanded the block range. I'll revdel a few of the more egregious summaries. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@dudhhr you are completely correct 4noname4 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare just to inform you that the same user pops out as a gremlin changes its I.P. rapidly to whatever number and continues the same

Please notice the same numbers that this I.P. starts such as: 2600:1000:

And thanks for the cooperation 4noname4 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@4noname4: Yep, that is how I have blocked the IP range (first the /64, now expanded to the /41). There is more information at WP:Rangeblock if you are curious. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Warrior4565666666

Warrior4565666666 (talk · contribs · logs) has been making disruptive edits after multiple requests to stop and a level 4 warning, and is unwilling or unable to learn basic Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:AGF, inserting own editorial comments into articles and not being WP:CIVIL with other users when their edits are reverted. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: This sounds like a relatively simple case that could go to WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

IP Address 98.4.181.121

If it isn’t ok to post this here, I understand. But this IP is removing content without explanation, edit warring (both at Rocket Power), and so far as shown no interest in discussing our content dispute. I have provided warnings on their talkpage for edit warring and removing content with an adequate explanation. I would like some assistance with this issue. If this IP provided a reasonable explanation for why they do not believe the content should be in the article, I would leave it alone, but they have yet to do so. Thank you in advance!--Rockchalk717 02:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: might be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Sigh. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Yikes. I hope not.--Rockchalk717 02:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems this IP has been blocked following my request at WP:AIV. I only posted here because of how long it was taking.--Rockchalk717 04:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Averybenedictxezonaki vandalising own talk page

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

---

Averybenedictxezonaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to fake their unblock request being accepted. See [20]. AIV doesn't seem like the right place to report an indeffed vandal, so I'm taking this to the dramaboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Avery has not been unblocked. An admin was considering unblocking them. Apparently they now want to leave Wikipedia and are saying that the vandalism was done by their son.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well they've been CU blocked as a sockmaster, so it probably wasn't their son doing it. dudhhr 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

What a curious story. I can't really grok all the specifics of the block, as it were, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that one of their articles was not a hoax. This micro-stub they created turned out to be this guy. --- Possibly (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Spam crosswiki

The user Pablogarciadeportes and his sockpuppets does spam crosswiki about Walter Ezequiel Matthysse in enwiki, eswiki and wikidata. This user has been blocked indefinitely in eswiki; please see this list of sockpuppets in eswiki and the history of the article Walter Matthysse, article vandalized with persistent spam about that person. Valdemar2018 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The user has not edited en.wiki in almost a year. I see no reason to take any administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Need admin review

Could an admin review this recent diff? Easily in the WP:NPA area, and in my view, offering violence is way over the top. Thanks, Jusdafax (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's ridiculous. Blocked indefinitely by NRP, who beat me to it by a second. Daniel (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to you both. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • He's apologized in an unblock request. For what it's worth, I don't think that was a threat of physical violence. If I understand correctly, it was a challenge to play against him in a video game, where he would presumably prove his edit was within policy by pummeling you virtually. That kind of over-the-top screamy, insult-laden behavior still falls under WP:NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In the decade plus that I've been editing, this is a very common pattern. Bluster, abuse, threats, block, sweat promise to do better, repeat. Given the pinging and taunting, followed by a sudden miraculous apology, I don't believe this character will be an asset to the 'pedia. Good preventative block! Jusdafax (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

      As I understand it, it's more like the old phrase "if you've got a problem with someone, would you say the stuff you do online to their face?" Still, I have had a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

      Modified Ritchie333's indenting to comply with WP:Accessibility. I don't really know what purpose it would serve but I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, it was clearly a suggestion they should duke it out in 1 v 1 in PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds rather than a suggesting for physically fighting. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation/fake Barnstars

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

---

The user User:Casprings has multiple Barnstars on his page, supposedly awarded by a former Wikipedia Foundation staff, another quite active user, and two indefinitely blocked sock puppeteers. The Barnstars are a template (User:Casprings/Appreciation) that has only been edited by the user itself. Therefore, from what I know, that is impersonation and probably sockpuppetry. Don't know the exact rules (sorry about that) but wanted to report it. Andibrema (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not sock-puppetry. Oftentimes these are placed on a talk page and moved to a permanent location by the recipient, but I have better things to do than care enough to investigate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the talk archives that, barring some odd game with fake archives (can't be ruled out for manual archiving, but fails Occam's razor), these are authentic. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No reason to worry about talk page archives, just check the contribution history. The barnstars are authentic [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. As per 力, I think most barnstars are given on talk pages since unless an editor has specifically said it's okay, it's presumptious to add a barnstar to an editor's user page, as in most cases only the editor themselves should edit them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In case it reinforces the suspicion, or makes you want to investigate the case, he also blanked/replaced the entire Wikipedia:Requested moves page at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1002444656 Andibrema (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by two users

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.

---

• 123FactCheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daiaespera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amar Singh (activist)

I want to report two users who are constantly vandalising the article by deleting its content and refs. 123FactCheck, who only edited Amar Singh's article, is bent on deleting or altering text related to the Harvard University [27][28][29] and replaced a whole paragraph with his own, adding biased and unbalanced material that violate our neutral policy on BLP[4][7]

A few days later another user named Daiaespera showed up, first edited a few random articles instead of directly editing Amar Singh's. Like the previous editor, this one too has a concern around the Harvard University stuff although i never stated he graduated from the Harvard University.[5] Daiaespera made their first edit on this article the same day they signed up (7 april) and have continued to edit to date as per their wishes. All this while, Daiaespera made lots of disruptive edits and deleted many sourced material.but gave them the benefit of doubt and stuck to AGF. Later i had to intervene because the kind of edits they were making were evidentaly a vandalism, for example deletion of sourced content without a discussion or consensus, addition of defamatory material without a reliable reference,

Edits by Daiaespera

1. Removed the subject's official website link from the "external links section" stating "this is a business website not an official website".[6]
2. Here they added "Amar attended the Harvard University although left without taking a degree" which 123FactCheck also wanted to add. , they also removed two references
3. here they deleted a whole paragraph from career heading with an edit summary "Ancestor could mean anything, clarity and reliable sources required" despite the fact that there were 3 references provided for anyone to verify that. the Gay Times and VanityFair clearly speaks about his ancestors "Singh finds inspiration from his family, which is steeped in a history of fighting for equality. His grandmother Veena Singh, who died in 2017, championed women’s rights during the British rule in India and was an ally of the county’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Singh’s ancestor, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, set up India’s first women’s education fund, was India’s first health minister and campaigned for equality alongside Mahatma Gandhi."
4. here they changed from "Founder of Amar Singh Gallery" to "Art gallerist" with an edit summary "more neutral tone" i don't see how this makes the article promotional that they toned it down. I guess they did not want Amar Singh Gallery to reflect anywhere on the top. this is a deceptive edit summary.
5. here they deleted two lines from career and personal life without adequately explaining why. "family" is their edit summary.
6. here they deleted a line from personal life heading and several references "Singh is a direct descendant of Sikh ruler Raja Nihal Singh, who was opposed to colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War" which was reinstated by an extended user. But they did not listen to him/her and again removed it. while Its clearly stated in the VanityFair article "Singh is a direct descendent of India’s Sikh ruler Maharajah Nihal Singh of Kapurthala, who opposed colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War."
7. here they cut pasted a line from personal life heading and inserted in the introductory paragraph and deleted several sources, non constructive edits .
8. here they deleted the line "Singh’s uncle Vishvjit Singh was an Indian politician with the Indian National Congress Party" from personal life heading with an edit summary "not an uncle" while its right there in the losangelesblade article "Singh’s father’s brother, Kanwar Vishvjit Prithvijit Singh, “a chief minister and a great politician in India who was also dedicate to ameliorating the country,"
9. here they finally took down the personal life heading and stated "Source was an interview with Mr Singh in the Gay Times, not a reliable third party reference" in the edit summary - DOesn't the Wikipedia guideline say that Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content? the gay times is not a primary source first of all and his ancestry details are not directly provided by him, an unreasonable excuse to delete a cited material.
10. here they set a citation needed notice at the top of the article, despite the fact that the article was entirely referenced, see the diff.
11. here they deleted the "Art gallerist" from the box on the right side as well as the lead section, and also removed the line "He is the founder of Amar Gallery" from the first paragraph with an edit summary "the gallery seems to have closed down" Look at the point #4, they did not want Amar Singh Gallery anywhere at the top, so it could not reflect in the Google knowledge graph, that's what i concluded. I reinstated that and left two warnings in the hope that they would cease, but they did not and deleted those texts again - if one of his London galleries is closed up, does it mean that he isn't the founder and give them the right to edit it out of the article? clearly a disruptive conduct
12. here they added The Penton Street gallery closed in April 2019 citing a pdf doc, that can only be produced by someone knows the subject very well and trying to discredit him. an editor like us will never be able to find such links online.
13. here they added an unreliable reference. They deleted many of my references claiming they were not reliable, and they can add whatever they want to.
14. here After taking down the whole personal life heading content, they created subject's family tree citing poor/unreliable source. It reeks of someone trying to push their agenda and even discredit.
15. here they deleted a line, providing no proof for their claim
16. here they brought it out to afd at once as i reverted their edits
17. they have made many such unnecessary, non constructive edits and vandalism edits.

I warned Daiaespera twice and urged to bring it out to talk page to seek community consensus if they had concerns but to no avail. they rather brought it to afd. I do not see a policy based argument, no editor chimed in on deletion yet, reading their afd remarks sound as if a desperate attempt to change the content the way they wish to. A glance at their edit history and the amount of edits made on Amar's page by Daiaespera evidently uncovers their real purposes and can confidently say that they are not around to contribute to this encyclopedia but to push their personal agenda. There is a sock investigation opened against me at [30].I deny having a connection with Editorworldwide14 & 123FactCheck in which its stated "123FactCheck has came to the defense of me".they havenot sprung to my defense but to raise concerns over my edits on the Harvard Univerity. In fact, previously we two had had an edit war. They dont belong to me. As for Editorworldwide14, I was aware of the afd discussion from day 1 but didn't want to get involved into it and chose to leave it to community to take a call. Why would i create an additional account when i can use my own for making comments?

123FactCheck and Daiaespera, they both look very suspicious to meSk1728 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think any of my edits constitute disruption or vandalism. Sk1728 created the original article Amar Singh (activist), which was a highly biased piece containing many inaccuracies and family photographs suggestive of the fact that Sk1728 may have a close undisclosed relationship to the subject. Since then I have repeatedly tried to clean up the article, to make it neutral and to weed out the numerous false statements, some of which were added back by Sk1728. So as to avoid an edit war I just AFD'd the article instead. Now Sk1728 is accusing me of disruptive edits and vandalism, and another user Editorworldwide14 is claiming my edits constitute a "cyber attack". It is worth noting that Sk1728 has is currently under Sockpuppet investigation (which I have tried to assist with) and in this past has had copyvio images of Amar Singh removed from Wikimedia Commons. I have tried to improve the article Amar Singh (activist), have flagged issues on its talk page, and raised the question as to whether the article in its current state should be deleted or not, but have come under fire for this by Sk1728 and Editorworldwide14. My issues with the article in question are laid out in the AFD. I have no connection to 123FactCheck who also raised issues with the article. Daiaespera (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

46.97.170.0/24

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.

---

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[31]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[32]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[33]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[34]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[35]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[36]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[37]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[38]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[39] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[40]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[41]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[42] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[43]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[44]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [45] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[46]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[47]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Diffs

. Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [48] "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[49] " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[50] " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[51] " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [52] "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[53] "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[54] "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[55] "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[56] "Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"[57] " Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"[58] "Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"[59] "This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."[60] " Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Wikipedia's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"[61] "This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"[62]

I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

• To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
• Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
• On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
• The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
• Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
• Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[63] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A relevant comment[64] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

"Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [65] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [66] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [67]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [68], Joe Rogan[69], Elon Musk[70], Larry Sanger[71], and Jacob Gardner[72]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that they have caught the WP:ANIFLU. Note to self: if you ever get into trouble at ANI just stop editing. It doesn't always work, but it often leads to the report being archived or closed with a "no recent activity" comment. Further note to self: Do not immediately restart the behavior. People notice that sort of thing. Either start misbehaving on a new page or wait a couple of months before starting up again on the same page.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for close ( 46.97.170.0/24 )

It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that there's little energy to close this because there's little in the way of any actionable proposals. Other than a few large walls of text between the primary complainant (yourself) and the defense made by 46.97... there isn't much in the way of a firm way forward. Some people have proposed a few half-hearted hints at sanction ideas, but it is difficult for an admin to enact any sanctions based on such vagaries and any lack of clear consensus among the uninvolved. If you want this resolved in some sort of active sanction, you're going to need to call the question and propose a concise, concrete way forward. --Jayron32 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My concrete proposal: A community-imposed topic ban from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed, with the usual invitation to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer of allowing an appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. I recommend no block or partial block at this time; let's see if they abide by the TB voluntarily.

Dr.Swag Lord thinks the TB should be extended to all BLPs. I say we wait on that and see if there is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Guy Macon's proposal (see my initial post for details). This would remove the topics that have cause the most problems for the IP and still all them to edit Wiki in other areas and, perhaps, pick up the norms. Squatch347 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, would also support the BLP topic ban as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reviewing the diffs shows that the ip holds strong opinions about the subjects in discussions about content choice allowable under WP:BLPTALK. I do not see the disruption here as I expect the community to have stronger tolerance and expectations that contentious subjects yield contentious opinions. BLP should not be used as a sword to hush these opinions because editors think they amount to IDONTLIKE and ILIKEIT rationales. We've shown great tolerance for other users who hold less than noble opinions in deletion discussions. I don't see how this should be any different. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously? You actually think that "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is" and "Like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society" are allowed under BLPTALK? How do you explain the fact that 46.97.170.0/24 freely admitted that their comments violated our policies and retracted them? (46.97.170.0/24 does that every time they are reported an ANI and then go right back to the same behavior once the report is archived, but it is still an admission that they understand that what they are doing is not allowed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Shapiro comment was in context of whether his opinions were WP:UNDUE for the article and in response to another editor's accusations while the Peterson quote was in context of whether a section was WP:DUE (responding to an editor who commented on misogyny and nationalism from Peterson), qualifying BLPTALK.(See [73][74][75]) The ip's previous admissions only means they got heated and are willing to defer or yield to consensus; something again they have shown here. Let me ask how have these comments been disruptive to move for sanctions? Have they somehow improperly made to article space, improperly sway article discussion on what has gone into article space, or enraged other editors to the point of disruptive bludgeoning that distract from the actual content issue? You all are better than that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: "how have these comments been disruptive?" please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano, and the other comments in this section. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Which door were you picking? You cited personal attacks from almost a year ago, which is different than what is brought up here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The most recent edits by 46.97.170.0/24 are to reasonably comment here and to remove some of their screeds. If similar recurs, please let me know and I will issue escalating blocks for the range. @Morbidthoughts: You're wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  You will have to be more specific. The very first sentence of WP:BLPTALK is as clear as day, and I have pointed out history supporting this. Is this an administrators decree or a WP:SUPERVOTE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Morbidthoughts, I think it's discretionary sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've modified the above comment indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Anyway I've purposely avoided getting involved in this but FWIW I agree with most others than the IP's comments, as apparently even they agree, go beyond the limits of BLPTALK. Editors are free to have whatever personal opinions they want of subjects, but they need to take care to ensure their comments actually relate to improving Wikipedia when they touch on subjects. If there is a way to make the point without commenting on a subject, they should do so. Continued failure to do so is likely a problem. It generally doesn't even matter how many people share that point of view. While it's reasonable to have some leeway especially for extremely notable people e.g. I think it's rare comments on Donald Trump or Jo Biden or Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or for that matter Jacinda Ardern or John Key at least from a BLP standpoint (other issues may cause concern though) if enough editors express concern that an editor is persistently crossing the line then they need to take this feedback on board. An editor can think subject X is an irrelevant nobody as much as they want. It's largely irrelevant to us. What matters are reliable sources and reliable source coverage. Notably from what I saw most or all of the examples did not involved material directly sourced to the subjects concerned, so their alleged unreliability was not that germane to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I just want to see this closed one way or the other. I am fine with a "no action required, user cautioned" close. The worse that could happen is that we end up here again in a few weeks. What I really want to do is unwatch this page. Having it on my watch list tempts me to post here, and apparently there is an unwritten rule that if you ever want to run for RfA you are required to show zero interest in AN, ANI, AE, or Jimbotalk. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User FredBoron

FredBoron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:SPA repeatedly reinstates unacceptable sources in the CryptoNote article. Was notified about blockchain and cryptocurrency sanctions. An attempt to discuss on the talk page of that article did not go very far. Accuses me of vandalism. Please help. Retimuko (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904

Rupert1904 (talk · contribs) has been a problem for a while. NB this is not a content dispute - he is edit warring to change a long established stable version of a page, against MOS. He has admitted deliberately editing against MOS, because he thinks he can, and has now breached 3RR at the page in question (Ike Ugbo) - attempts at discussing on his talk page have simply resulted in him making more reverts and also insulting me, making comments like calling me a "creep" and very bizarre comments (same diff) like "You still haven't bought me dinner or asked permission from my parents yet to take me out on a date". Further input on the issue/conduct welcome. GiantSnowman 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

NB the MOS issues will also be raised shortly at WT:FOOTBALL to deal with that aspect. This post here is to deal with Rupert's conduct and attitude/insults. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No this is a content dispute. As the MOS clearly states, it is a recommendation and is subject to change and should not be followed word for word. You think it's gospel that needs to be followed blindly and is not open to change or improvement BUT the MOS says it is open to change. On Ike Ugbo you insist on putting in blank rows into his career stats table for the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21 seasons with parent club Chelsea. This is wrong and inaccurate for so many reasons. He has never been registered or given a number with the senior squad. So he has never been included in the squad list for ANY competition during those four seasons. He has been sent on loan to other clubs before season starts so it is factually inaccurate to include these seasons with Chelsea in a stats table because that would suggest that he was in a lineup or could have featured for the club during that season which is not true. Then when I ask why you won't fix this supposed MOS problem on other player articles you refuse to answer the question because you think you're above me. You then tried to start a discussion about this on my talk page and you brought in another editor into said discussion but they sided with my argument and not yours so now you're all upset. And lastly, you have a pattern of following my edits and reverting me and you even admitted to having my talk page on your watch list. That is incredibly weird and not appropriate. You need to stop! Rupert1904 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your accusations of me following your round are entirely unfounded. I think you'll find you have a habit of editing articles I created and therefore have in my watchlist (meaning I see your changes). That is all. If we are talking about "incredibly weird and not appropriate" why did you call me a creep and why do you keep talking about me taking you on a date?! GiantSnowman 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert is now removing my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not unfounded. I have voiced my concern that you follow me around on multiple occasions and a search of your edit history and all your reverts of my edits throughout the years would support my concern. I have never hounded you out and tried to revert your edits but it seems like you get pleasure from following my edits and reverting me. It is very concerning and frustrating as I've already indicated to you time and time again. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, you clearly don't understand what "unfounded" means. You are also ignorant about WP:AGF (amongst other things). GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a diff clearly showing you deleting my post at the WikiProjetc talk page. Why did you do it and why are you now lying about it? GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't delete. If anything, it was an edit conflict as I keep trying to post but you keep adding more and more notes. You act so holier than thou in this witch hunt of me. I do not understand why you follow my talk page and follow my contributions so that you can then revert me. This seems to happen weekly. I said you are a creep and said you should take me on a date because you follow me around and revert my edits so much. It goes hand in hand. You take the MOS too literally. It should not be followed word for word. It is very frustrating and unnerving that you have chosen me as the object of your attention and it feels very uncomfortable and like a personal attack. I never follow your edits but I am sure if I did as you do mine, then I could nitpick yours too. You have shown a pattern throughout the years of following me and even made it known today that you do. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If it was an edit conflict then you will have had a notification telling you so. Did you or didn't you? Whatever your excuse, your conduct speaks for itself, as does your admission that you (1) happily insulted me and made other bizarre and inappropriate comments, as well as (2) edit warred to ignore the MOS to make your preferred edits. I'll wait for other editors to comment. GiantSnowman 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All you do is happily insult me and now you try to play a victim. You freely admitted to following my talk page and contributions and have now started this discussion because you want to insult and disparage me. I have let it known that I feel very uncomfortable with the extent that you follow my edits and make comments on my talk page and find it incredibly inappropriate that you continue to do so. I have asked you many times to stop following me all the time and you refuse to do so. You track my every edit on wikipedia. It is very creepy but I take solace in the fact this is digital and you do not know where I live or who I am because I am not sure what you are capable of doing in real life. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I told you I watch listed your talk page - because we were having a discussion there, so I knew when there was something to respond to? That is all. I have not admitted to following you and your contributions, because I have done neither. Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre and unhinged. GiantSnowman 17:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk about insulting someone! Please stop. I am so tired of you insulting me all the time and following my edits. I've been asking you to stop following me for years and you won't. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And let it be known to this forum that many wikipedia editors have sided with me in the content dispute in question. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Any content dispute is irrelevant; this page is about your conduct, your insults, your behaviour. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This should also be about your continued online abuse of me and years of following my contributions and my continued asking of you to stop following me and your refusal to do so.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You are now making serious accusations without providing a shred of evidence. Either substantiate your comments with diffs or retract them. GiantSnowman 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It can be found in the history of our talk pages and my contributions that you have continuously reverted. I have been clear on multiple occasions that I feel like you single me out for abuse, are incredibly rude to me, make me feel uncomfortable, make me feel like I am lesser than you (which you have done in this very thread and in the current discussion on Wikiprojectfootball) and that you follow my edits. This is now the latest example of it. I do not know if I wronged you in a past life but I have never sought you out like you do with me. I have said multiple times that you are a bully and I am tired of it and do not want to take your abuse anymore. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904, calling another editor a "creep" is a personal attack, and your remark about buying dinner or asking your parents for permission and going out on a date is just plain strange and quite inappropriate. GiantSnowman provided a diff showing exactly what you wrote. In this conversation, you repeatedly accuse GiantSnowman of misconduct but you haven't provided any evidence such as diffs or even direct quotes or links to anything inappropriate. I hope that you understand how important evidence is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen - to discredit me, the person being attacked, is incredibly poor form. Also, is calling some strange not a personal attack? I called GS a creep because GS has displayed a pattern of following my every move on wikipedia and reverting me. This has happened for years and years. Thus my comment and joke about taking me to dinner since GS has tracked me so much. I do not have the time nor the energy to look through over a decade of history of GS berating me but I have included a couple points below from what GS had said just today. Also I do not know what diff means. I am not a religious wikipedia editor. I edit on wikipedia because I enjoy updating it and making it more accurate. For me, it is not a day job but a hobby. I do not want to continue editing if I am going to be attacked and harangued in a digital kangaroo court.

Just today, GS purposefully said that “Rupert thinks we can ignore MOS” and misquoted me as having said “oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed”. GS posted this on this forum at 16:42 UTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Career_stats_MOS_-_parent_club_rows). I NEVER said that and GS certainly isn't inside my mind to know what I think. This is blatant disregard of the truth. That is a lie that GS propagated in a clear attempt to sully my reputation and edits and discredit me in a discussion we were having with other editors. That is a tactic a strong man uses to silence their opponents. Also today, GS wrote on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rupert1904) calling me a “brick wall” and saying that I am “childishly dramatic” because GS doesn’t agree with my points. If we are talking about personal attacks, then I would say that falls into the realm too. And the content discussion that GS started on Wikiproject Football has now shown that more editors agree with me on the edit that I implemented but it seems that GS always needs to have the final word and be the victor in an argument especially since I am just a brick wall. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904, I anticipated that you might not know what a diff is, and so I provided you a link to a helpful page explaining it. Did you notice that or read it? As for the content matter, this noticeboard does not deal with content. Are you really arguing that it is OK for you to call another editor a "creep" and ramble on about that strange dating stuff, but not OK for the other editor to refer to not wanting to talk to a brick wall? I think that both of you should stop personalizing the dispute and instead use Dispute resultion such as a Request for comment for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK for you to call another editor "strange"? I have made it clear over and over again to GS that I don't want to talk to them but GS keeps following my edits, reverts my edits and posts on my talk page. It's online abuse and it should be clear by now that I am sick of it. Abuse is abuse - whether on wikipedia or in real life and it is damaging to mental health. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1904, I most certainly did not call you strange. I called your dinner and parental permission and dating remark strange, because it was. Correcting another editor's work is not online abuse, unless you can provide actual evidence that GiantSnowman intends to bother you, as opposed to being motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Where's your evidence? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I appreciate your attempts at help - but as you can see from Rupert's responses to you (and me), they just don't get it. They continue to make serious, unfounded accusations against me without a shred of evidence, and continue to twist things you and I have said. GiantSnowman 19:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, GiantSnowman, that is increasingly clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

My evidence is that you blatantly lie and misquote me to further your arguments, call me names and disparage me, and continuously follow my edits and revert me. These are all things I have noted to and linked to above. This is a process that has been going on for years. I have called GS a creep on the same basis as you called me strange- GS has followed me for years despite repeated attempts by me to ask GS to stop bothering me. I tried being polite but after a decade of abuse to me by GS, it’s clear It won’t change. It’s harassment. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

To repeat, I did not call you strange. I called your comment strange because it was strange. You seem to think that it is OK to call another editor a "creep" and object to that editor reverting you from time to time. Reverting is commonplace when editors disagree and then we discuss it. So far, I see no evidence presented here that GiantSnowman is harassing you, and actual evidence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So Rupert has - edit warred; insulted me; made strange comments towards me; twisted what I have said; twisted what Cullen has said; made repeated accusations about me without a shred of evidence; and doubled down on their conduct when challenged by Cullen. Can somebody please intervene to prevent this ongoing conduct/behaviour? GiantSnowman 09:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, another editor of footballer articles here. GiantSnowman and Rupert1904 both do a lot of great work on WP:FOOTY articles. It's a pity the content dispute (which, as GS noted, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football) escalated into a personal conflict. Some thoughts:

• GS and Rupert have a history. GS has frequently criticised Rupert's editing, here are examples from the past year: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. In my view, in most cases GS' concerns are legitimate. At the same time, I can empathise that an editor who edits in good faith and is clearly WP:HERE might become frustrated when most of the interactions with other editors they experience are criticism. I understand GS' frustration over Rupert's repeated additions of unsourced content, I assume that would be the reason why GS used message templates which many established editors don't like receiving. I don't see outright WP:HOUNDING on GS' part and Rupert's "creep" and dating comments are out of line.
• Oh, I've just seen that @Robby.is.on: has previously referred you to the MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players - so you obviously are aware of it, you're just choosing to ignore it? Why?, GS' second message to Rupert's Talk page about the content issue, is needlessly provocative and displays a lack of good faith. There a couple of reasons Rupert might have edited the way he did, "choosing to ignore it" is just one possible explanation. Also, as evidenced by the discussion happening at WP:FOOTY right now, the issue is a contentious one among editors of football articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

JS1 PRN

JS1 PRN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place - seems like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing to me- Some examples;

[83] [84] [85] [86] [87][88] [89] [90] [91]

Regarding his edits, he has claimed that My source is people in Afghanistan, when I get the reference I shall link it. and also recently justified his edits (?) with this comment Post naval statistics is guilty of identity censorship.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Bumping so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User FredBoron

FredBoron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:SPA repeatedly reinstates unacceptable sources in the CryptoNote article. The user was notified about blockchain and cryptocurrency sanctions. An attempt to discuss on the talk page of that article did not go very far. The user accuses me of vandalism. Please help. Retimuko (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pc031985 casting aspersions

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.

---

• Pc031985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevin Paffrath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pc031985 is one of a handful of new* editors who turned up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination) after the article subject published a YouTube video about the Wikipedia article being nominated for deletion. After seeing that Paffrath was canvassing on Twitter, I tagged the page with {{notaballot}} and tagged some contributors who are single-purpose accounts or who have returned from inactivity solely for the discussion, as is standard practice. Pc031985, who has voted in the discussion, began removing the tags. I asked them to stop, and explained a bit more about the purpose of the tags at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags. However, they have now begun to use the talk page as a venue for casting aspersions against me and other editors, and are convinced that I have some kind of vendetta against Paffrath (who I explained I'd never heard of until seeing the tweet; I also have not voted in the discussion, which you'd think I'd do if I was out to get him). I invited them to bring any concerns with my behavior to ANI, which they have refused to do, but they're continuing to cast aspersions there against me and other editors, which I'm growing pretty tired of.

* They have acknowledged that they are not a new editor, saying that "I've edited on WP for 10+ years but forgot my previous username after a long period of inactivity", but that they bring Doug Weller into this when he has not edited the page and they have never interacted (see below) makes me wonder if this isn't someone returning with an axe to grind.

Diffs, or just see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags

[92] "It's blatantly obvious that you have an agenda to discredit any compelling arguments for keeping the article. It's also blatantly obvious that El Cid, the initial nominator, who was absurdly 'only able to find one article' when there are 37 already sourced, has an agenda to remove Paffrath from public view, perhaps for political reasons. I've seen this too many times with too many articles to not know what's going on." [93] "Looking over your last month of activity, it's clear that you are here for deeply ideological reasons, to inject your worldview and politics into articles at any opportunity, not to create an encyclopedia. The overwhelming majority of your edits lie in a narrow field. Perhaps Gavin Newsom somehow represents the furtherance or protection of your values, and this drives you to spend your time discrediting Paffrath." [94] "I do have evidence, I've looked over many of your edits; it's clear you are a zealous proponent of certain ideologies, and spend much of your time bashing those whom you feel are opponents or foils, inserting language and blanket labels that are intended to disparage and discredit, often without including a factual basis for such labels. I don't necessarily disagree with your positions, and I haven't said your injections are false. I just think it's problematic, it's a certain style of editing meant to win hearts and minds rather than provide objective facts, and odds are there is also an ideological motive to your many interventions here." [95] "Your buddy Drmies (and Doug Weller, and however many hundred others of the full-timers) will intercede on your behalf, project a false consensus, and drown me out." [96] "They're not aspersions, they're simply accurate descriptions of what you do.(spook)" (they immediately removed the "spook" insult after making it) [97] The evidence is right there on your user page. Pretty much all you do is run around and accuse certain people (and most specifically, just about any non-big-tech social-media platform, which you spend much of your time attacking; very strange) of being white supremacist, misogynist, racist, far-right etc etc. Seems to be markedly more about spreading propaganda (again whether good or bad) than contributing to an encyclopedia.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• • I am not in any way a new editor. I've been on this site for at least a decade and done thousands of edits. A small clique of editors 'shepherd' any articles of controversy, and gang-up on new editors who try to make productive and appropriate edits. Drmies and Doug Weller (and a dozen or so others I can't now recall; Malik Shabazz may be another?) are in fact among them, and it's shocking how predictable their arrival to the scene is; literally, multiple of them, same day, within hours, on disparate topics that have no commonality other than that they are controversial. You can call this aspersions, I call it a recounting of events. In any case, I'll stop interacting with you, so there will be no further issue. If you want to revert any talk-page content you disagree with, go ahead. I have also witnessed these editors involved in the delisting of figures that may be considered by some to be controversial or subversive, invariably on dubious 'non-notable' grounds. I am involved in the Paffrath article because it is one of more egregious attempts I've seen to selectively delist someone. I haven't brought anything to ANI because I've attempted to do so in the past and it's a totally unproductive waste of time. The same clique shows up, manufactures a false consensus, and you get stonewalled.Pc031985 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You've been on this site for at least a decade and made thousands of edits, but you can't seem to recall your previous username? That seems unlikely. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I come to this site to make spontaneous, productive edits. It's not a full-time hobby and there was never an attempt to build a reputation or gain special privileges like with some editors. My pattern was typically to make IP edits for a couple of years, have a username for a while, forget to log in for the next couple years. I've had several usernames just due to forgetting past names and then easily creating a new name. None of this was for ill intent, it was simply the past of least resistance. In spite of this, all my edits were honest, productive, and I feel worthwhile. I don't appreciate the behavior I called out. Again, if it in fact violates some policy and will result in banning, I'll just voluntarily delete it.Pc031985 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • They can remember me, Doug Weller, Drmies and others, but can't remember their former username? Bbb23 has blocked them, I support the block. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Ibn Daud

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.

---

Fresh off an attempted outing, User:Ibn Daud has accused me of making fervently ... anti-Semitic edits and then when asked for diffs of said edits replies with a link to an off-wiki harassment site. Me thinks a ban hammer is in order, but if unsupported accusations of anti-semitism and linking to webpages used to out editors isnt the ban worthy offense it used to be would be nice to know that. nableezy - 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There is also a 1RR violation at State of Palestine, but can take that to AE to be dealt with if need be. nableezy - 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are my preliminary thoughts, although I hope that other administrators and editors will also evaluate and comment. Editors with a pro-Palestinian or a pro-Israel POV are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, as long as they comply with our core content policies and key behavioral guidelines, have the necessary experience, and work toward consensus and NPOV. The fact that Nableezy has been active here as long as they have while editing in a highly contentious topic area is a testament (non-religious) to that editor's understanding of these policies and guidelines. Editors who choose to contribute anonymously are entitled to do so without snoops trying to dox them, and linking to off-Wiki hate sites targeting specific editors is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 has erased part of my talk page in which I point out that historically User:Nableezy has issued several false SPI’s to silence or remove pro-Israel editors. There are numerous examples of this. Nableezy, Zero0000, User:Nishidani, User:Selfstudier and many other Pro-Palestine, Anti-Zionist users are all savvy editors who have been able to maintain an anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time. They have done this through a series of manipulative tactics and have been immensely successful in doing so. I see now that they are much too influential on this website for anything to be done about this. Perhaps at some point, one day, some administrators will look into and maybe even fix this, but for now, I see that it is impossible, for me to try to revert or combat their anti-Israel agenda. That “off-wiki harassment site”, though definitely, fervent and a little unprofessional is not wrong in describing and cataloging examples of the following user’s manipulative tactics, which they use to force their viewpoint on one of the internet’s largest websites. For this reason, Wikipedia has a somewhat subtle and even sometimes evidently clear Anti-Israel bias, which is read by millions of individuals across the world. It’s truly a remarkable accomplishment that has only been achieved through thousands of hours of tireless Anti-Israel editing by users such as Zero0000, Nishidani, Nableezy, Selfstudier User:Huldra, User:Onceinawhile ect. I know I’m probably going to be topic banned, which I’m honestly fine with, as I now realize that right now, there is no changing this unfortunate status quo. Perhaps this message may even be censored or deleted, in the name of WP:PA, which would really just prove my point. I don’t mean to personally attack anyone, but I am instead just bringing up a disappointing reality. All in all, I’ll stop trying to edit on Israel/Palestine-related topics, and go back to editing my topics in my usual realm of interests, which are without a doubt much less controversial. Ibn Daud (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy was just recently brought to the drama boards for his posts, that you ignored it is fine. I would also ask that asking any new pro-Israel editor if they ever edited Wikipedia before is not CIVIL and yes, we do have an issue with false SPI being filed and anyone in certain timezones are immediately banned as socks because our team doesn't have the technical knowledge to investigate. Your post is clear as to why there is conflict on Wiki when you think it's one sided. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Linking to said harassment site on ANI is special. nableezy - 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Daud, thank you for revealing that, unlike the other editors you revile, you have no intention of following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are here only to do battle with your ideological opponents rather than to collaborate to produce neutral content that accurately summarizes all points of view. You have presented no evidence of "manipulative tactics" used by these editors to maintain an "anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time", perhaps because Wikipedia's job is to report on the full range of what reliable sources say about these topics, as opposed to repeating what the Netanyahu government says at this particular moment in time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If its any consolation Ibn Daud you’re probably not looking at a topic ban but a more general WP:NOTHERE ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I would suggest that this editor read up a little. There is vast shouting in the press, reliable mainstream organs, about 'pro-Palestinians' hogging the discourse and spewing hate. We have a recent book on the phenomenon by an undisputed expert with all of the required credentials. Kenneth Stern, The Conflict Over the Conflict,, University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7. If one hasn't time for the long read, the gist is excerpted in Ed Pilkington's article today: 'US campuses become a growing front in Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' The Guardian 21 May 2021. Despite the title, the statistics show the realities on the ground have a far lower profile than what hysteria about groups, like the fictitious wiki mafia Ibn Daud conjures up, ganging up suggest in press reports. 'The paradox of such attempts to restrict academic exploration of the Middle East crisis, Stern told the Guardian, was that it gave the impression that US universities were on fire with pro-Palestinian activism when in fact major confrontations were relatively rare. “People paint campuses as burning over this issue, and anti-Israel activity as ubiquitous, but the data doesn’t bear that out,” he said.' Idem here. The I/P area, so often called 'toxic' no man's land, is a much quieter area than it was a decade ago, and the general conversation is civil, and well-informed between editors. Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban. Ibn Daud's defence above was very convincing that way. Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC).
• Even worse, I also note that the outing occurred at a talkpage of a subject outside Ibn Daud's normal interests, where they had blatantly pursued Nishidani there merely to cast an opposing vote on a Requested Move. This is the sort of thing that WP:NOTHERE was invented for, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Indeffed for outing attempts. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, User talk:Cullen328. The fact that a problematic editor like Nableezy is still on Wikipedia is a testament to the fact that admins have made poor and biased decisions over and over again. You and other admins have damaged this project by banning and blocking editors with many good and valuable contributions, like User:Ibn Daud, just because they didn't always avoid conflict. That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought the last block for violating your topic ban would have sent the message home to stop doing that. nableezy - 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser:, please self-revert. You know Nableezy is going to make a federal case about this when you both violate your topic ban and attack them, so why do it? To quote a wikipedian I respect greatly "That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that indefinitely blocking (not that a block should have been avoided) an editor that has created several articles [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] (these in 2021, see history of the user's sandbox going back to 2019 [104]), which are by the way not related to Palestine but rather to Jews in Belarus and Lithuania, for WP:NOTHERE looks excessive. I agree with Debresser that this is a loss for the project. Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

They have been "Indeffed for outing attempts." not for NOTHERE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I assumed WP:NOTHERE was the reason as I noticed it more than the word "outing" (didn't know its meaning before) in this thread. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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

98.179.157.211

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

IP has already been reported at AIV, but seemingly no action being taken as their disruptive editing continues on past multiple warnings on their talk page. Many edits are removal of content, sources, etc. - also view the filter log. Range block may be necessary, as they were previously at 98.179.157.218 with the same type of editing. Magitroopa (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just rereported at AIV- [105] Now given three separate 'final' warnings, quite clearly WP:NOTHERE at this point and still going at it with their disruptive editing. Magitroopa (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've anon-only rangeblocked the /24 for a month as there's no other activity on it beyond this user. This doesn't seem to really be an ill-intentioned person, just one that is blindly editing without regard to style or consensus, or listening to any talkpage messages. ~ mazca ^talk 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

47.9.159.111

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

This recently arrived IP keeps making disruptive changes, mainly altering/removing information (such as statistics). Already reported him to WP:AIV but to no avail. Some examples; --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

[106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

47.9.159.111 (talk · contribs) has made about 40 edits today, sometimes removing sourced content while never commenting on talk or using edit summaries. They seem to have some agenda related to Islam, not sure what. They did not respond to a warning on their talk. Now blocked 48 hours by User:Mazca. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I apparently conflicted with you doing a block of exactly the same length, so I think we can take that as agreement! ~ mazca ^talk 17:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent removal of relevant sourced content

Sri Lankan wiki user UMDP has been persistently removing relevant content covering atrocities committed against Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka. Please see the latest discussion and edit warring taking place in this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Eastern_Province_massacres

He has also downplayed atrocities against Tamil civilians on this page, removing references to Tamil people and the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1958:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009479994

Unfortunately, I see little hope of resolution with said user as he appears adamant from his past editting history to be propagating an one sided narrative regarding the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. I do not think this is consistent with the balance and objectivity of Wikipedia. I would appreciate if an admin chimes in. Thank you Oz346 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The page is about atrocities against Sinhalese, the user wants to add extensive details of the 1985 Trincomalee massacres to the page. Also I did not remove the content, only summarizes and added a link to the 1985 incident. Adding excessive details about 1985 masscres to the 1987 masscres results in the weight being shifted to a different topic. - UmdP 12:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Right now this looks like a content dispute, which is best handled on the talk page or, if that fails, by following the instructions at WP:DISPUTE. No one here is going to solve your content dispute; this noticeboard is for chronic behavior issues. I'm not sure it's quite at edit-warring yet, but it does look like both of you are right up against it. I'd highly recommend you and other editors at the page stop reverting one another and start talking about what kinds of compromise you can find. Oz346, the WP:ONUS is on the person adding information to an article to gain consensus for those additions, so please do not revert again but instead discuss. —valereee (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee the said information was on this page for months, and was quite stable with no issue from the other editors of this page (including the original creator/author of the page). It is only now that user UMDP has been repeatedly removing it from the page. We will not reach any consensus, he has been repeatedly reverting things on another page despite it being reliable content. This need 3rd party mediation, I will follow the advice on WP:DISPUTE.Oz346 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346, well, there are only 7 page watchers, only 3 of whom have visited recent edits, so the fact the info has been on the page for months probably doesn't mean much. I'd say you haven't really spent much time discussing, but asking for a third opinion is always a good idea. You can do that at WP:3O. I'll also ping @Blackknight12, @Hugo999and @RoySmith, all of whom are experienced editors who have edited the page but not recently. —valereee (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend WP:3O just yet. Respondents there would want to see more discussion at the talk page. Oz346, please don't give up yet on the possibility of consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need for admin involvement here. There's a content disagreement, and people are discussing it on the talk page. This is how it's supposed to work. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I had closed this discussion as a content dispute, I have self-reverted following a request by valereee on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Neutral Editor

Third Opinion was mentioned. This dispute has already been to Third Opinion. I provided the opinion that I thought that the content in question did not belong in that article. There were two groups of atrocities in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, in 1985 and in 1987. The article in question is about the 1987 massacres, but the filing editor wants to include information about the 1985 massacres, which has its own article. This is a case where "Removal of sourced content" is being used as a codeword for a dispute about due weight. In other words, this is a content dispute, but the filing editor doesn't like the way that the content resolution was working out. My suggestion at this point is either to remove the mention of the 1985 massacres, or to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Occasionally a dispute is closed too quickly here as a content dispute without looking at whether there are conduct issues getting in the way of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you provided the third opinion, Oz364 hasn't made any edits to that article or talk page. What suggests that they don't "like the way that the content resolution was working out"?

I'm attempting some minor mind-reading here, but I think this section was re-opened because of a specific misconduct allegation, namely that Oz364 had double-posted at WP:3O. That turns out to have been untrue and just a miscommunication. Besides opening an ANI thread for a content dispute, an issue that I think was well addressed by valereee, are there any other conduct issues to discuss? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I apologize. I misread the posting time of this ANI. The ANI was posted before, not after, the Third Opinion. In that case, I have provided a Third Opinion, and there are no conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Definitely been there. Could an admin please close? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

China exclusion policy of NASA

Can any admin apply indefinite semi-protection to China exclusion policy of NASA because of WP:LTA by Govercon through different IPs now. Already requested at WP:RfPP yesterday, but its pending there and every time a new IP is editing the same with different excuses. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected for a while. While I gave it a fair duration, this doesn't warrant indefinite yet. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Harassment

The account AsomtavruliEnjoyer has been created a few hours ago in what looks like an attempt to harass me. The editor created a user page where they posted a quote featuring extremely POV language, allegedly from June 2004, which they are attributing to me. The "explanatory" note below the quote says "i am here to fight against revisionism of turanist wikipedians". In reality, the quote has nothing to do with me; the edit was made by a different user in 2005, and my signature from an older post somehow got displaced (I also did not start editing Wikipedia until July 2004). In addition, the note suggests battleground attitude, which confirms my suspicion. Parishan (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the quote and left them a message informing them that it was misattributed. I admit I have concerns that this might be a single-purpose account as you describe, but lets give it the benefit of the doubt for now, with a predisposition to take further action if this sort of behaviour continues. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Shashibharanger

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.

---

Shashibharanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has repeatedly tried to turn the disambiguation page Shashi into an autobiography by overwriting the text [115] [116] [117] and moving the page to a new title logs despite being told both in move summaries and by me on the user talk page (User_talk:Shashibharanger#Shashi) to stop. IMO a block for disruptive editing is needed. Courtesy ping @Wire723:, whio has reversed the other part of the disruption. Wikipedia talk:Shashi Bharanger probbably also needs deletion or draftification as the article (attempt) isn't meaningfully placed there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The only edit before 2021, from 2016, diff also was exact the same problem. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Incivility by FDMD04

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.

---

Just after a 48-hour edit-warring block expired, User:FDMD04 has left very uncivil comments on a user TP (in addition to repeating the same edits that got them blocked). MB 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for one month. That's quite enough of that. --Jayron32 14:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of user:Possibly

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 is a trouble creator. First he said that i have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and so I have created a page. I disclosed that I have been paid by her to make a page for her. When he saw that everything was becoming normal again, he suddenly sent Annwesha Hazra for deletation, stating it is an advertisement. To the wiki admins I would like to say that there is not a single word in that page that says that it is an advertisement. But he is constantly saying that it is an avertisemnt Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a repeat complaint of an SPA paid editor, also posted at WP:AN, 3rr and AIV. I replied over at AN. Basically, they're NOTHERE.--- Possibly (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Targetted Harrasment by a user with a personal vendetta on Vokkaliga page

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

---

This new account User:SundarAradhya was created just to Vandalize the Vokkaliga page and defame the community. He threatened to do so on quora a few hours ago using an anonymous account that constitutes WP:HA & WP:BULLY.[118] It seems to be making only unconstructive edits targetted to vandalise the Vokkaliga page such as trying to portray them as landless farmers [119], and a backward caste [120].Here he is IP vandalising Vokkaliga community page.[121] He also seems to be politically motivated[122]. As he is a politically active member of the Lingayat community there is a conflict of interest in allowing him to edit the Vokkaliga page due to the long standing political feud between the Lingayats and Vokkaligas.[123][124]

The user seems to be well versed in the editing process and seems to be using this new account which is a few hours than only to denigrate the Vokkaliga community. He hasn’t made constructive edits to any page. Please ban him from Vokkaliga page, he has a vendetta to defame the Vokkaligas and will only make unconstructive edits.

He also seems to be a sock as he is well versed with Wikipedia editing and has created a new account just to target Vokkaliga page. Dantidurgagowda (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC). I have complained here [125]

You seriously think you can defend your position saying that all vokkaliga are landowners? We can always meet in the middle and potray many identities in a positive way. Hope you consider my request. We can forego certain edits, but you have to include Vokkaligas in a syncretic way, including those from other regions including the Lingayat Vokkaligas, and not just of few districts of hassan, mandya, Bangalore. It would unite multiple communities. Let me know what you think. SundarAradhya (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@SundarAradhya: Don’t act ignorant, you very well know that there will always be exceptions to any group. But those exceptions don’t define the group. If I say ‘so and so’ are a community of fishermen, does that mean that everyone of them is fisherman? I have provided govt citations and evidence as discussed on the talk page.

What you’re doing, trying to vilify a community, constitutes casteism. You have made your personal vendetta clear and it appears you are a Lingayat based on your edits[126] and Quora activity.[127] You claim you want to meet in the middle, but you have a vested interest and will vandalise the page with your puppet account. Let people without a vendetta contribute to the page, constructively. We cannot deal with your edit wars all day, and based on your quora threat,[128] it is clear, you’re trying to brigade vokkaliga page by calling other users with vested interests.Dantidurgagowda (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang. Three points, Dantidurgagowda:

• Sources from the Raj era, which you mainly use, are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. See [129].
• Whenever a user complains about somebody else "defaming a community", as you do, I'm afraid I assume they're here to promote that community. I'm far from alone in this.
• Whenever a user persistently reverts an opponent, randomly calling them a "sock" and unjustly calling their edits "vandalism", as you do, as well as attack them on the talkpage, I consider them a disruptive editor.

I have therefore blocked Dantidurgagowda from editing Vokkaliga for three months. Bishonen | tålk 11:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC).

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

108.167.78.36 Whack-A-Mole

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 previously discussed in a previous thread and blocked by Izno (who is currently offline), another sock of currently blocked vandal 108.167.78.36 has popped up. I'm hoping this one can be dealt with also.

Izno blocked the original account for three months and the previous sock for three months. I am asking for the same here.

The anon admits he is using sockpuppets in question on his original account's talk page, while also calling for my block. Hilarious. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Really? No one? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If they're an LTA, you should be able to report them at WP:AIV. Given that they know how to change their IP and they haven't edited for 24 hours, I'm not sure what you are suggesting admins can do now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: They are a sock of a blocked user. This has been here for 24 hours, that's not my problem. What I'm suggesting is an admin block the account(s) or just the entire range (like Izno did) for 3 months. AIV is going to kick it because it's stale or suggest it go to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent creation of unsolicited articles by User:Ram Pradeep Kolasani

The page they are interested in creating is for the tv show Ye Maaya Chesave. The problem is that it isn't an original series but a Telugu language dubbed version of the hindi series Jaana Na Dil Se Door and is listed under the Adaptations header in that article. However to be clear the Telugu version isn't a remake but a voice-dubbed version of the hindi series. The user states the reason for creating a separate article is to list the voice-over actors but that entire section is unsourced and the rest of the article is just a copy-paste of the hindi series article, lest a few character name changes here and there. As such the dubbed series article has no reason to exist and clearly fails GNG. In just the past 24 hours itself, said user has persistently created three such articles with different alterations of the Telugu title even though each one has been redirected to the hindi series article and the reason for the redirect clearly stated. I'm listing each title (redirect) below:

• Ye Maaya Chesave (Television Show)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Television Series)
• Ye Maya Chesave (Telugu-language serial)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Telugu-language serial)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Telugu TV Series)
• Ye Maaya Chesave (Telugu TV Serial)

These creations have been addressed profoundly on their talk page by multiple users including myself. I even explained the reason for the redirects in details and warned them against the future creation of this material but they still created a new article with the same material, which is the last one on the list. Many of these are very unlikely search terms and burdensome redirects.

I request the admins to deal with user Kolasani and perhaps delete these half-dozen unnecessary redirects or atleast page protect them to admin access only so that they can't be removed. Thank You. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: They have created two more articles in the same manner. Ye maaya chesave serial & ఏమాయ చేసావే (ధారావాహిక). Requesting immediate intervention. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I left a warning at their talk. Let me know if further problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:DeNoel's sig

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.

---

DeNoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a sig which doesn't display their username or any recognisable variant thereof, contrary to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.

I spotted it in this edit[130]:

<span class="nowrap">— [[User:DeNoel|Christopher, Sheridan, OR]] ([[User talk:DeNoel|talk]]) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)</span>

which displays as: Christopher, Sheridan, OR

So I went to DeNoel's talk to raise it. See User talk:DeNoel#Your_sig,_again (permalink)

However, DeNoel is being stubborn, and is being supported by two enablers, @CambridgeBayWeather and @Timtrent (aka "Faddle"). CambridgeBayWeather seems adamant that being asked to use a sig which allows your colleagues to clearly and easily identify your username is "bureaucracy", and DeNoel thinks that being asked to follow the guideline in uncivil.

Please can someone do whatever is needed to sort this simple issue, and remove this easily-avoidable barrier to communication and collaboration? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do we have such childish things as custom signatures when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social media site or a playground? Can't we all just sign with our names? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That would indeed be the simplest solution, @Phil Bridger. But for now, the long-established guidance allows embellishments so long as the username is easily identifiable ... which DeNoel's is not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I will never understand why someone would have a signature that bears no resemblance to the username they chose for themselves. One wonders why they don't simply request a name change. Fun fact, I saw the edit they made on CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, but when I went there I couldn't figure out quickly which comment was theirs. As for "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username", CambridgeBayWeather, I'm sorry, but I disagree with you: I think it should be clear without hovering, and on mobile there isn't anything to hover with, of course. The same applies, of course, to Timtrent's user name, but I've grown accustomed to that, though it took me a while. I'm afraid, BrownHairedGirl, that the user won't be "sorted" and that this ANI thread will not end with a mandate that they change their signature. I will say that all this makes me feel very basic, with my own simple name and signature. I don't even have two things, like that hotshot Phil Bridger. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My user name and then signature combination came from a time, IIRC, that this was 100% allowed, thus I claim "Grandfather Rights" to my plain signature, recently changed to be as it is today. I have been asked, requested, even bullied into changing it over time. I accuse no editor, and nothing should be read into my statement that accuses any editor. I expect those who wish to trawl my talk archives will find instances. I may edit ot back at my sole discretion to its prior form. I may not.

I think we all have better things to do than enter into this discussion about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, namely editing this encyclopaedia thing.

Starting with a place with very few rules we have created a huge bureaucracy where some editors sometimes decide to seek to wield power over others. We must love bureaucracies as human beings.

Over signatures, I tend to The Prisoner's outlook, were the protagonist is assigned Number Six, but he repeatedly refuses the pretence of his new identity. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, we often create such guidelines in reaction to past examples and don't usually apply them only to everyone in the future. Yes, as we've grown and tried to adapt to complex collaborative encyclopedia building, with many kinds of people using many kinds of devices, we've created some rules to aid user friendliness and/or ease of collaboration. Some may seem tedious, but that they've made it to a guideline indicates they have broad support behind them (or, at least, did at that time). Only applying rules to new users doesn't help the reputation we have of being, shall we say, normatively challenging to new users and struggling long-term with new user retention. I'm not going to go as far as to argue that this particular issue has a direct impact on new user retention as much as say that if we have a rule, we need to apply it evenly (sic Rover on them!). If there's no consensus for enforcing the rule evenly, we shouldn't have the rule. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites That is a well worded, considered view. We could seek to implement it with such a message for relevant user talk pages. Today I have all arrived here in defensive mode. Thank you for not attacking. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent, I'm not "attacking" you, and I'm quite used to yours by now (the grandfathering thing is reasonable, and it applied to rms125@hotmail or whatever his name was as well). Later, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies I know you are not. The indent was simply where the message fell. My apologies for the misunderstanding Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: your pessimism is probably well-founded. But I live in hope that there may be enough editors who value easy communication and collaboration over bizarre game-playing.

As you rightly note, usernames can be changed. It is quite beyond my ken why an editor would choose a username, decline the opportunity to change it ... but then adamantly refuse to display their chosen username. Whatever all that is about, the wilful creation of such impediments is nothing to do with the collaborative writing of an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that signatures which have no connection (other than a link) to one's username are confusing and pose a [pretty mild] inconvenience to others (more than mild for very new users or people on mobile). But as much as I'd prefer we actually stick to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P as written, we've typically declined to enforce parts of it for long-term editors, so we should be consistent (and possibly either run an RfC asking whether we should enforce it or just update the guideline to reflect consensus by removing the first bullet). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl "Enabler"????? Enough of that style of terminology, please. That is not the standard of behaviour I expect of you, nor the standard I am, used to seeing. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I stand by that term as an appropriate label for editors who encourage another editor to impede collaboration by ignoring a simple guideline. You are an enabler of the disruption, and if you dislike the label, then feel free to change your stance by desisting from enabling the disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl you want a guideline, not a policy, enforced but you refuse to comply with the mandatory notification on my talk page? Did you miss the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." on this page? You didn't ask DeNoel to change you demanded he change it and then thought I was trolling. Drmies & Rhododendrites, I agree that it would be easier and look better if all signatures matched the user name. But you know what? There are articles to edit and I see that as better use of my time than chasing someone over their user name and signature. I indicated to BrownHairedGirl that she needed to get the guideline upgraded to a policy. The simple matter is that the guideline does not forbid what DeNoel is doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather, after posting here, I promptly followed up with three notifications. See my contribs.

The required notification on your talk page was made by me at 20:25[131], which was one minute after I posted at ANI[132].

I urge you to strike that false assertion, and to explain why you attempted to smear me in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, my apologies I missed that due to the comment just after yours and another ping from elsewhere. Happy to strike it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that strike, @CambridgeBayWeather. But in future, please check your facts before alleging misconduct. This was a very issue to check, and there is no excusie for not making aan active effort to verify your assertion.

However, your substantive comment remains unstricken: simple matter is that the guideline does not forbid what DeNoel is doing. That is blatantly false: WP:CUSTOMSIG/P explicitly says A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. And DeNoel's sig does not display any variant of that username. Why do you persist in making such a readily falsifiable assertion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My emphasis here: The line says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". It does not say "A customised signature must make it easy to identify your username". Do you see the difference there? The use of the word should is what makes it allowable for DeNoel and others to have the signature they want. But you probably think I'm still trolling. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I really dunno what you are up to, @CambridgeBayWeather. But I am certain that your wikilawyering in support of disruption is in no way an assistance to our shared task of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. Your decision to make a false allegation against me without checking the facts doesn't suggest to me that collabaoration is your priority. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again I'm sorry about missing your notification on my talk page. I've been busy editing and responding and has nothing to do with collaborating, which I'm happy to do. Most of the disruption on here is of your own making. Your opinion is not supported by that page nor by many comments here. The truth is that the use of signatures that do not match the user name is awkward, mildly confusing but isn't forbidden and other people have told you that. But am I still trolling? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I do not find your doubling down on your comment to be civil. I find it to be antagonistic and an ad hominem attack. This, too, is not the standard of behaviour I am used to from you, nor the standard I expect from any editor here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I stand by that comment. Criticisng your conduct is not an ad hominem attack: see WP:NPA. Your decision to encourage an editor to ignore a conduct guideline is not the standard I expect from any editor here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Your reply to me yet again doubling down (trebling down?) has been removed during various edit conflicts. I do not care to resurrect it, but it goes above this one if you choose to. I have left indent room for you

We disagree completely, obviously. I do not care enough to add this to the Civility issue below, but it is a close call. I view your choice of terminology as distinctly uncivil. I deprecate your behaviour in that regard. This is a pointless exchange you have dragged me into. I have decided to discontinue it. There is an encyclopaedia to improve. This is not the way to achieve that. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: if you were "dragged into this", it was not by me. You chose to involve yourself, by posting[133] on DeNoel's talk page in support of their disruption. I deprecate your behaviour in that regard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who originally raised a concern about this signature, as I was confused in some Talk page discussion. It is common to want to ping someone or refer to some comment they made and to use their username to do so. I also sometimes search the Talk page for a user's account name to see what they have said. When editing some particular Talk page I noticed that this user's account name was entirely different from their signature. This would make it difficult to produce a recognizable ping. If someone says "I completely agree with DeNoel", I want to know which comments they are agreeing with, and needing to do a mouse-over or view the source didn't seem like it adequately addresses that need. So I think the guideline is a good idea. However, CambridgeBayWeather is an admin, so when they disagreed with my interpretation and said it was not an isolated case, and when I learned that DeNoel's account had been that way for more than a decade, I deferred to their interpretation. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To that I will add that I might click on a link to go visit a user's talk page or userpage and then get confused about why I seem to now have landed on a page about some different user. Multitasking and using tabbed browsing could further aggravate the confusion, although it is possible that I am just more easily confused than I should be. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know where is the outcry over JzG (talk · contribs) or JayBeeEll (talk · contribs), who do exactly the same thing in their signatures? 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What did I do to deserve being dragged into this? (Although I submit that I am not a good example because my signature is a recognizable variant of my username.) --JBL (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding User:El cid, el campeador to the list of current, active users to whom BHG might object. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, BarrelProof. I respect your opinion, though we may differ, and I'm glad that you have joined this discussion. I will take what you have said here into consideration if I decide to change my signature. Your contribution is valued. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also with Yellow Evan (talk · contribs), whose username is just "YE". It is the same thing with CambridgeBayWeather, who on DeNoel's talkpage, stated that they once had their signature as "CBW". I do not see why there has to be an entire ANI discussion over a signature. Just because it makes it "harder" for someone to see what the user's name actually is is not a valid excuse for them changing it so we need to stop being lazy. Unless it somehow violates the username policy, I don't see a problem with having a different signature than the username, as long as it is within the policies and guidlines of WP. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I think the whole "grandfather rights" thing be abolished and that people shoudl be made to conform with todays signature standards because as others have said it's a complete pain in the arse trying to follow discussion when peoples sigs are different from their usernames. That all being said Chistophers sig has been like it since 2009[134] so it it's unfair to make them change theirs whilst allowing other older editors to continue using theirs. It cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Incivility

User:BrownHairedGirl has expressed concern over my user signature in an overbearing, and in my opinion, rude manner. As my signature had been previously discussed, I pinged all those back (User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:Timtrent, and User:BarrelProof) to join the current discussion, with a personal invitation to BarrelProof on his Talk page who was the previous objector to my signature.

I feel that BrownHairedGirl's overbearing responses are uncivil. In particular, I feel that:

• DeNoel, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Please be collegiate and direct your efforts to displaying your username as a first priority, before you pursue other tweaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

in the tone used in the discussion's entirety, is a form of slam against me. Proving her with opportunity for a more civil tone, I asked in reply:

Could you please rephrase and clarify that comment? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

with her reply being no less rude than her conduct in the rest of the discussion.

I therefore request that an outside administrator evaluate the discussion, and the behavior of those involved. Perhaps my matter is closed reply at the beginning may have come across as shutting-out, but I did ask others to reevaluate an established stance within the same reply. Further, I have stated very clearly that, if there is a broad concern over user signatures, I would be willing to change mine once Wikipedia:Signature has been broadly addressed first. Many other users currently have signature styles that would annoy BrownHairedGirl. Even if her assessment has merit, I must ask that she tone it down when expressing her concerns.

Very much appreciated. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wowzer. Editors are being asked to believe that asking an editor to be collegiate and comply with a simple guideline is uncivil. Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• At a quick glance, there may be an issue, but not one of "incivility". Users are sometimes allowed to use a real name in their signature instead of a username. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify: there is a possible concern that BrownHairedGirl is too persistent in response to what is perceived as violation of site policy. I don't see that as a civility issue. As it's not immediately obvious to me whether the signature is permitted or not, bringing it to ANI should resolve the policy dispute. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• DeNoel, you are not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I seriously question the suitability of such a sensitive soul being an editor here, and would also suggest that they avoid teh internetz entirely as being far to incivil. -Roxy . wooF 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see any issue with BrownHairedGirl's response. I actually think it was very respectful. -- Dane ^talk 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• BHG's remark was perfectly polite. There was no problem of tone or attitude about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my complaint has not come across as I intended. While I disagree with BrownHairedGirl's viewpoint on my signature, it's her tone—attitude—that I'm objecting to. WP:CIVIL should be observed. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My "attitude" throughout has simply been to remind DeNoel of a simple guideline which assists communication and collaboration. The fact that DeNoel makes an ANI complaint about being asked to be collaborative makes me question the wisdom of my assumption that DeNoel is here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have dealt with BHG many times in my years here and have yet to read an uncivil word. I wonder if you're reading something which isn't there, something which can happen with written text vs. the spoken word? I'm an old queen, having been on here for over a decade, and my signature reflects the very very very basic mark-up I could understand at the time. It reflects my name and makes people aware of who I am. It's one of the most basic things an editor should do for the good of the project, allowing communication to be quickly identified and connected to the author, and I would recommend that we all follow this rule in practice. doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But BHG bloody well is observing WP:CIVIL. Your complaint is groundless, and wasting good editors time. Go away. -Roxy . wooF 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Roxy, BrownHairedGirl was civil but overly aggressive. Saying that people should be "collegiate" and then suggesting I'm a troll isn't collegiate at all. In fact it's insulting. Your remark, "Go away.", is completely unnecessary and should be withdrawn. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Simply put, DeNoel, to any extent to which this is a civility issue, the bar for civility complaints is significantly higher. This subsection should probably be closed (if not this whole section, with a suggestion to clarify/modify the guideline if desired, since there's not going to be consensus that DeNoel has to do anything different here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've lost track of who this reply was directed to, due to an edit conflict (a lot of replies at once).

In spite of the fact that I said I was taking a break from Wikipedia (joke's on me, I guess), I would like to ask if the discussion at User talk:DeNoel#Your sig, again was read entirely, or if only the example given in the above summary was read? This is not meant as an slight to anyone who has come to sort this out, I just mean that I don't feel the information available has been taken into consideration.

We are free to disagree, that's what discussions are for, but she should respect each other while doing so, and I don't feel respected (again, citing the content of WP:CIVIL). Certainly, the section title, "Your sig, again" and the opening comment, feels condescending when expressing a concern about my signature. Is it too much to expect some respect? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you really saying "Your sig, again" is condescending? That's bizarre.

And I find it even more bizarre that you persist in complaining about my wording despite a flurry of editors telling you its fine, when the core issue is that you are wilfully impeding collaboration. If you really believe in some heightened standard of respect for other editors, then why don't you demonstrate some respect for other editors by removing the barrier to collaboration which you have created? Do unto others as you would have them do unto, and all that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no incivility from BHG, and the matter could be resolved promptly by DeNoel adding "DeNoel" to their signature, or by DeNoel changing their username to User: Christopher, Sheridan, OR which seems to be available. This is a collaborative project and confusing signatures are a slight but real impediment to that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Sigs not including something recognisable as the username are mildly annoying, especially as they tend to create distracting and unproductive discussions such as this one. DeNoel, please change your signature. BHG, please don't bring trivialities like this to ANI. —Kusma (t·c) 23:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Inadvertent overlap

To the third party who replies to these complaints, it appears that we (User:BrownHairedGirl and I) have overlapped our complaints. If this is considered a form of duplication, it was not intentional, and I apologize for that (delayed due to edit conflicts).

We were both probably in the process of typing, and so did not notice the others' message. It's been a long day already, and to avoid further duplication, I'm going to logoff for a while and check for updates later. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about the duplication, it happens at least once a month. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

How about: DeNoel, please fix your signature. The guideline policy is there because doing what you are doing confuses people. BHG, you were too nasty and pointy, choosing high-handed unfriendly wording plus you had an accusation of being non-collaborative included as a premise in your comment. Please be nicer. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I will take your suggestion into consideration, but I also want to thank you for expressing your observation in a respectable manner. It's this professionalism that compels me to continue editing. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, if your regard for "professionalism" extended to removing the wilfully disruptive obfuscation of your username when the issue was first raised with you in March, then I wouldn't have posted on your user talk page, and we wouldn't be at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I'm afraid your argumentative, disrupting, self-serving attitude has extended well beyond the acceptable point. You could have asked to reopen the discussion on my talk page instead of being rude about it; that is why we're here—not because of the signature issue, it's your attitude. I must therefore request that you from henceforth, refrain from commenting to me on this matter. I will gladly listen to others with viewpoints that differ from my own. I do not welcome any further contact from you. May you have a sunny day tomorrow. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, if you wish to have a signature that is so far removed from your username, please don't post on highly frequented message boards. It is confusing other people. Please be kind and try not to annoy others that you are collaborating with. BrownHaired Girl is combative here again (calling your signature choice "wilfully disruptive obfuscation" isn't helpful) and not very good at de-escalation in general. I personally find her attitude more disruptive than your signature, but that is a bit besides the point. Your insistence on not changing your signature after people have repeatedly told you it annoys them is uncooperative and not very kind. Would something like Christopher, Sheridan, OR^DeNoel really be so bad? —Kusma (t·c) 08:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is very problematic that DeNoel be blindsided by this hue and cry over a very questionable interpretation of policy. A discussion has been opened at the policy page in hopes of clarifying that policy. If people here are so widely misinterpreting it so as to be saying diametrically opposite things about it, then it can definitely use some clarification. It is my objective reading that DeNoel is violating nothing with his current signature, and this is borne out by the evidence of at least 4-5 other editors that I can name off the top of my head, are doing similar things. I do not think it is appropriate for us to demand that DeNoel change anything until the policy is adequately clarified, and at that point, I would demand that all editors be brought into similar compliance, not just DeNoel. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAPE

In agreement with others who have expressed this viewpoint, I strongly object to the manner in which this ANI discussion has come about. If it's time for WP:SIGNATURE to be reevaluated and discussed, that sounds quite productive. If it is sparked because of a personality conflict, that is counter-productive, and drives good editors away from the project. Nobody makes us be friendly with each other, but I think a certain degree of professionalism is expected. If we have a concern, or even strong feelings about something, please be respectful of others.

I'm going to take a break now (third time's the charm, I hope) from Wikipedia for an unspecified time, just because I have off-line things to do. When I come back, I will carefully read over the entirety of this discussion, and take the suggestions of respectful editors into consideration, even if I disagree with their opinions. When I say "into consideration" I mean that sincerely, not simply an excuse to disregard good suggestions.

Thank you. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the current status of this discussion is your username remains different to your signature, and you've chosen to leave rather than address this. I hope that we won't be going around this again on your return. I think we need to take a step back - all of us - and go through problem-resolution-solution steps, maybe at a better time than half 11 at night here in the UK - and take it from there. doktorb _words^deeds 22:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, This conversation will be long archived by the time you return so I doubt that will be of use. What would be of use is just, you know, fixing your signature. People have justifiable issues with it. It's confusing. It makes life difficult for other people. Just be kind about it.--Jorm (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To Jorm and others that are pushing for DeNoel to change their signature, should it be implied that the same goes for e.g. Timtrent (and everyone else whose signature doesn't match their username)? I'm very uneasy with singling out someone while giving everyone else a free pass. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Yes, it should, it absolutely should. This is not hard. This is Usability and Accessibility 101, which I know is boring and all to talk about, but it's a real problem. Jorm (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DeNoel, this is very simple. If you genuinely believe your assertion that a certain degree of professionalism is expected, then please demonstrate that professionalism by the very simple step of making your signature display your actual username. There is a huge contrast here between the high standards you demand of others, and the low standard which you stubbornly uphold.

Your insistence on creating this barrier to collaboration is not only thoroughly unprofessional. You are knowingly making it hard for other editors to interact with you and follow your work, which demonstrates a persistent lack of the respect which you repeatedly demand from others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• What's interesting about WP:DAPE is that directly below that is a link to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point followed by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Funny the way Wikipedia works huh? — Ched (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thread opened at WT:SIG

I've opened this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Signatures_and_usernames and invite continued discussion about username/signature correspondence there. The ambiguity of that guideline and/or how/whether it should be enforced is the crux of the issue here, and not civility. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Striking out text from WP:RSN

Dear Editors,

I'm not sure if I posted it in the right place, but I wanted other administrators to comment on actions on Shrike, on a specific matter.

A discussion has appeared on the WP:RSN about whether a report suppressed by UN's Secretary General is reliable enough to be used in the context of this to establish that some scholars claim that Israel is engaged in the named process (or so reads the intent of the OP of the thread).

As a rather frequent editor of WP:RSN (see contribs), I have left my first comment under the post. I have since posted two replies, which I edited up until 9:45 May 23 GMT (pre-strike state can be seen here).

At 9:41, Shrike posted a warning about this topic being subject to said arbitration (on my talkpage). He also added that he'd strike out my comments as I have not made 500 edits yet. At 9:49, the comments were struck out, and only after that have I noticed the warning. While striking out my comments, the admin reverted my comments to the state which I considered imperfect. Strangely enough, an edit conflict notice was not triggered.

At 10:10, I asked Shrike on the talk page to return the comments to the state as of 9:45, and, a little later, also added my request to have my comments unstruck, which Shrike denied; no action, including edit to the last state of comments, was made.

According to rules of the arbitration p. 4a-b, areas subject to ARBPIA are entire set of articles whose topic relates to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces. Point 7 also says that When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement [template] on the talk page and ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice [template] in the editnotice to do so.

I believe that Shrike has overreached while imposing such restrictions. The only way in which the topic relates to Palestinian and Israeli issues is the source discussed; however, neither the article in question is subject to arbitration, nor is WP:RSN. The noticeboard, moreover, was about discussing reliability of resources and scholars and did not delve into content itself.

Also, as the discussion seemed to be in the acceptable borders of civility (at least that is I how I saw it), I contest Shrike imposing general sanctions, because that implies I was being disruptive while the enforcement template says it doesn't, and the rules say that enforcement is only to be triggered when the discussion goes wild. Moreover, Shrike has not put an ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice template locally on the discussion, so users participating there are unaware they are subject to restrictions on editing content. I was personally aware of the arbitration in place on such topics.

I therefore ask the Editors to weigh my arguments and ask to:

a. Revert my comments to the state as of 9:45 May 23, 2021 UTC.

b. Make my comments unstruck, with my promise of voluntarily staying out of the discussion.

I also ask to determine if disruptive edits were made to the section of WP:RSN. If yes, please explain in which way I was being disruptive, and also ask to put the editnotice template on the discussion locally. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I would say striking your comments is the correct thing to do; as you have pointed out above, the rules apply to "discussions in all namespaces". An editor with a topic ban was recently blocked for a month for commenting on a discussion on this noticeboard regarding another editor's behaviour on articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

However, in the course of looking at this, I found your comment that "Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism" to be rather disturbing. Claiming that an entire ethnic group shares a certain opinion/feeling is not really a good take. Number 57 20:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What I wanted to say in this discussion, and which has probably been misunderstood by others, is that I do not believe that Jewish sources will be neutral as regarding Palestine, and that is based on my summary from 9:45, since similar reactions happen in Ukraine, Poland and Russia in contentious topics (and I saw the mess that happens in Russian and Ukrainian wikis in forced arbitration topics). Omission of context of edits (which is a difference between the version struck out and the 9:45 version) makes it look as if I discredited Jewish newspapers for being Jewish but what I meant is that I wanted uninvolved sources for a claim of anti-Semitism, just as I won't source to Polish sources to say Wołyń is a genocide and say that indeed, the whole world thinks so. National perceptions often make it hard to impartially edit Wikipedia, the best proof to which is the very existence of ARBPIA. That was my intention, and it is therefore that I didn't find the remarks "discriminatory", but they might have been inaccurately worded, for which I am sorry. That said, thanks for your consideration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You said " because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel". Instead of apologizing, you are repeating your discriminatory statements on "Jewish sources" above. This is not acceptable, period. And this coming from an account that joined this year, with 271 edits, 182 of them being long tirades on the Reliable sources noticeboard. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, whom do I discriminate against? I have the same attitude towards Polish sources on Wołyń, Ukrainian on Holodomor, Russian on 9 May and WWII-related topics, (going further: Argentine on the conflict of Falkland Islands, Turkish sources on Armenian genocide) etc., as I have stated already a few times, and that's my personal attitude. (I may accept scholarly resources, which do not have (that much of) public opinion pressure). If you want to call my attitude towards coverage of controversies by news media of countries involved in the controversy discrimination, so be it, but then I discriminate against almost every country in the world I could imagine, because most of the countries have skeletons in their cupboard. That remark, as it was written, was unfortunate, my apologies. I hope the explanation shows I did not have any malicious intent.

Also, the last sentence sounds as if it were an accusation of incompetence or something to that effect (I hope it's not). I remind you that no policy prohibits to constructively edit any part of Wikipedia, with the exception of justified local restrictions made on presumably inexperienced/not-trusted-enough members, and WP:RSN can be edited by anyone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination against "Jewish sources", while not taking a similar position on "Muslim sources" or "Christian sources". You made a direct, discriminatory, statement on Jews (" because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel"). As for your long tirades on RSN, yes, they were allowed up to now. I propose below that this overly excessive posting of long walls of text cease. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this deserves clarification but this board may not be the right venue. Because the policy also refers to articles within the topic area and the article being discussed at RSN is not in the topic area. The particular material (Falk and Tilley) is relevant to the topic area but I would say only very indirectly in terms of where it was going to be cited. If the editor had nonetheless been editing disruptively I would just let it go, that was not the case, however.Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki: - if you read recent polling on American Jews, it is pretty clear that they have very different opinions (for example, only 33% say the Israeli government is making sincere effort towards peace). As such, you shouldn't be seemingly tarring all Jews with the same brush of being hypersensitive to criticism of Israel. Additionally we should not discriminate against Jewish sources merely because they are Jewish. starship.paint (exalt) 09:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (Szmenderowiecki)

Szmenderowiecki has been editing since April, most of his edits (182 out of 271) being long TLDR posts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He has made discriminatory statements on Jews in those posts. I propose that Szmenderowiecki be topic banned from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and from any edits pertaining to Judaism. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support own proposal. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Dismiss-oppose. 11Fox11 is overreacting. Peaceful resolution of the problem, in my view, has not been exhausted, and no person has had any complaints about my posting on WP:RSN (until the post in question), or elsewhere. 11Fox11 is not a participant in WP:RSN, therefore analysis of my posts solely on bytesize is an inadequate measure of performance, nuisance, or both. A single mishap, to which I confessed and regret having committed, is not a sufficient reason to introduce any kind of preventative measures, nor is indicative of a pattern of disruption. I would first like to invite 11Fox11 to air grievances on my talk page, and only later on post angry complaints for administrators' evaluation, as per standard procedure. If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This seems a distraction from the original questions, namely whether material should have been struck at an RSN discussion and whether the editor whose material was struck was disruptive. If 11Fox11 believes that the editor was disruptive he merely needs to say so in a standard comment.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. User doubled-down on their unacceptable comment with their corrections and then triple-downed with this ANI report. User claims that their comment was inaccurately worded, and then asks for civility and protocol... At RSN, user is sometimes ignorant of the relevant policy (which is understandable coming from an autoconfirmed user), but then refuses to accept the corrections from others. This week alone I had to insist twice that they should learn about WP:SPS [135][136]. A topic ban in order to get some experience outside of RSN/PIA looks like a very fair and lenient sanction considering the nature of the comment that is being discussed. JBchrch talk 10:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Striking support since user has undertaken to not make generalizations about race/religion/ethnicity. JBchrch talk 10:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal: and then triple-downed with this ANI report what I asked for, explicitly, is to evaluate whether I have been disruptive, not to assert I was not, contrary to what some commenters here imply. While I stated that I believed I was not, I decided to solicit editors' opinion, which IMHO is the sign to the contrary, that I am ready to listen to others' opinions if they indicate I am wrong. Asking for advice is not something editors should be ashamed of, especially in such a situation.

and then asks for civility and protocol The feeling that a user you encounter has not been following rules is a lousy justification for doing the same, particularly if the user subsequently acknowledges fault. JBChrch actually wrote once in my talk (an accidental revert to a version they didn't like for whatever reason), and they know I can discuss matters peacefully. Any user not happy with the post could have addressed it on my talk page first, instead of getting accusations straight to the administrative noticeboard, which should be a remedy only when peaceful resolution on the talk page fails or when the sides agree to refer the question here. To be sure, I did the same when I was not content with Shrike's decision to strike me out, and Shrike proposed me to refer the question to the noticeboard if I wasn't sure, and I wasn't. No hot exchanges, no bickering, name-calling etc., and somehow it's possible.

but then refuses to accept the corrections from others The arguments JBChrch provided indicate to the contrary. It is normal for users to be arguing about content, and which aspects of policy to apply, if conflict arises. In the first case, I admitted that some of the sources I found from Google Scholar were indeed faulty, contrary to the assertions made here. In the second case, we weren't able to reach consensus because of differing interpretations of the same policy, so I proposed twice to stop, which JBChrch ignored in both cases. I responded only after JBChrch suggested I was ignorant/dismissive of WP:SPS - a strange suggestion given that I referred to the policy several times (which, if anything, indicates that I don't contest it). I nevertheless thank you for what I thought of as productive discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: - I get your concerns about WP:SPS, just that the topic ban on Judaism you support... doesn't address that. starship.paint (exalt) 14:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I think I have expressed that I am concerned about Szmenderowiecki's comments and their subsequent doubling-down about "Jews". I believe that this, combined with their participation to RSN threads with little regards to the relevant policies, is problematic. However, I am not bent on 11Fox11's specific proposal and I trust that admins will have a better idea which measures to take (if any) in these kind of situations.

Szmenderowiecki, you have crossed the line with these comments, and the fact that you are still calling for protocol to be followed when multiple editors have explained to you how completely unacceptable they were is not giving me me much hope. You need to stop engaging in meta-discussions and explain whether you will continue to make broad generalizations about races or religions in the future. JBchrch talk 19:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the last sentence, I will not when it comes to race/religion/ethnicity generalisations.

As for meta-discussions, it is your opinion I shouldn't; I won't address participants' opinions, as I know it is hardly possible to change one's mind on an Internet discussion. I only remind once again that there exists no such thing as "noticeboard-to-article-edit ratio" limitation (or new posters limitation, as even IPs can edit the noticeboard), and everyone is helping Wikipedia in the domains they think they are able to help most and according to their best judgment, subject to limitations in policy and guidance (and essays, which further describe desirable behaviour). It also isn't true that Wikipedia is the only place where you can get skills to distinguish lousy media from reliable media resources, therefore I see the potential application of sanctions as arbitrary, and more of if-we-think-they-might-be-an-antisemite-then-why-not-ban-them-from-as-many-topics-as-we-can-get-away-with efforts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your undertaking. That's not what I meant when I said meta-discussions: I was talking about the fact that you were insisting on the protocol instead of engaging directly with the criticism about your comments. I really don't care about your "edit count", provided that you know how to apply the policies when writing on the noticeboards. I will now strike my "support" to reflect the fact that you took this undertaking. JBchrch talk 10:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I strenuously disagree with Szmenderowiecki's argument that any source can be dismissed (or even considered biased) based solely on race, religion, ethnicity, or the like; but while misguided, it is not such an uncommon argument that it's reasonable to try and ban someone from an entire sweeping topic area simply for making it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Terjen

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

---

The 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.

---

Shortly after being unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, here are some of Terjen's constructive contributions: obvious needling followed by further needling and this dishonest bs; their contribution here is similar. Clearly unblocking was a mistake, as AmPol does not need this kind of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Chetsford, an editor has to be open to guidance and counseling before they'll help. I'm not sure that's what I'm seeing. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good point, that's very true. Though, in general, I think if impacted editors simply request offending editors to stop posting to their Talk page per WP:NOBAN we can usually tie these problems up without requiring the application of any editing restrictions. My personal view is that blocks should be used only when every conceivable other alternative has been tried and failed. In the case of these annoying comments to a Talk page, I'm not sure that level of exhaustion has been reached yet in the absence of a NOBAN request. That said, I defer to your and others' judgment. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Awaiting a response by Terjen. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't support a block. Although everyone involved would probably be better off if Terjen spent a week or two editing non-political topics (it's a big encyclopedia), I don't see cause for an admin-imposed AP2 topic-ban. To a certain extent, making insinuations about institutional bias is permitted and constructive, but editors should not make a habit of complaining to new users about their litany of injustices. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• "How come you feel this is offending you?" is indeed dishonest. Bacondrum had good reason to place that template, and Terjen's "warning" essentially tells the warned editor that the warning came from an "activist" and thus is not to be taken seriously, a violation of good faith. One wonders why Terjen didn't place a warning like that under the edit war warning left by Acroterion, in the section below Bacondrum's. Why not, Terjen? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

He did, immediately after you raised the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErlend_Kvitrud&type=revision&diff=1024116423&oldid=1023702066. Is an admin going to action this complaint? The discussion has become really nasty and intractable. I think it is time it was wound up. Bacondrum 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This message is the second link in the complaint, posted at 06:12, 20 May 2021, not "immediately after you raised the issue" but hours before. It is discussed further in my response below. Terjen (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, he appears to have realised the optics were not good, just before you noticed. Bacondrum 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I too was concerned that Terjen seemed to be placing advice telling a new editor not to trust whatever processes they encounter here. That just doesn't seem all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Discussed in my response below. Terjen (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just adding that Terjen's response to this included this - Terjen had not previously commented on that page, and appeared just to tell another editor to disregard Bacondrum, specifically citing this discussion. I don't feel that's acceptable - overtly dragging a disagreement with an editor onto another page and directly trying to rally another editor against them falls afoul of both WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLEGROUND; that sort of behavior contributes to making disputes intractable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is misleading and incorrect. I commented on that page May 16, three days before Bacondrum arrived to post this. Terjen (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And that was 8 days after this block was lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) So the first time they edited this article was 8 days after this. More bullshitting.

Why do they suddenly appear at all these articles and talk pages that involve me directly after the block. Aquillion is spot on. I want something done about the hounding and battleground behavior - Blind Freddy could see the deceit and harassment going on with this user. They are being deceitful and have even turned much of this discussion into a discussion about everything and anything other than their own shifty behavior. It's also incorrect that I "arrived" at that article after Terjen, I have a long history of contributing to that article, I'm one of top ten contributors in-fact https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Antifa_%28United_States%29 Terjen turned up there for the first time, out of the blue, 8 days after the a block was lifted that involved me, he turned up to hound me, end of story. Bacondrum 00:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum had no comments on the Antifa talk page when I made my first post on May 16, but shows up three days later to post, then claim I am following them around. It makes no sense. Terjen (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Been editing that article and talk page for years and you know it. More bullshitting. Bacondrum 03:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order Valereee was earlier in the year involved in the ANI blocking of an editor who argued to expand the viewpoints of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, with Bacondrum having raised the complaint. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen - going after uninvolved Valereee, who in the diff you provided, wrote I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution, is very poor judgment. Rather than establish a conspiracy, this is more likely to backfire on you. starship.paint (exalt) 02:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint I am not "going after" or trying to establish a conspiracy. Admins having a potential conflict should recuse themselves. Hence the point of order. Terjen (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen - Valereee has no conflict of interest from merely posting @Bacondrum, @Newimpartial, can you propose a solution? Are we talking a p-block from article space, or what? I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution. She didn't even enact the block. There is no need for her to recuse. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen, sorry, not enough coffee yet...how does that represent a potential conflict? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: No worries, I trust your good judgment. Terjen (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Terjen is WP:NOTHERE

I was just on my way here to launch my own ANI regarding Terjen.

• They started out being super disruptive and edit warring against a very firm consensus at Talk:Boogaloo movement, this went to Arbitration and the Edit warring noticeboard:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#Terjen
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE)
• Where they received a block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Arbitration_Enforcement

They appealed the block and claimed to have corrected their behavior - admin Dennis Brown accepted them at their word and unblocked them. Terjen then went straight back into more or less the same behavior, simply being more discrete ie: WP:SEALION. going to starship.paint and basically demanding that the now closed discussion that lead tot he block be re-opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion

• They are Gaming the system And appear to be WP:PUSHing their point of view (seems to be having issues contributing constructively with regard to American politics) with WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:Battleground behavior.
• WP:personal attack I then noticed this weird "welcome" where they essentially say I'm an activist and harassing other editors, which is bloody nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023696373 I asked them politely to remove this personal attack and he then throws his hands up like "what me? nah I was just being friendly" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks which is obviously nonsense. they then go on to make not so subtle accusations of bad faith against Acroterion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023702066k

To summarise, we appear to have a disruptive and tendentious editor who is gaming us and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef block is the correct response at this time, they have deliberately disrupted, expressed knowledge of what they are doing (and kept doing it anyway), acted in a blatantly battleground manner, attacked other editors tried to game wikipedia etc. If not indefed, they should be blocked from contemporary American Politics (aka AP2). Bacondrum 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose indef at this point - I will say I don’t think Terjen was sealioning when they approached me to undo my close. I think Terjen was within their rights to make such a request. I rejected it and Terjen did not press the matter. The sarcasm and criticism at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud and WP:AE is something Terjen should apologise for. However I don’t think it rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE. starship.paint (exalt) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order I told Terjen I wasn't going to mention anything weird going on here this time, but Bacondrum subsequently made it extra weird by whatever sort of "game" it is where you repeatedly alternate between good cop and bad cop, drag a guy to AN/I on suspicion of being disruptive and cryptic [137], suddenly revert to friendly and apologetic again, withdraw the complaint (simultaneously edit-conflicting the defense) [138][139], then wish one all the best [140], before abruptly telling the same to fuck off [141]. I move to declare his testimony here incredible. Can't paste diffs, sorry, technical issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Diffs added above, by myself, because InedibleHulk can't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the first or the last to think InedibleHulk's comments and edit summaries were disruptive, I acknowledged I was wrong and withdrew the complaint, made an apology and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABacondrum&type=revision&diff=1024245200&oldid=1024244947 some rude cryptic comment about who he does and doesn't like and I told him to "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. This is all illustrates the point that InedibleHulk "colourful" comments and edit summaries are in fact disruptive. Bacondrum 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't rude or cryptic, it was plain Canadian English, with the only allusion I suspected you might need an assist with conveniently Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: - I perfectly understood the comment, well, because it was a pro-wrestling reference, he's saying you were going back and forth (which was also stated in the comment). It wasn't rude. He did clearly write: I don't like you and don't dislike you. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding rudeness when you're saying "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. starship.paint (exalt) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, getting told to fuck off was the least of my problems with Bacon, just naturally happened to be the last one. I don't want him to lose any privileges here. Just casting doubt on his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I lost my cool and told old mate to fuck off, this whole discourse is a bit of a joke really - seemed to me that he was being rude or antagonistic, but I can never tell what is meant by his oddball comments. I'm not engaging with this discussion anymore, I have better things to do. Bacondrum 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If I can fuck off and leave with you just one solid morsel of food for thought, never conflate a sea lion with a Canadian, whole realer true Northern politeness up here (think harbour seal, if any pinniped must be presumed at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Be my guest. Bacondrum 05:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Response by Terjen:

Here are some of the contributions I made shortly after being unblocked earlier in the month:

• Added a new section to the Esequiel Hernández Jr. article.
• Expanded the motive section for the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article.
• Summarized a Reason article on the confusion surrounding the Death of Brian Sicknick.

The complaint regards messages I posted to Erlend Kvitrud, a relatively new editor with only 85 edits. WP:DNB says we must "treat newcomers with kindness and patience" and reminds us that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:CIVIL advises us to be careful with user warning templates, in particular to be "careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers ... Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message."

Bacondrum had posted a warning template to this new editor stating "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" but did not add a personal message.

I added a friendly welcome message directed to Kviterud:

A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Here is an introduction you may find instructive. Hipp hipp hurra! Terjen (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no reasons for Kviterud to find this message offensive, nor are Kviterud part of this complaint. I was puzzled by Starship.paint suggesting it to be "sarcasm and criticism", but realize it may have to do with a misunderstanding about the Hipp hipp hurra! expression: Erlend Kvitrud is Norwegian; The welcome message was posted on their Constitution day when this is a common exclamation. It is not a sarcastic "hurray".

I am of course open to ideas and further discussions about how to better welcome new editors. I made another post to Kviterud emphasizing key processes to follow when editing AP2, much like I would have liked to receive myself when returning to edit AP2, so I could have avoided getting my first block earlier this month.

Bacondrum has refused to articulate why they took the welcome message as a personal offense, and have failed to explain why the welcome message above violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For them to feel the linked Wikipedia essay on hostile activists implied they are an activist, they must have thought they had been hostile. The warning template they posted hardly qualifies. However, following the link from the template leads to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk where Kviterud, despite announcing he is "new to this and still learning", is met with language like this from Bacondrum and others:

• "Please sign your posts (using four tildes) just like everyone else does."
• "NOTFORUM all this general discussion and opinion is disruptive. No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards."
• "I am a dyed in the wool Marxist, so you're not exactly ingratiating yourself with other editors here."
• "Literally nobody cares what you think is reasonable"
• "Don’t expect other editors to do your work for you."
• "This is all just your opinion. If you've come here to push your opinions or attack leftists then you are in the wrong place."
• "Erlend Kvitrud, by going with what the sources say, I meant whether they describe him as right wing, not sitting around the dorm with our Libertarian friends and conducting our own research."
• "Erlend Kvitrud Mate, this is not a forum. You are right to give up disrupting this talk page."

Erlend Kvitrud leaves, saying "since your minds seem to be made up, I give up on this one."

JBL participated in the discussion on the Talk page but did not intervene.

Terjen (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - "criticism" refers to the activist link (among other things), it has nothing to do with "Hipp hipp hurra". Exactly who were you implying to be activists, if you weren't referring to Bacondrum? starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, what is the point of asking someone to explain obvious, dishonest bullshitting? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: - to offer a path of redemption. If we're not interested in at least trying to set things right, we might as well just indef and get it over with. starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for redemption myself, but the response is indeed bullshit. If one feels someone else is being bitten, then a more proper response would be to leave a message on the talk page of the alleged biter, not to discredit them in a pretty sneaky way on the talk page of the bitten. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I too am absolutely for learning from mistakes and correcting behavior. It has to be said though that Terjen certainly is bullshitting. Don't know what to say other than that it appears they are WP:NOTHERE, as I've already said. Bacondrum 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Those quotes, many were not me, the ones that were me are offered up here completely out of context in what I believe is a deliberate attempt to mislead...more bullshitting. Bacondrum 00:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the full context - the same link as posted just above the quotes. Terjen (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It's a link to the WP:Activist essay, recommended for working in AP2. It doesn't imply that anybody specifically is an activist. Terjen (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't buy that, sorry. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming good faith may help. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty hard to assume good faith when you are not acting in good faith, when you tell bald faced lies. At the end of the day none of us want to see editors indefed, but you cant wage wars against other editors, battle over content etc...and you definitely can't tell blatant lies when you are caught out. Own and change the problematic behavior in a sincere manner and we can all move on knowing it's not going to keep happening. We all want to give you a chance to do better, you need to meet us halfway by not lying, acknowledging what you've done wrong and stop doing it. Bacondrum 08:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum saying I am lying is a serious accusation, requiring serious evidence. Your claims are a breach of WP:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, please refrain from othering. We're all in this together. Terjen (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

you have been lying and continue to do so, as evidenced throughout this report. A number of admins have also said you are “bullshitting” I’d stop bullshitting and come clean if I was you. Bacondrum 09:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

considering you are still lying and clearly acting in bad faith, I’m done trying to help you help yourself. I will no longer respond to dishonest nonsense. Bacondrum 09:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• it should also be noted that Terjen has never edited the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, nor had any interaction with Erlend Kvitrud previously. Evidence that they clearly went through my contributions and launched this shifty attack with intent. Bacondrum 10:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Erlend Kvitrud had earlier edited the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article, where I have been a regular contributor. I haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general) but it seems like it could benefit from representing additional viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Come on, no body is buying that. A good start would be some honesty. Bacondrum 08:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Says the guy who said he wouldn't interact with me in the future, and drags me to this board (in admitted error) one day and ten minutes later. Says the guy with a Barnstar of Diplomacy on his talk page pledging to be a lot less combative. Opinions like yours change like the weather, but the diffs and other links Terjen shows have firmly matched his claims from the start, consistently, and recent history suggests you may simply be reading something here in a way not intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I can give the benefit of the doubt on regarding Erlend Kvitrud's edit overlap with Terjen. What I do find peculiar was Terjen bringing up Swood100's ANI case where Bacondrum and Valereee participated. Swood100 was blocked on 12 January 2021, after edits focused on Cultural Marxism [142]. Terjen resumed editing Wikipedia on 8 January 2021 [143], focused on the storming of the Capitol. Terjen has said that they haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general). One wonders how did Terjen come across Swood100's ANI case then? starship.paint (exalt) 10:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Val's been overlapping with several of us for years in tangled webs like this, only natural that a bit of due diligence before stepping into the circle with any of us would uncover something of hers in one of our recent histories sooner or later. Not sure where he's going with this COI angle, though. Assuming good faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint I came across Swood100's related ANI case while browsing the public archives of this noticeboard. What are you insinuating here? Terjen (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - I’m puzzled why would you be browsing the public archives of WP:ANI? Seems like a very uncommon thing to do here. Next thing that you’re going to tell me is that for Editors, even admins, that disagree with your POV (including if that's WP:NPOV) may use this to sanction you from having editing privileges - you weren’t referring to any particular editor, or any particular admin, that generated this thought? starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint This falls under casting aspersions. Terjen (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: - that's a bit of a vague response, I suppose you can't be saying that you were casting aspersions, so I suppose you are saying that it is I who am casting aspersions against you? starship.paint (exalt) 05:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• And this, no previous contributions to this article either https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAntifa_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=1024095203&oldid=1024075444 Bacondrum 21:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum is making a bald-faced lie when claiming I had made no previous contributions to this article. The evidence is right there on the same Talk page: Just 3 days earlier, I posted several messages starting with an encouragement to represent significant viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a liar, I do not lie and take exceptional offense to your completely unfounded claim. I demand it be revoked immediately and with an apology. They had never edited that article before this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) and since then have hounded me around Wikipedia. As several editors and Admins have pointed out, he is bullshitting (ie:lying) it is inconceivable that any editor can take Terjen in good faith. An utterly dishonest editor, hounding me, making unfounded bad faith accusation and gaming us all. At what point does this BS get him indef blocked? Bacondrum 08:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order. What is the reason for InedibleHulk's involvemnet in this discussion? They seem to be here purely to attack me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1024245200&type=revision Bacondrum 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  When you showed up to pile on to the original complaint (the literal very next edit after saying you wouldn't interact with "this user"), your "Gaming the system" section pretty much accused me of conspiracy in whatever you think is wrong here. "'Solidarity' or colluding" was how you paraphrased me. Then you linked a discussion between Starship and I, as if it backed whatever now-deleted theory you were pushing before the first three minutes of May 21 (can't paste diffs). Now, I'm just calling you on hypocrisy as I see it. Terjen's May 16 Antifa contribution was before May 20, and doubling down on this lying about his lying just makes you look desperate to hurt someone and bad at math. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If I said what I actually think of you I'd be indefed. I've nothing more to say. Bacondrum 11:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And if you threatened me with another AN/I report, then changed your mind again while edit conflicting my honest reaction to your calling me disingenuous, you'd be disruptive and wishy-washy. I'd kind of like to still know whether what you deleted at 11:14 today was what you really thought of me, or just pointless bullshit. Not asking, though, "no worries"! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, it could have been interesting to hear the perspective of the owner of the Talk page where the welcome message was posted. Unfortunately, Erlend Kvitrud has not returned to Wikipedia after the discussions on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That's a loss for the project. He is a promising editor and writer. For all the badgering about him attacking leftists[144], not ingratiating himself with the Marxists[145], and sitting around the dorm with his Libertarian friends[146], turns out Kvitrud professes to be a Democratic Socialist of the Scandinavian kind.[147] We need editors like that, not wearing a POV on their sleeves but taking NPOV to heart, willing to stand up against editorial bias and open to significant viewpoints, even those they don't hold themselves. If Kvitrud comes back, I hope I will get a chance to collaborate with him on improving the encyclopedia. Terjen (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I can't really be bothered to carefully sift through each diff and figure out who's the 'worst' in all of this, but reading a couple of the diffs, and equally importantly just the discussion above, I think multiple people could benefit from reviewing WP:BATTLE, starting with the very first sentence: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Difficult to remember in the American politics topic area, I know... ProcSock (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have said absolutely nothing about Terjen's ideological stance, not a word, I have no idea which way he leans politically, and I don't care. We are here because another editor noticed he is hounding me around Wikipedia insinuating that I'm an activist. End of story. All this other stuff is him and his mate trying to get at me and distract from the dishonest and harassing behavior. Bacondrum 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We're here primarily because of concerns regarding the impacted editor Erlend Kvitrud, owner of User Talk:Erlend Kvitrud where the welcome message and editing advice were posted. Terjen (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

• I was going to try to figure out what this whole wall of text really was, and while I'm not sure I agree that there's nothing here, and I do think Terjen is being at minimum coy, I'm willing to let it go for now. I have to say, Terjen: that 'point of order' diff re: a single comment I made six months ago is to me clear evidence of you following Bacondrum around trying to dig up dirt. And the message on the new editor's user talk wasn't helpful in the least. If you want to leave a helpful message for a new editor, start a discussion like human beings do instead of a cryptic link that looks like you're warning them of some conspiracy. —valereee (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. It is a real mystery to me why anyone is pretending Terjen's behavior has been anything other than an attempt to needle BaconDrum and stir shit -- and now they've been rewarded for their bad behavior. --JBL (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Bacondrum has vanished from Wikipedia, so that's the end of this conflict. starship.paint (exalt) 13:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Too bad Bacondrum didn't listen to your directions to "be a bit less combative", although JBL appreciated you trying to get them to disengage. Terjen (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am still puzzled why this complaint is filed under AmPol opening for an AP2 topic-ban. None of the four diffs in the complaint are for AP2 articles: The two primary diffs are for User Talk:Erlend Kvitrud, the others for my Talk page and AE. Terjen (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yet Black Kite did funnel admins from AE to this complaint, suggesting "An AP2 ban would be better for everyone there, IMO." Terjen (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  If you don't know why your diffs at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud about AP2 enforcement are leading to a discussion about an AP2 topic ban, you really aren't paying attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll: As the filer of the complaint, can you unpack for me why my two diffs[148][149] at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud should lead to an AP2 topic ban? Terjen (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Which part of my extremely short and to-the-point opening statement do you have trouble understanding? Also, do not ping me again. --JBL (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for commenting in a closed thread, but since my name was mentioned two dozen times here and I was not able to reply before, I hope it's ok to add that I found Terje's welcome message friendly and not the least bit offensive. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Terjen, this is disruptive. Stop now. —valereee (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

14.166.25.80

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.

---

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

This IP, which I reported to ARV, which I have reverted multiple times already just popped back online continuing to be highly disruptive regardless of numerous warnings. But now it's just back after a break and started up again to be disruptive. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the 'runners-up" editor from Vietnam. I wondered where they had got to. Drop me a line if you see them again, I’m collating a list of IPs they use. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

k, I've seen this happen before, didn't know about the Vietnam bit, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

---

The Ip ranges 0.0.0.0/0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are vandalising articles. Please hardblock both. --78.79.248.24 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find anything specific, not to mention that the CIDR range /0 is far from what administrators are able to block. Info for the adminfolks: this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Rusf10

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.

---

Rusf10 (talk · contribs) nominated Aschach (Rott) for deletion, I've argued against in the discussion. It was then relisted to gain a clearer consensus. I've voted a second time for keep. Rusf10 overwrote twice my contribution with self-invented non-Wikipedia rules (here and here). In my eyes, this is also a violation of WP:BRD. I've already argued that in another deletion discussion User:Kusma (who is administrator and should know the rules) also voted twice and even Rusf10 by nominating that article for deletion and then after the relisting with "oppose merge", but that didn't convince Rusf10. How to proceed? --Cyfal (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The best way to proceed is to stop trying to !vote twice. If you have something new to add to a deletion discussion, phrase it as a comment instead of a second vote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In the second debate, Kusma did not !vote twice. They made a comment later in agreement with another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• My response to this is simple, you are NOT allowed to vote twice! If you can't understand that then you shouldn't vote at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: also see, WP:NOTVOTE. ——Serial 18:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:I am aware of NOTVOTE, which itself is neither a policy or a guideline. Regardless, no one should be posting things that have the appearance of a deliberate attempt to mislead the closer of the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a informatory supplement to two policies which has enjoyed widespread recognition and consensus for 14 years. Also see WP:ECHO for why your ping to me just now... did not work. Cheers! ——Serial 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• • In regards to the other discussion, my initial vote was for deletion (the nomination itself) and I then clarified it by explicitly stating I oppose a merge, that's not two votes.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• While you can contribute to a discussion as much as you wish (within reason), you should not make it appear that you vote twice. So don't use bolded "keep" or similar bolded word in more than one of your comments. I don't think it was necessary to revert your second vote, though -- annotating it would have been enough to make it clear to the closer that you appear to have voted more than once. And of course, AFD is a discussion and not decided by vote count alone. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think the underlying issue here is that Cyfal misunderstands what a relisting is. Cyfal, when an AFD is relisted that just means it didn't attract comments from enough people yet, so more people weighing in are needed; it does not mean that you are required to repeat your previous comment. Your first comment will be taken into consideration when it is eventually closed, and if you have anything to add you can add it to that. (You can also reply to other people, indented - the other "comment" you noticed was that - but this is generally considered something to do a bit sparingly and shouldn't be accompanied by a big bolded summary of what you want the way your initial comment is, since the purpose of those is to make it easier for people to get the temperature of the room at a glance and to ensure the closer doesn't misjudge the overall thrust of your argument.) It feels like you mistakenly believe that a relisting is akin to starting the RFC over and that everyone who wants their opinion counted needs to state it again, which is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your clarifications and the hint to WP:NOTVOTE. The idea behind my second "vote" was mainly to explain that I still stood to my decision. I've learned now that bolding the "keep" was not a good idea. I've stroke my texts now where not yet done. --Cyfal (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• More generally, the key point is that it is unnecessary to reiterate your position, even if the RFA has been relisted. It will be taken into account regardless. The only real situation where it might be necessary is if something has changed or some dramatic point or bit of evidence was presented later on that might lead a closer to disregard early comments that don't take it into account; but even then, you would usually be better off editing your original comment with something like "EDIT: Even XYZ, below, doesn't convince me because [reasons]." --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you again for your explanation. Next time I will handle such things as you described (only in case I have some additional reasons not mentioned before, of course). --Cyfal (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• It seems that this misunderstanding has been resolved, and that this thread can be closed with no action. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Trolls are out

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.

---

Villarreal CF just won the Europa league and their coach Unai Emery‎, both pages are getting trolled. Any admins around to lock them down? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You might wanna go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for those kinds of issues. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

They are pretty slow there, I wouldn't of posted here otherwise. Govvy (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Gave both a week o' semi. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Robby.is.on, Struway2 etc.

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 group of users keeps reverting back to wrong versions i.e. Jay Bridgeman to James Tarkowski. Please turn them back as I could get in trouble for reverting them too many times. Thank you. Iggy (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.229.151 (talk)

It's a LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Matthews17 spoofing the user's signature. Be nice if someone could block it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

84.9.229.151 blocked for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Back straight away as 90.244.133.215 (reported to AIV and added to SPI). Note these are Vodafone dynamic IP addresses, so a single IP block is likely next to pointless. Gricehead (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming we can't rangeblock them, as they're coming from different ranges? It's very annoying and tedious when this troll keeps popping up every week or two. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 90.244.133.215 for a week. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User: 72.226.21.114

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.

---

Issues:

• Edit warring: see Bill Maher. No interest in actual discussion, instead just leaves aggressive edit summaries.
• Personal attacks: instead of discussing, engages in personal attacks at specific editors, including in their edit summaries. See examples: 1; 2; 3; and 4
• Peculiar interest in specific controversial topic (Jewish ancestry, typically seeking to disprove that a figure is Jewish). See here; here; here; and his current attempts at Bill Maher.
• Clearly has no interest in working collaboratively. When they are given notices, they immediately revert them. Sure, that is allowed, but here it simply highlights a disinterest in collaboration and an inability to cooperate with others.

I think that an editor like this has no business being on Wikipedia. But, as a lesser sanction, I would nominate them for one lifetime topic ban from topics relating to Jewish ancestry. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeez get a life. I can edit whatever i want, especially since wikipedia clearly gets a lot of info wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Jeez get a life" -- You really think another violation of WP:NPA is helping your case? - LouisAragon (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Louis. I do/will correct wrong information on wikipedia and won’t apologize for it.

Also clearly “el cid el campeador” personally doesn’t like my position/opinions which is why he wants to crush me into the ground.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly the same user that was blocked for 1 year back in March 2020. I have reinstated the block, this time for 2 years. Hopefully they will spend those years reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Jayron32 14:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, as an old, I appreciate "Jeez get a life" as very much within my young vernacular. That said, obviously a good block. Dumuzid (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Us radical Gen Xers really had some tubular vernacular. Gnarly. --Jayron32 16:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Sports editor with a 'bad' attitude

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.

---

It appears that @1978 Los Angeles Ravagers: is being a problem across several sports articles. His edits (not to mention his edit summaries) come across as personal commentary. Not to mention a rudeness to others. A check over of his contributions will tell the tale. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 1 week. this was over the line. --Jayron32 14:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:ADVOCACY and edit warring

User:Raygamman is using an article on an extremely minor Alberta political party, Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, as a free advertisemtn to promote that party in violation of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV. His repeated edits trumpet the minor party as "unique" and ""Alberta's most effective political pro-life organization" [150] [151] [152] [153] (Who calls it that? The party itself; he rejects the need to find a neutral WP:SECONDARYSOURCE). Despite warning, [154], he's also repeatedly left personal attacks on me on my talk, referring to my edits as "mindless". [155] [156] [157] I think we need a topic ban here, possibly for WP:COI reasons. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Raygamman here: my "repeated edits" comprise reverting a section after User:Ribbet35's deleted it. I am a relatively new participant on Wikipedia but it seems to me that simply deleting a large section of text instead of providing refined verbiage to correct the perceived violation would work better, no?; Isn't that the point of Wikipedia to refine articles? User:Ribbet32 would just delete it, every time, I would then revert to the previous iteration, he would delete it, I would revert etc.: [158] [159] [160] [161]

Respectfully, User:Ribbet32 talk history suggests that he has a habit of simply deleting sections rather than working at refining them or editing them [162] Seems to me this is what was going on here. I did then remove the "offending" sentence and edited the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs) 05:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As the article has been AfD'd, this may be moot. Raygamman, when someone reverts your edits, the best thing to do is open a section at the article talk, start discussing, and be willing to learn. Ribbet32, which you're experienced enough to know, and you're also experienced enough to know that newbies make mistakes and can find our ways mysterious and frustrating. Hauling one to ANI instead of opening a talk section at the article to help them understand what policies they need to learn is really not all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting IP range block

IP user 77.28.6.167 is the latest IP of its range making disruptive nationalistic edits on Balkan articles. They remove content and modify content in ways that counter with the given sources. The goal is to make places in southern Albania look "Greek". An IP range block was imposed by @EdJohnston: on 77.28.13.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for doing exactly the same edits in the same articles on February 21 [163], but that block has long expired. @Ymblanter: blocked 77.28.15.66 on May 22 and 77.28.11.254 on May 23. They have also suggested a request for IP range block to be made here [164].

Some examples of disruption made today:

• [165] deletes the information that one of the villages does not have a Greek population.
• [166] removes the Albanian translation of the village's name to leave only the Greek one
• [167] same thing
• [168] same thing
• [169] same thing

• @Bes-ART: asked me earlier today to make this request. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support this request, just not feeling confident enough to choose the correct range.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, would semi-protecting the articles of all settlements in southern Albania be a better option? A large part of Yugoslavia articles were semi-protected for a year after an AE case where you participated as an admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The range encompassing all IPs listed here is 77.28.0.0/20, which is a reasonably large one. It appears to belong to a North Macedonian ISP. firefly ( t · c ) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We need indeed to balance collateral damage from range block and efforts require to have all pages in the editing area protected--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Last February this was reported at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 50#IP range block. This guy started up on 6 February, 2021. He is ranging widely but the third octet of his IP never goes above 15. So a block of Special:Contributions/77.28.0.0/20 might work. There have not been any good-faith edits from the /20 since February, though there were a few such edits last year. Blocking the /20 for a month should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

77.28.0.0/20 does appear to be a good fit. If there are articles that the editor return to time and time again, these can be semi-protected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I have blocked the 0/20 range for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It is a good solution to the problem. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

86.174.161.238

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

See talk. They are edit warring on Hailee Steinfeld (tried to insert unsourced middle name 4 times), Taron Egerton and Nathan Fillion. Nobody warned them on their talk page about edit warring before I did so WP:3RRN doesn't apply (yet). They also keep adding unsourced info to BLPs after talk page warnings from Mattythewhite, Notfrompedro and Asartea. I don't think they read their talk page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

They just made unsourced (and now: reverted) edits to Stan Marsh and Butters Stotch. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Slander against me on my talk page

Along with unacceptable article edits, User:Smtkos' attacks on me here is so wrong. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It was almost 2 weeks ago, and they haven't edited in 5 days - so a block isn't going to be given here. I warned them, that's about all that can be done at this point — Ched (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Simeon Sanada

Unsure if this is the right place, but a new non-autoconfirmed user, Simeon Sanada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding "anti-Zionist" categories to multiple articles without providing source(s) or context, in violation of WP:CATV. I have warned them three times on their talk page, but my messages have been ignored and my reverts have been reverted by them twice without addressing the issues brought up. I do believe they are acting in good faith, but "anti-Zionist" is quite a contentious label, and adding the category en masse without sources or context is not an appropriate practice. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

186.139.255.129

Reporting this user for personal attacks by this user on issues with rude/inappropriate commentary Examples can be seen here and vandalizing my talk page here: here. I apologize if this is the wrong place to do it, but I'm not sure where else we are supposed to do it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC) User has also attacked other users here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked by L235 (talk · contribs). Some of this user's contributions (see here) need to be RD2'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IP user is currently on a name-calling spree in their talk page to whom I assume ones who have reverted or warned them. also seems like their block may've expired, got a message from them in my talk page. • | melecie | t 07:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

186.139.255.129

186.139.255.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated personal attacks and uncivil comments: [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] (without comment...) IMO a block is in order. Some of the edits probbably need revision deletion. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Already has a previous block: [176]. Nothing changed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

IP Troll/Vandal

The user at @186.139.255.129: has returned from a previous ban and instantly resorts to name-calling on their own talk page. I'm not sure if this is the best place to report it, but I think a bit more active expression against them is needed as they are clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia. A sample is here, here, and here. Not the first time I've reported the user here either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month with TPA revoked, and PAs rev-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: don't forget to delete the edit summaries. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

New puppet of long-term vandal

Ilka Dorchester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Another avatar of long-term (since at least 2007) cross-wiki vandal Charito2000, with the same themas and pattern of edits : false attribution of anonymous portraits to his/her favorite characters, source falsification in order to promote his Levieux/Candia fantasy, etc--Phso2 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu

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.

---

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

User seems to have a strong opinion (to say the least) to anything Iran-related, coming up with accusations/rants like this;

You can't Indirect decide that these are not realible or well also by hiding Turkics number of İran on Wikipedia won't help upcoming Irani civil war. Iranian nationalism is all I see here.

This is not true! I do not understand your purpose! I added it to half a dozen citations and those articles have the term whole azerbaijan dozens of times. This is not Iran's platform for ethnic cleansing. If you revert once again, you will be reported. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:RVAN

Why are you deleting also the map? WP:SNEAKY You guys cant hide ethnic minorities in Iran either You cannot do informational ethnic cleansing either. The flag issue is controversial, what about the map?

Added 7 academic citations, you can examine geographical sections. It will not be late for me to request the admin page at the first revert to be deleted from now on. Please torpise your ethnic hostility on a different platform. This is not a place where Iran is trying to wipe out its ethnic minorities, it is a free encyclopedia

In just one month, he has reverted Khorasani Turks 6 times [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] (4 of them today), attempting to force a fictional flag and map onto the article. He justifies his addition of the map by adding various random sources not even related to it.

Looking at all this, this seems like a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue to me at the very least. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep always reverting sourced information and its not a slander you guys in a constant effort to hide the Turkic minority in Iran related articles. Btw i dont reverted YOU GUYS DELETING & reverting my edits. I putted tons of citations yet dare to report me without seeing his own fault. They constantly erase the articles and delete the sourced information about Turkic people's in Iran. They are the ones who reverted, although I have provided 7 academic sources right now. Pure Informational ethnic cleansing in my opinion. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

+ It's not a fictional map even on Wikimedia states; Based on Dr.Papoli Yazdi work (فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال سوم شماره 2 ، پاییز 1376، دکتر محمد حسین پاپلی یزدی ) Geographical Research Quarterly, Third Year No. 2, Fall 1997, Dr. Mohammad Hossein Papli Yazdi. Also, I removed the flag myself and already asked why did you remove the map together with the flag? That's also WP:SNEAKY. Although I did not mention 7 academic sources supporting the map, you reverted it again. Ethnicities in Iran ; If you look at this page, you will see a focused version of the same map. It is unwise to delete this or you revert for different purposes..To my own opinion, you are trying to hide ethnic identities here. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

[183] That map literally says "Source: Own Work", its a textbook example of WP:OR, of some random wikipedia member drawing up a map by himself based on his interpretation of a book. The fact that you're unable to understand basic Wikipedia rules about sourcing and have to resort to ethnosectarian accusations and fantasy ramblings about "ethnic cleansing" and "civil war" shows that you're very clearly engaging in disruptive editing. Your rants don't change the fact that your additions are baseless. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick cursory digging in his recent posts shows this [184] which is a straight-up personal attack on another editor he was disagreeing with (claiming his eyes aren't working properly). --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack? You sad 2x times that you don't see Khorasani Turks in this dozen of citations my friendly advice is seeing eye doctor or try to use CTRL+F if you can't locate stuff. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Cengizsogutlu has a long history of attacks towards other users that disagree with them and POV pushing :

• "Congratulations, You play the sneaky and stupid role very well".
• "I want this in a civilized way, most likely you hate Turks oky whatever everyone's own life".
• "Then I recommend you go to an ophthalmologist.".

This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia and i have not been able to find out how he/she has been a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What a nice example of Etnic nationalism, One more example of persianization of things. I'm Grateful for the Wikipedia seen this kinda ethno facism. You guys even tried to change drink called Ayran name into Doogh also deleted Turkish section etc. If I need to remind you, I have already received a 24-hour mute from these comments. Yet that didnt helped your Doogh name effort Ayran name still REMAINS ♥. I understand your hatred guys, it makes you sad that I disrupt your ethnic stuff changing games. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is. That's what i mean You play the sneaky and stupid role very well. This is not an insult I apologize if you understand this that way, but this is an an irregular situation. What you are trying to do to erase an edit that you do not like, saying "he insulted me" "his style is not normal" "" he is an editor of this kind ", always stay away from the main subject and play the role of the victim. During this time, the other party is blocked, and no matter how wrong the subject you are defending, remains on wikipedia. It's a nice sneaky strategy btw. Sorry, but these excuses are not enough to hide your mission to hide ethnic minorities in Iran guys. Keep trying to let me banned but it won't change the truth. You are constantly talking about personal insult.

You play the sneaky role

If you can't find it from a dozen of citations and if you are not malicious, then you should go to your ophthalmologist

I apologize if you saw these as insults. My aim is definitely not insulting. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you say that there is no word on the citations in this article that match, it means you are either maliciously intended to find excuse to delete or have a bad eye. If you can't find something, it doesn't give you the right to revert. Friendly advice is appearing to ophthalmologist. The bad intention is that, in my opinion, because of your ethnic nationalism, you cannot tolerate these facts. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia i made articles much more than you deleted sir. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to so many nonsenses. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, I suggest you edit in another area for a while. Ethnic debates are notoriously bad places for a relatively new user, you're going to make mistakes and wind up in arguments very frequently. And yes, your statements towards other users absolutely come across as personal attacks, so that needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu has been POV-pushing and actively engaging in edit-warring in Whole Azerbaijan. In response to me asking them to quote the sources they are referring to (I am familiar with the sources and have reasons to believe they do not support Cengizsogutlu's claims), they said: if you cant locate with Ctrl+F go to an ophthalmologist and ask if you have astigmatism. I find this in violation of WP:CIVILITY and request that the administrators review this case and take measures if necessary. I must specify that the user has been warned on different occasions by fellow editors that they had been engaging in disruptive editing: [185], [186], [187]. Parishan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

HandThatFeeds has a good point. Based on the above evidence, I propose that Cengizsogutlu should be banned from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples (1), which is the usual outcome of discussions like this. In fact, Devlet Geray (talk · contribs) got handed a similar topic ban in a February ANI for tendentious editing about Turkic peoples — Cengizsogutlu's editing at Khorasani Turks and Doogh sure looks tendentious.

I'm also proposing a topic ban from Turkey-related topics (2a), or at least from the Turkish Armed Forces (2b), as well — twice did they blank a statement in Ağrı Province involving Armenians (diff, diff), and at Turkish Land Forces they restored a paragraph (Special:Diff/1021263224, Special:Diff/1021265483) removed by Visnelma (talk · contribs) per a discussion at the talk page, though their edits at List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces such as Special:Diff/1024691317 might be okay, despite using primary sources. The aforementioned discussion mentioned that they were p-blocked in February for edit warring, including the exact same dispute at the article in question (diff, diff). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Proposals (1 and 2a): broadly construed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both proposals (1 and 2a).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a it does not appear that the block and p-block (by myself and El_C) have made any difference. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both proposals (1 and 2a) per his conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a, it's clear this user isn't able to edit objectively on this subject. Perhaps he can appeal this in a year or two as he's still a relatively new user, and editing in less-controversial areas might hone his abilities. — Czello 09:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a per LaundryPizza03, and Cengizsogutlu's battleground comments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both per his inability to understand how sourcing works, and his emotional behavior towards these topics. --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Question So im technically banned although I do give academic based citations about Khorasani Turks in Iran & Whole Azerbaijan stuff, Because I replaced Armenian claims propaganda of Agri province to history secion, Because I am defending that the history in the logo and official claim of date 209 BC better remains on Turkish Land Forces article, Also try to explain what Orda (organization) is to Visneelma? ? Anyway i am not doing any other editions here expect from Turkey, Military & defence industry edits. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Pure strawman strategy on your side, this won't be helpful in your situation.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

At least I do not complain when someone comments to me such as strawman etc also I do not hide behind victim roles about fake personal insults so can also hide ethnic identities in Iran :/. Also Persianization of drinks and poem controversys wont help Iran for upcoming Iranian civil war. I know perfectly reason why you guys chasing me; The main reason is after the Karabakh war because of the fear that Iran will be subjected to civil war by the Azerbaijanis. You guys perfectly knowing there will be events before Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. You know the only reason Israel and Turkey arming Azerbaijan; That's why Turks involved & taking part in soviet puppet wars. All these are preparations for Iran. Of course, you want me to blocked because I have put a spike in your hiding ethnicity plans .Well Good Luck pushing your agenda & a jug of Ayran takes all the heat after B 61 rain. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever helps you cope with the fact that you've failed to convince anyone that your fake unsourced maps are worth keeping on Wikipedia. If you want to live in turanist fantasy land and daydream about the future, feel free :) --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Another example of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Your above statements are not the point here, the point is your editing profile and the fact that all the editors who commented your topic ban proposal supported it, regardless of their nationality/ethnicity, playing that ethnic card almost all the time is not relevant on Wikipedia (nor in real life, in my humble opinion). For the records, thanks you for your concerns about Iran and its future, however, you should not worry so much about Iran and Iranian Azerbaijanis, but one might have some concerns about Turkey and its 25-30% Kurds who are, as far as i know, not very well treated in that country. I'm done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, your comment indicates that you're here to right great wrongs, which is entirely the wrong way to deal with Wikipedia. I suggested you step away from this subject so you can get experience working in other areas, and then come back to this one with an understanding of how to correct things you feel are misrepresented on the articles. The topic ban is just a way to enforce you step away for a bit. But your comments above such as I do not hide behind victim roles about fake personal insults so can also hide ethnic identities in Iran are blatant personal attacks which could result in you being blocked from Wikipedia entirely. Please take a break, then work on some other subjects for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I just personally thought I was being victim of unjustness, so I wrote a little bit like that way. Forgive me if I have spoken a lot absurdly. I think I will try to improve myself by concentrating on other topics, if i got a chance. I guess I am not cared about because I cannot handle discussions properly and I am too rude. I think this is because also I am a little amateur in my ability to edit on Wikipedia. I apologize to the community and if the last chance/ opportunity given, I will focus on army equipment, technology stuff and defense industry for now to improve my ability to edit. Again, I apologize to everyone. If I'm going to be blocked, perhaps I deserved it. I wish you all a good day & good editing.☺♥ Cengizsogutlu (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block I wanted to support topic ban (1 and 2a) but the above comments/rants by the reported user just prove this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. He was blocked before[188] (multiple times) and he still thinks he did nothing wrong. So what's the point of topic ban? Take a look at his edits, comments, and edit summaries. I don't think giving the second chance would work for this case. Wario-Man ^talk 18:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block As per Wario-Man and The Hand That Feeds You.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:King G.A

I was going to bring this to the 3RR noticeboard, due to User:King G.A reverting 4 times, but since the user is completely unresponsive (saying "do not contact me") and provides absolutely no edit summary as to why my housekeeping edit is being reverted at Money Heist, I brought it here for attention. I'll leave it up to you whether a block is warranted or if the page should be protected. Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of King G.A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I see a lot of reverts and no willingness to communicate. In addition to the "do not contact me" mentioned above, when they do communicate they do so by way of revert summaries in the vein of "You probably do not understand!!!!!!!!", all exclamation points in the original. However, this being a collaborative project, effective and collegial communication is required by all editors. Because King G.A appears to lack these skills, I am indefinitely blocking their account. Sandstein 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Since the block, two different IPs have shown up on Money Heist to revert back to King G.A's version. Is this block evasion? Should the article be semi protected? - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: semi'd 10 days. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

67.80.249.131

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

This IP has been waging a grand crusade for the past several days. While some of their edits have been beneficial or at least neutral, such as [189], the vast majority have been disruptive. The IPs two main "targets" are nicknames, such as [190] and [191], and image captions, such as [192] and [193].

He has been warned multiple times, and has been given explicit reasons, and yet he continues to make the same edits to the same exact pages he got warned for (most namely Bobby Jindal, where after his edit was reverted, he was explicitly warned by User:Palindromesemordnilap that consensus had been reached regarding the inclusion of the nickname and the IP chose to ignore that warning and re-edit the page to remove the thing he was just warned against removing.) This IP is clearly not here and now causes us to have to parse through their edits to see what need to be reverted or not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What we've got here is an IP user that is editing from mobile, so it's a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. In other words, it's not evident to the user that they have received any messages, as they've not received any notifications. Please see the open ticket phab:T278838 for more information on this problem.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The user's most recent edit to Bobby Jindal is not tagged as being a mobile edit; see [194] (not sure how accurate the tagging system is). palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe they are deliberately ignoring us. When they changed the caption for the second time (without explanation),[195] I reverted their edit and asked why (in the edit summary).[196] What did they do? They removed the caption altogether.[197] M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

2601:5CA:C302:43D0:7031:CDC9:2028:2669

2601:5CA:C302:43D0:7031:CDC9:2028:2669 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been engaging in edit warring as well as blatant personal attacks, including accusing users of "extreme anti-woman bigotry" diff and of being a "Anti-Native racist" diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours by Bbb23, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal yet again

• 2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 72.138.217.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• April 2021 – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal again
• March 2021 – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Challenging rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal
• July 2020 – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Another rangeblock against Ottawa music vandal

Long-term abuse from Ottawa is flaring up again, with wrong credits inserted into the same old music articles as before. Special:Contributions/72.138.217.84 was blocked but that didn't stop Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 from resuming the disruption. Let's get a block going. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice on a best way forward

I'm looking for some advice regarding The Wall (British game show). There is consensus on the article and WP:TELEVISION to not have contestant results in the article because of them being an indiscriminate collection of information. There are two users who refuse to accept this and constantly restore the contestant tables, one of the editors has been article blocked for two weeks (expires in two days time), but this has had no effect as another user popped up and started the same editing pattern of restoring the tables. Neither editor will communicate. I'm unsure what the best way forward is, page protection?, user blocking? or some other way? Advice gratefully received. - X201 (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Luc812208 continuing to revert, and refusing to use the talk page, despite being told about the pre-existing consensus, policy and talk page discussion via various means, constitutes disruptive editing (and arguably not being here to build an encyclopedia). I have indefinitely blocked their account. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I have a strange feeling that I'll be back here in two day's time. - X201 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@X201, I understand it's frustrating to try to protect an article from a series of unproductive new editors, but for each unproductive new editor, they're only one in that series. You say you think you'll be back in two days -- do you mean with another unproductive new editor? Is page protection a better choice? @Daniel, I'm not seeing Luc812208 has ever edited a talk page at all, including their own? Maybe they don't even know there is such a thing. Maybe we change to a p-block from article space to encourage them to discuss? —valereee (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I did consider that originally. However, for two reasons I went full indef instead: 1) they don't appear to be editing from Mobile, so no justification for not using talk pages and b) their disruption spread over multiple articles, so I'd have to indef p-block them across multiple pages. The indef block isn't infinite, it's designed to force them to respond and start discussing, instead of just disruptively edit warring against consensus (as they had previously been directed to do). No issues from me if an admin unblocks/alters block if they respond on their talk page at all. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Block adjusted and talk page updated, now p-blocked from article namespace until they start discussing. Thanks Valereee for the heads-up about p-block namespace capabilities that I wasn't aware of. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Kavkas

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

This user has been active 2013, he should very well know how Wikipedia and its guidelines work by now. However, he clearly doesn't, as can be seen by his editing history, both back then and now. At Gelae (Scythian tribe), he removed sourced info and attempted to push information with outdated sources, which I told him was not okay. His best response was Now go complain to the admin, which honestly made me give up further attempts to talk with him.

He seems to be constantly pushing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, as as well heavily lacking WP:COMPENTENCE.

He has a tendency to alter/remove sourced information which doesn't fit with his POV;

[198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have dealt with the user previously, I do not think Wikipedia benefits from their continued ability to edit. I found that they have a battleground attitude, and that their competence to make encyclopedic edit is not so great.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month, as this person is showing zero interest in trying to become more productive. Maybe that'll get their attention. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

1978 Los Angeles Ravagers

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:1978 Los Angeles Ravagers was recently blocked by @Jayron32: for disruptive edits and a deeply uncivil response to a warning about them. They responded with this which looks to me like a request for an indef block. Laplorfill (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hahah. Classic. Screaming into the void is always so productive. --Jayron32 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And indef'd. That's not someone who's going to edit in a collaborative manner. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as I expected. He/she was an editor who was WP:NOTHERE to contribute. His/her (self-entertaining) response to being blocked, was predictable. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Please turn off TPA

for Dance with Drake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please also don't forget to remove the edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IP with an ax to grind and legal threats

2601:1C0:4280:1FF0:B1C5:99A5:8156:8CE5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is determined to add NPOV opinion and is making legal threats when reverted. Also- well past WP:3RR

[[205]]

Nightenbelle (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 IP blocked for legal threats. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish leveraging admin tools to maintain preferred, anti-consensus revision at Thor

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.

---

Having been on English Wikipedia for many years now and along the way having written quite a lot of the site's content relating to folklore and its various genres, I've encountered a lot of issues, as I am sure all veteran editors have. Particularly when editing topics involving pseudoscience, every now and then I've gotten death threats and been on the receiving side of attempts at harassment or intimidation, some of them even making their way to offsite publications. Yet I have in fact never encountered outright abuse of mod tools from an admin until today.

First, a little background. Over at Thor and related articles, regulars such as myself encounter a variety of drive-by edits. Most of them consist of the typical vandalism one sees on any highly visible article, some are the result of confusion, and far too few helpful.

One thing we see every now and then is a well-meaning user wanting to add a userbox to the page. Unfortunately, these users rarely know the material very well, and often seem to have not read the article. This has resulted in several discussions over at the Thor article, where topic regulars like @Yngvadottir:, @Haukurth:, @Berig:, and myself respond and continue to develop this and related articles.

To date there's been a clear consensus that the introduction of infoboxes tends to be misleading, if not outright misinforming, and provide nothing the lead does not. For the Thor article, clear consensus against infobox inclusion has been established since 2008, as indicated in these discussions:

• 2008: "Infobox"
• 2011: "Infobox"
• 2017: "Infobox redux"

Related discussion can be found at the talk page for English Wikipedia's Odin article, for example:

• 2014 & 2020: Talk:Odin "Infobox" & "Infobox (Redux)"

Earlier today, a user with very few edits added an infobox to the Thor page containing numerous problems (@SpyGuy12345:). For example, not only does this infobox have obvious grammatical issues (that'd be the Æsir, for one) but it also tells readers that the "symbol of Thor" is the swastika.

In reality, scholars have debated (and continue to debate) whether this is the case (as English Wikipedia's Swastika_(Germanic_Iron_Age) article makes clear, which our Thor article's section pipes to). In short, it's unclear if the symbol signified the sun in the ancient Germanic record, some other deity, or who knows. Similarly, as is common in myth, geneaologies can differ by source, place, and time: For example, Thor may well have been Odin's father during the Migration Period and among some groups during the Viking Age, and before that, at some point *Tiwaz (who became North Germanic Týr) is widely considered by scholars to have once been the 'sky father'. Add to that the great majority of these 'related' figures in the infobox are not attested outside of the North Germanic branch and yet this article covers Thor from the early Germanic period until today. Lots of issues.

All of this is why the introductory paragraph of English Wikipedia's Thor article so carefully says which corpus these relations are described in. The infobox presents no such nuance or care—useful for car models and battles, not so useful for complex figures from folklore. Then there's the issue of whether an infobox in these cases provides more information than the first paragraph of the introductory paragraph, to which consensus is that it cannot.

Anyway, I went ahead and reverted this addition and opened a talk thread, as per usual Wikipedia practice. Business as usual. However, I was soon surprised to find that an admin, @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: had appeared out of nowhere and reverted my edits. Eventually, after trying to get him to use the talk page and right before his third edit, he locked the page to his new, preferred version:

• revert 1: "No consensus for that"
• revert 2: "Talk pages have been reviewed. There is no consensus for this."
• page lock
• revert 3: "Status quo reversion.. protection as requested.")

Only after locking the page did he decide to appear on the talk page, where he accused me of "vandalism" and warned me that he was an admin, with a threatening "suggestion" that I "stop", presumably thinking I'm a new editor, among various other odd and false claims. Catfish Jim also somehow attempted to put his decision to lock the page at his preferred version in the third revert above on me as my request because I had said someone ought to lock the page. Nice.

I'm not sure what is going on with this guy but, in short, what would have been a regular Wikipedia conversation turned into Catfish Jim leveraging admin tools as a trump card to get what he wanted, making no effort to discuss the matter until locking the page to the version he wanted before his third revert, and all the while making a variety of false statements. This highly visible page is curently worse off for it.

Ignoring the pros and cons of infoboxes, a debatable topic, Catfish Jim's actions here look to be a pretty clear example of abuse of admin tools to me. Given this behavior, I don't think Catfish Jim should have access to these tools. In fact, someone with more time than I have to offer might want to look through this Catfish Jim's edit history to see if he's used admin tools to get his way in other exchanges. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've unprotected the article. I agree that was a gross abuse of the admin tools. We don't do desysops at AN/ANI, and ArbCom (which does) usually won't desysop over one misuse of the tools. If there appears to be a pattern of this kind of tool use, then an ArbCom case is how you would remove the tools. Hopefully this was a one-off.

As far as edit warring is concerned, you have both reverted 3 times. I am going to block CJ&tS from that page for 24 hours for edit warring, because of the aggravating factor of his admin tool misuse. I won't block User:Bloodofox now, but I will if they revert again, as that will be a 3RR violation. Anyone besides BoO is free to revert to the status quo version, which (contrary to CJ&tS's comment) appears to be the the version with no infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 01:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ouch indeed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After opening a Wikipedia tab, seeing pings, coming here, then examining the history of the article and then the talk page and posting first there ... thank you for removing the protection, Floquenbeam, the article has been re-reverted and I endorse the action. Bloodofox summarizes the problems well above, except that the scope of the article is all reflexes of *Þunraz, which may make the problem a bit clearer. I have only two comments on Catfish Jim, one, that I have no recollection of them making unwise admin decisions, presumably a bad day, and two, that this is an illustration of why we have a general principle that admins avoid using their tools based on content matters except in cases of obvious vandalism. (An unusually short comment for me; I gotta go.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Golly. I was expecting to have a few messages this morning, possibly even a notice that there was a discussion at ANI that involved me, which would be a first (I think). Blocked from editing a page... that's also a first. I admit I probably was in error in reverting the page after locking it at bloodofox's request. Bad day? You could say so but would that excuse a "gross abuse of admin powers"? I was attempting to engage with the guy, but here we are.

Anyway... I note bloodofox's request for me to resign or to be formally desysopped. I am absolutely open to WP:RECALL and will resign the mop if there is consensus that I should do so. Probably better to do that in an WP:RFC than here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Here would be fine... doesn't need to be a formal, drawn out process. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd certainly say that a bad day (God knows we all have some of those, especially in this trying period) would excuse this, if it's a one-off indeed. However, I would also recommend you take another look at what the word vandalism means here, and perhaps also at wp:brd. Most of all though I wish you a better day today (and no RfC)! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I admit I probably was in error in reverting the page after locking it ... I was attempting to engage with the guy Is this a joke? You realize everyone else can see the full interaction? You were dismissive and assholish and called their definitely-not-vandalism edits vandalism and then you continued an edit-war after locking the article! The dismissive assholish edit-warring I could see labeling "I was having a bad day and probably acted badly"; but the second part? Get your act together and offer a detailed, personal apology to bloodofox. --JBL (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No joke intended. I freely admit to being an asshole and to using WP last night (UK time) to blow off steam rather than to improve the encyclopedia and I apologise directly and humbly to bloodofox. Sorry fella, won't happen again. How detailed and personal do you want it? Some prick poisoned my cat and I had to get him euthanised yesterday. He died in my arms. He'd been at the vets for four days on a drip but his kidneys had failed. I drank a bunch of whisky and came on WP and acted like a dick. Yes, it was a bad day. Was it appropriate behaviour from an admin? No... we're told that adminship is no big deal, but obviously we're supposed to maintain a minimum standard of interaction.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with you apologizing and explaining the situation, but it is always a good idea to stay away from WP when you're under emotional stress. The saying "adminship is no big deal" was maybe correct a long time ago, but this does not seem to be the case anymore.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: That really sucks, I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm going to remove the block, for a couple of reasons (the first of which makes me feel kind of stupid, and I shamefully briefly considered not mentioning it and seeing if I could get away with it): (a) I didn't notice last night, but your protection was actually only semi-protection, so it didn't actually prevent anyone involved in the dispute from editing the page (I'm kind of assuming you meant to do full protection, but it doesn't matter now because of (b)); (b) You acknowledge what you did was wrong; (c) I skimmed thru your other edits in May, and not counting similar actions at Loki yesterday, this doesn't seem to be a pattern at all; and (d) I don't think the block is preventing anything anymore, as I get the impression you don't intend to edit the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

With the above, I'm inclined to put this one up under the WP:TROUT rather than WP:RECALL variety. CJ&TS has expressed clear understanding of the problem, expressed understanding of what was wrong about it, and promised to not do it again. It was certainly unbecoming of an admin, but I don't see the need to drag this out any further. Editing while pissed (by either the British or American definitions) is contraindicated, and this episodes serves as a good reminder why. I move we close this thread and move on. Any objections? --Jayron32 14:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If no-one has any other evidence of CJ&TS acting as an admin and editor on the same article, then no.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also a no from me. --JBL (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:UserNumber

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.

---

Several times broke 3 reverts rule and really non-cooperative jerk attitude could be seen in pages like Bengalis and Template:Bengalis (clear violation of 3rr and last edit summery is baseless argument to change a long standing photomontage, There is no common rules for that!!), despite warned by several veteran users on talk page and edit summaries no progress could be seen yet! hearty requesting to an admin to use checkUser to detect Sockpuppetry! As a long observing user I can smell a very old bangladeshi page related sock master there!! —2A0A:A546:2916:0:46:2EEE:BC66:CC51 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks. Unfortunately, what's really needed is a range block and wider than /64, but I'm too tired to figure out how wide.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Block request and possible rev/del

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

---

Hi all, could I get a block and perhaps a rev/del for this edit? I'd take it to the usual noticeboard but think it deserves special attention, and not just because I'm the subject. It's way over the top, as I see it, starting with WP:NPA. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Taken care of across the board, and ended up rev/del a number of edits by the IP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Editing AfD discussion after closing

X4n6 insists on editing a closed AfD to belittle the AfD nominator - can an uninvolved admin please revert and protect the AfD discussion? Thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty unacceptable for an editor who has been here for almost 15 years -- the comment itself is pretty uncivil. — Czello 13:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I won't protect the AFD - I've left them a warning, if they do it again I'll block. GiantSnowman 14:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• (sigh) Where to begin... First, SportingFlyer apparently doesn't understand the difference between "belittling" and responding. The AfD nominator went on an ill-advised debating spree responding to virtually every adverse !vote (which was unanimous, by the way) on an ill-advised nomination. I was unable to clarify several inaccurate assertions the nominator made about my own !vote, prior to closure. Those were simply added for the record. It seems SportingFlyer forgot that even he/she felt the need to add more beyond their !vote here, and additional rebuttal here. Just as SportingFlyer doesn't seem to understand the difference between "should" and "must not" or "may." As in, closure instructions say: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." This appears on top and bottom of the page. However, nowhere on the page do the instructions say: "Subsequent comments must not be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits may be made to this page." That's 4 "shoulds" on the page and not a single "must not" or may/not." This project is an encyclopedia. If the community had wished to compose a definitive sentence, it certainly could have. Nor is this the first time an overzealous user has extrapolated more than is written in our policies and/or guidelines. I was also very clear about why I added comments to a closed AfD, when I said: "To be fair, these comments come after closure. But they are comments not !votes - and they needed to be said - and added to the record." But some folks will run to ANI whenever they don't get their way - no matter how small or insignificant the issue.
• It's also patently ridiculous that Praxidicae chose to leap into this fray almost a full 5 seconds after it was posted, before I even had the chance to respond - with some utter nonsense about it being a personal attack. Nothing about posting after closure, but suddenly a newly imagined grievance. Not to mention the bandwagoning that has occurred since. Get serious. Would my comment have been deemed a personal attack prior to closure? Of course not. Plain and simple, this is wrong. X4n6 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The "SHOULD" here is clear. Don't they and excuse your shoddy behaviour with shoddy excuses based on semantics. You have been here long enough to know that, and you have no excuse for restoring your edits or for your disruption. GiantSnowman 14:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess you chose to ignore the unambiguous "Please do not modify it" in red font.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of should vs "must not", it says in big red letters, Please do not modify it. I think it's pretty clear, regardless of the exact wording, that edits aren't supposed to made once it's been placed. As for SportingFlyer apparently doesn't understand the difference between "belittling" and responding, No, I'm with SportingFlyer here -- those comments were belittling, regardless of whether or not the AfD was ill-advised or the discussion was bludgeoned. — Czello 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not about semantics at all. Actually, that's an insultingly simplistic and frankly weak response. It's about ENGLISH. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, right? IF we WANTED to say it MUST not, are you saying we're too dense to pull that off here, when it's so easily done elsewhere on the project? Hence the difference between a policy and a guideline. Or do you just want me to point you to a dictionary definition of "should?" Like M-W's "to express what is probable or expected;" or "to express a request in a polite manner." And for an admin to try to rewrite a template to try to block me for violating a guideline - or policy that doesn't exist - is also pretty weak. Someone said I've been around here too long to know better. They're right. I've also been around long enough to know on this project things say exactly what they mean. We have far too many grammarians around here to do otherwise. As for the please in red letters? Please, indeed. We don't do policy by "please" around here. Give me one example where we do. We do it by "DO NOT." Nice try though, but thanks for the help proving my point. And to pretend I'm the first person to ever edit a closed AfD is also a joke. I've also been around long enough to see it done MANY TIMES - by users and admins alike. But this is the first time I'm aware that someone has clutched the pearls over it. So I'm just not buying this outrage. Now you want to talk about 3RR? Different story. Consensus? Fine. You got that. For now. But consensus around here changes too. So you folks can just let me know when you want to work on changing the wording from "should" to "must" and/or from a guideline to policy. I'll sure have one helluva story to tell. X4n6 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I bet if you put a few more words in all-caps, it will make your argument even more convincing. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it wasn't near as offensive to your sensitive eyes as when GiantSnowman did it, right? X4n6 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman was QUOTING and substituted ALL-CAPS for bold! BUT ALSO the point of my comment is that your comment is rant-like and silly and that you should listen to what other people are telling you (like Jayron, below) instead of continuing to argue. --JBL (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I bet if you put a few more words in all-caps, or bold, or caps, bold, parenthesis and emoji, it will make your hypocritical non-argument even sillier. X4n6 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Let's try to bring this to some semblance of closure. @X4n6: Do you agree to avoid editing AFDs after they are closed, and agree to instead of that raise objections to anything said during the AFD in other places, such as user talk pages or WP:DRV as appropriate? If we can all agree on that, we can close this thread, because the bickering and sniping at each other is not helping. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

But yes, @Jayron32:, thank you! For the love of God and all things Q Anon (or insert another fun current reference), let's close this inane thread-that-never-should-have-been, post haste. Because you're right, it ain't helping. If anything, it's exactly the kind of nonsense that drives good people away from this project. In droves. But sure I'll agree to not edit after closure, unless/until we get some definitive clarification/language change/guideline or policy correction at the proper board. Which, after this, I'll happily work on. That's more than fair and should/must/may/will actually benefit this project moving forward. That's all. Now kindly close the thread quickly. Before all the snipers (who never bothered to read the entire AfD anyway) can snipe again. Let's see how they'll feel. Pretty ironic, huh? Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

73.248.126.206 needs a quick block

• 73.248.126.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This (more or less) static IP has been editing WP:NPOVN every couple of seconds for something like an hour now, and needs a quick block so that other editors are able to edit the page.

See the first page of the page history, which is overwhelmingly edits from this IP.

Temporary semi-protection would work too, but I don't know if anyone wants to block all unregistered edits to that page, only this person's. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

addendum: IP is also engaged in a WP:1AM fight, sealioning and making personal attacks with those edits. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Kevin_Paffrath:_Landlord? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, you should notify them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done that. They have stated that they will modify their style. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, you're absolutely right. I completely forgot that this was even a requirement, which was entirely my fault. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've fully acknowledged this, I know it's a problem and I won't do it anymore and will just let posts stand as is. Typically when I do it it's on article edits where no one is necessarily around, not an active discussion. It's a bad habit and I was not aware of watchlist notifications, etc., which make it worse.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Separately, the sealioning accusations are false. I believe I've made substantive points in the discussion that need answering to settle the debate, and haven't been.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(comment in non-admin capacity) I would oppose semiprotection of NPOVN when the disruption is just coming from one editor. However I agree that 73.* has been increasingly tendentious, with WP:IDHT and repeating (sometimes verbatim) boldface arguments that have already been responded to. They have insisted that their comments about common and industry usage of the term have not been responded to when they have, repeatedly, both further up in the discussion and on the talk page. Following the opening of this ANI report they posted If I can get a substantive, full response to the rebuttal to TFD's point above, I'll back off this discussion which is yet another demand to WP:SATISFY their repeated arguments, this one now adding a complete non-sequitor about whether a single individual who rented their home while they were briefly away would refer to themselves as a landlord (which is not at all applicable to Paffrath, who rents twenty homes as a part of his business).

They were asked by two editors to drop the stick, to which they replied the horse is very much alive, you're just unable or unwilling to see it and continued their bludgeoning. They have also cast various aspersions against me as a POV warrior of some kind on the page, and when they finally provided some specifics about my supposed misbehavior in response to Firefangledfeathers's request, they were all unfounded or complete misrepresentations (see [206]). They are continuing to cast aspersions now, with some weird gaslighting sprinkled in as though they were not suggesting what they clearly were: [207]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey GorillaWarfare, there's a lot here that's frankly BS. You claim you responded to my two paragraphs of points. This was your response: Making the same argument but louder is not any more likely to convince people. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC) That's not a substantive response that furthers the discussion, it's a deflection. As for my 'misrepresentations,' you yourself acknowledged several of them were true (they were all true), and you have yet to answer my latest responses on them, or ultimately debunk any of the original points I made (that only you wrote the derogatory paragraph, that you removed references to net worth, that you removed the dollar figure regarding the donations and reordered the paragraph and made it decidedly more favorable to FB). If you're just tired of debating or don't have any answers then you should step away instead of making false accusations to get me blocked.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

At a quick count, I have made more than sixty edits responding to your argument(s) over these past few days. Pointing to one and saying it was "not a substantive response" is ridiculous. you yourself acknowledged several of them were true I said that it was true that I twice removed references to Paffrath's net worth; I also explained how this was entirely appropriate and not some sort of POV-pushing as you suggested. Your responses to my points did not warrant any response in my view, as they were either plainly obvious attempts to misrepresent, such as claiming a bizarre interpretation of positive statements about Paffrath to suggest they were not really positive, or restatements of your original points. I am tired of debating you, as is everyone else I think, which is why you've twice been asked to drop the stick. The goal of this discussion was to invite additional views on the page, not for the two of us to debate endlessly, and that is why, as you apparently have noticed, I have repeatedly tried to step away to make room for outside opinions and third-party evaluations of our arguments. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your contributions to the recent NPOV debate were largely about one of two things: defending yourself regarding issues that had nothing to do with the 'landlord' language, and gumming up the thread with links to acronym policy articles rather than actually answering points. Also, I want to point that GorillaWarfare also not infrequently does multi-edits (some of the 60 referred to), though not to the extent I did (and didn't realize the effects of, and won't do anymore). That is the subject of this noticeboard, not the debate itself. In their supposed rebuttals TFD, Cullen, and BlueBoar largely ignored my points and made unrelated/independent points that I don't think are particularly compelling (such as TFD saying that the words landlord and tenant are used in leases, which everyone knows and has no relation to the point at hand).73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I note they are still at it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I did it one time more and it was right away so as not to interrupt others. It's a separate point from that made above. I assure you I will not make the rapid strings of edits seen in the history, or make any edits after the fact (i.e. after editors have replied). This was not at all comparable to past patterns of edits.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am one of the editors who referred to the stick essay. I could have brought up bludgeoning and sealioning and casting aspersions against GorillaWarfare. This editor has made about three hundred edits in the past two days belaboring the same point that a landlord should not be called a landlord. TLDR but I had to read it all. Will an uninvolved administrator please bring this obvious disruption to an end? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, it's not a disruption. I'm making a good-faith effort to debate the issue and settle it. The rapid edits were a mistake, not with ill intent, and I won't continue with that. GW made a change to the language that I oppose and she brought it up for debate. You and 2-3 others agree with her. Drmies agreed with me, the original editor(s) who inserted the original language that GW changed obviously agree with me. There is no clear consensus yet, and the argument needs to be settled on its merits. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeating my statement from NPOVN: "As for your comment on the editor(s) who wrote the original language into the article, as far as I am aware none of them have engaged in any conversation about 'landlord', though at least one has edited since the term was added and not raised concerns about it. You cannot cite the lack of involvement in this discussion as implicit support for one side or another." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

IP, you are the only one who does not see your behavior as disruptive. That's telling. Drmies, you got mentioned here. What say you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, I totally appreciate your and GW's involvement and tone here. GW says she stepped back a bit to allow for more discourse from other editors, and that's something that I did as well--and I tried to be brief and to the point, in order to not add more fuel to the fire. But what the IP editor was arguing (about GW's partiality or whatever), with those unfounded accusations, I see that they're still doing that. This is just a sinkhole and a waste of everyone's time and effort. I don't even see the point in a partial block: there is nothing productive about the things they're saying, and I fully support a block so they won't get to climb on that very dead hobby horse again. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the other editors asked me to catalog changes that GW made to the article. I literally just listed them - they almost all happened to be unfavorable to the article subject, and some were indeed dubious IMO (such as removal of donation dollar amount), though not conclusively malicious. It's not my problem that almost all the changes were that way, and I didn't make any accusations; those aren't aspersions, they're just factual responses to what another editor asked. I have other things to do with my time also so I'm not going to continue in this debate further, at least until other editors respond in a substantive way. I do want to point that Drmies said in talk that he is inclined to agree with me, sorry GW yet 'nothing productive'?73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor is blocked now, but it's worth pointing out that them citing me here is so deceitful that it amounts to lying. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked for two weeks for tendentious editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, 78.26. To anyone else: if you want to trout me for forgetting to notify, my talk page stands waiting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fake accusations of antisemitism

What do you think of [208] and [209]? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you should stop emailing people and hold the conversation on their talk page so we are not getting half the story. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death: I did not e-mail them, they e-mailed me. I did not answer their e-mails. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ignore me then, I got that precisely backwards. Generally you should not engage at any point with anyone who brings up anti-semitism. There is no end to the discussion that will not result in you either being accused of being a nazi, being accused of not being supportive enough of Jews, or some other form of anti-jew behaviour that has no bearing on the dispute. The alternative scenario is that because its a serious accusation, it will need to be looked into in detail because if it is not, we get accused of not taking claims of anti-semitism seriously. Just disengage and ignore them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. I think those attacks and accusations of antisemitism are completely unacceptable. The editing is disruptive also, but playing the antisemitism card when reverted is way worse. I've blocked the user for 72 hours. If there's more of the same, I recommend an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

User:Filetime and Providence article images

User:Filetime appears to believe that they have WP:OWNERSHIP of images in articles about Providence, Rhode Island. They have consistently reverted my changes to these articles, and, when challenged, have WP:CANVASSed editors they believe will support their position to the discussions, and have refused to compromise, although I have done so (see Talk:Brick Schoolhouse, for instance, in which I dropped my support for my own image in favor of another editor's, or Talk:Providence City Hall, in which once another editor had provided a new image for the infobox, I dropped support for my own.)

• Congdon Street Baptist Church - [210], [211]

• Discussion - Talk:Congdon Street Baptist Church#Dispute

• Brick Schoolhouse - [212], [213], [214], [215]

• Discussion - [216], [217]

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence, Rhode Island - [218], [219]

• Discussion - [220]

• Waterplace Park - [221], new: [222]
• Providence City Hall - [223], [224], [225]

• Discussion - Talk:Providence City Hall#Images

• Shepard Company Building - [226], [227], [228], [229]

• Discussion - Talk:Shepard Company Building#Images

• Roger Williams National Memorial - [230]
• Rhode Island State House - [231], new: [232], [233], [234]

• Discussion - [235], new: [236]

The nub of the problem here is the Filetime seems to believe that any photograph which I have taken, or any image by anyone else that I have selected for use in any article, is automatically of "low quality", although their standard for that is variable: see for instance the discussion on Talk:Shepard Company Building in which they insist that an image (not by me) is unusable in the infobox because the resolution is too small, but when replaced by the highest resolution image in the category on Commons, one that I happened to take, rejected it as well because he didn't like the image's "quality". (Her again, when alternate images were suggested by another editor, I uploaded them from Flickr and added them to the article in place of my own.)

Certainly, there are inevitably going to be disputes in good faith between editors over what images to use in articles, but it simply cannot be the case that every image I select is bad, and every image that Filetime prefers is good. Their inability to judge images as neutrally as possible (something that I try very hard to do, i.e. I never replace a current image with one of my own unless mine is appreciably an improvement; simply being newer or of better resolution is not sufficient to replace an image which serves its function -- such as use in an infobox -- better) and their digging in once they've made a decision are counter to collaboration between editors. Further, their continued violation of WP:CANVASS by pinging to discussions only selected editors, in the face of their being told directly that they should not do this, flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. (The latest instance of this can be seen at Talk:Rhode Island State House.) Their apparent automatic rejection of my contributions is beginning to border on WP:HARASSMENT.

I am not asking for Filetime to be topic banned from Providence articles, that would be unduly harsh, as well as counter-productive for the encyclopedia, since their contributions to those articles overall are quite useful and generally improve them, but some way needs to be found to stop Filetime from automatically rejecting any images I add to articles, and to get them to stop violating WP:CANVASS.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Edits marked "new were added after the original posting of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I also wanted to add that this has been going on since April 27th. In other words, I waited three-and-a-half weeks before bringing this to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• After checking a couple of these disputes, I think I agree with Filetime. For example, the first one (File:2021 Congdon Street Baptist Church, 11 Congdon Street, Providence.jpg is the one you (BMK) are advocating), the stated reason for removing the image is that it's out of focus. Well, it IS out of focus. Especially the top of the building is quite blurry and perspective distortion is serious. File:2021_Brick_Schoolhouse,_24_Meeting_Street,_Providence.jpg is even more blurry. Aesthetic quality is not the only or even main thing that we look at in infobox images, but when an image is seriously out of focus its encyclopedic value is also much less. The photographs taken by Filetime are more technically proficient and I think you (BMK) should show more understanding. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [237], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: According to you "can't be arsed to come by here and explain" though I literally wrote five lines of text an hour and a half before your first comment. As for the park, a photograph of the park itself is a "a picture of nothing"? Look into any travel guide or on google images and I assure you you will not find grainy photographs of parks signs but rather photographs of the outdoor spaces themselves. If you are so confident in your stance, I encourage you to try and promote this "picture of nothing" argument on the articles for Central Park or Grant Park and convince them that they should use images of signs for their infoboxes. Filetime (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      • This dappled and unclear image, esp. in thumbnail size, File:Roger Williams National Memoria entrance sign, Providence Rhode Island.jpg should not be mentioned in the same sentence as this one, File:Central Park - The Pond (48377220157).jpg . Drmies (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
        This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be content to see some kind of image-related 1RR/BRD or other kind of edit warring-related restriction for both BMK and Filetime here. A restriction that basically just asks editors to approach editing like basically everyone else does shouldn't be necessary, but it seems called for here. Filetime for tendentious edit warring and edit summaries over a short amount of time, and BMK for a years-long default dispute resolution style of edit warring and taking a battleground approach to pushing through preferred versions of articles. Note that in all of the examples that BMK provided, BMK changed the status quo, Filetime challenged it (sometimes with the support of others), and BMK just went ahead and restored it. Sometimes with an accusatory edit summary, sometimes with no edit summary, but always just jump right into edit warring to force a preferred version putting the burden on the other person to find consensus. This kind of behavior regarding personal image-related preferences images was the subject of a large ANI thread a couple years ago. There were also a couple times where Filetime changed the images, BMK reverted, and Filetime likewise edit warred, lest it seem like I think Filetime is entirely in the right here.
  In some cases Filetime's version was better (I weighed in on one of those); in some cases BMK's was better (I weighed in on one of those, too). But this most definitely is not the venue to get into which version was better. Suffice to say it's not uniformly clear and nobody should be taking the approach that they're taking here. It's disruptive and causes a miserable editing atmosphere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding: just since this thread was opened:
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
  • Again -- while this thread is open. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t be rude. I have read it, and it is not canvassing. I refer you to fifth bullet point under “Appropriate notification”. Pbrks (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wait, isn't it a conflict of interest to edit war or revert to reinsert your own image? Didn't this get another user topic banned?[238] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  That is an interesting way to look at it. I had not considered the COI aspect of them edit waring their pictures into articles. Looks like promo work. PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Based on my understanding of the many past ANI threads and general practice, users are indeed encouraged to add their own photos to articles as long as they improve those articles. But if someone challenges it, you shouldn't restore it without finding consensus to do so first. So I guess it's just basic BRD and edit warring guidance, but with the added emphasis because COI can be argued if you continue. Adding photos to articles is not itself a COI any more than adding text to articles is a COI. If someone advocates on a talk page for their picture being the better one for the article, I don't see that as much different than arguing for their version of a block of text. But if it seems like you're edit warring/arguing to include them without regard for the quality of the article, then yeah COI can come into play. It gets more complicated if the person in question has a photography business, but as I don't think that applies to anyone here, we can stem that tangent. Ultimately, the sanction imposed on Toglenn in the thread Morbidthoughts links above is just the advice I give all newbies about adding one's own images (and what I do by default). It shouldn't take a sanction, in other words. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I give up

Not to get all WP:DIVA about it, but I've just noticed that Filetime's last dozen edits were all about undoing my contributions to his articles, and no one -- except, ironically, the two admins who have commented here -- seems to think that there's any behavioral problem with doing stuff like that. It's really just too much hassle for me to deal with this editor, so I'm going to scrub my plan to edit other Providence articles at this time. Maybe at some point in the future, when Filetime has finally been indef blocked -- because the behavior he's exhibiting now is not likely to stop, and will only get worse -- I can pick up that project again, but for the time being I'll put my energy into more productive areas.

I've put away my copy of Guide to Providence Architecture, and I formally withdraw my complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [239], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to note that the behavior chronicled here, i.e. the OWNERSHIP of a group of articles and the running off of a good-faith editor trying to contribute to them, is deeply antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos, and dangerous to the encyclopedia if allowed to thrive and spread. After all, we're not talking about reverting vandalism, or protecting the project from promotion or political propaganda, we're talking about simple disputes about the use of images being weaponized and utilized as a bludgeon. That Filetime continued (and for all I know continues, as I have not cared to check their contribution list since earlier today) even after their behavior has been exposed is disturbing, and potentially dangerous. Filetime has shown interest in other geographical areas as well: Massachusetts, specifically Boston, and Chicago, for instance. Will they replicate their exclusionary behavior in articles about those places as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dangerous? Excuse me? Maybe dial down the rhetoric a bit. The pictures I checked that you uploaded were not improvements. When your work is removed it hurts, I get it. But let’s not make this into something it’s not. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to revisit some of those sites and try to improve your photography skills. If they are better I will join you in getting them added to the relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Ernie (now that you're here, I know that I'm in the right), "dangerous". Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. When one editor takes it upon themselves, without the community's approval, to prevent another one from participating in a certain subject, collaboration is out the window, and when they call upon like-minded editors to back them up, without a general call for participation, consensus is undermined. If collaboration and consensus are gone, Wikipedia can no longer be what it intends to be -- so, yes, "dangerous" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject topic at hand, this section just feels like you're throwing a tantrum, BMK. If multiple other people are disagreeing with you, then it's clearly not just Filetime supporting these changes. From what I can tell from looking at the above linked talk pages and examples, you're correct in some cases with your images, but incorrect on others and instead are supporting inferior images. Silverseren^C 02:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Filetime's crew, and a few long-time adversaries who come out of the woodworks every time my name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

🙄 Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoddy earache demon stranded?  :) ——Serial 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It's ironic that BMK is making claims of WP:OWNERSHIP, because I'm seeing the reverse. ANI is revealing a long-standing behavioral problem, yet again. This is a content dispute that should not have made its way to ANI. There are editors who cannot withstand having their edits altered or deleted in good faith and in accordance with policy. These editors, regardless of their editing talent, tenure, or friends here, are largely a net negative for the project if they're repeatedly unwilling to acknowledge their disruptive behavior. Frankly, at some point, BMK has to look at the common denominator. His colleagues are doing him a disservice by insisting on rushing to his defense rather than encouraging him to participate more collaboratively and develop methods to mentally overcome dissent to his edits. Worse, he begins a new section to passive-aggressively accuse his opponents of operating an anti-BMK cabal. This battleground mentality is a disruptive time-dump. RandomGnome (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Violation of sanctions

(Non-administrator comment) Isn't this the reason BMK has agreed to the following sanctions from the previous ANI?

There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

• BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
• When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.
— User:Ritchie333

The conduct described here definitely violates the second bullet point, as evidenced by an apparent image-related dispute (specifically concerning the infobox of Shepard Company Building) that BMK himself carried over to Talk:Shepard Company Building. I'm not sure if bullet #1 has been violated, or if there have been any similar incidents involving BMK in 7 March 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The second clause relates only to the first clause. It is not a general statement. Nice try, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with BMK on this particular subsection. The clause in question only applies to disputes over which section an image belongs in, not the image itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss

I'm with BMK here. He's a respected and experienced editor in good standing. There clearly has been canvassing. At the end of the day, Filetime wants to keep their WP:OWN photos, cool we all appreciate the time and effort involved in taking the pics and they are good pics...but WP:BRD is a key part of editing Wikipedia. Once the edits were challenged it is on edtors to discuss in good faith and without calling in as many sympathetic editors as possible, ie WP:CANVAS. BMK has done nothing wrong, it is Filetime who is not discussing properly, engaging in an edit war and canvassing for support...IMO Bacondrum 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You have it exactly backwards. In just about all (if not all) of these examples, it was BMK adding his own photos to articles and Filetime objecting, then BMK starting an edit war to force them in. In some cases Filetime restored their own photo, and in other cases they restored the work of third parties like Kzirkel. In all cases, BMK edit warred to introduce his own photos after being challenged. In all cases I've seen, it was BMK who did not follow BRD, gaining consensus on the talk page before restoring his photo. As for canvassing, did you actually look at who Filetime allegedly "canvassed"? I guess it's possible I missed some actual canvassing, but BMK was calling canvassing just the simple act of pinging particular people. I haven't seen evidence that it was actually canvassing (i.e. that they were pinged only because Filetime thought they'd agree with a particular position -- pinging specific people isn't automatically canvassing). At the time Filetime pinged me, I had just supported one of BMK's photos in one of their disputes, and yet BMK accused Filetime of canvassing when I was pinged. Other people have just been active in RI articles, had responded to the previous WikiProject posting, or active in adding photos to Wikipedia. A WikiProject post would be better, I guess, but calling it canvassing seems like a big stretch. Filetime is a problem here, too, with the edit warring and jabs in edit summaries, but BMK has done nothing wrong is demonstrably false even by BMK's own evidence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into details, because I've withdrawn this complaint, but your description is not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by FDMD04 and 27.97.175.194

• Raghav Juyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FDMD04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.97.175.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FDMD04 was blocked on 21 May for 48 hours for edit-warring at Raghav Juyal. In less than a day after that block expired, they were blocked on 24 May for 1 month for personal attacks and harassment. On 26 May, 27.97.175.194 restored the same edits at Raghav Juyal for which FDMD04 was blocked originally for edit-warring (removing maintenance tags without resolving the issues and edits contrary to MOS). – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Incredibly disruptive edits on Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages

Hello everyone.

Two IP addresses as well as a registered account have been conducting pure vandalism and POV pushing in Azerbaijan-Armenia-related articles.

2607:9880:2F07:FFB8:FDB3:A22F:16FE:F157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The first user, out of Canada, has made 12 highly disruptive, incredibly incompetent and sheer vandalistic POV edits, such as using incoherent, nationalistically motivated language to denigrate cultural treasures and an entire nationality. Edit summaries which in reality result in erasing information include facades like "grammar fixes" or "deleted outdated information". This needs to cease immediately.

185.30.91.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The second user, out of Baku, Azerbaijan, similarly, uses their account to erase criticism for the Azerbaijani ESC 2021 singer's highly controversial rhetoric (calling an entire nation "terrorists"). Edit summaries include threats such as "The stupid record of Armenians was deleted" (in Azerbaijani) and "Don't even dare to write it again".

Claude ker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lastly, the newly-created account Claude ker erases Armenian heritage on Azerbaijan-related pages on which keeping the Armenian designations and the entailing history has long been agreed on.

Please act accordingly. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@BaxçeyêReş: You are required to notify the named user and the two IPs of this report. See top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I just did. Apologies for not doing so prior BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MLJ 657 and addition of unsourced material at 2021 in animation

I have noticed a problem with MLJ 657. They have persistently added unsourced series endings to articles that fail WP:V and are not supported by any citations in the linked articles.

A timeline of the situation:

• March 6, 2021: user made a series of edits adding unsourced series endings to 2020 in animation. Edits were subsequently reverted by Magitroopa, who then proceeded to warn MLJ 657. MLJ 657 then responds saying he will stop.
• March 18, 2021: user added Muppet Babies (2018 TV series) to 2021 in animation's ending section with this edit, breaking the promise he made to Magitroopa.
• March 25, 2021: I warned user, user then posts to my talk page saying "I won't be blocked from editing without further warning so I have to keep in mind to not do that."
• April 14, 2021: Once again, user continues to add unsourced/poorly sourced material, adding Fancy Nancy (TV series) to 2021 in American television ([240]) and 2021 in animation ([241]), citing RenewCancelTV, which is not a reliable source (see here for why I don't consider it reliable, posted under my old account). I then proceed to warn them for adding unsourced/poorly sourced material again, user replies making the same empty promise they made the last two times.
• May 5, 2021: Unsurprisingly, user adds unsourced content to 2021 in animation again.
• May 25, 2021: I removed user's addition, but it didn't occur to me that it was MLJ 657 until I scrolled through the page's edit history. Thus, I go to their talk page to express my frustration with this continued behavioral pattern. User has yet to respond to my message.

MLJ 657 has continued to add unsourced or poorly sourced material after promising multiple times to stop, and I feel that some disciplinary action should be in order. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:DE in 'Arabian Sea' article despite being protected recently

• Arabian Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Basp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a recent coordinated nationalistic POV pushing at the Arabian Sea article. Newly created account @HistoricalNameisPersianSea have extensively engaged in edit warring to use the 'Persian Sea' as an alternative name and in some revisions changed the article title to redirect to Persian Sea. @Basp1 was caught in the loop during the WP:WAR adding contents and sources under the Alternative Names section with citation overkill to some WP:QS. @HistoricalNameisPersianSea was subsequently banned and the article got reverted and protected. @Basp1 then continued to reinstate the POV edits (diff) despite being warned and advised (by me) not to do so in my talk page (link to discussion), yet they seem adamant on ignoring that and continuing with the WP:DE. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaving a ping for @Girth Summit: who issued the block of User:HistoricalNameisPersianSea and also for User:Kuru and User:Acroterion, admins who have edited the article since 1 May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, responding to ping, I haven't looked at the article or its history any depth. If I remember correctly, I blocked HNiPS for egregious personal attacks, threats to sock if blocked, and the obviously SPA username, altogether leading me to believe they weren't HERE. Probably worth looking at the other accounts through an SPI lens, given some of HNiPS previous comments, don't have time to investigate right now myself. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding to Girth Summit's observation, I found this comment by the blocked editor, responding to User:Tol's complaint about him at WP:AIV:

..personal attacks which is deserved for being biased. i have other autoconfirmed accounts and we are a group of Iranian editors on discord who combat western imperialist propaganda and saudis in Persian Sea and elsewhere HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

–EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The expected plague of socks and meats (advocating for the Persian side) has yet to appear. The best way to close this might be with some advice to User:Basp1, to carefully follow our sourcing rules before making further changes at Arabian Sea. Basp1 was notified of this thread but hasn't responded yet. Some issues with their edits were pointed out by User:Tamzin previously at User talk:Basp1#Reliable sources and POV-pushing. If Basp1 does not take the advice and continues to revert then this would become a conventional edit-warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Basp1 strikes me as someone who's working in good faith and is at least trying to comply with NPOV, but whose main issue is with being able to make edits that conform to Wikipedia style. This doesn't strike me as your run-of-the-mill case of "No, call this body of water my preferred name"; see I had never said it should be called persian sea.no body have the right to change an international recognized name, which is something you don't normally hear in a case like this. I would strongly encourage her to keep her edits to the article's talk page. If there's consensus to add content about "Persian Sea" and other historical alternate names, someone else can make those additions.

P.S. The sentence fragment "POV-pushing by User:Tamzin" was quite startling to see on my initial skim of your post. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an advice might be the best way to close here. The user have been notified previously but I think they didn't grasp the concept of Wiki style and couldn't understand what's wrong with their edits and formatting, perhaps it's a case of a language barrier. But I also find nationalistically motivated editing to be concerning. I'm going with @Tamzin here assuming good faith and will open a new section in the talk page to outline why the cited sources are unreliable hopefully they cooperate there. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi . I just want the readers to know what the old names of this sea were. It is everyone's right to know. Nothing should be censored. What you are doing is [242] destructive. Of course, this is mostly due to the language barriers and problem. According to the books: "The Persian Gulf throughout history page 6 -7 by Dr Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh [243] , "The Persian Gulf, from Ancient Times until Today". and "The History of Shipping in Iran" page42 by Ahmad Eghtedari and "Documents on the Persian Gulf's name facts pages 58-84 [244], [245]

and other scholar :"old Arabic and Persian books have used the Persian Sea. they did not used the term "Arabian Sea" Arabian sea appeared in the European maps of 17 century" most probably 1737. I don't know how much (Contemporary Nomad] had knowledge of the subject and why he insist not accept the references to the recent articles by famous scholars and old text even I referred him the original old text for example Abu'l-Fida,pages 26- 27 [246] ,Zakariya al-Qazwini, Al-Masudi [247] ,Ibn Hawqal [248].

(Hafiz-i Abru).[249] the Arabic text and you can not understand that text with Google translate , for example, this link is the text of the book Abu'l-Fida [250] you should type the word بحر فارس (persian sea) or Arabian sea بحر عرب and search for the words Persian Sea and Arab Sea in the text of the books . But unfortunately you do not do this and you say that the sources are not reliable. What source can I bring better than the text of the original book itself?. revert of my edits with the references is not fair. you can just remove any part that you think is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• there are many mistake in the page I am trying to add necessary information.according to hundreds of books and documents previous name of Arabian sea was persian sea but there is no even a single mention of the name persian sea in all the article. for example look at reference (8) in the alternative name:"

...Erythraean Sea, this reference itself is a prove of the persian sea look at para No 34- 35 . why he don't want to mention it. somebody should look at references in historical names [251] and add the what is necessary in historical names and maps. at the moment article lack necessary information and has some misleading information revers of my edits and reliable resources are against the policy and the aims of wikipedi . 00:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC) 01:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

User:Fullomayo

User:Fullomayo has repeatedly deleted the Controversies section from the page Isa Ali Pantami without reason or by citing "libel;" however, they do not point out what is potentially libelous, edit the section, or communicate your issues with the section; instead just deleting it while refusing to respond to inquiries on their rationale on either their talk page or the page's talk page. Isa Ali Pantami appears to be the only page the account has ever edited, and only in a positive light, adding a laundry list of achievements and deleting well-sourced content that could be viewed negatively. Due to the reasonless edits, unresponsiveness, and potential conflict of interest or undisclosed financial stake, I ask that you decide if Fullomayo be suspended from editing the Isa Ali Pantami page and/or the page be protected (as a brand new account just added a bit of positive news - to be clear, I'm not saying that the account is Fullomayo's). Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fullomayo. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have continued to edit because I noticed an editor continues to add unproven allegations to the page of Isa Ali Ibrahim to the extent that the additions seem to defeat the purposes for an autobiography of a living person. This is demonstrated by writing an unproven allegation section that was retracted by the tabloid as the major content of the autobiography. The guidelines stipulates that potentially libelous content or fake news be avoided to prevent defamation of character. I have repeatedly edited to provide an objective summary, however there seems to be a false propaganda narrative by User: Watercheetah99 and some other users to drive a propaganda against a living person. I have previously engaged Dewritech and WikiDan61 of which we agreed an article is a mere highlight of a persons life and not every achievement or controversy the person has ever had in his life. I hereby report that users should be refrained from adding potentially libelous content or unproven allegations that defames the character of a living person and adds no value to readers or the article and or biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullomayo (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fullomayo, please point out an example of defamation. It has been weeks now and you have never once pointed out the defamation so someone could fix it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics

This really needs resolving, and previous attempts to do so has not resulted in sanctions or changes to the editor's behaviour.

- Amigao is aggressively policing and edit warring on topics related to China over a long term period. He has a very persistent tendency of firstly doctoring articles towards a negative point of view, and then policing and reverting anyone who attempts to alter these particular changes or balance them. He subsequently slaps warnings and accuses those who disagree with his edits of bad faith behaviour and reports accordingly, framing them as vandals in order to get the upper hand [252] [253]

See for example here, this is just one of many many reverts he has made against me on this specific article [254]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Two additional reverts just now to bring into consideration, meaning he has now reverted me three times in 24 hours: [255] [256]- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Further Evidence

• [257]
• [258]
• [259]
• [260]
• [261]
• [262]
• [263]
• [264]
• [265]
• [266]
• [267]
• [268] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland Renaissance (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering if I should even bother saying something, I gave up on warring with Amigao some time ago. His belligerent edit tactics just overwhelms my capacity as a casual editor to follow up. IMHO, he is clearly furthering a WP:POV, without bothering to calm down and discuss any controversial edits. For my own sake, my quarrel was with removing CGTN references without even bothering to look for alternative sources. Quashing propaganda sources is IMHO an important job, but the way he goes about it is not particularly constructive. BFG (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Amigao deserves a barnstar, or several, for quashing propaganda sources! Bravo Amigao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.251.178 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Inappropriate comment by anon struck out. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Whilst removing deprecated sources is acceptable, there is no consensus that the sources user:Amigao are removing are totally deprecated. Indeed in the diffs, some of these references were used in an explicitly SELFSOURCE context. I'd suggest that Amigao could benefit from taking some due care in interpreting the context of the sources before removing them, and to behave in a more collegial fashion. Certainly some of the edits made by Amigao are better treated by BRD [269] - this one for instance, is not automatically an antisemitic canard, and the lack of good faith taken when reverting that edit was alarming. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

case of COI, SPI and UPE.

I request Admins over here to kindly check the relisted section over HERE, as it shows that user owlf having a clear COI with Prakash Neupane as he seems asking help in the screen recordings to revert edit by an ADMIN on the facebook group, and user OWLF Re-created the page Prakash Neupane after 4 different discussion, and his behavior since I had AFDed the page was weird as first his account started deleting afd tags from the page Prakash neupane see This and This,

and since he has a clear COI in some facebook group see | screen recording 1 here and | screen recording 2 here thats why I presume out of nowhere this user closed the afd of Prakash Neupane which s/he reverted after an admin asked him or her to do so see Here

also I had open a SPI which got closed by stating that its irrelevant by a SPI clerk where I saw User:SS49 and user:owlf interaction timeline where they clearly seems to be working under some farm, I request some Admin over here to have a look on the mess going around here,

I apologies if I am wrong but I presume there is some big paid farm going out there which is worth having a look at.

after watching the screen recording by a user on HERE I connected all these dots and it does indicates towards some serious shit going around. I also have some more evidance which I will only share once an admin pings me so that they can instantly see it as a proof that Prakash neupane page is being involved into some paid farm and puffery. Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well about SPI the user had already filed it before and he had mentioned it before and being a Nepali Wikipedian I've created many actors, musicians, politicians, movie-related articles and has contributed to many articles. Just wanted to clarify here that I edit and care about Wikipedia and I don't look after who did what outside Wikipedia. If any admin wants to ask anything else feel free and about COI I'm not involved. Owlf (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) OP blocked 31 hours for harassment. This is their fourth or fifth WP:FORUMSHOPPING request for sanctions against editors they disagree with at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (4th nomination) after being warned repeatedly to knock it off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• I stand behind my close – it was retaliatory nonsense and these two are clearly not the same person. The orbit of this case is ripe with COI socking and joe jobbing. Speaking of, I find it curious that the videos the OP linked show upwork as one of just three browser bookmarks and that the person who recorded it seems to be running Avira for Android judging by the logo in the status bar – that one comes with a free VPN. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Sir I want to tell you that the notification icon is of "Avira Antivirus" that keeps running in the background and not the "Avira VPN". You can confirm that by installing both the apps. The vpn app does not have any icon for the top bar. And I know using vpn is again the wikipedia rules. And regarding upwork, it is not a bookmark, it is an app icon on the launcher screen of phone. I request you to watch the video again. Thanks. JAHANZAIBARIF|talk — Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India

User:Ahm Imran Shah is continuously vandalising the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (among other pages) despite me notifying him that his edits are unsourced and disruptive. I think he should be blocked, Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced claims. UserNumber (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@UserNumber: You have not discussed this with the user – their user talk page is empty, without even a welcome or any attempt at an explanation of why edits need to be sourced. You have explained (very briefly) in (some of) your edit summaries why you reverted their edits, but you can't take it for granted that a brand new editor will read the edit summary and understand what "unsourced" refers to. Adding unsourced information in good faith is not vandalism, and they have not exactly been working at lightning speed – they have all of three edits with at least 10 days between each edit, to that article. Finally, you are required to notify editors on their user talk page when you start a discussion about them on this page. There is a bright yellow note at the top of the edit window explaining this, and how to do it. --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

FTR, I have posted a welcome notice to their user talk page with information about the verifiability policy. --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IP user

A user editing through at least one or more IP addresses apparently wrote inappropriate comments on my talk, Special:PageHistory/User talk:87.3.127.86 reverted the warning I post on their talk and continues to communicate inappropriately in Italian. I used google translate to see what the comments were and it seemed inappropriate. I continued to place warnings on the user's talk, but the user keeps reverting. Please advise? 54nd60x (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP is free to remove comments and warnings posted on their talk page - you should not have edit warred to restore. I suggest you drop the matter and let me know if they come back to pester you. I don't think there is enough for a block. GiantSnowman 09:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: the user did it again. The reason I came here isn't mainly because of the removal of warnings, but with the harsh comments they keep making. 54nd60x (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

They keep calling you an "idiot" and asking you to stop posting (per "pissing") on their talk page - they are probably just frustrated at you repeatedly posting on their talk page, I cannot see anything more than that. Please stop posting on their talk page! Like I said, if they continue to pester you elsewhere then let me know and we can take action, but until then, nothing. GiantSnowman 10:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Okay. The user keeps telling administrators to block me, which is annoying. What should I do then? 54nd60x (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll ignore the user for now. 54nd60x (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Blanking the ANI report and making personal attacks at ANI by the IP are not legit. A block may be warranted.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: I agree. Even though the IP may be using harsh language because I keep posting stuff on their talk, I don't know why the IP began harsh language in the first place. I tried asking, but my edit was instantly reverted. 54nd60x (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll or Proverbs 26:4, whatever works for you. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:LTA/SBT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and edit warring by User:Naynay1980

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

---

A new user, Naynay1980, appears to be hounding me. Out of their 76 edits, many of them have been to pages I edit frequently, some of which are not highly-edited pages: LBRY, Minds, Mike Cernovich, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Papagan. If it were just the first three I might not think this was focused around me, since there is sort of a common thread there, but the Adam Papagan AfD is one I stumbled across after becoming involved with Kevin Paffrath, then finding the article about the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, then seeing that this person had an article that did not seem to satisfy our notability criteria. It seems highly unlikely that they just came across it separately.

I will note that they have made some complaints about my behavior at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adam Papagan which are extremely similar to the unfounded ones being made by Special:Contribs/73.248.126.206, who was blocked at 18:51, 28 May 2021 (see the related ANI discussion and NPOVN discussion). The Naynay account was created at 18:14, 27 May 2021 while the dispute was underway, and while the IP had expressed concerns they might be blocked.

Naynay is also edit warring at Minds, and has passed WP:3RR: (4 reverts; see [270]) They are aware of our edit warring policies: [271]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't pass 3RR. I made 2 reverts to a recently added section (added on 5/24) on the basis that the source was being grossly misrepresented. I ceded one point to GorillaWarfare, and the other is being discussed in talk. The Cernovich edit had nothing to do with the user and involved the edit of another editor, so that's another misrepresentation. I've been following the CA governor's election closely and clicked on the candidate articles, noticing the Paffrath deletion nomination earlier as well as the Papagan deletion now. Alternative media platforms are an interest of mine. GorillaWarfare is obviously extremely active and these are hot-button issues with some overlap (politics and alt platforms, whose discussion topics are primarily political), so she can't be shocked a user might cross her path. I deny any accusations of intentional hounding.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Initial edit; revert 1; revert 2; revert 3; revert 4. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are separate edits and separate questions, you can't cast them all as undo/reverts. I only did a general revert on 2 occasions, and am awaiting input of you and others on talk.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. You undid other editors' edits four times. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

3RR concerns the reversions of the same edit, which this wasn't. If I revert or change 3 separate ideas on the same or different articles, that's not 3RR or warring. That's a good-faith attempt to edit and happens all day long on this site.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Again: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It would not be 3RR across separate articles, but there is one article involved here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It was new material that was added to the article all by one user (you) on 5/24 and thus not consensus. If it was also there at some point well in the past, that fact was unknowable. Thus, you changed the article very recently without consensus and I reverted it for a talk discussion we're having now, so that's not 3RR. I ceded one point before 3RR was reached, and we are discussing the others.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it's unknowable? Page history is completely visible and you can check that the statement about far-right users and content has been there since at least November 2020; feel free to check further back if you like. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this when it's clear you are edit warring and hounding me; I will wait for an uninvolved admin to weigh in now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The new content was all added in a flurry of your edits on 5/24, and there were no significant edits since. That's new content inserted without consensus, it's not 3RR to remove it, and it was grossly misrepresenting sources which has been proven (and admitted by you, that it was an error and should not have been posted in the first place) and is being discussed on talk now, yet you're rushing for a sanction/ban. You didn't point out the content had been there at some point in the past until the reversions had already occurred, and the onus can't be on me to compare hundreds of past edits and figure out that something used to be there.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

5/24 of this year...? There were no edits to the page on 5/24/2021: [272]. That is also not an accurate representation of the discussion on the talk page, and both myself and MrOllie pointed you to the talk page discussion and the fact that this was status quo in our first reverts of you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Naynay1980, 1) Everything you've been trying to remove is older than 5/24. Show diffs if you can establish otherwise. 2) Even if it was new content, that does not provide an exception to 3RR. 3) You are substantially misrepresenting the content of the talk page discussion. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your point #3, quoting from GorillaWarfare: For that matter, where in the previous version (which I agree is not well representing that source) were Trump supporters mentioned? Regarding #1, I misspoke, the changes were actually made today not 5/24, which is easily verifiable by looking at the history Minds. Regarding #2, I've been told by longtime editors on WP countless times that new content needs consensus, to 'take it to talk,' and they revert it as many times as they want before that occurs.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the singular sentence that was sourced to The Guardian, and you are quoting me out of context that would make that clear. You were reverting substantially more than that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There was an entire paragraph based on that source; maybe one sentence, I'd have to look back, but it was a very long one. That was the largest piece of content that was reverted, and again, even if wasn't erroneous, which it was and you admit it was, it was new content without consensus. It's not at all out of context, it's precisely in context. You are referring to the Guardian source and paragraph it's based on, which was the primary reversion in question. One of the other edits was not a reversion and involved moving text to a different section. Naynay1980 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do look back, because as two of us have explained, you are wrong. There was a singular sentence sourced to The Guardian in the article body and it was not new. You were warring to remove content from the lead, remove the one sentence sourced to The Guardian, and remove a sentence sourced to the New York Times. I agreed that one Guardian sentence should be changed (not the source removed), but that should have been established in discussion and not through an edit war. The lead sentence that you were warring over I have already explained has been in the article for a long time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting on multiple levels. First, I never warred about the lead, after 1 reversion I simply broke it up into 2 paragraphs and kept the text, which I'd be happy to discuss in talk. Second, the Guardian section was a paragraph (perhaps a long multi-clause sentence that resembled a paragraph) and a substantial section on its own, you admitted it was wrong and misrepresentation of the source. I didn't remove the NYT section characterizing the users, I simply moved it down to the user section where I still believe it belongs but won't war over it. I did remove your 'preponderance' language (which you put back) because the sources didn't say or establish a preponderance. Thirdly, I asked you to take it to talk before you insisted on your new, non-consensus edits that appeared to all be added today, yet you reported me here before we were able to get into a discussion.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Naynay1980: Even if, for a moment, we set aside the edit warring issue, your account is two days old and you have managed to find yourself essentially following GW around a number of rather disconnected areas of the encyclopedia. Unless you can answer for why and/or commit to finding something else to do with your time, I'd be inclined to proceed with administrative action on the hounding issue alone. Go Phightins! 22:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll commit to not hounding GorillaWarfare and will continue to only make good-faith edits and respect talk consensus. Unless there's yet more overlap on editing interests other than the election in question and alt social/video platforms (which is one of my primary interests), I doubt we'll run into each other anytime soon.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason." (emphasis mine) Terjen (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, Per GW's opening statement, while several of the articles are related and one might perceive a legitimate content dispute—or at least discussion of article content—behavior at the AFD would suggest this goes beyond that? Go Phightins! 23:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There absolutely is a constructive dispute, which GorillaWarfare herself admitted to, and I have allowed her new, corrected version to stand. No, you can see my specific concerns at the AfD, which I retracted (on GorillaWarfare's request, which said the talk page wasn't appropriate venue) and may or may not bring up in ANI. I do believe that tagging multiple candidate articles in the same gubernatorial election is concern for there being canvassing. There's no abuse there, and these aren't aspersions; GorillaWarfare tagged 7-8 users as either canvassed or potentially illegitimate in the Paffrath AfD with no penalty. If one editor can express concern based on a perceived trend or indicator, so can another.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was one sentence with an issue; the edit war was over substantially more content than that and as yet has not been explained.

I'd be happy to go into an explanation of the Paffrath dispute but I am still awaiting your promised discussion if you still intend to open it. However I maintain that it is bizarre that you are so familiar with a dispute that predates your account, and is almost exactly continuing the complaints of the user who was blocked so recently that the discussion has not yet been archived from ANI.

You are also demonstrating the same pattern of making small tweaks to your edits after saving the initial version, which is somewhat unusual in new editors and was also an issue with the IP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have a tendency to make one-off edits separately, but you yourself have been making tweaks to your comments on this discussion, which has interrupted my writing and caused me to make formatting errors. I am following the highly publicized, hot-button election, and there aren't many candidates with articles, two of which you've either nominated for deletion or made substantial effort that promoted the deletion cause. Regarding your continued misrepresentations of the Minds article, which I answered in the thread above, the Guardian section was the largest piece of content in question and the only one that really involved reversions. The other edits involved changing words or moving text from one section to another, and you materially got your way with all of them so far other than your erroneous Guardian paragraph.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Naynay1980 If you read GorillaWarfare's explanation at the Paffrath AfD, you'll see why she proceeded the way she did. She became aware of off-wiki canvassing via Twitter and then she tagged editors whose first edits were to an AFD discussion so that a closing admin would consider that context when assessing the consensus. That's appropriate scrutiny since most editors don't stumble on administrative areas such as AFD as their first edits. What your comment at the other AFD did is to cast an aspersion about political bias which was unfounded and is consistent with the pattern of hounding GorillaWarfare identified earlier in this thread. As I stated before, while you are welcome to edit constructively in areas of the encyclopedia that you choose, you are advised to find other articles to work on and avoid edits that give the appearance of hounding. Please do consider this thread an official warning per WP:HOUNDING and Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking_for_harassment that your recent edits have been reported as and deemed to be consistent with hounding GorillaWarfare, and any future incidents should be considered in that context. As to the edit warring issue, it appears from above that you are aware of WP:3RR and its implications and should limit your edits on relevant pages to working to establish consensus on talk pages as appropriate. Note that casting aspersions about other editors almost invariably violates our pillar that editors assume good faith about other editors. I'll employ that principle here and assume that there won't be future incidents in this area. Go Phightins! 23:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Regarding the AfD, I did retract it, and I wrote the original with a question mark, did not make accusations, and welcomed an explanation from the user. GorillaWarfare had her reasons for tagging users as canvassed or having a personal agenda/one-issue interest. I believe I also had my reasons: to me, an editor working towards the deletion of not one but two candidates in the same election is cause for concern, which I expressed, though not necessarily proof of malfeasance, which I acknowledged. I can't at all guarantee I won't run into GorillaWarfare again considering how prolific she is and how varied her editing topics, but it in all exceeding likelihood won't be in areas other than these (major political events such as this, alternative platforms/content moderation and figures relating to such), barring some major coincidence.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

So your commitment is not to hound GorillaWarfare in any area except those where you have already and any articles that might possibly be related to those topics or politics as well as anywhere else that might coincidentally lead to an interaction? I don't think that really is going to cut it ... I would suggest, instead, that you consider self-imposing a one-way interaction ban where, if you come onto an article that you see GorillaWarfare has been active in editing, your presumption is not to work on that particular article. The bottom line is that this thread is a warning relating to hounding, and GW is welcome to report additional instances that may occur in the future. If and when she does, escalating blocks can and likely will be used to enforce our policy against hounding and harassment. Go Phightins! 23:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:Pc031985, Naynay1980, you should really stop with this douchebaggery. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I endorse this block. If it wasn't that I had to drive home from a pizzeria, I would have blocked myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

New user acting like Poland date-changing vandal

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

---

• Laura7001 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 37.248.210.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland

Newly registered user Laura7001 is doing the same vandalism on the same music articles that had been attacked by the Poland date-changing vandal. One minute after Poland IP 37.248.210.197 vandalized an article, Laura7001 jumped in to restore the vandalism as their first-ever edit.[273] Laura7001 had already been vandalizing French-language Wikipedia in the same manner,[274] such that they got blocked today.[275] Can we do the same thing? Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. We're done here. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Editing Khazars and ARBPIA3

• Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BasedMises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alwaysasn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry lies under ARBPIA3 sanctions. My query has several aspects. In my view the recent editwarring there does not revolve around a content dispute, but a refusal to engage with serious questions about evidence assessment, WP:RS while tagteaming to revert with little focused talk page explanation (See here).

Without wishing to assert Ownership, I did write most of the Khazars article and the relevant sections of this page dealing with both its antisemitic uses and the conspiracy spun from it by fringe lunatic figures in the Ku Klux Klan and othe racist groups. I.e. I trawled through scores of scholarly texts on the topic, which survey the idea’s rise, and credibility. In this academic literature, the idea that it is intrinsically antisemitic or a conspiracy theory is rare, except to note its occasional abuse. Most scholars evaluate it as improbable. Most scholars who have taken it as worthy of scrutiny are of Jewish background, and are neither underwriters of antisemitism nor conspiracy theories. According to two new editors of this page, it is conspiratorial and anti-Semitic to its core.

User:BasedMises on 12 May (2 days into the present I/P crisis), rarely steps out of his field of economics (user page). He provided 5 sources reacting to a tweet on Twitter by an obscure Qatari figure, Ghada Oueiss, on 22 August 2019 that the Jews qua Khazars were intruders in the Holy Land, as proof that the idea in itself is a conspiracy theory. 3 are brief echoes of a report responding to this tweet in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The fifth is from Steven Plaut, a deceased Israeli economist who was convicted of libel (lying) in an Israeli court and who was permabanned for sockpuppetry (User:Runtshit) on wikipedia. Just to give one an idea of the quality of the evidence used to justify this distortion of the record.

A virtually inactive account,User:Alwaysasn registered in 2011, and making just 13 edits in 10 years , was reactivated on 21 May to back up BasedMises’ claim that was a ‘conspiracy theory’.

My question is, can Alwaysasn edit an article that falls under ARBPIA3 guidelines (requiring 500 edits). When I raised this with User:Doug Weller, Alwaysasn replied that the specific header states that the ban extends only to an (undefined) portion of the page, whereas he edited in material that deals not with the I/P conflict but with ‘Jews’. However he admits that he made his edit due to an (unattested) ‘the stark rise in antisemitism . . discredit Jews around the world’ at this particular moment.

Both editors came to the page at the beginning and end of the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. Both editors cited as proof the absurd crack made by an obscure figure in Qatar two years ago. The original source used, the JTA, does not state that the Khazar theory is intrinsically antisemitic or conspiratorial, as the two editors claim. To the contrary the JTA text for 22 August 2020 almost certainly took its remarks from our wiki article as it stood that day, a text that has remained stable for several years:

The theory has been used by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists to discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel. Scholars have discounted the theory

On the 22 August 2019 our text stated (and have continued to state until this recent brouhaha altered it):

The hypothesis has been used at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have genetic ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in anti-Semitic theories

Does this content refer to the 'portion' ARBPIA covers, in which case Alwaysasn shouldn't be editing there, or is his battle to defend Jews against a stark surge in anti-Semitism in the last few weeks nothing at all to do with the contemporary flare-up in the I/P crisis? The JTA article supported by both editors specifically states what Alwasasn denies, i.e. that the the theory is abused to 'discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel'. It falls therefore under ARBPIA3.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry displays this edit notice which clearly states that the article is subject to 500/30 (WP:ECP). To remove doubt, I just applied that protection to the article. It would not be reasonable to argue that a certain portion of the article should be exempt from 500/30—the very fact that there appears to be a dispute indicates that WP:ARBPIA4 applies. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: thanks, but both the edit notice and talk page notice says "A portion of the article Khazar" - I think you added the wrong templates. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Groan, I missed that. I adjusted the edit notice and the talk page notice. @Nishidani: You will need to be more patient as we have to tolerate off-wiki campaigns reaching articles. Focus on knocking off the unreliable sources and pointing out that "No evidence from genome-wide data ..." means the author is claiming no evidence not conspiracy theory. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've shown all the sources are unreliable. I've shown that Behar (2013) is cited for the view that the theory is unscientific and a conspiracy when Behar does no such thing. He confutes an hypothesis advanced by another scientist in his field arguing on technical grounds. He does not anywhere state that his colleague is engaged in pseudo-science. A blip in a tweet and report (then copied 4 times in 1 day) cannot trump scholarship. I can't get any answers from the two editors: one doesn't respond, the other merely says my queries or analyses are all ad hominem, and he has newspaper snippets about an incident in Qatar in 2019 which call the theory anti-Semitic and a con spiracy. Obviously neither of them have trou8bled to read the relevant articles, where all of these aspects as they are analysed iin numerous scholarly studies, are thoroughly covered. It's therefore a behavioural problem (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and evidence of lack of experience as to what constitutes WP:RS. etc. People who write articles always have to have immense patience here with passing tweakers who have an opinion based on some tabloid, and who lack the patrience or curiosity to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the topic. Sorry for the tirade. But the situation there is farcical. It is even pointless asking me to be patient when one has a numbers game with two blow-ins to the topic trumping any argument since that numerical 'majority' established the consensus. So the bullshit will stick, and the WP:BLP smear it contains by direct implication is that a ranking geneticist Eran Elhaik is a pseudoscientist by definition, since he tried to justify a theory that comes under that formulation. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Exercising the patience advised above, I dropped a note on User:Alwaysasn's page, suggesting they take the contested sources to RSN. Their response was an inflammatory insult, interpreting my remarks as ‘antisemitic gaslighting’. They have since refused to strike this personal smear as I have requested. This nonsense has already wasted 3 hours in a busy life. Surely one cannot get away with that as well? Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Perceived legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste)

Per WP:LEGAL, I'm bringing this up here for the proper action to be taken (if any). IP user 2409:4043:2189:5FF7:0:0:2912:50A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what I believe to be a legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste) in this diff while requesting for two terms to be entirely removed from an extended-protected article. (Otherwise we will be binding on the court to resort.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty straightforward legal threat on a well-referenced topic. /64 range blocked for two weeks. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User:EndRacismNow2021

User:EndRacismNow2021 is a new account. At Talk:South China Morning Post they are railing against western media sources and accusing Wikipedia of sinophobia. After I politely directed them to the page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so that they can see that sources such as The New York Times are considered suitable for use on Wikipedia, they have been attacking me with no basis (suggesting I have said things that I have not): [276], [277]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, responds to constructive attempts to help with hostility and personal attacks. Citobun (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've warned them. Let's see if there's any positive response. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The username doesn't make me optimistic. — Ched (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruption on the Mount Nemrut page

There's a long-term campaign going on aimed at shoving the word "Armenian" into the Mount Nemrut page, in spite of the majority WP:RS and the UNESCO entry,[278] which don't mention the word "Armenian" even once, and only mention Greek and Persian/Iranian. Every time, as soon at the page protection expires, the IP hopper/LTA shows up again, completely ignoring a few dozen of Wikipedia guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, more importantly, is the word "Armenian" mentioned in the two books that source that sentence? If not, then the IP is wrong. But that's the place to look. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the sources say;

"In the first century BC, Antiochos I, son of Mithradates Kallinikos and the Seleucid princess Laodike, ruled over the Iranian and Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene. It is Antiochos I who was mainly responsible for the establishment of an intriguing form of Greco-lranian religious idiosyncrasy. 56 This featured an impressive pantheon that in its final shape boasted: Zeus-Oromasdes; Apollo-Mithra-Helios-Hermes; Artagnes [ WarBrayn ]- Herakles-Ares; and the goddess Commagene. Antiochos I promulgated its nomos51 and established throughout Commagene a network of major cultic spaces (hierothesia) at Arsameia on the Euphrates, Arsameia on the Nymphaios and Nemrud Dagt, as well as more discreet temene, 58 toward the celebration of the cult of the ancestors and/or the syncretized Irano-Hellenic divinities." - Shayegan, M. Rahim (2016). "The Arsacids and Commagene", page 13, you can find the work here [279]

Gotta admit that the second one is a bit unclear and I should have put a better source (which I easily can), but still, not a single mention of anything Armenian;

"At Arsameia Antiochus built a “hierothesion” dedicated to the dynastic cult, perì patrṓōn daimónōn, for the paternal daímones, and for his own honor (Arsameia Inscr. 1.8.f.). This expression is comparable to the Iranian conception of the fravashis. The original cult was instituted by his father but Antiochus reorganized it and made regulations concerning the days of festival and the duties of the priest responsible for the rites. An inscription from Nimrud Dag ( Dittenberger , Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, I, 383, 1. 54f.) enumerates the deities of the dynastic pantheon. Following the dual tradition of the kingdom, the gods receive both Greek and Iranian names: Antiochus worships Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes, Artagnes-Herakles-Ares, and finally the all-nourishing fatherland of Commagene. These deities are arranged according to the tri-functional system discovered by Dumézil: 1) Ohrmazd ( < Ahura Mazdā) and Mithra representing the religious-juridical function; 2) Artagn ( < Vərəθraγna), the warrior function, and 3) the all-nourishing fatherland, both collective and nourishing function, in this case another symbol for the Iranian Daēnā, the spiritual element in its collective and nourishing function (Nyberg, Widengren)." - ANTIOCHUS OF COMMAGENE, Iranica

Honestly I could post more and more, the vast majority of sources agree that these gods were a mix of Greek and Iranian/Zoroastrian, as was typical in much of the Near East at that time.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Vauxford again

I just recognized that I just put this to AN instead of ANI. I hope it's okay, to move it over here. For the history of the discussion please see history of AN. I'm sorry. Mea Culpa.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose to reconsider lifting the topic ban of Vauxford in January 2021. In the previous weeks I added some of my and some of other users photos over his more or less bad images, since I think they are an obvious improvement (some of them are even featured as QI) for this Wikipedia ([280], [281], [282], [283]). Today he reverted these edits with arguments like Previous was fine, take your blurry mediocre images elsewhere. I think he did't grew up since his topic ban about replacing and adding his own images to articles was lifted in January. IMO he is still defending his images over everything, which is also shown here. Furthermore he still replaces other images by his own, although he was told to stop with this behaviour in March 2021. His defiant behaviour harms here and makes a constructive work impossible.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(I will add more info soon) Firstly Alexander-93, you are not active here. You only drop by dumping your photographs in the articles, most of which are mediocre to say the least. Most importantly you are extremely hypocritical wanting to put a topic ban on me again. The reason why the topic ban was because I was disruptive when self-inserting my own images on 50 different Wikipedias which I stopped doing and focused only my native one. You on the other hand, not so much:

Audi A4 Audi A4 Ferrari 330 Ferrari 330 Audi Q8 Bitter CD Bitter CD Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Hyena

I'm going to repeat what I said on your German talkpage when you tried to stir up trouble towards me:

There is many, MANY more diffs I can show you to prove you are no better then I am. You do the exact same style editing and behaviour, and the fact you pointed fingers at me on my main Wikipedia site for this and made everyone on their scrutinised me. Why aren't people calling your editing a "personal vanity project"? Why aren't people telling you "you're degrading wikipedia with your mediocre photos"? You get NONE of that and you left another user who is very much does the same as you do to suffer. I'm not saying all my edits are justified but it the upmost sheer hypocrisy that you started this ANI to get me put on another topic ban. I had enough people wanting me gone as it is, scapegoating me all the time and removing my photos simply because it is "Vauxfordy". --Vauxford (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I am as active as you are here. And yes, I'm able to communicate in English, so why shouldn't I edit here? Yes, in the past, I also replaced images, which were not so fine - maybe not that much like you did - but I did it in a way that I would say today, was not okay. But I stopped that already at least one year ago. The edits you mentioned above are all from 2019. And some of them are even okay.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander-93 Then what are these? You did all these less than a 1 or 2 months ago so clearly you haven't stopped your mass adding. --Vauxford (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mazda MX-30, Mazda MX-30,Mazda MX-30, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, Audi Q2, BMW X3, Citroen C4 Cactus. Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf.

Disputes like this just make me feel that we would be better off without images altogether. They are nearly all original research and what image we include in an article often just depends on who can muster the most supporters for "their" image. Do they exist for the benefit of readers, or are they more to stroke the egos of photographers, who are now just about anyone with a mobile phone? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh and don't forget his editing history, some are which were from less than 2 months ago! Ukraine, WikiData, Japanese, Polish, Finnish, French, Arabic or though he hasn't touched that one for about 6 months, Russian. To put it straight forward, I am not innocent but at least I quit the disruptive habit that got me a topic ban, if you look at my edit history on the Wikipedias I mentioned they will be quite a few from 2020-2018, there is one from May 2021 on one or two of them because I reverted a 7 Series image which Alexander mass added at some point. I apologise for my passive-aggressive edit summary on the recent edits he stated above but I'm truly sick and tired with this situation and want it to end. What peeves me off greatly is the fact Alexander-93 continues to do this with little to no repercussions, nobody telling him off or reverting his edits. Why is he able to get away with the same shtick that got me into hot water? Please someone answer this because I been waiting for one for the past 2 or 3 years! --Vauxford (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The edits mentioned above aren't disruptive in my opinion. If I'm adding a image to a Wikipedia, where it is "needed", since it's the first which was uploaded, it's an obvious improvement. And yes, that's what I'm doing still sometimes. And sometimes I'm replacing a bad image (e.g. in case of the MX-30). But I think that's something different compared to what this thread is about: Reverting obvious improvements and replacing an image by another although there are just minor differences.--Alexander-93 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What you been doing is one of the reasons why I got the topic ban, my reasons were the same as yours. The person who created the ANI which lead to my topic ban proposal pointed this out and people were not pleased with it. So why hasn't anybody pointed that out about you? That is what I'm trying to get across. --Vauxford (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted some of Vauxford's recent changes (at Kia Stonic and Audi Q8), as Alexander 93's pictures were clearly better. Vauxford responded exactly like he did before his ban, by reinstating his pictures and being generally abrasive. I am unsure if I have removed any of Alexander's pictures recently but I don't remember ever having to have long boring arguments with him. And while this is not a competition in "who can have the most pictures used", I completely understand replacing pictures when one takes an objectively and clearly better photo. There is no defacto ban on putting pictures up in different languages, the problem is how and why it is done.

I, too, am heartily tired of this nonsense and I don't see much blame (if any) landing at Alexander's door.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr.choppers I might've been harsh with my edit summary and I'm sorry for that, as you mentioned I am simply drained from of all of this. At least try and see my frustration over this user who is very similar to or formerly similar to me and not gotten any backlash from it, wouldn't you find that frustrating? Imagine two users who both acted and behaved badly, one get the telling off and the other doesn't, that what I'm trying to point out with evidence. --Vauxford (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I just clicked one of the links you provided above at random (French Mazda MX-30), and Alexander-93's picture is a clear and undisputable improvement over what was there before. I notice his edits, but I almost never feel that he is reinstating his own photos just because they are his, or replacing existing photos that are not undisputably of a higher quality. He does what he does without annoying people, and when others revert him he generally responds calmly if at all.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr.choppers I don't understand, type in his username in the VisualFileChanger and you see that they are not "undisputably of a higher quality". This is the exact same type of a so-called "vanity project" that Charles01 pointed out. There is strong evidence that he is reinstating his own image on as many Wikipedia page as he could simply because they are his, that was my motive before the topic ban and I reflected for two years why that not a good thing to do. I don't annoy people on other Wikipedias and I do respond calmly if one gets reverted. Once again, I apologise for my outburst with today's reverts, both to you and Alexander. However, he continues doing that and nobody has told him off or warned him. --Vauxford (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

General comment re images @Alexander-93 and Vauxford: - the main consideration for which image goes in an article is quality. Who took the image, or uploaded it to Commons/Wikipedia counts for absolutely nothing. It an image of yours does get used, count it as a bonus. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep @Mjroots: that's what I'm doing - or at least trying to do. I'm trying to add the best available images to an article. And if an image is not that perfect, but the very first in its category, I'm adding it too. And if there is a more suitable image of another user or also of me uploaded later, I'm totally fine, if it gets replaced (by whoever). But in the case I described above, Vauxford didn't behave like that. And that's what the people criticized even before he was topic banned. I added obviously better images to some articles, but he didn't care about the quality. If it would have been the other way round (e.g. the image of the blue Kia Stonic from me and the image of the yellow Kia Stonic from him), he would have been probably the very first who changed them. And that would have been totally okay, since it's an obvious improvment. But since his image got replaced, re reacted (at least in my opinion) defiant. And that's a behaviour that doesn't bring us forward.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of the diffs provided are to Wikipedias in other languages or Wikidata. We can only consider any alleged diruption that takes place at en-Wiki. What happens elsewhere is a matter for those other Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander-93 It the same exact reason why I add mine, I do care about quality. I will say this again, I shouldn't of acted the way I did yesterday with the reverts and I ensure you this does not reflect who I am today, for the past months I been keeping my frustration to myself because of your style of mass adding your photos, there was many times that I was close to create an ANI about you but held back since I thought it would do more harm than good.

Quite frankly Alexander, if you take a look at the photos you taken carefully, they have several problems with them, you appear to take cues from me when it comes to angles and where they are etc but 80% of the time you always mess up the focus and colour. They are always washed out and the balance is all messed up, the angle is always skewed and the vehicle itself is often blurry, and that is the reason why I reverted those edits, especially the Up! GTI because of it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to point to a comment made by User:Johannes in the January discussion which lifted Vauxford's topic ban:

I believe that Vauxford has had some time to figure why his behaviour was considered disruptive; in case he did not figure this, the tban can be reimposed.

I think it's quite possible that we're at that place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I fully understand why you oppose the original topic ban lifting but you can see above my reasoning as clearly as I am able to make it, I don't believe my actions are a repeat of the past but rather seeking for the best quality images that are available from Wikimedia. Ever since the topic ban lifted, this is the only incident that happened here and I strongly regretted the action I did with the reverts and edit summary. --Vauxford (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, we had the long-running Charles01/Vauxford dispute, and, now that you've been unbanned for 4 months, we have the Alexander-93/Vauxford dispute. It's obvious what the common factor is. If your response was one that any other editor concerned about image quality would do, why is it that no one else did it but you? (If someone else did, they would be pertinent information, but you haven't mentioned any such instance.) It seems to me that there's still a problem that needs to be addressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I can't remember how many times car pictures have come to the drama boards, but it's definitely too many. Why not try a slightly innovative solution, since the usual don't seem to have worked so far. These two users (Vauxford and Alexander-93) could be forbidden to insert their own images into any automotive article, but be free to insert anyone else's ~ indeed, even encouraged to find those of the best quality and do so, even if they are each others'. They would still be able to create all the images they wanted, and upload them to Commons, and while they're on Commons, look for excellent images that aren't theirs to improve articles. Might it stop them picking on each other? Who knows, but it might be worth trying as a way to stop these regular ANI visits; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User FatemehKhalili copying other user accounts

I'm not entirely sure how to address this, or if it's considered a problematic behaviour at all, but user User:FatemehKhalili has copied my user page into their own. I don't think they are impersonating me, precisely, but the fact that all the content of my page now shows up on theirs is somewhat disturbing. Additionally, they are a disruptive editor, as can be seen on their talk page, and this just seems to exacerbate the issue. Please let me know what should be done. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

When you asked them about this, what did they say? --Jayron32 16:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, almost all elements of my userpage were shamelessly jacked from other people's pages. Now, I didn't copy mine wholesale from someone else and did note attribution where applicable, but borrowing a page is hardly a crime. Otherwise, edits aren't great, but more than anything they could use some helpful advice that isn't just templates. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, they used the formatting and layout and some of the same phrasing, but it seems more like they were using it as a template than ripping it off. For example, on yours it says "Hello, my name is David, welcome to my page 😄" and on theirs it says "Hello, my name is Fatemeh, welcome to my page 😄". Doesn't look like bad faith, but it does certainly seem a little gauche. jp×g 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Some LTA block report

Hey, Sammi Brie has started an LTA page for Mexican media image vandals called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal. So here you go:

• Edits entirely via IP addresses in the 187.232.x.x and 187.233.x.x ranges and more recently in IPv6.

IPv4

• User:187.232.1.253
• User:187.232.35.38
• User:187.232.49.16
• User:187.232.69.113
• User:187.232.81.85
• User:187.232.88.111
• User:187.232.96.64
• User:187.232.115.127
• User:187.232.120.237

• User:187.233.98.89
• User:187.233.139.53

IPv6

• User:2806:103e:2:55cc:4153:ce01:3252:5227
• User:2806:103e:2:55cc:39cd:6b4e:cf89:a7b8
• User:2806:103e:2:b8de:7d40:2995:8454:5234

Block them all since the LTA page still says Present in the Wikilifespan. Just in case, some of these dynamic IPs are inactive, but still needs to be blocked so they won't go active again. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 03:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The contributions overall for 187.232.*.* and 187.233.*.* are huge ranges that show really minimal activity, only a few edits a month. They don't all seem to be this user, either.

The IPv6 range is covered by 2806:103E:2:0:0:0:0:0/48 and does appear to be consistently this user, but i'm still struggling to see what it is about this user that's so disruptive that it requires an LTA page and preventative blocks. There really isn't much activity. ~ mazca ^talk 10:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There have only been a handful of edits from the last half year. Plus, their disruption has been mild. If anything, this seems like a below-average sockpuppeting and vandalism case; it's not what I'd consider long-term abuse-worthy. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: As the administrator who is the most active with addressing LTA, what do you make of this? To me, this doesn't even come close to warranting a LTA abuse page, as the editor has only been scarcely active, hasn't lashed out at anyone and will once in a blue moon make an identical edit to a tiny pool of pages. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: I agree and don't see that the new LTA page is helpful because, as stated above, it's infrequent dime-a-dozen stuff. The IPs mentioned are covered by ranges 187.232.0.0/17 + 187.233.0.0/16 + 2806:103e:2::/48. Judging by the number of "Reverted" tags, those IPs are unhelpful. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of IPs in the past but now I think there are too many people amusing themselves with silly editing and Wikipedia needs to deal with the problem more efficiently. However, many editors prefer that a hundred vandals are free to play rather than one innocent IP be blocked—after all, it's someone else's problem. Re the LTA page: it has existed since 27 April 2021 so an WP:MFD would be needed to delete it. Sorry to not be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Nationalistic POV

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

Both users seem to not respect the Wikipedia guidelines, have most probably several accounts on Wikipedia to fullfill their agenda (Assyrian nationalism), remove sourced content without providing any sources and are Personal Attacking other Wikipedia users. Please, see this case, with a lot of information of accounts carrying out their POV since at least 2009 already: [284] Reldex (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Reldex asserts I am a sockpuppet because I reject his restoration of a version of Arameans article that was originally added by a sockpuppet (Special:Diff/971044631), and, after being removed for discussion on the talk page, was restored by another sockpuppet without discussion (Special:Diff/974874117). It is poorly written, mostly unsourced, and poorly sourced and formatted when it does have references. There needs to be consensus for it to be added, not to remain. The article is currently being brigaded, as one can see from the high number of IPs restoring this poor edit, and I have requested page protection. Mugsalot (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Reldex has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. (Non-administrator comment) dudhhr_Contribs 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, actually that's not the reason. I have mentioned all the reasons above in combination with the diff. I have added. You keep claiming that Arameans are part of the Assyrian people however there is no consensus on this topic. You keep removing and replacing the term Aramean even when it is sourced and the sources speak about Arameans. Thereafter you summarize it as (Reverted POV edit; For modern "Arameans" see Assyrian people) [285]. That's not something you can do and especially since you are fullfilling this agenda since 2009 I am concerned about the neutrality and quality regarding these articles. Reldex (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Mugsalot is has gotten into an edit war at List of maphrians:

1. Special:Diff/1025416100
2. Special:Diff/1025429400
3. Special:Diff/1025631620
4. Special:Diff/1025633457
5. Special:Diff/1025633640
6. Special:Diff/1025634216
7. Special:Diff/1025634540
8. Special:Diff/1025634804
9. Special:Diff/1025635272

The other user, Br Ibrahim john (talk · contribs), accused Mugsalot of partisan editing multiple times, such as in Special:Diff/1025634966. This is despite an extensive discussion at Talk:List_of_maphrians#The_Maphrianate_of_the_East_is_not_a_successor_of_the_Church_of_the_East between the two users... which admittedly seems to be just the two users arguing back and forth. A third opinion may be needed from someone familiar with this topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Stalking

The user "SadirahFierg" is almost stalking, rather than he leads to the discussion side of the article (Sri Chinmoy). I asked him to stay from my user side. But he also posts his strange theses on my private side. In this article, some sock dolls were discovered and is regularly operated vandalism.

• Rubric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riquix#I_have_sent_you_a_note_about_a_page_you_started

• Version:

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

Can you end this?--Riquix (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have warned the user to stay off your page, Riquix. Please let me know if they should ignore my warning as well as yours. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC).

Concern regarding User:Jeas116 and suspected related accounts

• Jeas116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jearbne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JESCaales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know these editors haven't edited in a while, but my primary concern regarding all of them relates to persistent inappropriate usage of their Talk page. The only thing that makes me think all 3 are connected is that their contributions include editing each others' sandboxes. Is an admin able to possibly monitor these users for further misuse? Even though I know there was one that had an encounter with at least one of these users. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JalenFolf, thanks for describing the concern. The behavior seems to be pretty harmless. In May 2020, I had blocked Jearbne for a week because they persistently used the "Template" and "User talk" namespaces for experiments that should have been done in sandboxes instead. The user Jeas116 was warned about possibly operating a shared account in March 2016 at User talk:Jeas116 by JBW. If their response was to create separate accounts per person, that would not be sockpuppetry but rather an appropriate response to the account sharing warning. It is also perfectly fine for a group of friends to work on article drafts together.

Feel free to notify me if they continue to use their user talk pages for their experiments; perhaps a partial block can help. The drafting itself, when done in sandboxes, doesn't concern me at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Bsy950707 repeadtly adding controversial category without consensus

Bsy950707 has repeatedly added Category:Genocide perpetrators to Xi Jinping's article. The category is an issue for numerous reasons: 1) its not sourced in the article 2) It's dubious to attribute an entire Genocide to a single individual 3) Huge BLP issues 4) Its WP:NONDEF 5) It just doesn't make sense—why Xi and not the 100s of other members of the CCP? They have resorted to edit warring and have been reverted by myself ([286], [287], [288]), Buidhe ([289]) and CPCEnjoyer ([290] [291]) as well as failed to express anything in the relevant talk page discussion. The article history on dictator appears to have them edit warring (with no sources) as well, now over if Hirohito should be listed as an example. They have now left an edit summary of "So, do youd deny Uyghur genocide?" [292] directed towards me—a comment that is grossly insulting and has, frankly, pissed me off. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor doesn't seem to favor the concept of discussion using a talk page, evidently shown by his ignorance of the article talk page, his own talk page and this noticeboard. I personally do not want any administrative sanctions for Bsy950707, but rather want him to realize that this is a collaborative project and he should respect the consensus instead of attempting to right great wrongs. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that this editor does not seem to understand the collaborative nature of this project (given their refusal to listen to concerns and instead simply reverting edits by others without giving a reason in the edit summary), and they've also not quite participated in any talk page discussion. A partial block from mainspace, until they bother to answer on talk pages, given the disruptive nature of their edits, might be an option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bsy950707: Communication is required. Please take part in the discussion here to address concerns about your editing and how it can be remedied. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

About CMHS Radio Caibarién and our permissions blocked

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 writing here because we are unhappy with the situation on Wikipedia [es] with our CMHS Radio Caibarién article. This article had a neutrality issue and a user flagged this article for removal. We wrote to some bureaucrats to help me with the article and they just deleted it and blocked my permissions to publish. Our account is owned by a local broadcaster but the article was never written with the aim of promoting or publicizing our praise. That the developed article has had a neutrality problem is certainly a problem but I think that it has been very hard with the measure and I think that an article with a historical character, with placed and categorized references, should not have been eliminated but edited with time, duly pointing out the elements that prevent it from maintaining its neutrality and from being part of the educational and historical content that Wikipedia has. None of the bureaucrats have focused on helping nor have they unlocked the permits. I can resubmit the article for evaluation. We hope they don't take it the wrong way and help me with the problem.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Emisoracmhs (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately as this article was on the Spanish Wikipedia, we on the English Wikipedia have no control as to why or how the article was deleted there. This would need to be taken up with the admins on their site. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I send my unhappy situation on the Spanish Wikipedia ? Thanks!

Emisoracmhs (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted, you will need to contact the admins there. If you are blocked, you will have to address that using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your answer. I goint to write to support on Wikipedia. Really we as institution are very unhappy with this situation. Thanks you and the rest of the admins for your answers. Emisoracmhs (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Taichi: - pinging the blocking adminstrator on the Spanish WP. I've left a small (hopefully not too clumsy) message on what appears to be their equivalent of ANI. The block on Spanish WP is for, as you'd have guessed, persistent promotional editing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this is our first publication, we never persistent to do a promotional editing or publishing. We would like to make an article on Wikipedia [ES] and that this article will take a neutral status but it set to delete and blocked our permissions is a action to strong for us.  :( Emisoracmhs (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Emisoracmhs: Again, the Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are separate entities, so your concerns about es.wiki need to be addressed there. I can say that a similar thing would happen if you were to try to create an article here: the article would be flagged because of your obvious conflict of interest, and it would be scrutinized to make sure that the station is notable and that the article is written from a neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. I am an administrator in the Spanish Wikipedia; I have just denied user:Emisoracmhs' request for unblocking. I don't know how you manage here to deal with self-publicity, but in our WP we have decided to deny every one of theses creations and editions ...and we receive a ridiculous amount of them, as you can see here: most of the undeletions asked there are the same kind of autopublicity. This case was exactly the same kind: a single-purpose account with an inappropriate username, editing in a conflict of interest about the broadcasting for which he or she works; the article was correctly erased. The user could have been invited to change his username and even blocked only for editing that particular article, but he clearly showed off that his only purpose in WP was insisting in that article, and even made som kind of lobby trying to find at least one administrator to restore the page. So he was definitively blocked, and that was all.

I am sincerely sorry to read that he feels unhappy, but I can see he misundestood the nature of Wikipedia: we are not a place to publish advertisings for free, we are building an encyclopedia. Have a nice weekend. --Marcelo (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Vietnamese IP's constant edits on UAE national team

There is this Vietnamese IP constantly editing and reverting edits on the UAE national football team article and has been doing so for a year, he's been acting like his edits are final and must always be preserved, whenever anyone tries to change his edits, he'll return to edit it back, he's refusal to corporate with other wikipedia users is pretty rude. He thinks his reasons are valid but they're very subjective like how he believes having a rivalry section is "redundant" or using the term "golden generation" is biased and not nuetral. He only seems to target the UAE national team and no other national team article but states that other articles are badly written despite the fact that I provided him an example of a good article (Croatia national football team) that looks nothing like his ideal style of a national team article. Can we block this user from making too many edits before he starts doing the same stunts to every other national team article?

Here's some examples:

• Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:24C:2CEE:0:0:8E6A:E5A5
• Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:249:6074:0:0:8FDD:D237
• Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:246:2212:0:0:904B:BF34
• Special:Contributions/2402:800:6172:7B05:30BD:E419:81D6:2F5A
• Special:Contributions/2402:800:6173:4B9E:71C8:3DE:A08D:3132

--Badass Flare (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Badass Flare, this is a content dispute and you're both edit warring. Why is there no discussion at Talk:United Arab Emirates national football team? You also failed to notify the IP editor of this post. I could have blocked you both, but I've fully protected the page for a week to give space for dispute resolution. Please involve relevant WikiProjects and noticeboard to reach consensus on the disputed edits. Fences&Windows 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone get IZ041 to engage in discussion?

IZ041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my annotated removal of non-reliable sources on a beauty pageant article [293]. When I asked why, they deleted my question on their talkpage with a single word summary "ridiculous". I think maybe they need help understanding how collaboration works here. Beauty pageants are under discretionary general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly straightforward content dispute. Another source might be https://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/miss_france_genese_d_un_concours_de_beaute_140397 Fences&Windows 16:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:75.115.18.34 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Spamming my talk page with utter nonsense. [294] [295] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, Am I missing something? Reads like good faith questions, even if not your responsibility to answer. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

IMCS231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• 1 Sept 2019 - [296] - first edit ever

• To Khamba Tendal: "Tell me this.....Are you an active participant in global humanity?...or Are you just a guy who likes to read about it and then spout out ill-informed conjecture as if it's fact?"

• Today - [297] - second edit ever

• To Acroterion: "Find a pretty girl that shares your interests and values and work up the nerve to kiss her. If you do I think you'll find much more gratifying ways of filling your time than policing Wikipedia. Should it further serve your ego to anonymously engage users of Wikipedia then feel free to lash out at me in response to this message. I would be happy to berate you if only to make obvious your meak and likely lonely existence."

There's no need for a third edit.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I was out at the market with my wife and the dogs, shopping and having lunch, and missed all this. This reminds me of the animal from Seuss with a very slow nervous system who bites its tail so they will wake up eight hours later when the pain registers. It took two years to get back at me?

In speedier times a rambling talkpage forum post and sniping at the person who removed it and warned them would merit a moderate warning. I eagerly await their response in 2023. Acroterion (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the internet is just really slow where they are? Levivich 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, your comment reminds me of the wonderful science fiction story Light of Other Days that I read as a teenager. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'm so happy that you found that companion who shares your interests! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Useless person blocked indef. I 100% guarantee that warnings will have no effect. Sorry, tolerance for assholes is lower than usual today for some reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• It the "12.75 Years Syndrome", a recognized medical condition. After 12 years and 9 months of editing Wikipedia, one's endocrine system stops manufacturing the hormone that allows one to tolerate assholes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, that frees up 2023. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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

A situation with IP/New account contributor on gun-related articles

Last week I requested page protection on Template:USCWWeapons because of a recent rash of edit warring and hostile edit summaries by a very IP/account-portable contributor who self-reports to be a weapons expert. At 17:24, 26 May 2021‎ admin CambridgeBayWeather applied semi-protection and the template conflict died down immediately. Unfortunately a lot of the contributor's work has been on the weapon articles themselves, articles where fewer users are watching. A clickthrough of page histories of template content pages Brown Bess, Colt 1851 Navy Revolver, Colt Army Model 1860, Spencer repeating rifle, Sharps rifle and other high visibility pages demonstrate that while the contributions are largely positive, there's a pattern of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the edits the contributor is making. The contributor often actively rejects sources and arguments requiring them. (ex:[298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303]) They are the expert; it's entirely possible there's more than one "expert" in this situation. Hostile and aggressive edit summaries seem common with this contributor. I'll point out the condition of the USCWWeapons template linked on 2 July 2020 and the version as of this datestamp. A vast number of these changes are redirects to sections of articles already linked. The template bloat is not an improvement. All this background is intended to call attention to this sockmaster/logged-out contributor who resorts to bullying and cursing in edit summaries when pressed. This evening the contributor is complaining about capitalization (tonight presenting sources) at User talk:Dicklyon. I don't think this is a straight sockpuppetry situation but the constantly changing IPs and new accounts ARE making the situation more unmanageable. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly moving punctuation to incorrect placement despite warning

Tejedora (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly moving punctuation inside quotation marks. Despite been reverted at least six times in the past couple of days, and despite being warned, with explanation on his talkpage , he is persisting. 17 hours after he was usertalk warned, he moved another comma inside quotation marks [304]. Fully one-third of his entire edit history is making these incorrect edits (edit summary is always "Fixed typo") [305], so he needs to be stopped. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing the user hasn't seen your message. Something to do with WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (if I've got the right column, the notification would be there but so incidental they might not see it). This edit 9 years is not an indication they know how to navigate user talk pages with intentionality or that they would notice another person's message there. Since that seems to be their only non-mainspace edit and {{User gender}} is null for them, I don't know how you know the account is owned by a man. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I've always put punctuation inside of quotation marks so I was surprised to see this here, and I'm usually pretty adept at reading technical documentation but I went cross-eyed reading a 5,600 word essay on a comma preference. Is this covered concisely by a proper style guide? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know where the supposed consensus the essay alludes took place exactly, since this essay is the first I'm seeing about this issue. Also why is it in an obscure essay and not, say, the MOS? - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LQ Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also grew up with punctuation going inside of quotations, but LQ makes a lot of sense. Certainly when editors deliberately choose to take the option of putting punctuation outside of the quotation marks, their choice should not be overridden by another editor (and vice versa). LQ is not mandatory, it simply offers an optional choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We have to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Wikipedia does not use (the fairly ridiculous, and I say that as an American) U.S. punctuation style. That's why Wikipedia uses MOS:LQ, which by the way reflects most of the world's usage. It is mandatory if it either already exists that way in an article or if anyone corrects an article to abide by it. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Siddha Yoga

An IP is continually edit warring at Siddha Yoga to promote a "Controversy" section to the top of the article. It's been going on for weeks now and needs to stop, so I think somebody should take a look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the controversy section entirely. Other than the obvious point that the controversy section belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top, these sources are not sufficient for these sorts of claims. The allegations of sexual misconduct are not cited to the publications which allegedly printed them, nor are they covered by third-party reliable sources. And since all of the information in this section was added by a single-purpose IP editor, there is clearly a POV issue here as well. This shouldn't be added back until better sources are found. – bradv🍁 01:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Abnormal level of renaming and page moving at P-pop and associated pages

I just noticed some very weird stuff going on at P-pop – lots of moving and renaming by one user (I suggest taking a look at the page history). The P-pop page has experienced vandalism in the past, mainly by confirmed socks of User:Philippinesfan. The page is typically a disambiguation page for various types of pop music that start with "P" (I think Pakistani pop music and Pinoy pop), but socks have liked changing it to an article for Pinoy pop.

Normally, I would just revert the changes and warn the user since consensus is that P-pop is a disambiguation page, but since pages were moved all around, there may be some cleanup / restoring to do that I don't know how to do.

Also, definitely let me know if I should post this somewhere else. Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 01:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As an update, I think many, if not all, of the pages are fixed now! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 02:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to restore the pages to the pre-move version and was getting very confused. It looks like it's cleared up now. Is User:Hyunsukie a sock? If so, I'll be happy to block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: They probably are; previous confirmed Philippinesfan socks have had done similar things (also note the current open report). SkyWarrior 02:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Enough quacking for me (I noticed the other two moves from rejected drafts into article space). Blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Unacceptable personal attacks from administrator Beeblebrox

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.

---

Beeblebrox appears to be on a crusade against zoophiles. Just in the past two days he has nominated Legality of bestiality by country or territory, Claudine de Culam and Hani Miletski for deletion. He has also accused editors of having a conflict of interest simply for editing articles about zoophilia. Obviously, editors who identify as zoophiles might be more interested in editing zoophilia-related articles, just as LGBT editors might be more interested in editing LGBT-related articles. If Beeblebrox had accused LGBT editors of having a conflict of interest, people would see it as homophobia and speak out. But accusing zoophile editors of having a conflict goes unremarked. This is simply another kind of prejudice and bigotry.

Beeblebrox has used very offensive language to refer to zoophiles. He refers to them as "animal rapists". He compares zoophiles to "pedophiles who rape girls". Several of his edit commentaries make it clear that Beeblebrox considers zoophiles "animal rapists" ([306], [307]. [308], [309], [310]. [311], [312]).

It is not illegal to be a zoophile and there is no law, rule, policy, or guideline preventing zoophiles from editing Wikipedia. The kind of language used by Beeblebrox is unacceptable under Wikipedia policies, this site's site Terms of Use, and the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct. Wikipedia editors, even zoophile editors, need to be treated with respect. Zetablocker (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked Zetablocker per WP:NOTHERE. They're clearly not a new user (this ANI report was their second edit, and their two other edits were to a COIN discussion), and the comparisons between bestiality and the LGBT community is clearly just trolling. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Yikes. GW just beat me to the block...wish Twinkle worked on mobile without needing desktop mode :( Beeble has apparently stirred up some nest of undesirables...perhaps he has a clue whose sock this is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @GorillaWarfare. This account might also be ripe for a trip to WP:SPI.

I checked all of the linked diffs. They aren't the calmest comments I've ever seen on wiki, but I think the edits were correct (e.g., removing a court case that had nothing to do with the subject, removing the confusing 'emotional' [rather than sexual] language – there is a difference between someone loving their pets in a normal way and someone wanting to have sex with their pets, removing irrelevant links, etc.). The pro-bestiality POV pushing needs to stop.

@Beeblebrox, as a passing comment, I believe that one of the re-writes of WP:COI a few years ago removed activists and other people promoting their personal beliefs from the COI list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"There is no law, rule, policy, or guideline preventing zoophiles from editing Wikipedia." True enough. There is nothing to prevent such a rule being enacted though, should it be deemed necessary. And, given the blatant falsehoods and partisan spin have been put into Wikipedia content on the subject from those advocating sexual relations with animals self-evidently incapable of giving consent, this might well be the most sensible way to deal with the problem. I would therefore thank Zetablocker for taking the time to create a new account especially to draw attention to this omission in Wikipedia policy. This perhaps isn't the best place to advocate such a change, but the more people who become aware of the way Wikipedia has been misused as a platform for advocacy regarding activities which are either outright illegal or seen as morally repugnant almost everywhere, the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh my, thanks for the quick indef there GW. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user's username refers to Zeta-Verein, a German pro-zoophilia advocacy organisation. I assume this is self-evident, but Beeblebrox deserves all the credit in the world for attempting to remove all the pro-zoophilia content that has been added to Wikipedia over the years by a group of very determined users who use SPAs, sockpuppets, and noticeboards threads to push their agenda. JBchrch talk 22:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed talkpage access as well, since they appear to be trying to abuse their talkpage as a platform for more nonsense - as Andy notes, they've done a service by drawing attention to themselves. The closest policy is WP:CHILDPROTECT, perhaps we need to develop a parallel policy. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What a fun corner of Wikipedia to stumble upon... sigh. Disagree that it's a COI issue, but agree with the block and basically everything else. Yikes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposed Indefinite Block On Kelvinsage1

Kelvinsage1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Has been an editor for five years and has been using Wikipedia for purposes described in what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Their talkpage indicates possible covert undisclosed paid editing since 2016 up until date. They were warned by Praxidicae in January 2020, see here of engaging in upe, of which they denied and claimed they were not collecting financial rewards for article creation, but since January 2020 till now their actions negates their claim as they have created six promotional non notable articles all of which have been deleted, (5 BLP's and one article on an organization). Their most recent article, this was yet again on a non notable individual and the article is currently in an AFD. So either this is gross incompetency and a failure to understand WP:GNG despite being here for five years or this is undisclosed paid editing, either way I am proposing an indefinite block on them for violating our TOU policy on paid editing and or/for WP:CIR, though the former is much more plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a failure to understand GNG (for which there are different levels of understanding, and interpretations); from their comments in discussions it's more about verifiability and identification of reliable sources - for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hefna380. In their most recent article Okoro Blessing Nkiruka there was a "scandal" referred to without any explanation or source, and at least one unreliable source (reference 6 in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Okoro_Blessing_Nkiruka&oldid=1025605110 linked to a site with self-published content and no mention of the article cited - the only search result for the title is a copy of the Wikipedia article). Some advice from an editor who is better at assessing the reliablility of sources would be useful, as WP:RSP doesn't say much about Nigerian sources. Also RSP is becoming useless - Fox News "generally reliable" and Daily Mail "deprecated" when outside Wikipedia they are considered to have similar levels of reliability - and is not always taken seriously at AFD, so an article can be deleted because a source is "deprecated" when RSP and the linked discussion show consensus was unanimously against deprecation. The main issue is that for content that discusses living people (either the subject of the article or other people mentioned) the sources need to be adequate for the purpose, particularly with controversy, and with material unrelated to the subject's notability, but also to verify assertion of notability. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I'd suggest the best course of action here is to review Kelvinsage1's remaining articles carefully to make sure they are all neutral and verifiable. If they are paid editing, and those efforts are fruitless, that is the best way to put them out of business. Either way, it is concerning that Kelvinsage1 has not responded to the allegations expressed here, despite editing since. – bradv🍁 02:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bradv, thank you, that’s a reasonable approach. Celestina007 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, use of unreliable sources, user is now forging signatures

Tony1811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• He's been amply warned about disruptive editing, e.g. his misuse of sources that are listed as "red" in WP:RSP. His latest stunt today is posting bogus warnings to user talk pages and including my signature instead of/in addition to his own. He was blocked for edit-warring a few weeks ago; has he learned his lesson or not? Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Elizium23 was being generous with the initial report. Tony1811 has been including blatant BLP violations supported by subpar or unreliable or deprecated sources on Joy Behar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Cynthia Nixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which they claimed were part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media related to free speech issues. KyleJoan^talk 01:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• The editor has problems but I don't know if the 'forging signatures' should really be one of them. Considering the exact same warning with the same signature including time stamp is currently on Tony1811's talk page and that one of the people they gave the warning to was Elizium23 themselves, it seems clear the editor is trying to give the warning back but has no idea how to do so and so just copied and pasted the warning on their talk page. So at best it may call into question their WP:competence to edit here but doesn't seem to be malicious. While talking to the editor doesn't seem to have had much success so far, I've tried talking to them about the signature issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• They've just removed this discussion, though it was reverted immediately. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Intransigent new editor User:DagneyGirl

This incident began when I found 34 articles on my Watchlist had had linked place names changed with either no edit summary or simply "Spelling" given. When I clicked on DagneyGirl's talk page, I found several editors had already commented on her entitled attitude and poor EngLang skills. There followed a prolonged discussion between myself, Keith264, and a couple of other editors trying to persuade DagneyGirl to conform to WP consensuses. When she did not ignore or deflect our statements, she lectured us on how WP should be run. She is wedded to the idea that she is the only person who knows the true names of these locations, and that they must be the most modern iteration, regardless of usage a century ago.

When we got to the point of her third revert to my edits, I went to the Help desk, and posted the below:

I find myself in an edit war with a Belgian editor over place names. She insists that Belgian place names take priority over those found in my English language sources, and gives no source for her changes. She insists on destroying links in numerous articles I created tying the source place names to the modern place name. Several veteran editors, including myself, have used her User talk page to make good faith efforts to persuade her to follow the consensus to use English. Her behavior has been consistently defiant in stating her opinion is correct, although her language skills are lacking. I picked List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg to serve as a test case. She has now made her third set of reverts to this article, though not in a 24 hour period. Her User talk page and the edit summaries in the Sachsenberg article tell the tale without my writing anything further.

I am unsure if this is the correct forum for this problem. Please advise me of the proper forum if I am in the wrong place.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to go to WP:Request for comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A I am not from Belgium and b Georgejdorner so called 'English language sources' claim is not holy true. The sources that Georgejdorner uses on pages like List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg do not English names only, not even English from that time but uses names from documents, that can be English, French, German and Dutch names but also misspellings and phonetic spelling.

Georgejdorner just introduce these spellings on the pages with results that that on one page you find that spelling and an another spelling for the same place. Mistakes in documents are not corrected because taking one on one from the source. For example the misspelling 'Nieuwscapelle' is introduced on Wikipedia from the main source that is used to fill this pages, theaerodrome.com. There's no need for that. Same goes for the German word 'Uberschwemm', Georgejdorner added there (flood), so Georgejdorner knows that is not a English word, but did not correct the term or use the actual meaning in this context, flooded land. So text means that the fight was taking place over flooded land. On List_of_aerial_victories_of_Walter_Göttsch Georgejdorner decided not to always copy the name from the source one on one, heaerodrome.com. But that resulted in a mistake, making one place two places, 'Schaep-Baillie' to 'between Schaep and Baillie'. The actual place name is Schaapbalie. On List of aerial victories of Paul Billik it was spelled as 'Schaep Baillie', as spelled on heaerodrome.com page of Billik. On List of aerial victories of Eduard Ritter von Dostler there is the spelling 'Oostroubeke' directly from theaerodrome.com dostler page and this the only place where this spelling is used, apart from a forum that uses this name. We all make mistakes, but importing mistakes and different spellings for the same places not so helpful. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Immediately after this posting, she deleted her Talk page to eliminate the ongoing discussion of her misbehavior. However, the above quote gives a sample of her deleted responses. She also deleted her Contributions page to disguise the articles she had edited. I hope some admin can prevent her from further damaging Wikipedia. I am willing to aid the admins in any action they wish to take.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge it is not possible for an editor to delete their contributions page, and DagneyGirl's contributions page remains available here. I do agree that the editor's English skills are not excellent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally nothing has changed on the user's talk page either. So really not sure what is being referenced above. Perhaps Georgejdorner mistyped their username or something is the only explanation I can think of. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed "foreign" from the title of this section. I am an American, which means that every English-speaking British, Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand-based editor is technically a "foreigner" to me, as are all non-American English-speakers from other countries. The problem being reported has little to do with the editor being "foreign", but to the quality of their English skills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• (Slightly off main topic, "Uberschwemm" is neither a place name nor a valid German word in its own right, but most likely an abbreviation of "Überschwemmung" (flooded land). This is not something we will be able to source, and the best guess of a native speaker is probably the most useful option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC))

• The relevant policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, which is really not complicated. Article subjects should be consistently referred to by the most recognizable name for speakers of the English language, our target audience. This is why we have an articles on Germany and Hulk Hogan instead of Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Terry Eugene Bollea. Other names should be briefly mentioned in the articles on these subjects, but incoming links from other articles should generally use the article title. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox is quite right. Insisting on using archaic (and even incorrect) placenames in Wikivoice just because a source uses them is really not the usual (or most useful) way to do things. DagneyGirl is doing good work to correct these archaicisms and misspellings. I've been surprised at how entitled and condescending the often misguided comments to this new user have been — particularly the insistence that archaic spellings or simple misspellings on obscure pages about often minor First World War engagements constitute some sort of "WP consensuses" simply because nobody has corrected them sooner. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, Georgejdorner, I'm surprised you missed the bit at the top of the edit screen for this page where it says in big letters "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I clicked the user name in the title of this section, and did not find DagnyGirl's Talk page or Contributions page. Now that another editor has found them, I will post the requested notice on her Talk page. I also withdraw the accusation that she willfully deleted them, and apologize for my careless use of the term 'foreigner'.

I stand by my methodology of linking source names to articles with the present day names when needed. It does not promote archaic names; instead, it helps explain them. However, if there is a consensus that this is a faulty methodology, I will cease doing this. If nothing else, that would save me the extra work of searching out links.

Now that I have been raked over the coals, how about giving equal attention to the subject of this complaint? The editor whose good work is marked with nonexistent or vague edit summaries on her Contributions page? The rude editor with deficient English skills? She was the object of this complaint, you know. And there are several other editors who share my opinion. Why not read what they have to say on her Talk page?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now belatedly posted the ANI template on DagnyGirl's Talk page. Please allow her some response time before critiquing her.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw in the original post that you said she had deleted her talk page and contribs and meant to comment on it, seeing as she is not an admin, we do not generally delete user talk pages, and it is literally impossible to delete your contribution history. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Georgejdorner. The summary text 'spelling' doesn't seem vague to me, it says exactly what the edit does, spelling correction (s). One of those things that has been mentioned here and on my talk page is that you have used sources that use not only archaic names, but also foreign names, misspellings and phonetic names.

The main source you use uses the names of the original documents which are in different languages. That means that you have to 'translate' the information so that it knows what it is about for the general reader of Wikipedia. Just because the source has decided to use document names does not mean that you should copy that one to one for another platform with a different purpose than the source.

As mentioned above, introducing incorrect names does not help the reader. You hadn't linked many of the misspellings either. Besides the fact that linking alone does not directly help the reader. Clicking on a link can distract the reader from the topic but in some cases create confusion if the name is too different.

Writing out information helps the reader more than just linking a name. It also distracts the reader when different spellings are used on different pages, as indicated above. Or when the information has been incorrectly entered by the user, as for example in the case where a place became two places.

Much more troubling than a user's level of language knowledge, it seems to me when a user just does not have sufficient knowledge of the subject on which they would like to write articles. And although it may be your passion to create these types of pages and get encourage for it, it can sometimes help to be open to help from others.

As others already point out here, good guidelines have been drawn up that are quite clear how to deal with spellings and (place) names. Sometimes this can be deviated from. For example, to use a specific name for specific time periods. This then goes via the guidelines, so that other users can also follow this and it is also clearer and unambiguous for the readers across the various pages. Even then, good transcription of information can be more informative to the reader than just a link.

It is all not intended personally, if it came across as that, my apologies. My goal is only to get the reader better informed when they read something, partly through clearer use of names (and spellings), whether or not across different pages, such as endorsing the Wikipedia guidelines and sometimes to clarify what it is about and sometimes what alternative spellings are used by the sources if one wants to delve further into the information. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

DagneyGirl is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Words in common use in English like Ypres or Roulers (Roeselare ("Dutch pronunciation: [ˈrusəlaːrə], French: Roulers, West Flemish: Roeseloare)....) should be left alone. If anyone wants a modern Belgian place name in an English wiki article, I see no reason why the common name in English shouldn't be paired with the new name rather than deleted; Ypres (now Ieper) for example. English wiki shouldn't be a battleground for internal Belgian politics. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Keith-264. I am not changing still current English names like Ypres, even more I changed spelling Ieper on different pages to Ypres because of it. Roeselare is a another matter, the article is named Roeselare not 'Roulers'. Roulers as stated on the article is French. In the article there is nothing to indicate that Roulers is still wildly used in modern English enough to warred a mention. If you think you this is wrong maybe change this on the page itself, preferably backed by modern sources or start a conversation about on the talk page, even more if you think the page should be named differently.

Another example would be Sint Elooi, there it is clearly stated that St. Eloi is still well know enough and used in modern English, and I personally would not change St. Eloi where this is used.

As I explained on my talk page using the 'now'-option is not a good option. This because it indicates that the name of the place itself has changed instead of the usage in English. So using 'Niewport (now Nieuwpoort)' would indicate that the place itself was renamed from Niewport to Nieuwpoort, but what it exactly should be indicating the usage in English is changed, so simply using 'Nieuport (Nieuwpoort)' is better. Depending on the context, it also can be used as 'Nieuwpoort (Nieuport)' or 'Nieuwpoort, back then know as Nieuport in English,'.

I do agree with you on the point that the English Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground for 'internal Belgian politics'. As stated already, I am not from Belgium. Even more I want to avoid the 'internal Belgian politics' by using the current English naming of places. Wikipedia has good guidelines on it, we should use that instead everyone doing there own thing, because that can be politically charged or motivated. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not explained anything, you have asserted a point of view and altered names unilaterally. If you want examples, all you have to do is consult the bibliographies of the articles you have edited. Nieuport (Nieuwpoort)/Nieuwpoort (Nieuport) [depending on the term in the text] will satisfy me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, I tried to but maybe my point did not come across as cleary. But good to read that you satisfy at least now with it, with the small alternatives. DagneyGirl (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Tellyring

Could I ask for some admin eyes on User:Tellyring's contributions? They have a long history of problematic edits, and have for the last few weeks been trying to create an article about Vansh Sayani, a child actor. They created Draft:Vansh sayani and when that was rejected they inserted the material over the redirect at Vansh Sayani. All without adequate sources, which makes it a serious WP:BLP violation. Despite multiple editors warning them about the copyright and BLP violations involved in their editing, they have edit warred to keep this inappropriate material on Wikipedia. Their one interaction on their talk page is this which doesn't address anything. They are clearly going to continue violating BLP and copyright until action is taken to force them to stop. Laplorfill (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The same copyrighted image has now been removed from Draft:Vansh sayani seven times. It has been deleted from Commons once as a copyright violation, and the re-upload is up for deletion again. I was under the impression that we took copyright violations seriously. This user has been reported to AIV twice for repeated vandalism and copyright violation without any action being taken. Now this report is being ignored. This is a very serious WP:BLP violation and repeated, blatant copyright violations. Does anyone care, or should I just give up? Laplorfill (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring appears to be WP:NOTHERE and WP:INCOMPETENT. pinging other who have interacted with this user @David notMD:, @Amakuru:. Polyamorph (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring is pretty much single-purpose editor, persistently edit wars, and writes useless edit summaries ("I have made some changes") despite being advised to do better. I agree with Not Here. David notMD (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Ergo, UTRS appeal #43900 has been opened. 😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: I have declined that appeal, because it seems to show no awareness of the issues that led to the block, or to a commitment not to repeat those issues. Apologies if you were intending to handle this one, I had not seen that you were the handling admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Their lack of awareness was appalling. We will see if they 1) deign to reply on their talk page and/or 2) straighten up and fly right once the block expires. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. Just before the block, they added this comment to my talk page: [313] in which they said "I made a mistake. I will never upload copyright content wikipedia". I hope this means they are learning and will be a productive editor after the block. Laplorfill (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Mbroderick271 on the article Louis C.K.

The following concerns:

Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Louis C.K. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This begins May 4, 2021 when Mbroderick271 claimed a WP:NPOV dispute on the page Louis C.K.. This was announced on the talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. Major changes were made to the article without gathering consensus. I reverted some of the user's edits but drew back not wanting to engage in an edit war.

On May 6, 2021 after searching for other editors that had been active in discussions on the talk page archive - I pinged a number of them. Some responded, others did not.

On May 6, 2021 Guy Macon came to the talk page to help referee a bit and offered a solution: for both myself and Mbroderick271 to removed ourselves voluntarily from editing the page or talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#A Modest Proposal. I agreed as this seemed like a worthwhile resolution to the conflict. I didn't want to be starting an edit war or conflict. The other party did not agree to this solution. Bilorv also had an active hand in the discussion. Guy Macon later restored all edits to a February version of the article per WP:STATUSQUO.

Mbroderick271 had been warned by Bilorv about various violations here: User talk:Mbroderick271#May 2021.

Mbroderick271 attempted to accuse myself and other editors of being undisclosed paid editors here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. And accused me personally of WP:VANDALISM in the same thread and on their talk page.

The conflict calmed down and Bilorv and I had one or two conflicts but attempted to settle things on the talk page. We began discussion until recently when Mbroderick271 began editing the article again without consensus. I believe they are WP:BLP violations.

In short, I'm willing to take a step back from editing the page or engaging on the talk if other editors can come to a consensus and/or blatant WP:BLP violations are kept at bay. Hence this noticeboard incident.

Thanks.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that sanctions here would not be necessary and so I'm not sure what outcome is desired. There is discussion on the talk page, which Mbroderick271 has demonstrated interest in engaging with, and Mbroderick271 should be advised to stop editing the article directly, but we are all acting in good faith here. I would advise CaffeinAddict to let some of these earlier things (like the "undisclosed paid editor" comments) go where the user has apologised for them or understood someone else explaining why these things are not acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I have screwed up a lot on this Louis CK thing. I am frustrated that CaffeinAddict has expressed sympathy for a sexual predator and continually minimized this predator's actions, as I have many friends who have been sexual assaulted and I myself have been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of a comedian who later lied about and distorted the events after the fact (should note said comedian is neither famous nor successful in case anyone reads this and thinks I'm talking about someone they might know). However, Bilorv has been kind and patient enough to remind me that you have to work with editors of all different perspectives on Wikipedia, even editors whose views one may find odious. I am committing to approaching this article with a less personal and more professional style of communication moving forward, as ultimately my goal as a former fan of Louis CK is for the article to accurately represent both his achievements as an artist as well as his many offenses against his female coworkers, and his lies and attempts to cover up said offenses. Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your personal experiences, Mbroderick271. My comments will always be based on my reading of secondary sources, not my personal view of C.K., but I am also a former C.K. fan who was outraged and depressed when I learned about his sexual misconduct, and though I've never been victim to sexual violence I have seen the effects it has through people close to me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of the problem here - I don't believe any editors are approaching this article unbiased. The facts need to be presented in a WP:NPOV tone. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm unfit to edit the article because of my personal experiences relating to sexual violence? Because you don't seem to have a problem with people expressing their personal opinions on C.K. or the reliable sources that should inform the article content: the articles that focused on C.K.'s assassination of character in 2017 overstate and maximize the consensual private sexual conduct of a man made very public (Special:Diff/1021506846) and This event is obviously a largely topical and important event in the comedian's life but is a blip on the actual history of his long and prolific career. None of his actions were or will be criminal and this completely hogwash attempt to blow up what remain "he said she said" allegations that reminded the masses that even the very important #MeToo movement had it's [sic] limits (Special:Diff/1021693699). — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavour aimed at objectivity. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we need editors free from all biases, I guess human beings are right out and we should recuse ourselves as a species. Makes things easier, I will give you that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between natural human bias, and editing a topic which you have a personal connection- positive, negative, and especially traumatic. Its hard enough to overcome that natural bias, having gone through a trauma and then trying to edit pages that related to that trauma is going to be ten times more difficult. I'm not necessarily agreeing that the editor in question should stay away- but I do think they should be even more aware and careful to avoid bias and be sure to get 2nd or 3rd opinions before making edits to this page. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This just sounds like good Wikipedia practice to me, no matter what the connection might be to a given article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated addition of improperly sourced content by Badsanta69

Despite several warnings, Badsanta69 regularly adds improperly sourced or misrepresented content to Bangladeshi diaspora.

I've tried to engage with them on Talk:Bangladeshi diaspora and on User talk:Badsanta69, where I've explained at length the problems with their edits (while also encouraging their few beneficial ones). They haven't responded on the article talk page, and after writing about ten days ago that, "Those are my collected data you recently changed i know some are not accurate because of good and strong reference", they've stopped replying on their talk page. But their disruption continues.

Examples of improperly sourced additions from their most recent batch of edits:

• [314]: France 50,000 (2020) [315] Although the source says "We, more than 50,000 Bangladeshi people", it's quoting a random Bangladeshi migrant. A man on the street is not a reliable source for demographic data. A reliable source would be Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, which says there were 15,200 Bangladeshis in France as of 2018.[316] They've made this edit before and been reverted with an explanation on their talk page of why their source is not reliable.
• [317]: Greece 12,000-20,000 (2019) [318] The source doesn't support 20,000, which is plucked from thin air. It says "there are as many as 12,000 undocumented Bangladeshi migrant men who work in the agrarian labor market in Greece".
• [319]: Japan 14,956 (2016) [320] The 2020 source says the city of Sapporo's foreign population was 14,956, of whom about 100 are believed to be Bangladeshi.
• [321]: Netherlands 5,000 (2012) [322] Presenting a single number obscures the subtleties of the source, which says "There are a little over 1,500 officially registered Bangladeshis in the Netherlands. However ... According to a Bangladeshi migrant organisation located in the Netherlands, the number lies somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000. Another Bangladeshi organisation estimates the number to be at least 2,500."

Badsanta69 says that English is not their first language, so I've cut them considerable slack, but the disruptiveness of their editing is outweighing any good edits.

A block of an at least temporary duration is needed to, at a minimum, get their attention and make them realize that reliable sources must be used, and must be comprehended and accurately represented in order to be a constructive contributor. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Worldbruce, Thanks for bringing this up and for your work here. I'm wondering if a partial block of that one page might be sufficient? I hate to drop the hammer fully with a sitewide block right away, though I'm not sure about the veracity of some of their edits elsewhere (e.g., [323]). Ideally, they'd engage on the talk page as you've suggested ... I suppose a partial block from the article namespace to force a discussion in talk space could be an option too. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 20:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

At this stage, Go Phightins!, I'm open to anything that would get their attention and make them reflect on their edits. A namespace block might do that. A partial block as narrow as Bangladeshi diaspora might work too, although so far their interest is almost exclusively with that article, so a partial block might not feel any different to them than a full block. If it turns out that the language barrier is so great that they can't understand feedback or participate in discussion, then CIR may need to be considered, and further steps taken. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Worldbruce, Proceeded with a one month block from article space in hopes of cajoling discussion on the article talk pages. We can proceed with CIR as needed if this proves not to do the trick. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

VIJAY DARSHINI pasting copyvio into multiple articles

VIJAY DARSHINI (talk · contribs) entire contribution history so far consists of pasting copyright violating text into multiple articles. Talk page messages about it are being ignored. I think a block (and some revision deletions) are warranted here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned everything up given a final warning. Please let me know right away if the problem persists.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Several more accounts that are following a similar pattern:

• Naveenjacob21 (talk · contribs)
• Anandhus181 (talk · contribs)
• Asishbabu09 (talk · contribs)
• Arundhathypramod (talk · contribs)
• Jeffasish (talk · contribs)
• SNSW (talk · contribs)
• SNSW-DMS (talk · contribs)
• Mageshwar Selvam (talk · contribs)
• RIYASHARMA1 (talk · contribs)
• Zakariyya Eraniyan (talk · contribs)
• Team11web2.0 (talk · contribs)
• Ramya Poosarla (talk · contribs)

Some kind of edit a thon off the rails, or maybe student editors from some undeclared course? Is there enough here to start a SPI? - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not ask for a sock check? 2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've checked the edits of the above users and done the required cleanup. Opening an SPI would be pointless if they are students all editing from the same school.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MLJ 657

I have noticed a problem with MLJ 657. They have persistently added unsourced series endings to articles that fail WP:V and are not supported by any citations in the linked articles.

A timeline of the situation:

• March 6, 2021: user made a series of edits adding unsourced series endings to 2020 in animation. Edits were subsequently reverted by Magitroopa, who then proceeded to warn MLJ 657. MLJ 657 then responds saying he will stop.
• March 18, 2021: user added Muppet Babies (2018 TV series) to 2021 in animation's ending section with this edit, breaking the promise he made to Magitroopa.
• March 25, 2021: I warned user, user then posts to my talk page saying "I won't be blocked from editing without further warning so I have to keep in mind to not do that."
• April 14, 2021: Once again, user continues to add unsourced/poorly sourced material, adding Fancy Nancy (TV series) to 2021 in American television ([324]) and 2021 in animation ([325]), citing RenewCancelTV, which is not a reliable source (see here for why I don't consider it reliable, posted under my old account). I then proceed to warn them for adding unsourced/poorly sourced material again, user replies making the same empty promise they made the last two times.
• May 5, 2021: Unsurprisingly, user adds unsourced content to 2021 in animation again.
• May 25, 2021: I removed user's addition, but it didn't occur to me that it was MLJ 657 until I scrolled through the page's edit history. Thus, I go to their talk page to express my frustration with this continued behavioral pattern. User has yet to respond to my message.

MLJ 657 has continued to add unsourced or poorly sourced material after promising multiple times to stop, and I feel that some disciplinary action should be in order. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Steve Terreberry and Singles

Steve Terreberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let me preface this with I have distanced myself from the first discussion as I haven't made left comment in a number of days. The first discussion stemmed from the singles in Steve Terreberry's discography being put in a table format. It was reverted a number of times. The issue is now a separate discussion on singles between Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mbdfar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They have been going back and forth for days to where it's gotten to the point where they've reverted each other multiple times and are now resorting to petty squabbling. If the latter two things weren't happening, an RfC would have been sufficient. But since that's not the case, that's why coming to the ANI is the best course of action. They strayed away from the discussion on singles. This issue between Mbdfar and Walter Görlitz needs to be put to rest in some form or another. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. Fishhead2100 is correct. I had three concerns: 1) MOS:TABLES that a list like this should not be in a table. I don't know if Fishhead2100 and Mbdfar agree or not. 2) I was under the false and unfortunately archaic perception that a single was only one if released to radio or charted in some other way. A member of the songs project and Fishhead2100 have convinced me that I was wrong in that regard. 3) The sourcing is inadequate. https://open.spotify.com/artist/752rmY08pvHpub4FyIXp0n will change over time and does not display of the songs it claims to support as singles. I was planning to convert to a list and low-quality references like https://open.spotify.com/album/0YdemwyAzhnkL8K8L1cHTx to support the fact that songs were released as singles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It was how you two were edit warring and being childish in the second discussion. That's the issue. That's the focal point. Don't deflect. The rest was context as to how you two arrived at such behaviour. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you see this as deflecting. Explaining that you and Mbdfar were ignoring that the sources did not prove the content was the ultimate issue and it takes two to edit war. So, ye, I take full responsibility for the song=single problem, and for reverting per WP:V, but nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Also not deflecting, but making statements that I like "to start beefs with people. He thinks he is always and everybody else is wrong." Doesn't this make you an involved editor? In short, Thanks for raising this issue and for stepping away from the article. I do not like to start beefs, I like to make sure the WP:V is followed, as well as MoSes and editing guidelines. I do not always think I am always [right], as can be seen from my acknowledging I was wrong about something and learning from it. I do think many other editors have much to teach me, but I need to be convinced, not edit-warred about such things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I didn't deny that I said that. Like I said, I removed myself from the conversation. It's about Mbdfar and yourself. You two kept on going. Someone should have went to WP:RFC to get an outside opinion. I'm trying to get this put to rest which one of you should have done. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to go to RfC for trivial disputes. Since Mbdfar has explained that the editor can see the content in a mobile view, and it cannot be seen in desktop it clears up the second-last issue for me. Mbdfar wasn't going to actually correctly source the singles, so I have indicated that I will. In short, if you want something done right, you sometimes have to do it yourself. That seems to be the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my computer has been out of commission so I'm on mobile. I'm not dealing with those sources on this thing. Some of my words were petty, and for that I apologize. For what it's worth, I tried to be direct and rational. But to be honest, having Walter jump around in arguments from the table formatting, to debating what a single is, to worrying about the sourcing, made me assume bad faith. I thought he just wanted to get his way of removing the table and would argue any avenue to get there. I've been clear, I don't care about the formatting, but the way Walter seemed to be bullying Fishhead and KullyKeemaKa a few days ago, and him seeming to base arguments on feelings instead of MOS, rubbed me the wrong way. Frankly this whole situation was a waste of time and I'm sorry for prolonging it, but I just wanted consensus based on guidelines and not arbitrary decisions. Mbdfar (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: Whether Walter Görlitz will admit wrongdoing or, I don't know. If he wants to apologize for his behavouir, good on him. If not, we can't dwell on it. If he thinks going to RfC is petty, than everything he has done has been petty. But I digress, put this in past and move on. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be glad to know what you think I have done wrong that I have not already admitted to above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sloop101 persistently adding copyvio images to Nick Fuentes and elsewhere

See the page history. Both photos, which they uploaded to Commons as their "own work" are clear copyvios: Nick Fuentes.png is from a USA Today article and Nick Fuentes 2.png is from Chicago Tribune (second image in slideshow). I've tagged them as copyright violations on Commons, but they are edit warring them into the article here in the meantime. I actively edit that page so I'm not dealing with this myself per WP:INVOLVED.

Their talk page suggests there have been other issues with this editor, as well. It looks like they were doing the same thing yesterday at Larry Pressler (page history). I'm not an admin at Commons so it's a bit hard to see how persistent the issue has been there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed File:America First with Nick Fuentes logo.jpg from the article; logo for the subject's podcast and also a Commons contribution under PD undeclared criteria (only other use is some fantasy sandbox article about College Republican wars). Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:TRANMINHTAMMUINE marketing 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.

---

All edits made by User:TRANMINHTAMMUINE are to promote a private car service, request they are permanently blocked. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

IPv6 range, weird edit requests on user talk

I've noted in recent months that eight different IPv6 addresses in the 2600:1700:4300:2c8f:: range have contacted me on my talk page trying to get me to fix and change things about children's television on US TV station articles (and being generally the same user in style). I recently looked up the range (AT&T U-verse, Loganville, Georgia) and found that there have been 356 active IPs in the range since 2019 (and potentially User talk:172.127.114.25), mostly editing on television and video game topics, some making very repetitive and annoying edit requests (see User talk:BornonJune8). IPs in the range have 15 user talk pages with nine total warnings: one uw-chat1, two uw-vandalism1, six uw-unsourced1. Not sure where to notify given the constantly changing address. It's just this side of an LTA...just kind of weird behavior. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if User talk:75.115.18.34 might be related (see Mvcg66b3r's report above) — does not fit the pattern really, but worth consideration. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Convenience link: 2600:1700:4300:2c8f::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). --Blablubbs|talk 09:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Canvasing

There's a continuing disruptive behaviour on the part of User:Red Rose 13.

Namely, Red Rose 13 continues to canvas other users, even though they've been noticed on 26 April 2021, that such behaviour is disruptive and goes against Wikipedia's policies. [326] Red Rose 13 has been asked to refrain from such behaviour in the future [327] and asked to follow Wikipedia's guidelines to try to contact other editors via RfC or through relevant WikiProjects. [328]

On 27 May 2021, Red Rose 13 continued to canvas other users. [329]

Here are examples of canvasing before the notice: [330], [331], [332], [333], [334] and after the notice: [335].

--Governor Sheng (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to this false allegation. User talk:Governor Sheng has been attacking, reverting and blocking my edits for months now.

• (1) The definition of canvasing - "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." I already explained to Governor Sheng here [[336]] that my intention is to find an editor willing to work with us to create a neutral balanced article.
• (2) Link #84 - I posted on GShengs page that I would like to ask an editor that was taking on adoptions to help us with the sources. I gave him the name and asked what he thought. He did not respond. See here [[337]] So I made the request for my self with Rosguill
• (3) Both link #85 & #86 relate to the editor Skyerise who I worked with a number of years back. He was neutral, knowledgeable and fair. I was hoping he was available and if he was able to help, then planned to introduce to GSheng.
• (4) Link #87 is about Gråbergs who came from the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard board to help on the page.
• (5) Link #88 I did reach out to an administrator in hopes that she could help us Melanie N - but she declined.
• (6) Link #89 Sundayclose was already an editor on the OLM page.
• (7) Duplicate Link #90 Same as Link 84 Rosguill

Again Governor Sheng is accusing me of something that I have not done. I do not have the intention of influencing anything. I just want the Our Lady of Medjugorje pages and the many pages associated with this page to be neutral, fact based pages. We have been struggling since October 2020. It seems every time I edit, he reverts it. An example of the difficulty is in the last couple of days I tried to communicate with him about ways we can come together as a collaborative team to edit OLM and the MANY related pages but he never responded.[[338]] and [[339]] So I began editing as encouraged by another editor. Governor Sheng then reverts my edit demanding that we have discussion before we edit. He had time to revert my edit but not to respond to my communications regarding collaborative editing. He did have time to do other editing however. You will need to scroll down to May 28th to see him editing. [[340]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The reason you have to scroll down so far is because GSheng did over 500 edits today. Not sure what is going on.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I won't be able to respond to your messages, there are days when I'm not available. But even when I do not respond, it doesn't give you any right to violate Wikipedia's policies. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It is quite clear that I did not violate Wikipedia Policies and I have explained it thoroughly. Looking through your edits, it is obvious to see you had plenty of time to respond. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: If more links are added in threads above this one, the numbers will "move". Atm, I seem to be in link 87. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I corrected it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya related disruption by S. Umer Bin Waseem.

S. Umer Bin Waseem. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making all the usual "Ahmadiyya ‎aren't Muslim" noises anyone familiar with WP:CALIPH disruption knows about, and doesn't appear to be here to write an encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Return of Andrewl1995

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:Andrewl1995 was recently blocked for a month for persistent addition of unsourced material to articles, and serious personal attacks, after an ANI discussion [341]. They have returned from their block and immediately resumed both behaviors. See, particularly this vicious personal attack [342]. Every edit since their return is completely unsourced. I don't see any likelihood that they are able to edit here productively. Laplorfill (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, that's quite a rant. Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Laplorfill (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposed indefinite block of Axtoche for WP:NOTHERE

The user user:Axtoche uses Wikipedia purely for pushing a nationalist agenda, edit warring and vandalizing in the process. Their "contribution" consists to more than 90% of trying to suppress references to minority languages in France, and Axtoche do this by blanking references to these languages. For some recent examples, see [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349]. These are not even a fraction of the total, but serve as examples. Furthermore, Axtoche consistently and disruptively mark these blankings as minor edits, even though they obviously are not minor. In short, the user does not contribute anything of value to Wikipedia, and instead engages only in blanking, edit warring and disruption. Despite multiple warnings from several users, this behavior continues. I propose the user be indeffed as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, did you mean to indef the user? You actually just blocked them for 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC).

Yes, I did, not sure how I messed that up. Fixed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ha, glad to see it's not just me. My little specialty is writing a block notice (in lieu of using Twinkle, which blocks automatically) on a user's page and then forgetting to block them. Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

Andrewl1995 (again)

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

---

Given this talk page response to their block, perhaps revoking TPA would be in order? Neiltonks (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Done + edits by user deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

BLPVIO

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.

---

Hola! Can an admin please scrub some BLPVIO data from Tarun_Tejpal both on the article and talk page Thanks! VV 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Celestina007

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.

---

Celestina007 has behaved very inappropriately to me. It started with when I created a new page on a Nigerian model and use the wrong choice of words when explaining the photo I used in the article. When Celestina007 made me aware of the "client" rule, I explained in further detail about my use of the picture. I was licensed the photo to use by both the model (who I do not personally know) and the photographer whom I do know. I agree that my ignorance of the client rule started that photo controvesy but as I said on my talk page, I can easily get the photographer and/or model to send an email with documentation that I was licensed the picture for Wikipedia. The main problem started when Celestina007 started being combative for no reason on my talk page and then making threats. Furthermore, the user accused me of being a sockpuppet and I have no idea why when this is our first interaction and the only thing I did was create a page about a popular Nigerian model. Celestina007 refuses to name who I am supposedly a sockpuppet of. When I attempted to end the conversation (now turning in a back-and-forth argument), Celestina007 reverted my talk page that I had cleared. Now they are making up further accusations saying I am part of OPE and I don't know what that is or what it stands for. In closing, this has jumped from being notified about a potential concern about page I created, to false accusations and rude behavior. Please view my talk page history. Thank you! Horizonlove (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Now a user (Magnolia677) who has hounded me in the past, has once again hounded me and chosen to take the side of Celestina007 in deletion vote for a page that I created. That vote is obviously bias. Horizonlove (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And after I opened this case and notified Celestina007 on her talk page about this discussion, they removed the notification message off of their talk page and wrote in the edit summary box "Go Away". This is also strange and unusual behavior because it's empty threats and no proof to support their accusations. I clearly stated to that user that if they do not stop their rude behavior and false accusations towards me, I would take them to the ANI. In addition to that, you can also see that Celestina007 has contacted Magnolia677 to further participate in the deletion process even though I said that Magnolia677 was clearly bias due to our past history. Horizonlove (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have taken them to the WP:COIBOARD see here. They appear to be disgruntled I nabbed them in covert upe. They claimed the professional shoot(image) on the article as theirs but did not disclose a COI, I asked why this was so and they gave the most improbable reply. They currently have blanked their userpage to make tracking conversations harder. However I propose a WP:BOOMERANG block, as anti spam editor I can categorically say this undisclosed paid editing. This is my forte and I know one when I see one. The article which initiated all this has been sent to AFD where !voters there also agree that this is UPE. Once more I propose a boomerang block. Celestina007 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  "They claimed the professional shoot(image) on the article as theirs" I have already explained this to them and offered proof to support my claim. And furthermore, it is not conflict of interest for me to edit the page. Another way of looking at it, would be a fan editing a public figure they admire. And I am obviously not part of some "covert upe". I have no idea what that is and Celestina007 still refuses to explain what it is. "This is my forte and I know one when I see one." is another false accusation however it is based on a poor choice of words that I take responsibility for but also explained. Horizonlove (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have nothing but good things to say about Celestina007, she was willing to change her AfD vote after being given information about a novel being used for national standardizedb testing, and was more than civil during the entire discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: I am glad that you had a good experience but that is not the case with me. All you have to do go through the history. Horizonlove (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish, my friend, this is UPE, it is my forte and without an iota of doubt I can tell you this UPE. They are merely disfigured I spoiled business for them which indeed gladdens me. Celestina007 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, is this about c:File:LynnDavis.jpg? That's a video screenshot. Or c:File:Kym Mazelle.jpg which has "Kym Mazelle" for both author and source? Or File:CharlotteKelly.jpg? That was from a talent directory. Or maybe File:JocelynBrown.jpg which was from Facebook? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have to concur that this article looks like promotion. The photo description given by Horizonlove is "A photo taken during a photoshoot session with Soludo Marcel in which the photographer licensed the photo to me." So there is obvious coordination between the editor Horizonlove and the subject. I guess there's always the possibility that Horizonlove is an innocent well-intentioned editor, but there is a lot of battleground attitude coming from their edits. --- Possibly (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly, I’ve lived in Nigeria 20+ years and I can assure you this blatant UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't doubt your opinion! However at this point it is a (respected) seasoned opinion rather than hard fact. That said, I agree that the article subject really has zero notability. The sources do not even mention him.--- Possibly (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I know about the model because I have seen their commercials on tv. But if it has to be deleted, so be it. But that's beside the main point of Celestina007 behaving inappropriately and also making false accusations. Horizonlove (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The original edit was I stated that I was photographer which was not true (and was the poor choice in words that I mentioned earlier) but I was hoping it would be simple if I said that since I have the license to the image and asked the photographer for usage specifically for Wikipedia. Furthermore, when I noticed Celestina007 was only interested in arguing, I attempted to stop the argument by simply stopped replying and removing their edits from my talk page but Celestina007 reverted and made more false accusations against me. If I'm going to be falsely accused of sockpuppetry or being in some covert, at least explain in full detail what that is. I still don't understand that part. Horizonlove (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So you concur you were intentionally being deceptive. Celestina007 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Please note that once again, the user is trying to be combative. They refuse to justify their rude behavior and threat on my talk page as well as distract from their sockpuppet accusations. Instead they choose to try to focus on something I have already stated in plain text. Horizonlove (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: a large number of the comments at ANI are by non-administrators, myself included. Now, regarding that photo, were you in touch with the subject to get the "licensing"; i.e. did you talk to them (or their agent or the photographer) or email one of those people or meet them?--- Possibly (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Yes, I personally spoke with the photographer about wanting use the photo for the Wikipedia page. I was granted rights to use them and as I've said over and over, I can have them forward an email that they gave me permission and license to use the photo. I have explained that to Celestina007 and instead of just requesting it, they proceed with rude behavior, threats, false sockpuppet accusations. Horizonlove (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horizonlove:. Thanks for clarifying that. I believe you have also said that you are not being paid and have no conflict of interest, correct? Finally, do you mind telling us why you chose this subject? He looks entirely not notable; In my experience there is almost definite certainty that it will be deleted at the end of the AfD. That might be one reason you are getting so much pushback: to the experienced eye, this really look like promotion of a non-notable subject. Do you get that point of view?--- Possibly (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Absolutely. As stated a little earlier, I first discovered the model in a commercial that randomly aired. I followed his career and today (May 30), he won a big modeling competition or pageant in Nigeria. It's not unusual for me to create a page on someone who is considered "barely known" or otherwise but I felt this person was notable enough especially because there are well-known in Nigeria. But everything media-related isn't always written in stone as with USA, UK, or other countries. But I have been wanting to start a Wikipedia page on the person for a while now and I figured I had enough sources to do so, especially considering the other pages in Category:Nigerian male models. Sorry it took so long to reply, there is too much editing traffic and I can't even reply because of it. Aside from that, I understand the page will probably be deleted, but is not my concern. The problem is Celestina007's rude behavior on my talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• They have now gone ahead to cast aspersions against @Magnolia677. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely for a number of reasons. The first is that Magnolia67 should know better than to keep following me from page to page. I can easily bring up a history of [minor and major known] pages that I've edited and then conveniently, Magnolia67 showed up and reverted my edits. Next, you (Celestina007) are tagging Magnolia67 on your talk page to assist you in accusing me of sockpoppetry and we also know that's a lie but he has chosen to help you anyway. Another example of bias and inappropriate behavior from Magnolia67. This is sad and silly. It is stems from one page that I created. From here out, I am not responding until the admins jump in. Horizonlove (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: I've been back over your last 100 edits, which takes us back to February 2020, over a year ago. As far as I can see User:Magnolia67 hasn't edited any of them since your most recent edit. Can you provide diffs showing Magnolia67 "following you from page to page"? Because I'm not seeing any evidence to support your claim, and without evidence, that is a personal attack. Laplorfill (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Laplorfill: Absolutely. I need about 15 minutes to gather up the long list. Horizonlove (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Laplorfill: This are a few of them but are more. My computer is constantly locking up which taking me a while to get and it's hard to reply with all of the editing traffic happening. There are more but these are few that I can easily remember. Robert Owen (musician), Kym Mazelle, Joi Cardwell, Nathan Lee Graham. Most of these were point-blank reverts after my edits without verifying what I added. And that have been several instances where Magnolia677 stalked other people too.[350][351] Horizonlove (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So, four examples from 4 years ago? One was adding a citation which helped you. Two were rightly removing unsourced information you added to biographioes of living people which you absolutely should not do. I don't see anything except a good editor correcting your mistakes and helping you. Four years ago. Not exactly a good justification for what you said, IMHO. Laplorfill (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that Magnolia677 came completely out of nowhere and kept reverting my edits. Like I said, there are more pages. Another one involved when I removed some false information of the Lil Kim page and Magnolia677 reverted back onto the page without even looking, which I removed again. But regardless, they are stalking me because they would not have known about some of these people if they did not keep watching my edit history. Regardless of how far back it was, the point is still valid. Horizonlove (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You've never edited Lil Kim, so I'm sorry but I don't buy your accusation. Magnolia677 didn't "keep reverting your edits" they did it 3 times. Even if you made a case that they were stalking you 4 years ago, which you patently have not, it would not justify you making that accusation now. Laplorfill (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; there's not much fuel for this report. I'd be fine with seeing it shuttered, without Horizonlove receiving a boomerang. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: My bad, it wasn't Lil Kim. It was Foxy Brown.[352] Although frankly, I'm not interested if you believe. The truth is truth. Horizonlove (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen enough copyright violations, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks based on ... nothing. I've blocked Horizonlove for one week. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• In hindsight, I shouldn’t have allowed them to irate nor vex me. In this process, I almost became a victim of WP:DBY. My very own invention. The project has bestowed great trust upon me and I’ve been trusted with very sensitive material so I should also note that with great trust comes great responsibility and a higher standard of conduct, although sometimes difficult I should also always remember this. My oath to the community and to self is forever binding and I, Celestina, would continue to fight undisclosed paid editing as long as I am alive and well. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Atharv Bakshi

Atharv Bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

@Atharv Bakshi: continues to engage in content dispute/edit wars despite being told not to several times by @Number 57:. The user does not indicate any intention of stopping this. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer, I'm only finding one warning from @Number 57 on that user's talk, and it's about infoboxes, and a single mention of edit-warring on their user talk -- can you give us some diffs? —valereee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor is disruptive and I'm not sure is entirely competent to be editing Wikipedia. Virtually every edit of theirs that I've seen has had to be reverted. Number 57 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article to try to get the editor's attention/get them to discuss. Still not sure we tried hard enough, but p-blocks aren't as aggressive so I'm willing to. Actual diffs for the problem would be really helpful, though. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree w/Number 57 as to disruptiveness, but think we have to go through the series of warnings, as usual. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee @Number 57 It seems the user is now involved in sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atharv Bakshi -- DaxServer (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad Behaviour and unnecessary page moves by User:Lugnuts

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

---

Hi. Hope that everything is well with all. Lugnuts is falsely repeatedly saying me a sock, sock and sock. He is repeatedly saying me a sock and reverting my edits to his articles or pages with an edit summary of "rv sock". See this diff. Here Lugnuts reverted my edit saying in the edit summary rv sock, although the edit was constructive, he wrote rv. However, he again added the same content that I added, so the revert by him was pointless. The unnecessary reversion of the article says all the future. Because reverting it, Lugnuts already considered that I am a sock and perhaps, he will revert all my future edits to his articles. If he wants to prove me a sock, then he may hold an investigation, but is just assuming. Even, if there is any investigation, I am well confident that there will be no result against me. Let me tell more about background of the incident: He first moved Julian de Mey to Julian de Mey (cricketer), although the disambiguation was unnecessary. But I was surprised when he again redirected Julian de Mey to List of Netherlands Twenty20 International cricketers. Thus both the articles Julian de Mey was also about a cricketer (as the redirect is about cricket), and Julian de Mey (cricketer) was also about a cricketer. So, two articles with different titles was created, although both articles are about a single cricketer. I assume that Lugnuts took this strange action to take the credit of creating article. Or, Probably, Thinking me a sock, he moved the article created by me, because generally articles created by blocked users are deleted, although there is no sock puppet block of me. Prior to that strange action, he had also taken another strange action to this article by moving to draftspace. But then he again created the same article in the main space with a redirection to International cricket in 2022–23. So, that time also, probably his motive was to take the credit of creating article. So, due to his unnecessary page moves, I left a message on his talk page saying to stop. See this diff, this diff and this diff. In this diffs, he also told me a sock thrice in the edit summary. I am still just a high-school student, and it is very distressful for me when one puts pressure on me saying a sock falsely. Please block Lugnuts for some days because this is a kind of personal attack.— A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate Lugnuts's contributions to Wikipedia. But seeing his block log, I observed his past blocks was also due to behavioural problems. He again said me a sock when I left ANI notice on his talk page. See [353] edit summary. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There are apparently many more such examples here. An editor cannot continually make unfounded accusations that another editor is a sock. If an editor believes another is a sock then they must go to WP:SPI or a CheckUser with their evidence (note this is a redlink). If they refuse to do so then it's simply personal attacks, and in this kind of frequency borders on harassment. The weirdness with the page moves and suppressions also doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the conduct side of this, just noting that I've now filed the OP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambria Math, though. --Blablubbs|talk 09:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. It IMO doesn't excuse the conduct but probably makes the report non-actionable. It is poor practice for an editor to unilaterally decide someone is a sock and keep making the accusation without taking their claims and evidence to the appropriate venues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I first raised my concerns here when the OP requested the Auto-patrol rights, including my thoughts on why this is not a new user. For the record, I also emailed an admin who is a checkuser yesterday evening (about 7.30pm UK time) with some more diffs as evidence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note that Lugnuts had reported A.A Prinon as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImSonyR9 three months ago, and a checkuser found them to not be a sock in that case. That Lugnuts decided to treat them as a sock anyway, prior to having any sort of determination and with a distinct finding otherwise, is harassment territory. Does the end justify the means? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as that is who I believed was the sock-master. Apologies that I'm blunt and to the point - I admit that's one of my failings. However, I don't throw round sock accusations for the sake of it - when you have a gut feeling, you stick with your gut. I had been gathering evidence, most of which was contained in the email I mention, above, and some of that has now been posted in the SPI case for Cambria Math. A point of interest is that the initial editor I thought was the sock-master did edit for the first time months only ten days ago, with AA editing about 20 minutes later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been unblocked because I am considered a good faith editor. And Cambria Math was created just 1 month before A.A Prinon account was created. Lugnuts was trying to know how I know about most of Wikipedia policies despite being a new editor. But as Cambria math was created just on December 2020, it is clear that creation of that account has no impact on my knowledge of WP policies. If Lugnuts again reverts my any edit saying it a 'rv sock', I shall report him at ANI again. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"and it is very distressful for me when one puts pressure on me saying a sock falsely" (my emphasis) and yet the evidence (at WP:SPI) is that you were socking, and therefore not being honest when asked a direct question about other accounts. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Yes I used multiple accounts. But my intention for creating those was never for socking. Except two AfD comments, probably none of those two accounts' edits were abusing or misusing. The reasons I explained in the investigation was plausible as stated by a user. as you've experienced here, trying to juggle many different accounts for different purposes, such as having one for articles and a different one for your user space, often just leads to trouble. It's technically allowed, but you've done so in a way that makes it look to other users like you're trying to appear like two different people, which is not allowed, and so we have to put a stop to this., the administrator stated. He also stated I was checking this with a feeling that it's too obvious to be deliberate abuse, prior to A.A Prinon's explanation and ProcrastinatingReader's followup. I had already found that the technical data supports a good-faith user who is basically trying to operate multiple accounts in line with the policy, including abandoning one and continuing with another (WP:CLEANSTART) as well as operating a legitimate and disclosed alternate account. It's hard to describe the pattern I see but if I say it looks clumsy, I think other checkusers will be able to see what I mean. So from this might understand that there are some good reasons for my use of multiple accounts. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• New users, (arbitrarily I put that under 6 months) with vast knowledge of Wikipedia and it’s inner workings is almost always indicative of a returning banned/blocked editor evading a block. That is my opinion and could be totally flawed, but all the same, my opinion. Furthermore, when ever comments such as If you think I’m a sock report me/open an investigation or anything along those lines are made, it further increases my suspicion as it oozes of a well versed editor with knowledge of how to evade Checkuser. Furthermore, @Ivanvector and ProcrastinatingReader, first, thanks for contributing to this thread and secondly, I should also state categorically that I share the same concerns as Lugnuts, I very strongly do, although I do not support his approach (his motives are good but his approach may be a tad bit harsh) I expressly created WP:DBY for this is sort of scenario and I hope it helps good faith editors re-think their strategy and manner of approach when faced with this sort of challenge. Celestina007 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

So we've gone to a user saying that I've fasely called them a sock, to them strongly denying any socking, to having two non-involved editors finding them using at least four accounts, including vote-stacking at AfD, when the user admits to socking, to then be given the OK to carry-on. Awesome message. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: what's happening here? A user who is confirmed as a sock has come steaming into ANI, attacking someone who correctly identified them as a sock, and then continued the attacks even after realizing their mistake, and you're just letting them off? I'm all for AGF, but this editor is acting like someone else is to blame for their socking, and showing no signs that they understand that they were the one in the wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: if you've read my discussion with the user and the clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambria Math and on A.A Prinon's talk page, and you have more questions, it would probably be best to follow up on my talk page. There's a bit of a witch hunt happening here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Amakuru: There's no witch-hunt, just question marks on what happened here and what happened at the SPI. The very first post at the SPI starts with Blablubbs saying "Very clear-cut...." and concludes with "All three are obviously tag-teaming [14] here. The amount of overlap between the three makes it near-impossible for this to be coincidental." But you've dismissed this as being "clumsy" and their explination of socking "plausible". Was their deliberate vote-stacking at AfD "clumsy"? Would other users be afforded the same treatment if they vote-stacked, and then said they were trying to manage multiple accounts on different devices? I don't believe that result in a swift unblocking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: yes, I've read what's written on the other pages, and as I said above, I could well accept this if the user made an honest mistake and then was suitably apologetic about it. But instead they continued the battleground rhetoric against Lugnuts:"If Lugnuts again reverts my any edit saying it a 'rv sock', I shall report him at ANI again". I don't think this is a witch-hunt, just concern by several editors about why you so quickly unblocked a confirmed sock, who is continuing to attack the editor who discovered their socking in the first place. Obviously I don't have access to the checkuser data that you do, but from where I'm sitting thread here should be resulting in a fairly routine WP:BOOMERANG block or other sanction for unacceptable conduct, or a recognition of where they went wrong and commitment from the editor to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You see on my talk page and the investigation, I have apologised for my acts and decided never to use any accounts alongside this one. I tried to use multiple accounts legitimately, but while using maybe sometimes I went to the illegal path. And I am not continuing the battleground rhetoric against Lugnuts. I am just asking him not to revert my edits from now on in the future because I have been unblocked and promise not to sock again. And you may see the suspected users contributions, after February 2021, I didn't make any abusing or misusing edits through multiple accounts, even though there were constructive edits through those accounts. So, when I came to know about sockpuppetry, I realised my guilt and stopped misusing. And the reason for starting to use A.A Prinon's account actively (since January) was also WP:CLEANSTART. Because you may see on Cambria Math's talk page, there were several warnings or cautions (even by Lugnuts) on me as I edited disruptively. And that is why, I stopped using Cambria Math as I wanted to have a new and clean start with A.A Prinon, through which I would only make constructive and helpful edits. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

On the back of all this, is this OK for AA Prinon to accuse someone else of not being a new user in the past hour? WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour indeed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts,No, actually I asked him this one. Because he participated in an AfD discussion nominated by me. So, being surprised, I just asked him if he is new or not. Because he just joined 15 days ago. And I will not prolong any discussion with AgentCody because I don't have sufficient time as Lugnuts has for opening a lengthy discussion or investigation. I just asked AgentCody as part of my interest how he knows many things. Nothing else. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll try to address these comments here, since clearly nobody is reading what I've already written about this elsewhere. The subject of this thread here was whether or not to block Lugnuts for harassing a new user; I chose not to but I am reconsidering. I am annoyed when I see experienced editors equate "new user with competence" with "this must be a sockpuppet", and I've said this often before. We literally write out detailed guides for everything you could possibly want to know how to do on Wikipedia, and then accuse new users of wrongdoing when they follow what we've written. You all clearly need to be reminded again that WP:AGF is a non-optional policy. That annoys me, but I get really fucking mad when I see an editor use this as a justification to follow a new user around and make their Wikipedia editing experience miserable for no other reason than their own confirmation bias and sense of superiority. It's plainly harassment: it's literally the behaviour described by the second sentence of that policy. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry then go file an SPI and let the editors with experience in this realm investigate; if you just want to enforce your own version of the rules for the power trip, go be a cop.

I did investigate A.A Prinon for sockpuppetry, identified which accounts belonged to them and which did not, blocked those accounts, and tried to describe the results of IP information as well as I can while respecting the privacy and checkuser policies; that's all archived and I'm not going to restate any of it here. Everyone here is forgetting that users are allowed to use multiple accounts; people earn blocks for using multiple accounts for a short list of deliberately deceptive behaviours. This user manually signed under their account name when they were logged out, and created and operated a same-name "(Alternate)" account - who here thinks those are the actions of someone trying to deceive on purpose? They admitted that their double-vote at one AfD one time was not appropriate and did apologize for it, but that was also a unanimous WP:SNOW-speedy delete result, so who the hell cares? Otherwise, their explanation that they wanted to stop using Cambria Math and use the other account instead, but got mixed up managing logins, I found to be plausible and easily supported by the technical data for their connection. Having had no other issues with their edits identified and seeing none myself, I asked A.A Prinon to agree to a one-account restriction, which I saw as all that was needed to put a stop to the disruptive behaviour which was their clumsy but good-faith account-switching. Anything more would be punitive. As for the accusation that they lied about it: if someone who has been following you around and interfering with your editing suddenly holds a gun to your face and says "I'll shoot you if you're using multiple accounts", would you be honest about it? I don't see anything wrong with their post here asking for intervention to get Lugnuts to stop bothering them: the action is for Lugnuts to stop bothering them.

The clean start policy sanctions two reasons for a clean start: acknowledging past misdeeds and avoiding harassment. Both apply here. A.A Prinon botched it themselves (Lugnuts and Blablubbs helped) by mismanaging their logins, but our usual remedy for either a botched or an impermissible clean start is to connect the accounts, and that's already been done, so I don't see the need to do anything else here. I'm not about to end someone's Wiki-career over a series of fairly simple (and easily corrected) mistakes, and over cricket no less. I do feel the need to reiterate to A.A Prinon that a clean start is not a get out of jail free card. I don't think you had "good reasons" for using multiple accounts at all, that's why I told you not to do it any more. I unblocked you only because you agreed to the one-account restriction, and I don't currently see any other problems.

Now I suggest that someone should close this, it is generating more heat than light. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"I get really fucking mad..., Well believe it or not, I don't chase every single new editor around yelling "sock! sock! sock!" This editor raised plenty of red-flags. I admit that I could have handled that better, and logged an SPI case earlier. As per my comments above, I did contact a checkuser via email with my concerns. By the time this had all boiled up here, the SPI case had already been logged by Blablubbs. "...for no other reason than their own confirmation bias and sense of superiority..." And directly before that crass comment of yours, you state "that WP:AGF is a non-optional policy", but show zero WP:AGF with that comment! Which bring me to your "who who the hell cares?" comment. Unbelievable. Who cares indeed. Can that be applied to any situation at ANI, SPI, AFD, etc, etc? I've seen socks perm. blocked for a lot less than double-voting in a SNOW AfD. So it doesn't it matter if it was going to be deleted anyway? You've tried to deflect this back at me, and at the same time pretty much ignore the questions/concerns posted by Amakuru. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything. I posted a detailed explanation of my rationale in the SPI, I posted another detailed explanation when Blablubbs followed up, and I posted a third far more detailed rationale here in response to Amakuru's concerns. Since you seem to be wholly incapable of finding those comments yourself, here are the diffs: [354], [355], [356]. If it would help you see them I can copy and paste them onto your talk page. I would offer to record myself reading them aloud and send them to you, but voice work is a union job where I live; you are free to recruit someone else to read them to you if that's what you need. The only thing missing here is a commitment to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, to which you can commit any time. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there's a big difference between the rationale Blablubbs used when reporting the user at SPI, and Lugnuts' rationale here. The former is detailed evidence connecting the user to another account. The latter is basically summarised as "made 4 articles in 2 months, nominated something for Featured List (a venue which we openly link from many talk pages via {{Article history}}), for making an AfD with a semi-coherent rationale, and making a REFUND request". This is pretty much fishing, but in any case the narrative is that the user was experienced via history on another account. Their other account later discovered turned out to have a grand total of 55 edits and only started editing 1 month before the A.A account, i.e. was practically no more experienced. There's a big difference between a valid sock-accusation rationale and just fluking it. This seems to just be fluking it, as established facts at SPI do not support this narrative (unless there is a third account, undetected by CU; very much possible, but no evidence presented for that). I'd say neither party has really done their best in this situation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Socking in the USSR.png

User:Lenin, with socks.

I am annoyed when I see experienced editors equate "new user with competence" with "this must be a sockpuppet", and I've said this often before. We literally write out detailed guides for everything you could possibly want to know how to do on Wikipedia, and then accuse new users of wrongdoing when they follow what we've written. Amen. Two and a half years ago, I was that new user: the one who read the help files and then was accused of being an obvious sock because I showed familiarity with the help files. It was fucking infuriating. Don't do this to new users. Levivich 15:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the underlying dispute here, but must agree with this comment. My very first edit to Wikipedia, 14 years ago, was made to an AfD discussion and I made damn sure that it was competent before I made it. Someone sticking to the rules (which we have many of, in spite of the "ignore all rules" mantra) is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My first couple AfDs were of a far higher quality than my AfDs these days. I guess you could say I'm becoming more incompetent with experience. (in seriousness it's probably in part due to realising that one can get by on "fails GNG, could not find RS coverage" and save a lot of time.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I shall also not prolong the discussion if Lugnuts don't call me rv sock in the future. You see previously Lugnuts called my edits poor publicly on Cricket Project's talk page which should also be counted in favour of Lugnuts being blocked. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 90#Dutch cricket team in South Africa in 2021-22. And this is not a good behaviour presented by Lugnuts. And Lugnuts hasn't still responded why he moved the pages Julian Mey and Indian cricket team in Bangladesh in 2022—23 but created the same again unnecessarily. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Ongoing - Slake000

There is a user by the name of User:Slake000 who has been messing around in some pages, and also has a poor command of English. His edits began on the Sylheti Nagri (a South Asian script) article, where he removed a lot of information and instead added pretty much the same information worded in a poorer manner with innumerable spelling mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that his edits have not really been contributory, rather they have downgraded the layout, format and structure. Other than myself, it appears that other users have also attempted to undo his edits on the stated article.

Putting that issue to the side, it seems that Slake000 has realised that the habitual contributors to the page are not keen on his edits so he created his own article titled Sylheti script. Realising that this constitutes the Wikipedian policy of CSD-A10, I marked his article for speedy deletion and notified him on his talk page. Instead of responding and notifying me, he continued to abuse Wikipedia by copy and pasting random excerpts from different pages. This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.

Now, I understand this noticeboard does not deal with speedy deletions, but this sort of behaviour that is being shown is unacceptable. I urge you to penalise this disruptive user. UserNumber (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[357]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[358] after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies[359]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, another user Glennznl seems to be undoing the reversions to Slake000's edits on Sylheti Nagri. UserNumber (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive and inappropriate behaviour from User:Darshanpatil5567

Darshanpatil5567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see from their talk page, this user has a clear WP:COI with the articles that they are editing but they have still failed to declare it despite being instructed to do so twice. Furthermore, they have engaged in copyright infringement at Ayush Mehra, removed deletion notices from Vikas Santosh Patil twice and Bhushan Shimpi once. They also blanked the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikas Santosh Patil then proceeded to inappropriately closed the AfD. Similar behaviour also witnessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhushan Shimpi. I believe that this user has serious COI issues and is also WP:NOTHERE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, that's bad and it seems to be getting worse. I considered indef, but I've gone with a one-month block for persistent disruptive editing. Thank you, Spiderone. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

Thank you! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Random addition of sources and inflammatory edit summaries by User:Sarakhanjunglee

Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements in edit summaries such as:

• Zionists want us killed[360] in Paracetamol
• Palestinians are failures. Mahmoud Abbas is not even a Muslim, he's a Baha'i. Wake up Muslims[361] in Palestine 194
• Sufi erdogan freemason only barking like dogs. All staged drama[362] in Islam in Palestine
• No leader will tolerate khawarij extremists. Long live Widodo. What he's doing is right[363] Joko Widodo

The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text[364] after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.

Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior and other various issues, I get the impression this user is not here to built an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The second one looks particularly racist, and almost all of the other edit summaries seem to be Islamophobic or potshots at Islamic terrorists like [365] at Abqaiq. I see that the edit summary in [366] at Bilal Erdoğan has already been RD3'd; should any more edits or edit summaries be revdel'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Actually they're not Islamophobic, but seem to loathe everything that deviates from their Sunni mainstream POV, whether it's Sufi mysticism or Salafist terrorism. Most of their edsums are not as gross as the ones I have picked for the report, so I don't think there is much more out there for redvel. And they haven't edited since the report, so this might become stale anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

They added a satirical Twitter link as a source about Iranian elections. They're only trolling and causing disruption and so I've indef blocked them. Fences&Windows 00:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Harassment by Ratnahastin by fake warning template, following up my edit and frivolous cases

Disruptive editing and content blanking on various pages like Hada Chauhan, Rathore. Harassment of other editors through frivolous sockpuppet investigation. Heba Aisha (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Edit warring on Hada Chauhan and abuse of warning template, [367], filled my talk page with content blanking msg, though i restored the content. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Abuse of warning template to harrass other editors. I restored the content on two pages. Here [368] and Here [369] and the user is posting content blanking msg, he himself did that. Would like to tag Ravensfire as the user was in edit war with him.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Tagging me on various pages and following up my edit also keeping a tab on my talk page without anyone tagging him. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• After failed sockpuppet investigation filed against me, the user came from nowhere on Talk:Maratha (caste) and dipped himself into the discussion though none had invited him and he had also not made a single edit on it before that. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It seems , the user understand this place as playground rather than an encyclopedia. His intention seems to disrupt the editors with whom he donot share view. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lmao.🤦‍♂️ from next time write a more coherent report and.cherry picking few 2 notices sent on your talkpage 4weeks ago,and secondly i've not edited Rathore Hada chauhan page more than twice that too with an interval of 1week how is this edit warring? i've only sent 3 u-w templates on hebas page till now the first 2 were from 21days ago and latest one was because of personal remarks made against me in SPI of an unrelated user. and i've only tagged Heba twice 2week ago that too because of a content dispute on talk:Rathore as they were clearly breaking WP:TALKDONTREVERT by restoring disputed content without discussing, i don't know how is this "harrasment"?(see WP:AOHA ) Normal consensus building processes and content disputes are not harassments. Violations of WP:AGF, and WP:WIAPA. Almost all your claims are baseless. and around 5warnings you spammed on my talkpage within 20minutes (5warnings within 20minutes for utterly no reason) is not miss use of twinkle and dubious edit warring report you filed against me just 15minutes ago is not Harassment of mine? (see) heba has filed 2 SPI's against me til date. Im tired of this i have no interest in your edits , you're actually following my edits when you made those personal remarks against me on the spi i filed against chariot rider who is no way related to you. please admins ignore this crap.

Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I ws searching for right place to end up this. I have removed complaint from there as that was not right place. You need to stop following and harassing me and other editors with whom you donot share your view. You have been warned earlier that this is not a battlefield, but still you follow all the articles just after i make edit. Ex: List of massacres in Bihar. This is like putting a pressure on us to leave this place. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And now you're calling me a crap? See WP:NPA. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Crap is this report and 3other baseless reports you filed against me this monthRatnahastin (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed after the end of investigation against me. You anyhow visited all the pages where i went and even involved in edit warring with editors like Ravensfire. List of massacres in Bihar is one example. When I tagged LukeEmily in Maratha caste related dispute, you were hurry to file a complaint against him at WP:UAA. Plz stop making it difficult for us to work here. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are both very active editors, so it took some time to parse through everything, to form a comprehensive picture. It does appear as though Ratnahastin is indeed wikihounding Heba Aisha, by getting involved in many of their pages, showing up unsolicited in discussions and other forms of revenge editing, such as reporting involved editors for username violations. Likewise, it is not constructive in any circumstance for Ratnahastin to leave multiple warnings for Heba Aisha simultaneously, as those are intended to be administrated consecutively. I'd be inclined to let Ratnahastin off with either a warning or an interaction ban, to avoid further revenge editing. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sir Please look at my side of story aswell. if you look at my talkpage Heba misused her twinkle rights to spam my userpage with 5warnings within 20minutes for content dispute edits i did 3weeks ago. afterwards they filed a false edit warring report against me which they themselves withdrawed and now this(note that heba has filed 2SPI's against me this month this increases the number of report they did of mine to for 4) it appears that Heba dont at all like me when i sent a caution note on her talk for the personal remarks she made against me (note that chariot is unrelated to her) in SPI of mostly unrelated userhere this is serious revenge editing, why is she proxising for other users? Is this some WP:FACTION ?Luke didn't mind a bit when i filed username violation report, please check my side of story aswell.these filings of deliberate false reports against me started when i removed] some WP:SYNTHESES of material from Hada Chauhan,Rathore page which was reverted by Heba by sahing "vandalism" ? Content disputes aren't Vandalism (see WP:NOTVANDAL),Heba instead of engaging in civil discussion on Talk:Rathore  she filed a unrelated SPI against me to get me terminated these are clear violations of wikipedia 's 5 pillars that is WP:GOODFAITH.she still hasn't sorted out the content dispute when i tagged her for explaining her restoration of disputed material without discussion(violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT we can never build an encyclopedia like this) she thought this is Harassment !(note they still haven't replied or agreed to explain their reverts ) Lol so much assumption of bad faith and not wanting to cooperate with them to sort out dispute, misuse of twinkle to harass other editors by spamming their talkpage with 5warnings and filings of false reports against edtiors who dont share same view on content on wikipedia.Please consider this. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to flash policies like NOTVANDAL, GOODFAITH or FACTION my way, as I'm accusing anyone of vandalism, nor am I involved in any way beyond providing input from this rat's nest of a situation. Though, you probably should resist following Heba Aisha's activity and seeing how you can get involved, as that is a problematic component - unless you have a compelling reason for that. Looking at the May 10, 2021 report you pointed out, Oshwah didn't refer to the findings as frivolous, but rather possible. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That being said, Ratnahastin makes a good point about the spamming of warnings. @Heba Aisha: if you have warnings to give, please leave it at one and wait for further activity before administering another. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 04:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do it, i am less active nowadays. But I would request not to tag me on various pages and please don't visit my talk page, if not tagged. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Emergency semi-protection of Eli Wiesel

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:Aeschylus and others (including ClueBot) are doing yeoman's work deleting BLP-violating IPv6 edits. I think temporary semi-protection would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NM, User:LuK3 took care of it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

"Women tend to use their emotion more than their ration"

The situation at Suicide methods, and especially this diff Poorya0014 (talk · contribs), needs some attention from an admin. Poorya0014 apparently believes that the source of our differences is "you are a woman and women tend to use their emotion more than their ration", and not because I believe that the article should rely on high-quality sources and not be an instruction manual for the method he personally favors.

I think this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Be sure to search through the discussions for his explanation of having tried to push this POV at the Persian Wikipedia and been told to take his POV pushing elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the user is WP:NOTHERE, but this edit about "punish[ing]... your inner little naughty girl" and women being emotional rather than rational is creepy and disgusting. Poorya0014, another edit like that and you will be blocked. You seem to have a lot to say about how to have a proper argument on a Wikipedia talk page, but that you think that kind of commentary or attitude is at all acceptable on this project shows you have much to learn. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 72 hours for sexist harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the block despite suggesting a slightly more lenient solution. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not notice your recommendation before blocking, GorillaWarfare, because I was studying this editor's contributions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow, that statement is sexist. Should the comment be removed and RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the remarks are wretched but not to the extent that they need to be hidden. They have been quoted here after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Amazing. I left a further warning at article talk re the NOTFORUM violations (in addition to the fact that anything like the nonsense reported will lead to an indefinite block). Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Kist-Dzurdzuk - disruptive hostile editing, vandalism, etc.

• Kist-Dzurdzuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Ingush people has been the target of vandalism by, what seems to me, a group of individuals operating with several sockpuppets over the past few months, up until the article being locked end of March. Yesterday it was targeted once again with a new wave of vandalistic edits by the user @Kist-Dzurdzuk, who not only accused me of "nationalim", but also tried finding out personal information about me. Now to his edits, which are straight up copy-paste edits from the article Ingushetia, an article I consider quite messy due to it's obvious biased editing, with wild theories that should not be given the platform on Wikipedia. Kist-Dzurdzuk then proceeded to vandalise the article Nakh peoples, adding a completely unrelated section, which was another straight up copy-and-paste edit from the already named article, Ingushetia. I also believe that this person is another sockpuppet and was involved in the vandalistic attack on the article prior. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like Gligvi-Kist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked recently for similar behaviour. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above IP; the similarity in usernames seems to be a bit of a WP:QUACK case. In the meantime, I've made a big revert to before the content dispute started. — Czello 13:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The username is also similar to the master, Dzurdzuketi. I've blocked based on behavior. The user did not come up on checks run in early April of this year by Zzuuzz and EdJohnston (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi). That does happen for many different reasons, but it did give me a bit of pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

130.193.198.44

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

Some disruptive editing where the IP attempts to remove any mention of Kurdish/Kurds in Ayyubid dynasty and Turan-Shah;

[370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

OK and that is not good what they are doing. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

107.146.244.150 - disruptive editing, hoax articles/drafts, etc.

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

The past month or so, this IP has been a bit of an issue. They had created multiple hoax articles for nonexistent video games, all of which now are deleted (unless there are some that were missed). The IP was warned about creating anymore of these hoax drafts/articles here, and their admission(/explanation?) on these can be viewed here.

More recently, they have been more focused on a draft of a recent episode of The Loud House, at Draft:Schooled! (The Loud House). I've had it on my watchlist, and now have explained to them twice on the talk page that it will likely not be getting accepted anytime soon, as it is merely a massive plot of the episode that would need massive trimming if it were to be accepted (WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT). However, now looking at it closely, it appears as though it is basically a copyright violation.

Take a look at the draft itself, and take a look at the plot located on The Loud House Wiki here. Essentially, this seems to be mostly a copy/paste from there with the IP changing/adding/removing a few words, but still mostly copy/paste and copyright violation.

For example...:

The Loud House Wiki article:

"As Lori ponders what to do with her current situation, Lincoln and his friends arrive. While warming up, Lincoln says that it is time to accept defeat and get used to the fact that they will not be together for middle school, saying that they might as well make the most of it. After his friends leave, Lori, having been inspired by Lincoln's words, hugs him with gratitude before departing for college."

The draft:

"At The Loud House, as Lori ponders about her current situation, Lincoln and his best friends arrive. While they warm up, Lincoln does indeed say thatit is time to accept defeat and get used to the fact that they will not indeed be together in middle school and he is saying that they might as well make the most of it. After his friends leave, Lori and she has been inspired by Lincoln's words she hugs him with gratitude before she departs for college."

I'm sure there's plenty more examples such as this throughout the draft article, but not going through each and every one for a massive thing here. At this point, this IP is becoming a bit problematic- from disruptive editing/addition of unsourced content, hoax articles/drafts, and now copyright violations. Either a final warning or a block should likely be given at this point. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I won't try to do the disruptive editing and I am done with making all of those fake Zelda draft articles. I am serious and I am not lying. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am also a very nice guy in real life. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I need some help here. Super long term hopping disruptor on computer hardware articles

Okay grab some caffeine for this one. Basically put there has been a block evading, IP hopping disruptive editor on the topic of computer chips and hardware from Malaysia for I'm counting at least a decade. They continually add unsourced information, perform their own analysis or original research, post rumours, and leave lovely endearing messages for people they don't like. Now I could list the IPs, but the list is literally hundreds of IPs long over a decade or more of disruptive editing. The following articles are the main targets over this time.

• Nvidia PureVideo
• CUDA
• GeForce 30 series
• GeForce 20 series
• GeForce 16 series
• List of Intel CPU microarchitectures
• Nvidia G-Sync
• OpenCL
• List of Nvidia graphics processing units

And many more. Now here's the thing. I can't pin down a range of IPs, or at least I'm not skilled enough to do so, so can't simply do a range block and I'm not that experienced with such blocks. Many of these articles have been blocked because of this 1 person many times as evidenced in the logs and histories. I feel the only thing I can do to stop this extremely persistent IP hopper is to permanently semi-protect the articles, but that seems like complete overkill. Short of just letting it go and allowing everyone else to constantly get involved with this disruptive edit warring editor I really don't know. So I'm seeking some advice, suggestions and/or assistance here. I'm not even that interested in these articles but I know a lot of long term editors are a tad fed up with this 1 person's decade long disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fortunately I did just go get a coffee. My first thought was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/I B Wright but the geolocation is wrong. I realize it's probably a lot of work but there's not really anywhere to go with this until you do compile a list of suspected IPs. If it helps you can copy and paste raw text (like a page history) into the form at [378] and it will consolidate any IP addresses in the text into a flat list, and try to guess ranges. I suggest creating a new page in your userspace for this, or even a new WP:LTA page if you want to take the time. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• (literally just posted this at your talk page, copying here) WP:PBLOCK appears to indicate you can apply them to IP ranges, up to ten pages at a time. These appear to be all the IPs from the abusive editor's ISP. As you said, might be best to consult someone with experience, but indef PBLOCKs on those ranges would be what I'd try. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's not a terrible idea, although it would take a long time to enter all of those blocks (/16 is the largest range we can block). I'm not sure that policy supports indefinite partial range blocks, by which I mean I don't think the question has ever been asked. What about an edit filter? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure an edit filter would work, it's not the same edits each time, it's just general addition of rumours, excessive external links, unsourced material, original research etc. Not like they're spamming one link, or have the same text each time on each article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  It would have to be a pretty exotic filter, I know. Something like "IP editor from Malaysia restores a reverted edit on an article with 'nvidia' in the text", if that's even possible, I think would catch a lot of their disruption, although someone still has to revert them. For what it's worth I pulled the first page of history from the articles you listed and ran them through NativeForeigner's tool, and got back this list:

  • 60.48.0.0/13 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 110.159.98.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 115.133.24.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 118.100.173.32/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 175.136.0.0/13 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

  Plus these distinct IPs:

  • 50.53.189.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 85.250.211.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 90.150.180.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 201.202.14.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 210.186.99.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

  I'm going to have to go do something else for a bit now and I haven't reviewed contribs for any of these, but maybe someone else can do something with this. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The abuse has continued for multiple years but may have got worse early in 2021. A few of the targeted pages are already semied for three months, which should be OK for now. Considering just the ones on the list that are not currently semied, I think one year semiprotection should be considered. The partial-block idea would be tedious to implement when you have multiple ranges and multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:ERWINMAISCH, the MoS, and a failure to WP:LISTEN

Let me begin by stating that I believe this user is absolutely acting in good faith. However they have been totally disregarding the MoS on Julie Wojta and ignoring numerous warnings on their talk page about improper use of external links in the body, failing to use edit summaries, and not following the Manual of Style generally, which is why I've come here. They've offered no engagement back, and just continue to work on the article, adding in what myself and other editors have reverted. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Etzedek24, Sigh. Looks like they're possibly not aware that talk spaces exist. I have to say I miss the big yellow banner for talk page messages ... the red bell can probably be missed more easily especially when—I assume—new users get all kinds of welcome messages there. Not a ton of good options in this situation other than a block, perhaps a partial one of just the page in question, I suppose? Go Phightins! 13:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable recourse. As I said, I have no doubt that they have good intentions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Etzedek24, Since they haven't edited in two days, can I ask that if it resumes, you send me a message on my talk and I'll go ahead and impose the partial block at that time? Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Klippenstein: Revision history

The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Klippenstein has been edited using reliable independent sources who called this person a "political troll" (he ran multiple stunts on social media in a deceptive manner to fool politicians and celebrities), some users (users @Brycehughes:, @Wugapodes:, @Novaredant:) constantly remove this information from the article! Isn't Wikipedia based on reliable independent sources??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Winele8: when you post at WP:ANI, you are required to notify the other users involved, which you have not yet done. Please do so - instructions are at the top of this page. Laplorfill (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have notified all mentioned users, I still don't understand why the basic Wikipedia rule of providing independent reliable sources is ignored in this case and those users reverts my edit over and over again and threatening actions against ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Winele8 -- I explained my personal rationale in my edit summary. I don't think that source supports calling him a "troll" while it does support saying he engages in "trolling." I think that's a meaningful distinction. There's also the question of whether such information is reported enough to make it appropriate for the lead. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Winele8. I just looked at your edit [1], you've added "Ken Klippenstein is a left wing American journalist and political troll known for his deceptive social media stunts". This is not what the source says, what you did is a WP:OR, which is not allowed on wikipedia. There is no mention of "deceptive social media stunts" or him being "a left wing political troll", it's said that he's "...known for his Twitter trolling". That's a big difference from what you've added, hope you understand. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

They have reverted the article! When I referenced it they described him as the 'political troll'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Winele8: I would like to say that I have not been involved in the ‘political troll’ editing in any manner whatsoever. The only thing I did was report a false positive for an editing block when I was just making uncontroversial fixes to already existing references such as adding missing author names. You can see my report here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports. Since I have not been involved in the subject, I would like to be withdrawn from this conversation. Novaredant (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• OP is incorrect that I removed anything; I protected the page per a request for page protection and nothing else. It didn't even stop Winele8 since they're autoconfirmed, so I'm not sure why I'm tagged here. Anyway, I'm going to try and convince Winele8 to take off the spiderman suit and come down from the tower before this gets further out of hand, but I'd appreciate some other admin help as I'm busy this evening and won't be able to follow up until tomorrow. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For my piece, I didn't have time to go through the whole rigamarole today so I just reverted OP a couple times and then gave up. Page looks reasonably clean as of this writing. Brycehughes (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Capitalismation without an apparent reason.

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.

---

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

Today I receivied a suprising message[379] in Serbo-Croatian on my talk page titled "Jedi govna cetniku" (transl. Eat shit, Chetnik), and the message below saying "Svi ste isti" (transl. You are all the same) by User:Capitalismation. This insulting message was left without any apparent reason as I have never interacted, or even reverted this user's edits and the insult is clearly based on my nationality and ethnicity as the word "Chetnik" is a derogatory term for the Serbs. Shortly after, the insult was reverted by another editor User:Ashleyyoursmile[380], who then warned Capitalismation for the personal attack against me, and he justified his behavior by calling me a "racist towards Montenegrins, Albanians and Bosnians, denying genocide and also Islamophobic".[381] All of this without me ever communicating with the user. I would greatly appreciate someone looking into this case. Elserbio00 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

[382] That probably doesn't help your case Capitalismation. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

After notifying the user of this report, he left another message on my talk page[383] titled "Gospodine, ne siri propagandu po wikipediji" (transl. Mister, don't spread propaganda on Wikipedia) and a message below saying "Ako dobijem ban zbog tvojeg rasizma, samo ce se vidjet sve" (transl. If I get banned for your racism, everything will just be visible). Elserbio00 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

They've said on their talk page that they will use socks to block evade. dudhhr_Contribs 04:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for IP range block

These IP users continuously change the birth date of some professional wrestlers:

• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:76A5:5B00:707F:B98:556E:ACD0
• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:77B2:E200:2152:9B68:BA6E:8A94
• Special:Contributions/2001:7D0:8573:A380:8DFB:AEFE:221D:2519
• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:C002:75B:4D8A:D8A7:2A8D:1731
• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:C0D7:40A:4582:2B43:212D:E132

If they are related to each other (same person), then IP range block would be helpful. Wario-Man ^talk 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The IP addresses in Saudi Arabia are probably a cross-wiki date vandal that I've been blocking for years. I can try some range blocks, but you might be better off posting what articles need semi-protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Is Special:Contributions/188.53.133.187 related to these IPs? It's from Saudi Arabia too and vandalized articles of same topic. Also AnnaLyna (talk · contribs) performs similar edits like these IP users (checkuser?); changing birth dates.[384][385][386][387][388][389][390][391][392]. He/She is WP:NOTHERE in my opinion. I'd suggest semi-protection for Maryse Ouellet which suffers from non-stop disruptive activity since 27 May. Wario-Man ^talk 04:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing such blatant vandalism before. It's usually just changing dates. But, yeah, that IP editor does seem like the same person. AnnaLyna is unrelated to this disruption. She doesn't seem to have edited since her last warning, but I agree it doesn't look good. I don't know, maybe wait until the next edit to see if she starts being more constructive. I'll semi-protect that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be some kind of obsession or stan behavior because they only target articles of female professional wrestlers and they try to make those wrestlers younger or older by changing the birth dates. I better add some of those articles to my watchlist. Wario-Man ^talk 05:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Legal Threat on user talk page

Batir1410 (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat on their own talk page here: [[393]]. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty clear threat, blocked for it and advised they would need to rescind their comment to be unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This concerns Ralava Beboarimisa and there is an underlying BLP issue. The article stated that he was dismisssd in 2016 due to a controversy about redwood (actually rosewood) logs being exported from Madagascar to Singapore, for further transport to Hong Kong. The reference provided was a copy of an English language article in The Straits Times in Singapore, with a new headline added. The headline said he was dismissed but the actual article said no such thing, and indicated that his predecessor was responsible for the corrupt export of a protected species. This appears to be a badly written headline. Another red flag is that the BLP twice referred to redwood, which describes two California species instead of rosewood, which refers to many species of Dalbergia, several of which grow in Madagascar. This article in French indicates that he was not dismissed and continued as a government minister at least until 2018, at least as Google Translate indicates. It would be wonderful if an editor fluent in French could check over this article. I removed the language that seems most dubious to me, but I do not speak French and don't know much about Madagascar, although I know that California redwoods do not grow there, except perhaps in an ornamental garden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Inter&anthro was the editor who reverted twice, restoring what seems to me to be false information. I am sure that this was in good faith based on reading the misleading headline, but extra care is required for BLPs. If this man's biography falsely stated that he was fired, then that could have a negative impact on his career and reputation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have unblocked Batir1410 and invited them to join this conversation. They withdrew the legal threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that and I welcome them coming here to discuss as well. I am not close to fluent in French (heck if you heard my speak, you'd think I wasn't fluent in English), so unfortunately those articles I wouldn't be able to parse. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, when I read the source cited see here it seemed legitimate and the headline pretty clearly stated that Ralava was dismissed from his job. Given that the article came out in April 2016, and Ralava stopped working as environmental minister the same time, it seemed truthful. When Batir1410 removed the information the edit summaries and behavior led me to believe that this might be POV Pushing, hence why I reverted the edits and left the message on Batir1410's talk page. Doing a bit more research today after the whole drama, I found plenty more articles describing the seizure of the endangered tree species, but not much on whether if Ralava resigned or was fired over this. I would like to add that I am not fluent in French either. I apologize if I have committed any WP:BLP violations, and I apologize to Batir1410 if I was undoing corrective edits. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And yet he became transport minister. Is madagate.org a reliable source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 it seemed to me at the time yes, as the author, date, sources, etc. where all present. I am not fluent in Malagasy or French, so when working on the article this was one of the few English-language sources that came up. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

cullen328 I read French reasonably well. the French article says twice in its text that he was reappointed as the transport minister. (fr: "Alors que certains ont tout simplement gardé leur département comme Ralava Beboarimisa," en: Some simply kept their post, such as Ralava Beboarimisa). Regarding madagate.org, I discovered in a search that andriamananoro.org is another url to use to access their content. They list no physical or mailing addresses for madagate's offices. --- Possibly (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Beboarimisa seems to have been appointed Malagasy Minister of Transport and Meteorology in 2018 - link. (fr:Gouvernement Ntsay says so; but ref. 1 in that article, to an official site, is a dead link. My find looks like an authentic copy of Décret 2018-529.)

The sources are scant, but it's at least possible that Beboarimisa lost his job when Jean Ravelonarivo fell from power in April 2016 and was replaced by Olivier Mahafaly Solonandrasana (who was himself replaced by Christian Ntsay in June 2018). fr:Gouvernement Ravelonarivo is an article waiting to be written, and fr:Gouvernement Mahafaly does not mention him. I could find nothing relevant on Malagasy WP. Narky Blert (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Capitalismation stating that they will use socks after being indeffed

On User talk:Capitalismation, Capitalismation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated that they will use an alt (socking), and again called other editors racists. They have triggered the LTA 1053 edit filter twice, so they should probably get put on that LTA's SPI and checkuser'd. Same account that was reported to ANI yesterday for making personal attacks in serbo-croatian. dudhhr_Contribs 06:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note I have removed talk page access from them as they are using it to continue making personal attacks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Abuse likely in need of revdel

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anon being rather abusive with their edit summaries. Adakiko (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: anon's IP has a partial range / article block. Adakiko (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit summaries remind me of WP:LTA/NS but the articles are different from the usual group they target. MarnetteD|Talk 09:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP to stop the immediate disruption. I will leave it to another admin to determine which if any edits need to have their summaries removed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also left abusive ES on Fam (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Adakiko (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Revdels performed, pages protected, IP ranges blocked. I think this is wrapped up, unless anyone wants to look at the LTA angle and update anything there. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel legal threat

I've noticed that @67.167.223.47: appears to be making a legal threat on The Kiffness. Can this be revdeled and dealt with accordingly please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat persay, however it is unsourced info on a BLP. I don't see a need to revdel or sanction the IP over this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a legal threat (as in, the IP is not threatening to take legal action) but a pretty serious BLP violation - they're essentially accusing someone of having committed a criminal act with nothing to back it up. I've hidden it. I've also blocked the IP for a month for a long pattern of adding their opinions and other unsourced derogatory content to mostly films but also some other BLPs, and it's pretty clearly the same user on the IP that was blocked a year ago for the same reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Bob Blaylock

On May 28, Bob Blaylock made two edits to Talk:Transgender, describing "transgenderism" as "pseudoscience" similar to homeopathy, phrenology, biorhythms, and such. After these edits were reverted by another editor, Blaylock created a new section complaining about "censorship" which they described as an admission that one knows that one is full of solid digestive waste, and that one's position cannot stand up to honest discussion. At this point I placed a level 2 warning template on his talk page at User talk:Bob Blaylock#May 2021 asking him to "Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Transgender for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics."

After he made another edit to Talk:Transgender, this time describing being transgender as a passing irrational fad and bemoaning his experience, of questioning the very premise of this article, only to be subjected to brutal and dishonest censorship for doing so, I placed a level 3 template at the same section on his talk page along with a personal message asking him to "stop accusing other editors of censorship, and definitely to stop trying to initiate general discussion about your beliefs about transgender people at Talk:Transgender." I additionally noted that he was risking a block and that I wanted him to be aware of that fact. He responded by accusing me of bad faith and inviting me to depart, and to apply repeated impacts to fine mineral particles.

In a parallel discussion initiated by CaptainEek in the same section on Blaylockʻs talk page, Blaylock continued to describe "transgenderism" as pseudoscience. After CaptainEek made repeated attempts to get Blaylock to provide sources or point out specific issues with the article, Blaylock stated I'm not going to let myself be gish gallopped with a bunch of manure from a male bovine that makes no real effort to support the point that they are supposed to support. It should be noted that this personal attack was made toward CaptainEek, a user with {{User:Cogiati/agender}} and a custom userbox stating "This editor expects recognition as gender neutral" on their userpage, as well as a statement that "In both Wikipedia and real-life my pronouns are they/them."

I apologize for this overly long explanation, and Iʻm not sure how to proceed from here. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  At this point, Ezlev, it is you that is actively seeking to keep the conflict going. . Please just stop harassing me, and stop posting bullshit on my talk page.  In fact, let me make it as clear as I can.  I do not consent to anything more from you being posted on my, page, and consider it abusive for you to continue doing so, or otherwise engaging in any harassment against me anywhere.  Just leave me the fuck alone.

  As for the other parallel discussion going on on my talk page between myself and CaptainEek, that is none of your concern.  Surely it is up to me to decide what I will or will not allow on my own talk page, is it not?  I might not ever come to any agreement with CaptainEek on the topic being discussed, but unlike you, he at least appears to be making an effort to discuss the issue in good faith, in a manner of which you appear to be wholly incapable; and as long as that continues to be the case, I have no problem with him continuing that discussion there.  If you have a problem with it, then that is your own problem; not mine, and not CaptainEek's.

  You are unworthy of so much as another second of my time or attention, Ezlev.  Go away and leave me alone.

 — Bob Blaylock (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment. None of this is acceptable in a collaborative project. – bradv🍁 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bradv, I think I know why you didn't go with the old NOTHERE indef-block, but I wonder if Bob Blaylock knows how close he is to one of those. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, if the last few days were the only indication this would totally be a NOTHERE block. But there are some good contributions in the past, so I'm willing to give them a chance in the hopes that they're just having a bad week. – bradv🍁 22:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I know it, Bradv, and I appreciate it. I hope they do too. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If the disruptive behavior resumes, perhaps a topic ban on sexuality and gender may be in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've been contributing to the Wikipedia for over a decade, and this is the very first time I have ever run across this sort of trouble.  I think I had some very valid issues to bring up, and I am very much taken aback by the response to my effort to raise these issues.  Apparently, in bringing up these questions, I've hit a nerve that we're just not allowed to hit.  This seems to go very much against what I have always understood to be the purpose and philosophical basis for the Wikipedia. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bradv — I am not a “they”.  I am just one man, not multiple beings, and there is no rational reason to address me using a plural pronoun. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bob Blaylock, I used the singular they, which I typically do when I don't know the other person's gender or when their gender is irrelevant to the discussion. – bradv🍁 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bob Blaylock: Literally nobody refutes - or cares - about your personal talk page. The subject of this AN/I thread was initially the bombarding of your personal, disputed perspectives onto pages. But, now I believe the focus should be on you not acknowledging why you were brought here - a case of WP:IDHT. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: — A third of Ezlev's complaint, including nearly all the false accusations against me of harassment and personal attacks, are about a conversation that was going on on my personal talk page between myself and another user. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

I tried to revert a personal attack [394], but an administrator, who was siding against me in a polemic article content discussion, reverted it. Here's the sentence from that post that had me concerned: "That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." It states that my user dislikes Muslims, which isn't true. Can I appeal the decision not to revert the personal attack here? Benevolent human (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The statement "dislikes Muslims" appears to be referring to Donald Trump, not to you. ST47 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron's not an administrator either. And you haven't notified them, as is required by the big red notice. Clarified now.Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, that wasn't a personal attack, it was a discussion about the situation. One might argue Trump is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I guess, but deleting the entire comment was inappropriate. Why did you go straight to AN/I to report this rather than reply in the thread or ask me about it on my talk page? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a fuller quote that makes clear it's directed at me: "Could it be that the real issue for them is not anti-semitism, but rather Israel? That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." Moboshgu is the administrator who reverted my revert: [395]. I gave both Moboshgu and NightHeron a notice, sorry for being slow, this is my first time posting to ANI. Moboshgu, I went here because it didn't ochttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48cur to me that there was any room for misinterpretation, I thought it was pretty clearly a personal attack accusing me of bigotry towards Muslims. Benevolent human (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw it purely as a comment about Trump disliking Muslims, which could be a BLP issue on its own, but not a personal attack on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I reminded NightHeron to abstain from the polemic BLP comments.[396] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, I'm just trying to get the attack against me removed since it's defamatory. Benevolent human (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, you have a nice username but you seem to be incorrect here. I have read that comment over and over again, and it is not a personal attack against you and it is in no way defamatory. It was a criticism of Trump and not directed at you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment at least. I'll certainly need to let the matter drop if the ANI folk don't see an issue. Just to defend my intentions here, my interpretation was that I was giving Trump "a pass because he...dislikes Muslims", which to me implied that I wasn't editing Trump's biography because I like people who dislike Muslims, which seems to imply that I dislike Muslims. Benevolent human (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a real stretch. Every editor chooses which of our millions of articles to edit. I read it as a critique of the way that some people in general apply standards inconsistently when discussing Trump and Omar. It is a bit "forumy" but not directed at you personally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for carelessly violating WP:BLP in one of my comments on Trump; I've struck that phrase. Concerning WP:FORUM, I don't think that applies to my comment. Another editor had commented that WP:ARBPIA should apply to the RfC in question, but its OP is not an extended confirmed user. My comment made a case that the broad context for the fervent efforts to focus on alleged anti-semitism in the Ilhan Omar article is really Israel, not the question of whether or not a congressperson from Minnesota is anti-semitic. Applicability of ARBPIA is supposed to be "broadly interpreted". So I don't think my comment was irrelevant to the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yay, thank you! Also, thank you for bringing up the scope of WP:ARBPIA, I was also hoping to get that clarified. My mindset at the time of opening the RFC is that it didn't have to do with Israel/Palestine, it had to do with allegations that Omar was using anti-Semitic canards that predated the conflict. But yes, the dual loyalty charges are related to dual loyalty to Israel, so there's some connection to Israel, albeit indirect. My reading of WP:ARBPIA is that it doesn't apply to things about Israel that don't involve the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm happy do whatever the folk here think I should do going forward if that interpretation of the relevant rules isn't correct. Benevolent human (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When people say "criticism of Israel" by Omar or anyone else, as far as I'm aware you can assume they're talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israel has some great scientists and (in my opinion) makes the best feta cheese in the world; people are not criticizing Israel for that. When criticism of Israel for its treatment of Palestinians is the context for an issue discussed on Wikipedia, it seems to me that ARBPIA applies. NightHeron (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I hear you (and feel free to share that feta cheese recommendation on my talk page, I'd be willing to give it a try). I could see why you would think that, I appreciate your outlining your thought process. Mine is that dual loyalty implies people doing nice things for Israel because they have dual loyalty for Israel, but the US has done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Palestinians (such as massive, massive economic aid, recognition of the Golan Heights annexation, Operation Nickel Grass, some of the Iran stuff, etc.) Benevolent human (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu accused me of being a 'nazi vandal' and threatened to block my edit.

User:tgeorgescu left a notice on my talk page with a link to a 'no nazis' essay claiming I was vandalising. My edit was to undo the adding of 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' to the lead of the Julius Evola page. I am not a wikipedia editor or anything. I am Jewish so the accusation is definitely done in bad faith. I checked his/her page and saw that they have this immediately to welcome you: 'A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You were not accused of being a nazi vandal. You were indeed accused of vandalism and pointed to an essay, but that's not the same thing. You also failed to notify tgeorgescu as required; I will do so. The correct course of action here is to obtain consensus for your suggested change on the article's talk page; I see you've already started the discussion. I don't think there's anything more to be done here. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Arguably, notification happened right around the time I posted this. Regardless, tgeorgescu has been notified. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, you seem to be edit warring at the article on behalf of Editorofthegods. Are you related to that user? Do you have an account at all? If not, I'm very impressed that you found your way to this noticeboard. Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

• Just to note, the presence of "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" in the article is a favorite complaint among Evola's fans, however it is well supported by citations, and its removal has been rejected in talk page discussions numerous times [397], [398], [399], [400], and possibly other times I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

user:Trople

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.

---

Trople is edit-warring at Rose water and removes sourced content that has been in the article for weeks : [401], [402], [403] without engaging in a constructive discussion : [404]. More concerning, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of this editor, who keeps being aggressive with fellow wikipedians they disagree with :

• [405] : ' rv edit-warring troll"
• [406] : "seems to me you have WP:OWN issues"
• [407] : "You obviously wanted an edit war".

This editor has also been warned by another user : [408].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Trople is WP:BKFIP and have indeffed accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Grant editing permissons to User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ

Hello, I recently made this account for the purpose of researching during school. I am sorry if I had broken any type of Terms of Service on this website, and I am sorry for any damage that I had made (if I had I don't know at all though.) Please forgive for any thing I had done wrong. I am willing to come through with something and hopefully you can get back to me if you can. Heres my wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CB%A2%E1%B5%90%E1%B5%83%CB%A1%CB%A1%E1%B5%97%E1%B5%89%CB%A3%E1%B5%97%E2%81%B1%E2%81%BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Stop posting this here. This noticeboard is for issues which require administrator attention, not for apologies. If you have an issue then say what it is, otherwise go edit an article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"WP:AGF is a non-optional policy". Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: do you have a point to make? Or are you just following me around looking for opportunities to annoy? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No, just reminding you of WP:AGF and how to speak to new editors. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I wrote only yesterday that I was reconsidering my choice not to block you for harassing another user, and your response is to harass me instead? I don't know, I don't see the wisdom in it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts is correct, it was not okay for you to WP:BITE that new editor, his reasons for pointing it out notwithstanding. Please don't do it again. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone else with an axe to grind would like to pile on here, may I suggest in the interest of moving forward that you post on my talk page instead? Your beef is with me, not this new user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they think they are blocked?That's the only explanation I can think of.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant editing permissons to User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (redone)

Hello, I have had an issue with the editing feature recently where If I try to create and edit my own wikipedia page for example, it comes up with this message: You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: ""Creation of this page (User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page.""

When I had just joined this website I am already blocked from even making my own page. Is there any way to fix this? --ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the message that I get when I look at the possibility of creating your userpage:

"Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:

.*[\x{1D00}-\x{1DBF}].* <casesensitive> # Phonetic extensions, almost never used in valid titles"

You have chosen to create a username using non-standard characters. I suggest that you abandon this account and create a new username using standard characters, as opposed to "phonetic extensions". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought that might be why you were posting here, but couldn't be sure because you didn't say what the problem was and I didn't want to guess. Technically an administrator could create the page for you, but you're going to keep running into problems because you created an account with an emoji username, and you will run into many abuse filters as a result. I echo Cullen328's suggestion that you ought to just abandon this account and create one with a proper username. You can see what's allowed and what's not in our username policy. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not emoji, phonetic extensions are part of writing systems. There is no requirement to use characters that are part of the usual script of a language. Peter James (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair clarification, thanks. Unfortunately our filters that the new user is having problems with do not make that distinction. Perhaps a change is in order? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's the title blacklist, not a filter; there is nothing in their edit filter log. A title blacklist entry that is only there because it was not expected that these characters would be used is not a reason to prevent their use. The only parts of the username policy that could be relevant are confusing usernames (although I'm not sure as the they don't look identical to the letters) and decorative names (which was not properly defined and consensus was unclear). Peter James (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Softblock and refer to WP:CHUN that username is going to be constantly disruptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm aware of the username issue, but I've blocked the user indefinitely for probable socking and for incompetence. If another admin wants to devote more time to discussion with this individual, they may either do so with the user blocked or they may unblock the user without consulting with me. I personally think it's a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Based on two admins' comments on the user's Talk page, I've unblocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone think that the advice at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit needs updating? Sending them to WP:AN, where the big shouty banner says it is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here (emphasis not added) and sends them to WP:ANI instead? Where the friendly admins will tell them to Stop posting this here and go edit an article and discuss their incompetence and maybe even block them for a bit, because who knows, they might be a sock? Do enough admins, template editors, or page movers watch WP:Help desk? That seems like a better target. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1, to such a strong degree I couldn't just let it go unremarked. (As a PMR, would there be any objection to me making a placeholder user page for the editor, or are we working under the assumption he'll get a name change -- or chased off, as it is -- too quickly for that to be a concern?) Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

    You missed where their request here was also reverted twice for being "obvious trolling". Sub-par admin behaviour abounds here, and I acknowledge my part in it. We certainly could create their page for them, but like Xaosflux said they're better off being renamed, otherwise they'll hit this same problem with their user talk, with any userspace subpages, if they ever need to make a subpage with their name in the title (such as RFA, as far-fetched as that may seem now), if they become a pagemover and want to do round-robin moves through their userspace, probably lots of other minor issues we haven't thought of. I'm in favour of changing the title blacklist instructions, too. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• A couple of observations. Firstly something should be done to stop userids being created for which the pages fall foul of the title blacklist. Secondly, and this would be my preference, userids should be in the script of the language of the project on which they are created, without any ornamentation. We get far too many of these threads about userids or signatures, which could be avoided if everyone would realise that this is an encyclopedia, not a social media site where such childish "self-expression" is accepted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Last time this happened (a couple of weeks ago) I suggested creating an edit filer to prevent creation of accounts with obscure ascii characters in them, but it was shot down as not being possible and it turned out the complaining user was a sock. I thought it would be possible to use a modified form of something like Special:AbuseFilter/890 to prevent account creation. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Some of the signatures here are no better, with small text or lack of contrast, but we don't disallow them. Peter James (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Phil Bridger: Yeah, I had a similar problem once before too but in a much more problematic way. An account was performing vandalism and I couldn't create their talk page to warn them as it was on the page blacklist. They ended up being indeffed as a vandalism-only account but it was still a problem. In this case, the user welcoming the subject just happened to be a sysop so it didn't come up. If a page can't be created with a specific name, I don't see why an account should be either. Naleksuh (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it is imperative we find some way of preventing/warning against user accounts being created where the username would lead to title blacklist issues. I realise this issue is complex as the enwiki title blacklist almost certainly differs greatly from those at other projects and usernames are now 'global'. Nonetheless we must grasp the nettle and tackle it somehow as otherwise it will lead to issues such as this reoccurring, with a spectacularly bad first impression for the poor users concerned. firefly ( t · c ) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  An alternative would be to maintain the blacklist properly. If that is not possible then it should be deleted; the global blacklist can be used if necessary. Peter James (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  That particular entry could be adjusted so that it only applies to particular namespaces, which seems like it would solve the problem here. Also, checkuser data (if I remember right - I can't go looking for an example) shows when someone tries to create an account but is blocked by a filter, so I infer that it is possible to prevent creation of unsuitable account names. I don't think that's through edit filters though, I don't know how it works. I'm absolutely against trashing the local blacklist: it's very useful to counter abuse, and a title that's unsuitable here might be perfectly fine on another project, which would be a huge problem if we can only regex-mask titles globally.

  @Peter James: I'm terrible at regex but you seem to know what you're doing. Can you say how to adjust the mask so that it only prevents creations in reader-facing namespaces, or specifically excludes User: and User talk:? The new user posted the current entry up near the top of this subthread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Blocking creation of accounts is done through normal edit filters, e.g. 890 blocks random typing in usernames, 887 blocks excessive reppition in usernames, 102 blocks abusive usernames, 579 puts a limit on account creation rate from a specific IP address and 874 prevents account creation matching specific LTA phrases. A filter to block account creation using decorative asci characters along with a message explaining that usernames should be written in script would probably be the best way forward, as even if we allow these users to create their user page they're going to end up having to change their username anyway, and being allowed to create an account only to be instantly blocked and told that you need to change your username is not a good first experience. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Depends on the circumstances - if there is no consensus to disallow these globally, there could be users from other wikis unable to create an account here. A more appropriate response if not disallowed globally would be to warn and provide an opportunity to have their username changed first, and only to block if they continue to edit from the account without requesting a change. Filters 887 and 890 should be set to warn, not to disallow; there can be a new filter to disallow the names that are disruptively long. Peter James (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Peter James: The filters are already set up to account for this: createaccount and autocreateaccount are different filter conditions, so these do not run when an account is automatically created. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not certain but some entries have (?!(User|Wikipedia|File)( talk)?:|Talk:) which allows User, Wikipedia and File and associated talk namespaces, and article talk (but not article). I don't think the |File part would be useful here, as these shouldn't be used for files, and |Talk: is probably unnecessary as talk pages of single characters are on the whitelist. If it's possible to create a username, it should be possible to create user talk and project pages (SPI, MFD) containing the username. Peter James (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

   Done that seems to have done the trick. I get the admins' blacklist message when trying to create ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ, but not when trying to create User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ or Wikipedia talk:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ. Give it a try and see if you get the same result. We did already advise the user to abandon this account and start with a new one and for all we know they already did, so let's not actually create these pages, just see if you get a blacklist message on them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  ... but also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewcoolitback: our new user is a confirmed sockpuppet. I think bringing the title blacklist in line with the username policy is a good thing regardless, it at least means that the clerk didn't have to be an admin to tag this sock's userpage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  That this turned out to be a sockpuppet must go near the top of the list of least surprising revelations ever, but, as you say, we should try, if it doesn't turn out to be just too difficult technically, to sort things out so that people don't create userids only to find soon afterwards that the pages that go along with them can't be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed gaming by User:Epiphyta

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.

---

Epiphyta (talk · contribs) made 100+ dummy edits to their user page [409] until they became extended-confirmed. They immediately began editing extended-confirmed-protected pages, including multiple undos of others' reverts of their additions to Pakistan [410][411] and Mexico [412][413], with no attempt to discuss any of these edits on the article's talk pages, and have ignored a question about their gaming of permissions on their talk page [414]. Should their EC status should be manually revoked until they perform 500 legitimate edits and demonstrate an understanding of WP:BRD? DanCherek (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, I would support manually revocation. It's clearly attempting to game the system. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've revoked. No objection to anyone else giving back when they see fit. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to Pyoderma (talk · contribs), a suspected sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputbhatti.  Blocked and tagged. I think it ought to go without saying that nobody should give this account back their EC permission. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User talk:SharqHabib

Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. The user is constantly making non constructive edits to Wikipedia, removing contents from articles without giving valid reason/s for doing so, using religious texts as references to Islam related articles. The user is even using unreliable sources such Youtube and facebook as references and is edit warring with multiple editors. Worse, they are paying no attention to what others are telling them and has no intention to work in a collaborative environment. I took a close look at their edit history, and it appears to me that the user is here with an agenda. I have issued multiple warnings to this user (so have others) and tried to convey our concerns. But none of the users have received a reply so far. I recommend an indefinite block, since this user I think is causing a massive damage to Wikpedia and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That is true. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I do some some attempts at constructive editing. I am also seeing a failure to communicate and a failure to grasp the standards of the project. I will not personally take action but I can understand if another admin feels differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok I do understand I have made many wrong edits, hopefully won't make now. I literally made like two or three wrong edits I think and that's the reason I am causing a massive damage to Wikipedia? Well I didn't knew, I have read some policies now — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharqHabib (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@SharqHabib:, My use of the phrase "massive damage" may have been a little exaggerated. They aren't, however, just "two or three." My real concern was that you seemed unresponsive to other people's worries. But now that you're talking, I think we'll be able resolve many issues. Mosesheron (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I understand. The user is making some constructive edits as well. Their edits are mostly problematic in Islam related articles. Take a look at few recent edits for example. See this this this and this. This user is definitely not a vandal. However, they are changing these articles to match their own worldview, which is really concerning. I think right now they should not be allowed to make changes to Islam related articles. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: few other recent examples. Take a look at this and this as well. These are indeed massive damages to these articles. I am now hopeless after all of my efforts to fix these issues through discussion. And if the administrators believe this user can be left alone after considering all of these issues, then so be it. Mosesheron (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have the article on the Second Coming on my watchlist. User:SharqHabib edited the article to add "however in Islam, Jesus will come back for the first and only time, not for the second time unlike Christians." This is unsourced and inaccurate, given that Christians believe in the Nativity of Jesus 2000 years ago. It looks like the same user created a separate WP:CFORK of the article here in order to promote this inaccurate view. I think that his/her contributions probably need further examination. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For the administrator reviewing this, I recommend that the content fork created by User:SharqHabib be merged back into the original article. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: This report was based on their recent contributions. Following your comment, I went over practically all of their edits. The phrase "massive damage" seems to be an understatement now. This user has removed and continues to remove valid content from numerous articles. On the other hand, he has fed, and continues to feed, unsourced and probably erroneous propaganda materials to many articles. I was going to show some diffs, but I don't think it's necessary because, with the exception of a few, almost all of their contributions seems suspect to me. Mosesheron (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Sanjayunv

This account, User:Sanjayunv, has basically been adding nothing but unsourced info to the same page over and over. I wouldn't say its a vandalism only account but its a border-line propaganda only account. Here is the user's contribution history, [415], and diffs [416], [417], [418] [419]. After being asked to stop [420] the IP address 2001:44C8:44C9:C021:94B9:C22C:4CAC:3169 has basically continued to add the same unsourced content to the exact same page. [421]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I left a warning at their talk: Sanjayunv (talk · contribs). This relates to Mano Laohavanich. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Elan Morin Tedronai

• Elan Morin Tedronai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Elan Morin Tedronai is being disruptive, mostly about science fiction genres, but also with regard to copyright:

• adding unsourced content: Special:Diff/1025898747, Special:Diff/1026002599, Special:Diff/1025992414, Special:Diff/1022017071, Special:Diff/1023366139
• restoring unsourced examples with the edit summary "this time it's sourced": Special:Diff/1026391192
• restoring it yet again, this time just because he wants it in the article: Special:Diff/1026424495
• copy-pasting content from the "history" section to a new "criticisms" section so that the content is now duplicated: Special:Diff/1026419749 (do a search for "condemns the space Western" using your browser)
• his response to why he's doing this is to flatly deny that it's duplicated: Special:Diff/1026429146
• copy-paste moves: Special:Diff/1025920236/Special:Diff/1025920203
• copy-pasting content from one article to another without attribution: Special:Diff/1025925962 from Galactic empire (which he's already been warned about before)
• personal attacks: Special:Diff/1026418180 ("don't be such a prick")
• citing wordpress blogs: Special:Diff/1026450848

I can probably find more if it's truly necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Really, I have nothing to defend myself. I'm probably guilty, yet Wikipedia is transitional people's encyclopedia and everything changes pretty quickly. I guess I'm probably guilty, however Space western and Space opera articles just pass through a lot of changes. Transitional thing as I said and there's always a passage of time. I just wish if NinjaRobotPirate has personal issues with me, in name of Space western, Space opera and Science fiction as a whole: just to talk about them and don't get to flaming and offending each other. Let other administrators look at the articles and see for themselves, just I wish to talk about if people have issues with me and don't get blocked from my favorite pass time encyclopedia. Like it happened on Midkemia, Osten Ard and Kelewan, however I just wished to keep the information and don't redirect the pages. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

Brigading on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)

The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) is being brigaded. This seems to be being canvassed on Twitter. The outcome of the AfD was never in any question but the flood of IPs and SPAs is generally disruptive and is preventing the grown ups from discussing the (admittedly meagre) merits of the AfD properly. Please can we block the most blatant SPAs and maybe consider semi-protection, if that allowed for AfDs? Failing that, maybe strike out all the SPA additions and then close it as a SNOW keep based on the clear consensus already apparent before this clownery kicked off. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than blocking a whole heap of new editors who aren't exactly editing in bad faith (maybe better described as miguided or misled), I've gone the other option and semi-protected the AfD, and will move their comments to the talk page to restore some level of order to the discussion. Daniel (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya related disruption by S. Umer Bin Waseem.

S. Umer Bin Waseem. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making all the usual "Ahmadiyya ‎aren't Muslim" noises anyone familiar with WP:CALIPH disruption knows about, and doesn't appear to be here to write an encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Mastersun25 casting aspersions

The editor in question falsely accused me of “canvassing” in here [1], without even understanding what canvassing is. They’ve been clearly warned to stop casting aspersions on other editors [2], or their account will be reported. They have also been told to assume good faith [3], but that didn’t change anything in their attitude. Later today, the user proceeded with “…you're not the one to decide whether I should be banned or not” in their [reply], which I never claimed. Followed with absurdly characterizing my [vote] in the talk page as a “partisan view”, and that I don’t want to answer them since supposedly “it would weaken” my view [4]. Recently, the editor was also involved in an edit-war about an irredentist concept article [5], [6], [7].

Honestly, this harassment cloaked under ridiculous assumptions and aspersions towards me is enough, hence I’m making this case. The editor clearly doesn't take into consideration Wikipedia guidelines, and continues with their accusatory and presumptuous language. I think the user needs to get a warning. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)